"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
"The fingers of your thoughts are molding your face ceaselessly."
Charles Reznikoff
"Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere."
G.K. Chesterton
"Humility enforces where neither virtue nor strength can prevail, nor reason."
Francis Quarles
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."
C.S. Lewis
Resistance Thinking Faith
It is through the Jesus lense the Resistance Thinking seeks to explore truth about the world in which we live. In this faith section you will find articles, news and reivews that will help you explore the complexities of the Christian faith.
We will cover a broad range of topics, including: theology, church, leadership, devotions, classic Christian literature, prayer, everyday faith, apologetics, church history, Christian living, Old Testamnet, New Testament, creation, fresh expressions, epistomology...the list could go on and on!
If there is any topic you would like the Resistance Thinking team to go to work on please shoot us an email. If you have any work that could help us all to be more effective 'Resistance Thinkers' please send it in for our team to review.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." CS Lewis
Recently I put a post up on my Facebook wall that was, admittedly, quite harsh. Yet, was likely interpreted to be much more callous than actually intended. However, I stand by my comment, which chided a newspaper for having an extremely liberal leaning. What is interesting, though, is one of my friend's posts in response to my status. She said:
"I am not a Christian, yet I respect your faith and your beliefs-though I may not feel the same way about religion as you, I respect you enough as a person, and respect your right as a human being to make your own choices in life...."
Now, I appreciate that she kept a level tone. Very few people can do that when discussing a heated, controversial topic. Unfortunately, there's something that doesn't sit right with this comment. She has repeatedly said in this comment that she respects me. Yet, she has no reason to give me such respect. I could imagine from a humanist perspective I would be considered hateful, homophobic, bigoted and racist. Of course, these are just words with little substance, yet, my point remains. If I am wrong then I shouldn't be respected. As Paul says:
"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." (1 Cor 15:19NKJV).
So, indeed, if my faith is baseless then I should be pitied. But, more than that, I should be considered a dangerous fool. Perhaps, then, Richard Dawkins provides us with a more accurate atheistic response:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Yet, Dawkins method has significant short-comings, as well. His approach polarises both sides of this debate. The theistic and the atheistic. There is no middle ground and no respect, whatsoever, for the other side. Incidentally, in this style, he and I are similar. You see, I think Richard Dawkins is extremely dangerous and, while there are those who oppose Dawkins and still have the upmost respect for him, I cannot share the same courtesy for someone who is actively striving to do Satan's job for him. Regardless of whether Dawkins is conscious of his deception or not. I do differ from Dawkins, however, by appreciating that there are people who would overshadow my intellect who fall on the other side of this debate to me. Yet, I am comfortable with the company I hold.
I think you can love someone without respecting their ideology or, indeed, even them as a person. There are several examples of this in the Bible. Elijah is a sterling illustration of someone who did not put up with the nonsense of other worldviews. We read in 1 Kings about his interactions with the prophets of Baal.
"Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and call upon the name of your god, but put no fire to it." And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, "O Baal, answer us!" But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened." And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention." (1 Kings 18:25-29ESV)
As Christians we should not respect any other worldview. These worldviews are smoke-screens of deception that leave their followers with no footing to stand on once they are shown for what they really are. It is worth quoting at length what follows in Paul's letter to the Corinthians:
"But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" Do not be deceived: "Evil company corrupts good habits." Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame." (1 Cor 15:20-34NKJV)
It is through Christ's historical actions that we are able to avoid the pity that we would deserve were our worldview based on lies. Because of this, we cannot boast (Eph 2:9) and we certainly don't deserve any of the respect. You see, my choices are frail and my desires faulty. If, indeed, I was to stand before God, without someone interceding for me, then "[my] right as a human being to make [my] own choices in life" would be the very thing that would condemn me.
Yet, Paul assures us that our struggles are not in vain. That the dead will rise and everyone will become subject to His will. However, this is both a comfort and a challenge for those of us who have the mark of God upon our souls. Because, Paul, in his wisdom, speaks about those who "[d]o not have knowledge of God". Our task has only just begun. While we may not possess the righteousness of Elijah we serve a God who demands that we fight for the damned, that we shine our beacons for the lost.
