Book Review: Unspeakable - Facing Up to the Challenge of Evil

Book Review: "Unspeakable - Facing Up to the Challenge of Evil," Os Guinness, New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2005. 242 pages.

I have had Os Guinness' books on my bookshelves before, but I had never taken the time to read them. Then I had opportunity to hear him speak at the RZIM Summer Institute in 2012 and realized I needed to start reading his work. He is a man with a brilliant mind and a great grasp of history. In "Unspeakable," Guinness takes on one of the most challenging issues we face as human beings, that of evil: it's source, its substance, its remedy. A daunting task to be sure.

It's difficult to know where to begin with this review - I can't imagine how challenging it would have been to write the book. To each of us, this subject is uniquely personal. We all have, or will, experience or witness evil and suffering in our own lives. As Guinness says: "One of the effects of globalization today is that our eyes vastly outreach our hands and our pockets. We always see more evil and suffering than we can possibly respond to."

Os builds his book around seven questions:

1. Where on earth does evil come from?
2. What's so right about a world so wrong? (Or "why me?" or "where's God?)
3. Are we really worse or just modern?
4. Do the differences make a difference?
5. Isn't there something we can do?
6. Why can't I know what I need to know?
7. Isn't there any good in all this bad?

Throughout the book Guinness explores these questions through the lens of different worldviews, taking pains to respectfully share each point of view. He makes three arguments throughout the book: "that there are important differences between the various answers to evil; that these differences make a difference; and that the differences make a difference not only for individuals but for societies." 

His thoughtful and reasonable approach provides a great deal of insight into an issue which has long been discussed, but not understood. He destroys the modern myth that most evil is perpetrated by people of faith. In fact, the twentieth century was the bloodiest in the history of the world, largely due to the atheistic regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the like. But the biggest question arising out of the discussion is number 5: "Isn't there something we can do?"

 Guinness provides three features to a biblical response to evil and suffering:

1. There is an acknowledgement that evil resides in each of our hearts.
2. There is a commitment to forgive the evildoer appropriately, though without condoning the evil deed. (Witness the success of this approach in post-apartheid South Africa.)
3. The commitment to take a practical stand against evil and injustice.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The bottom line to all of this is that each of us are challenged to take a stand against evil - that begins in our own hearts. This book shares many brilliant examples of brave men and women who have dared to stand and who made a difference against evil. Let me conclude with a quote from one of the giants of the twentieth century, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. "Let us not forget that violence does not and cannot flourish by itself; it is inevitably intertwined with lying. Between them there is the closest, the most profound and natural bond: nothing screens violence except lies, and the only way lies can hold out is by violence. Whoever has once announced violence as his method must inevitably choose lies as his principle... The simple act of an ordinary courageous man is not to take part, not to support lies! Let the lie come into the world, even dominate the world, but not through me." (Nobel address, 1970)

Related Articles:
Book Review: Mere Apologetics
Book Review: "Why Jesus?"
Book Review: "What Good Is God?"
Where Is God When You Need Him?
If God Is Good, How Could This Happen?
 

Does Your Life Make Sense?

I wanted to continue on with the theme I discussed earlier this week and talk about the challenges of modern man. Our culture has largely embraced a conflicting view of reality. In many things, most people that I meet could be considered to be functional atheists. In other words, regardless of what they say they believe, they live their lives as if God doesn't exist.
  

Yet they find this type of life ultimately dissatisfying. It doesn't conform to reality as we know it. If there is no God, for example, how is it that we can satisfactorily explain things like love, sacrifice, hope, etc... If they are simply the products of "millions of years of evolution," than they are merely chemical reactions.

Years ago, my brother was in a discussion with an atheist couple at their home. He asked the husband if he loved his wife. He responded that, of course, he loved his wife. He then asked him what his basis for love was. Without appealing to some higher source, was it not just a chemical reaction - his response to her pheromones? He said that, yes, that would be the scientific and rational explanation. What then, would happen, if someone were to come along with a stronger chemical than his wife? Based on his worldview, is there no other explanation for love?

His wife looked at him expectantly, wanting to hear the answer as well. He finally asked my brother to leave. Apparently the question hit a little too close to home.

