Here's a great article written as a follow up from my article The Worldview Body Count. I, however, cannot claim to have authored this article. It was written by a fellow believer who is a follower of this ministry:
One of the major arguments commonly used by atheists against both Christianity and religion in general being allowed to have influence in the public sphere and being encouraged to 'proselytise'- is an argument based on the atrocities committed by Christians.
Typically the argument proceeds in a achetypal fashion as cited by Greg Koukl in his own book - Tactics:
Atheist: More wars have been fought and more blood has been shed in the name of God than any other cause. Religion is the greatest source of evil in the world.
In this case Koukl provides the correct response in citing the immense body counts of Secular Ideologies:
Koukl: You'll find that carnage of unimaginable proportions resulted not from religion but from institutionalized atheism: over 66 million wiped out by Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev; between 32 and 61 million killed under Communist regimes since 1949; one third of the 8 million Khmers- 2.7 million people- were killed between 1975 and 1979 under the communist Khmer Rouge.
Koukl is correct in demonstrating the weakness of the atheistic position in just demonstrating the facts of history, clearly and with accuracy. However, such discussions rarely end there. Not because the atheist has a problem with the facts but because he has a problem with the categories used:
Atheist: Hang on, you can't claim that Stalin and Mao committed their crimes because of atheism. They never did this in the name of atheism or because they were motivated by atheism their crimes were unrelated.
In this case the atheist has merely reduced the scope of atheism to the point where any crimes committed by an atheist have no relation to atheism itself. Whereas religion is to blame if a perpetrator merely mentions God (see: Hitler, Breivik etc.), the relation between their actions and actual Christian doctrine is not relevant. There is an obvious double standard here and it highly useful to simply point it out, however now that the double standard has been established by the atheist his own tactic can be used against him.
In reducing the scope for the negative influences of atheism on the one hand, the atheist has unwittingly reduced the scope for all influences atheism has, this also includes positive influences. Therefore it is advantageous to demonstrate the tremendous positive influence Christianity has had throughout history in every sphere of life, because when the tables are turned atheism is completely naked as no-one commits these good acts in the name of atheism or with an atheistic motive. By the atheists own standard atheism is without utility.
Therefore the atheist has two choices; with the first option they need to re-expand the scope to the point that that the body count of the atheistic regimes is included, conceding the original argument and secondary argument. From this level of scope; atheism does not have any advantage on the 'body count' side of the coin and still loses out on the positive benefits ledger as well. The second option is to keep the revised scope and have to face reality that atheism offers no utility.
A positive aspect of including positives in such an argument. Is that Christianity can be framed as being being a beneficial philosophy as opposed to a 'lesser of two evils'. Which is a far better stance for evangelism.
Another weakness of the atrocity arguments is that the crimes are not just vast in their scope but also very recent. Considering all these events happened in recent memory atheism must be considered as a more dangerous belief system than Christianity in their modern forms. To illustrate; which man would you trust to keep sober? A man who got drunk years ago or a man who has lost control of his drinking recently? Given the relative rarity of atheistic regimes it is hard to see why atheists should oppose Christianity or religion in general due to past atrocities.
In the end, it should be noted, that this argument does not have any impact on whether atheism or Christianity is true. However it is a primary motivator behind militant atheism. If Christianity or religion in general can be demonstrated to be dangerous, it legitimizes aggressive atheism at a personal level as well as in politics which is where you get the fallacious 'separation of church and state' arguments being made.
Today is R U OK? Day where we are challenged to turn to someone we know and "help stop little problems turning into big ones". That is, today is about suicide prevention. This is a great venture. However, to restrict it to one day seems very underwhelming. I would challenge my readers to be on the case everyday looking for ways to actually be involved with those around you.
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
It may well be that one conversation will change a life. However, I think your strike rate of having an impact will be much higher if you participate in the act of caring for substantial periods of time. Also I must question why we should be involved merely for "suicide prevention". This is like stepping in front of an out-of-control train and trying to slow it down. Sure, that's now what R U OK? is actually about but this is how it will likely play out. How about you care for people because they are people. There are so many different stages of hurting. It may well be that no-one in your work-place or your group seminar is actually suicidal. Well, guess what, even if this is the case it does not let you off the hook. While my article yesterday titled Why Study Theology demonstrates that theology is the cornerstone of our faith this should not undermine the necessity for establishing relationships. After all, our faith is not merely a theoretical faith to be practiced in a vacuum. It is a faith that is worth telling and showing others about.
As Christians we know that as fragile and broken human beings we have no capacity to influence others in-and-of-ourselves. We rely upon Christ working through us and the Holy Spirit's power over the lost. Basically our involvement has everything to do with our Saviour and nothing to do with our capacity to be good friends. We also know that we are to expect trials and tribulations. In fact, if we do not come across them then we are probably doing something wrong.
Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
James 1:2-4
I believe as Christians we can be confronted with depression in two ways. The first is in that of a friend or fellow believer. We should, as a group, surround him or her with prayer cover and hold their burden as our own. Much can be done from listening to someone's problems but if we don't get God and a strong support network involved then the battle will be more spiritually rigorous and much less likely to succeed. If you, as the reader, is struggling with depression then I want you to dwell upon the words of James 1:2-4 above. Our faith provides us with a non-shifting platform that we know will stand against the strongest storms. We need not be held hostage by our continuous pain. Sometimes this pain is because of actual tragedy and sometimes it exists because of other factors, like loneliness. Very rarely is depression a conscious choice. Regardless, the power it has over us is dependant upon how much power we give it.
Sometimes we cannot attack this problem merely in a small group of friends. Sometimes we require expert, outside help. I am very sceptical of any mental health professional who rules out spiritual factors (and my scepticism of psychology requires more attention than my sparse comments here). Yet, there are some strong counsellors who actually have both expertise and biblical competence to have an impact and combat depression. Still it is important we remember the freedom we are given through Christ. This does not mean Christians will not experience depression. What this means is that in great times of anxiety and stress that we have something to cling to beyond our suffering that gives us hope despite the darkness. Our trials and tribulations may never go away but we have the comfort of the fact that we have a God who is real and, hopefully, prayer warriors who are bringing our burden to Him.
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.
"As science continues to shed light on the secret life of the unborn child, a U.K. study has found that babies appear to distinguish painful stimuli as different from general touch from around 35-37 weeks gestation – just before an infant would normally be born.
“We are asking a fundamental question about human development in this study - when do babies start to distinguish between sensations?” said Dr Lorenzo Fabrizi, from University College London, who led the study, A Shift in Sensory Processing that Enables the Developing Human Brain to Discriminate Touch from Pain, which was recently published in the journal Current Biology.
The scientists looked at the brain activity of 46 babies at the University College Hospital Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Wing. Twenty-one babies in the study were born prematurely, giving scientists the opportunity to measure activity at different stages of human brain development, from babies at just 28 weeks of development through to those born ‘full term’ at 37 weeks.
Using electroencephalography (EEG), the scientists measured the babies’ electrical brain activity when they were undergoing a routine heel lance – a standard procedure essential to collect blood samples for clinical use.
In the premature babies the EEG recorded a response to the heel lance of non-specific ‘neuronal bursts’ – general bursts of electrical activity in the brain. After 35-37 weeks the babies’ response changed to localized activity in specific areas of the brain, which the researchers said indicated that they were now perceiving painful stimulation as separate to touch...."
We regularly hear the statements that all people want is same-sex marriage or abortion and to claim there is a desire to push things any further towards polygamy etc. is just ludicrous. However, their protestations do not hide the fact that this is what is happening.
Let's consider the abortion issue in Canada. It was reported yesterday that a lady who strangled her newborn son has been given a three-year suspended sentence for her crime. That is, she gets to walk out of court a free woman. And you know why? Because Justice Joanne Veit believed that the "onerous demands of pregnancy" should determine such an outcome. Yep, that's right. Here is a clear example of the concepts of legalised abortion undermining other areas. Now this woman is able to claim infanticide and receive a mere blot on her record for killing a fellow human being (after all, even pro-abortionists cannot argue that a newborn is not a human).
What is more, our talented Judge believed that the grief that Canadian's have for the murder of the child is comparable to the grief they have for this woman as she had an unwanted pregnancy. It is true that the law and morality are not the same. In this case they are not even in the same ballpark. Sure there are struggles in life and one that a woman may face (particularly with sexual activity) is pregnancy. And, yes, pregnancy I have no doubt is tough. However, the difficulty of being an only-parent does not allow you the right to extinguish the life that you are responsible for.
"Pro-life advocates have warned for years that widespread acceptance of abortion will open the door to greater societal acceptance of infanticide, beginning with the euthanizing of disabled newborns. Infanticide proponent Peter Singer, a top ethicist at Princeton University, has said, for example, "there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."
Though he once was considered to be on the radical fringe, Singer's views are becoming more mainstream. For example, the world's most prestigious bioethics journal, The Hastings Center Report, published in 2008 an enthusiastic defense of the Netherlands' practice of euthanizing newborns.
"Where will it end: a one month old child whose parent has decided is not worthy of life, a six month old child, a two year old child, a special needs child or how about a teenager?" asked Hughes.
"It is time that Parliament, whose duty it is to protect and legislate regarding the Constitution, examine its duty with regard to the first constitutional right - 'the right to life' and enact legislation which recognizes that life begins at conception and must be protected from that time until natural death," said Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of CLC. "The mother's stress cannot equate to the loss of a lifetime for the child.""
Edit: Peter Singer can and does defend a mother's "right" to commit infanticide:
“The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right.”
Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 142