I have nothing but amiable feelings for my friend who posted her comment on Facebook. She is extremely pleasant to socialise with and displays a generous and caring nature to her friends. Yet, I grieve for her, and others who are entrapped by Satan's lies. I know something for sure, though. I am not doing enough to try and steer them from the destructive path that they are upon. Such idleness brings me great shame.
As you read this article, ask yourself these questions. Why did Catherine go to Planetshakers - what motivated her? What would people come for if they came to your church - a rock concert, a fun time, Jesus? And, what worldview does she have - which should help you answer how she reached the conclusion that she came to - no Holy Spirit, but "just people".
Shaken but not stirred by stadium-rock spirituality
The Age Opinion, Catherine Deveny, July 29, 2009
THE promise of awesome worship. That’s what got me rocking up to a Planetshakers meeting. And I wasn’t disappointed. They said ‘‘awesome’’ 20 times.
Planetshakers is a megachurch...
The crowd left believing they had been moved by God and touched by Jesus. They hadn’t. They had been seduced by slick video packages and had their emotional desire for love, community and certainty met by manipulation. It wasn’t the Holy Spirit; it was just people.
Bill Muehlenberg reviews Timothy Keller's book 'The Reason for God' which he finds does a commendable job at responding to objections to and misunderstandings of the Christian faith. For more great articles and review by Bill check out Culture Watch.
The Reason for God Culture Watch, Bill Muehlenberg, April 2008 (Timothy Keller, Dutton, 2008)
Subtitled “Belief in an Age of Skepticism,” this very important book is a welcome antidote to the many atheist titles which have appeared lately. It very admirably fulfils the twin tasks of apologetics: dealing with objections to, and misunderstandings of, the Christian faith, and presenting the attractiveness of it.
The first seven chapters deal with the most common objections and criticisms of Christianity that Keller, a New York City pastor, has encountered, while the last seven chapters very nicely lay out the case for the Christian worldview.
Ministering to secular, sceptical New Yorkers has meant Keller has had to answer thousands of questions about the faith. He is very well read, quite intelligent, and has a heart to reach out to the seeker and the sceptic. Thus this book is a great blend of dealing with matters of both head and heart.
Consider how he deals with some of the objections. The problem of suffering and evil is always near the top of such a list, and Keller does a good job in providing biblical responses to this issue. And he reminds us that unbelievers also have to deal with the problem.
Modern “objections to God are based on a sense of fair play and justice,” says Keller. People strongly believe we ought not to suffer, die of oppression and hunger, and so on. Yet in the evolutionary worldview, death, destruction and suffering are fully natural – they are part of the mechanism of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Crap just happens, in other words, in a secular scheme of things.
Indeed, where does the sense of justice and fair play even come from, in such a dog-eat-dog world, where only matter matters? The believer, on the other hand, can account for both evil (we live in a fallen world) and goodness (we are made in the image of a good God).
Moreover, our God is not aloof from suffering, but has entered into the very heart of the human condition, experiencing to the full our pain and suffering. God does not abandon us in our suffering, but is in a very real sense present with us.
Related to this is the objection of how a loving God could send people to hell. But hell is ultimately a destination that people choose for themselves. Says Keller, “hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity”. People who seek to be free of God, - who is the only source of love, goodness, beauty and kindness - can follow that path. And that path does lead to hell, which is the place where God is not. As C.S. Lewis said, hell is the “greatest monument to human freedom”.
And love and judgement are not opposites, but two sides of the same coin. If you really love someone, you get angry at whatever hurts and destroys him or her. One can rightly hate cancer for what it does to people. And sin is a spiritual cancer that destroys people. God’s love for us must entail hating our sin which separates us from his love.
Keller also offers some positives of the Christian faith. Probably the most basic and fundamental good is the cross of Christ. It is here that justice and mercy fully meet. The demands of justice are fully met at Calvary, but in a way in which the grace of God can be freely extended to us, undeserving as we are.
Sin demands a payment. Letting criminals go scot-free is not justice. God did not let sin go unpunished, but allowed his own son to take our punishment, so that he might offer us forgiveness and hope. God himself absorbed the debt, so that we might be freely forgiven. But a huge cost was still paid.
God becomes human in order to “honor moral justice and merciful love,” says Keller, “so that someday he can destroy all evil without destroying us”. That last phrase is a tremendously profound Christian truth. As Solzhenitsyn reminded us, good and evil runs through every human heart. So how can a just and holy God eradicate evil without eradicating us?