C.S. Lewis dealt with this question on a different level - the longing of human beings for what we call heaven. It's not simply a "Christian" thing, cultures have believed in an afterlife throughout history. This is how he explains it: "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing."

Francis Schaeffer has explained this point well. Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to, since he does not believe in God.

I see this all the time. We have holdover values of our culture's Christian heritage. Couples who would declare their lack of faith due to the hypocrisy of some Christians but, yet, will stand at a Christian altar to declare their vows before a God in whom they don't believe. (No hypocrisy there!) Another example is parents who have no desire to be Christians, or no intention to have their children live as Christians, yet bring their child to a church for baptism or dedication.

Perhaps nowhere is it more obvious than at the loss of a loved one. There are the rare occasions when the deceased are coldly placed into the ground without ceremony or sentiment. But, more often than not, regardless of the life lived or the beliefs espoused, those remaining look for words of encouragement and hope that there is something beyond the grave.

As a pastor, I've thought long and hard about these issues, and had my share of discussions with people from all walks of life. The truth is that people are hungry for spiritual meaning and yet are very unsure where to find it. Our post-modern culture has also tried to redefine the rules of engagement by declaring such maxims as "all truth is relative" and "history can't be trusted," etc...

Yet the law of non-contradiction still stands: two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, we're not all right.

As Ravi Zacharias says, "truth, by definition, is exclusive." Some 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ stood before Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who was determining whether or not to have Jesus crucified. Jesus said to him: "In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Pilate's response is a question people have been asking ever since - "What is truth?"

If Jesus is who He says He was - and He is - none of us can afford to ignore Him. It is ironic that in Iran, where conversion from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death, there have been more conversions in the past 15 years than in the past 300. Yet, in the "free" West, Jesus' name is most often used as a by-word. The temptation for many is to assign Him a place with the "other" religious leaders who have come and gone and to respect His teachings. Yet, Jesus didn't come as a mere teacher, He came as Messiah, to give life and to make our lives meaningful and everlasting. What will you do with Jesus?

I'll leave the last word with C. S. Lewis:  "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Related Articles:
"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias
"And That's The Truth..."
Book Review: "Why I Still Believe"
Book Review: "Why Jesus?"
What Do You Believe And Why Does It Matter?

What Do You Believe And Why Does It Matter?

For many people, what they believe is something that they don't often think about. I have found that, quite often, people simply want to fit in and so they "parrot" what they hear expressed in the culture around them. When pressed, many people cannot give a coherent answer about what they believe.

This is unfortunate, because what we believe shapes who we are and how we act. In other words, ideas have consequences. Sometimes those consequences don't matter a great deal, but sometimes, when the wrong ideas permeate a culture, the consequences can be devastating.

A quick glance at the history of the twentieth century provides enough illustrative material for a few books. Witness the consequences of the state-imposed belief in atheism, the belief that “No God exists beyond or in the universe. The universe or cosmos is all there is and all there will be. All is matter: it is self-sustaining.” 

This may sound like a fairly harmless statement to make, but when it becomes a dogma of a state, it leads to some horrific results. If there is no God and the cosmos is all that there is and all that will be, then it follows that people are simply products of an impersonal process and have no intrinsic value. It also follows that there is no absolute standard for morality and a powerful state can set it's own rules arbitrarily to serve its own purposes. Horrific acts can then be justified as being in the best interests of the state.

We saw this in the Soviet Union (USSR), where Stalin was responsible for the murder of fifty million of his own people. Basic human rights were suspended because the state didn't recognize them - they had no foundation in atheistic ideology. Contrast this with the expression of the American Declaration of Independence: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." This radical statement lead to the building of a nation that lead the Western world in freedom for more than two centuries. It's not just the Soviet Union that set a bad example, however.

Pol Pot, the leader of the Communist Party in Cambodia, was responsible for the deaths of two million of his own people in a four year period, with similar reasoning as the USSR. Communist North Korea today is one of the worst offenders of human rights in the world. Then we look at China, with its forced sterilization and enforcement of a one-child policy, which has resulted in what we now call "gendercide," the murder of baby girls because boys are more favourable and only one child is allowed. There are many other examples, but the point is that ideas matter.

What do you believe? Taking a hard look at Western Civilization today we see clear signs of an impending implosion. We no longer have a consensus of belief. While most believe in human rights, we're not sure from where they come. Many would certainly not adhere to the belief that those rights flow from our Creator - and if they do, He's certainly not the God of Christianity.