The glorious exchange that took place at Calvary is the answer. “All real life-changing love involves some form of this kind of exchange”. There can be no God of love, Keller reminds us, if we take away the cross. This is indeed the good news of the Christian worldview.
Keller also deals with the issue of human relationships, and the alienation and selfishness that destroys such relationships because of sin. God is above all a relational God. The three persons of the Godhead are involved in a free, loving relationship.
We were created to be part of that love relationship. The joy and love found in the Godhead has been extended to us. But that can only be received as we have relationship with God. But sin and selfishness destroy that joy and love, and trap us in alienation and despair.
God wants that love relationship restored, not just in the sweet by and by, but here and now. In this, Christianity is unique among all the world religions in offering hope and wholeness in this material world. Biblical salvation lies not in escape from the world, but in its transformation.
The Christian story is bigger than just having our individual sins forgiven. It is about putting “the whole world right, to renew and restore the creation, not to escape it”.
A short review like this cannot do justice to the riches found in this volume. In 250 pages a very articulate, rational and compassionate case is made for Christian truth claims. This is a book to both strengthen the faith of believers, and help answer many of the nagging questions of sceptics and seekers. I heartily recommend it.
Article found at Culture Watch (Used with permission)
Recently someone close to me made the comment that theology was not worth studying. In fact, this person expressed a deep-seated hatred for theology. I felt quite confronted by this and surprised as this person is a Christian. Yet they believed that theology was not important because being a Christian is "all about relationships".
This raised alarm bells in my head. On the one hand being a Christian is all about our relationship with God. This is what defines us and redeems us. Also we are called together, as Christians, to be one church body. In this sense being a Christian is about having relationships. However, it does not end there. Jesus encourages us to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-14). Similarly Paul encourages us to:
"Do all things without grumbling or disputing, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain."
Philippians 2:14-16
We are called to stand and reflect the glory of God in the public arena. Even in the face of persecution. This, my friends, is a call greater than just having relationships. Perhaps then we are charged with being too legalistic. People will challenge us saying "Jesus was about love and not about legalism, ethics or public policy". Yep, certainly one of Jesus' chief attributes was love but this does not displace the need for the law. As Jesus, himself, said:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-20
Jesus was very interested in maintaining the teaching of scripture. Or what we now call theology. And herein lays the danger. Many Christians are satisfied with the biblical teachings they receive directly from their minister. Now I believe that some degree of healthy scepticism can alleviate many doctrinal issues. There is nothing preventing Christian teachers from getting doctrinal issues wrong, either by negligence or for more malicious reasons. It can be helpful in flushing out poor exegesis if we have some knowledge of scripture.
This is why I would encourage all Christians to undergo theological training of some kind. We are not called to be ignorant in our faith but to continuously strengthen our understanding about God's character and His plans for us which are found through His Word. This is what a true relationship with God looks like (and this is the most important kind of relationship). Ironically the only way to do this properly is by using theological methods. As Albert Mohler remarks:
The absence of doctrinal precision and biblical preaching marks the current evangelical age. Doctrine is considered outdated by some and divisive by others. The confessional heritage of the church is neglected and, in some cases, seems even to be an embarrassment to updated evangelicals. Expository preaching-once the hallmark and distinction of the evangelical pulpit-has been replaced in many churches by motivational messages, therapeutic massaging of the self, and formulas for health, prosperity, personal integration, and celestial harmony.....
As our Lord stated concerning the Scriptures, "Thy Word is Truth" (John 17:17). And, as Paul wrote to Timothy, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). Made clear in this text is the inescapable truth that our task is to teach and to preach this Word; to reprove, to correct, and to train in righteousness. Should our churches return in faithfulness to this fundamental charge, the secular worldview would lose its grip on the believing church.
Compromise and Confusion in the Churches, Albert Mohler
It is very much as Dr. Greg Bahnsen said "[w]hen the church begins to look and sound like the world, there is no compelling rationale for its continued existence". If we are to avoid falling into the trap of mimicking the world then theology is our salvation and not something to be scorned. I am very encouraged by those getting proper theological training and I encourage all my readers to start interacting with theology as a viable and living thing. In the end it is the only truth that we can rely upon. For this reason it is certainly the only thing that may save this nation from damnation.
Isn't it interesting that secular media calls a Biblical church performing the crucifixion a 'sect' but freely declares one by Francis McNab - who actual denies a physical resurrection - a 'church'! People said of this performance that it is "offensive" and "horrific" and should be kept in the church: Are they right or are they hypocrites, or, what did your church do? Debate this on the forum
Sects and the city of Geelong
Geelong Advertiser, April 13th, 2009
GEELONG shoppers witnessed a confronting religious performance at one of the city's busiest pedestrian intersections when Jesus was nailed to the cross on Saturday.
Members of Geelong's HEAL Ministries (part of the Assemblies of God church) nailed Jesus to the cross at the Malop St crossing between Westfield Geelong and Market Square.
The performance had an air of authenticity with Roman guards and wailing women surrounding the bloodied figure on the cross.
Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) Reviewed by Bill Muehlenberg, Culture Watch, April 2008 (Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, Moody, 2008)
These two young guys are sceptical about megachurches, how-to-sermons, legalism, the effects of modernity, marketing gimmicks, and overly aligning faith with politics. They know that Christianity is not just doctrine, and they are aware that the Bible has been misused. And they want their faith to be relevant and they seek to be conversant with their culture. Thus they are aptly qualified to be representatives of, or advocates for, the emerging church movement.
But they are not. Indeed, the more they learn about the emerging church, “the harder it is to swallow”. Thus this book. It is a detailed assessment and critique of the emerging church. The pair seek to be as fair as possible, and are clearly aware of the strengths of the movement. But unfortunately the many weaknesses must also be addressed. They affirm many of the emergent diagnoses, but find most of the prescribed remedies to be quite troubling.
Of course D.A. Carson offered a critique of this movement in 2005, as did R. Scott Smith, who also penned a volume that year. But this new book is really quite superb in giving us a balanced appraisal of, as well as a serious warning about, the emergent movement. So what in fact is it? Well, like postmodernism which it is so enamoured with, it is an amorphous and hard to identify movement. But simply put, it likes to make antitheses, favouring one polarity over the other. It favours relationships over rules, conversation over preaching, doubt over certainty, postmodernism over modernism, discussion over theology, orthopraxis over orthodoxy, action over theory, embodiment over rationalism, journey over destination, and so on. But as the authors note, why make such either/or scenarios? Why can’t it be a case of both/and? Why create such false dichotomies?
The genuine Christian church should be marked by both “grace and truth, logical precision and warmhearted compassion, careful thinking and compassionate feeling, strong theology and tender love,” and so on. Why cannot both be affirmed simultaneously, instead of demanding that we must choose one or the other, as so many emerging thinkers and writers demand?
Consistent with postmodernism, the emerging church folk have a strong dislike of rationality, theology, propositional truth - indeed, truth of any kind. They look down on dogma, rules, teaching, preaching, boundaries and doctrine. While they reject some things we should reject – legalism, unloving judgmentalism, head over heart, and so on – they have a tendency of throwing the baby out with the bath water. In reacting to one extreme, they go way over to another extreme. What is needed is biblical balance, not wild pendulum swings.
Consider the issue of our knowledge of God. The emergent crowd generally argues that we should be content with mystery, wonder and questions. We cannot pin down God and he is too big to be put in a theological box. That all may be true, but they go to unnecessary extremes here. Emergent leaders “are allowing the immensity of God to swallow up His knowability. In good postmodern fashion, they are questioning whether we can have any real knowledge about God in the first place.”
But God is a God who reveals himself, who speaks, who acts, and discloses truths about himself to finite mankind. If God does not have a problem with this, why do the emergent leaders? Sure, we only have partial knowledge of God, but as Francis Schaeffer used to say, we can still have true truth, although not exhaustive truth, about God and his world.
As one of many unnecessary and unhelpful antitheses, many emergent leaders argue that we can know God personally, but we cannot know him propositionally. We can have a relationship with God, but we cannot really know too much about him. But this is just plain silly, as well as unbiblical. How can a man love his wife, for example, while knowing little about her? Knowledge about others is necessary in order for us to have a relationship with them.
Similarly, the emergent crowd makes much of relationship over against rules and regulations. Do’s and don’ts and laws just don’t cut it anymore. Instead, Christianity is all about love and relationship. But as the authors rightly remind us, relationships must be guarded and preserved by rules: “Try telling your wife after you’ve had an affair, ‘Come on, I thought our marriage was about the relationship, not all these do’s and don’ts’.”