Formerly Christian European nations, turned off by the excesses of the State churches, have become functional if not literal atheists. Morality is now defined by popular opinion, and we've seen the spread of euthanasia, the breakdown of the family and the rise of anarchic tendencies. Canada and the United States are not far behind. We are beginning to reap what we have sown.

Hear English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge on the subject: "We look back on history, and what do we see?  Empires rising and falling; revolutions and counter-revolutions succeeding one another; wealth accumulating and wealth dispersed; one nation dominant and then another.  As Shakespeare's King Lear puts it, 'the rise and fall of great ones that ebb and flow with the moon.'  In one lifetime I've seen my fellow countrymen ruling over a quarter of the world, and the great majority of them convinced – in the words of what is still a favorite song – that God has made them mighty and will make them mightier yet.  I've heard a crazed Austrian announce the establishment of a German Reich that was to last for a thousand years; an Italian clown report that the calendar will begin again with his assumption of power; a murderous Georgian brigand in the Kremlin acclaimed by the intellectual elite as wiser than Solomon, more enlightened than Ashoka, more humane than Marcus Aurelius.  I've seen America wealthier than all the rest of the world put together; and with the superiority of weaponry that would have enabled Americans, had they so wished, to outdo an Alexander or a Julius Caesar in the range and scale of conquest.

"All in one little lifetime – gone with the wind:  England now part of an island off the coast of Europe, threatened with further dismemberment; Hitler and Mussolini seen as buffoons; Stalin a sinister name in the regime he helped to found and dominated totally for three decades; Americans haunted by fears of running out of the precious fluid that keeps their motorways roaring and the smog settling, by memories of a disastrous military campaign in Vietnam, and the windmills of Watergate.  Can this really be what life is about – this worldwide soap opera going on from century to century, from era to era, as old discarded sets and props litter the earth?  Surely not.  Was it to provide a location for so repetitive and ribald a production as this that the universe was created and man, or homo sapiens as he likes to call himself – heaven knows why – came into existence?  I can't believe it.  If this were all, then the cynics, the hedonists, and the suicides are right: the most we can hope for from life is amusement, gratification of our senses, and death.  But it is not all.

"Thanks to the great mercy and marvel of the Incarnation, the cosmic scene is resolved into a human drama.  God reaches down to become a Man and Man reaches up to relate himself to God.  Time looks into eternity and eternity into time, making now always, and always now.  Everything is transformed by the sublime dream of the Incarnation – God's special parable for fallen man and a fallen world.  The way opens before us that was charted in the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  The way that successive generations of believers have striven to follow, deriving themselves the moral, spiritual, and intellectual creativity out of which have come everything truly great in our art, our literature, our music, the splendor of the great Cathedrals, and the illumination of the saints and mystics, as well as countless lives of men and women serving their God and loving their Savior in humility and Faith.  It's a glorious record – not just of the past, but continuing now.  The books are open, not closed.

"The Incarnation was not a mere historical event like the Battle of Waterloo, or the American Declaration of Independence – something that's happened, and then was over.  It goes on happening all the time.  God did not retreat back into Heaven when the fateful words “It is finished” were uttered on Golgotha.  The Word that became flesh has continued and continues to dwell among us, full of grace and truth.  There are examples on every hand; we have but to look for them.  For instance, the man in Solzhenitsyn's labor camp who scribbled sentences from the Gospels that he pulled out of his pocket in the evening to keep himself serene and brotherly in that terrible place.  Then, Solzhenitsyn himself – a product of this world's first overtly atheistic materialist society who yet can tell us in shining words that 'it was only when I lay there, on rotting prison straw, that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good.  Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either; but right through every human heart and through all human hearts.  So, bless you, prison for having been in my life.'  What insight, what wisdom, acquired in a Soviet prison, after a Marxist upbringing!

"Again, there's Mother Teresa and her ever-growing Missionaries of Charity going about their work of love with their own special geography of compassion moving into country after country.  Sisters, now of many nationalities, arriving in twos and threes at the troubled places in this troubled world with nothing to offer except Christ, no other purpose than to see in every suffering man and woman the person of their Savior, and to heed His words, 'Insofar as ye did it to the least of these, my brethren, ye did it unto me.'" (For the whole article, go here).