Take also the common emergent charge that evangelicals worship the Bible, are guilty of bibliolatry, and are more concerned about dissecting Scripture than being transformed by it. Sure, that can often be the case. But once again, the emerging church leaders throw the baby out with the bathwater. They end up taking a very low view of Scripture instead.
Christ himself had a very high regard for Scripture, so we should as well. As the authors note, “For every fundamentalist who loves the Bible more than Christ … there are several emergent Christians who honor the Bible less than Christ did.”
Related to this is the whole postmodern idea that we are only left with interpretation. The emphasis of the deconstructionists is that we can never really know what the author intended. All we are left with is our own subjective understandings.
The emergent infatuation with deconstructionism is dangerous business indeed. By abandoning any sure word, by saying we are only left with interpretation - not final truth - the emergent crowd is leaving us all in a sea of relativism and uncertainty. But God is quite able to communicate to us and to use words in such a way that are understandable and meaningful.
Of course we all misinterpret things, because we are fallen and finite. But Scripture throughout insists that there is real meaning in the text, that is can be communicated to us, and that we can have some genuine understanding of it, albeit in a limited and not exhaustive fashion. But if we can never be sure about anything, why do the emerging leaders seem so certain about what they are trying to tell us? The authors remind us that the emergent leaders want to tell us that our traditional understandings (for example, about hell, exclusivism, the nature of the atonement, etc.) are faulty, yet they somehow seem certain about this, and that their alternative understandings are the ones to adopt. They say traditional evangelicals have been misinterpreting the Bible, all the while saying we can never really know that any interpretation is true. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. If anything goes in interpretation, then why should we heed the emergent leaders any more than, say, Paris Hilton?
The authors point out that the emergent writers confuse humility with uncertainty. They think it is a good thing that we are not dogmatic, but instead live with ambiguity, mystery, doubt and questions. Indeed, many of them equate faith with doubt. They dislike hard and fast theological systems, and they dislike those who claim to have some solid handle on the truth, equating that with pride and intolerance. But that does not square with the Biblical writers, especially the early apostles. They claimed to have the truth, to know the truth, and to proclaim the truth. They proclaimed the gospel as certain truth, and were willing to die for their strong convictions. But the emergent crowd wants us to hold onto things so loosely and so tentatively that one must ask, what gospel are they in fact offering to people?
“The apostles never preached with the double-talk and ambiguity you find in so many emergent books” the authors state. And the idea of a non-doctrinal Christianity – the no-creed-but-Jesus mentality – is simply the stuff of old-fashioned theological liberalism. It is weak and wishy washy, and converts no one.
This Jesus-versus-theology foolishness is typical of theological liberalism, and is the sort of thing H. Richard Niebuhr once denounced in these terms: “The liberal gospel consists of a God without wrath bringing people without sin into a kingdom without judgment through a Christ without a cross.”
Indeed, the emergent gospel leaves a lot to be desired. Many in the movement have real trouble with saying Jesus is the only way to salvation; are squeamish about propitiation; dislike talk of hell; and have a very low view of Scripture. As the authors stress, on so many levels, the emerging church advocates are really quite identical to the old theological liberals. “The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernism.”
And although the emergent movement prides itself in challenging the old ways and being a trailblazer, it is quickly becoming a new rigid orthodoxy. The emerging church may have its roots in rebellion against more traditional forms of church, and seek to be always new and innovative, yet as the authors demonstrate, in many ways it too has become another type of traditionalism. It has its own books, authors, conferences, websites, and devoted followers. It has become establishment, in other words, although seeking to be anti-establishment. It may, in fact, be just another passing fad. It is certainly trendy, and it remains to be seen if it will have anything of real value to offer the body of Christ. Certainly in some of its less extreme forms it may well have helpful contributions to make. But in some of its more radical forms, it may in fact simply be destructive, even heretical.
The books of McLaren, Bell, Pagitt, Kimball, Jones and others will undoubtedly continue to sell well, and their conferences will probably still be sell-outs. But it is a movement that is in urgent need of balance. And this book is an excellent resource in helping to bring about that balance. It is hoped that this very important book sells as well as do the books of the emergent church. It has a message that desperately needs to be heard.
Review found at culture watch (Used with permission)