So, what do you believe? It matters. Do you have answers for the basic questions of life?

• Where did we come from?
• How can we find meaning?
• How do we define morality?
• What is our destiny?

And finally, do our answers form a coherent whole? Do they hold together? I find that many people pick and choose what they believe and, consequently, the worldview they hold to cannot hold water and is ultimately not liveable.

Have you tried to answer these questions? If not, take a stab at it, and please, share your findings. I'm thankful that I discovered the answer to the ultimate questions of life in the person of Jesus Christ. Where has your search lead you?

Related Articles:
Worldview - Part 1 - Origin
Worldview: Part 2 - Meaning
Worldview - Part 3 - Morality
Worldview - Part 4 - Destiny
SCIENTISM



 

Book Review: "Why I Still Believe"

Book Review: Joe Boot, "Why I Still Believe: (Hint: It's The Only Way The World Makes Sense)" Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006. 159 pages.

Joe Boot, the author of "Why I Still Believe" wass the Canadian Director of RZIM Ministries (Ravi Zacharias). He is the founding president of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity in Toronto where he currently serves as senior pastor of Westminster Chapel. As such, he is well-versed in apologetics, speaking around the world in universities, churches, colleges and conferences.

This book is a little different from the normal works of apologists(defenders of the faith) as it deals not so much with rational proof for Christianity, as with building a case that Christianity is the most reasonable worldview. His rationale, with which I happen to agree, is that the presuppositions of Christians and non-Christians are so far apart that there is little common ground on which to build an objective argument.

So Boot takes the time to compare the worldviews, making the case that the Christian worldview, alone, provides satisfying answers to life's ultimate questions. As C.S. Lewis said, “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.”

He begins his book by showing that much of what we believe, Christian or not, is based upon pre-suppositions. For example, he notes that even scientific journals admit that the big bang theory of cosmology is based upon a number of hypothetical entities - things that we have never observed. They are unproven pre-suppositions, without which the theories would fall apart. As an article in the New Scientist Journal stated: "In cosmology today, doubt and dissent are not tolerated and young scientists learn to stay silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model."

These pre-suppositions exist in most, if not all, areas of science and of religion. The premise of evolutionary theory, for example, is that there must be a naturalistic explanation for all life forms. All evidence is therefore understood through that filter, the questions arising from the Cambrian explosion notwithstanding... So, in all disciplines and walks of life a certain amount of faith is required, but I digress.

Joe speaks about his upbringing and the different views to which he was exposed as a child and a youth. There was a steady bombardment of ideas that ran contrary to the Christian beliefs of his parents. He found himself, from an early age, wrestling with the competing worldviews he encountered. He realised, as I have, that of all of the worldviews out there, Christianity is the one which seems to be a lightning-rod for criticism. Some of that criticism is due to the hypocrisy of some Christians and Christian organizations. But some is also due to the very direct truth claims which fly in the face of our modern views of "tolerance." When Jesus claimed to be "the way, and the truth, and the life" He drew a line in the sand, stating by implication that all contrary views are false.

I love his chapter Ridicule and Rebuttals, in which he speaks of the attitude of Christianity's critics. I'll let him speak for himself in a lengthy, but well-written paragraph. (I love the sarcastic tone). "Have I never heard of Charles Darwin and macroevolution? Do I not realize that the Bible has been disproved - Richard Dawkins says so! Have I been living on Mars for the last thirty years? Have I not encountered the work of David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietsche, Karl Marx, Aldous Huxley, Anthony Flew, or Bertrand Russell? Am I unaware of French existentialism? What about Camus, Sartre and Derrida? Do I not realize that such people, and many other thinkers, have shown the inadequacy of arguments for God, the miraculous, and biblical history? Have I not read that 'God is dead,' that religion is just the opium of the people? Have I not understood that all religious language is meaningless or that Christianity is not empirically verifiable? Surely I am conscious of the loneliness of humankind in the universe, that all is meaningless, and life is only what I define it to be or make of it? Humankind has come of age; we are autonomous, free, self-determining. And surely I understand that history itself and all religious claims are mere power plays to control and manipulate others. All is relative; there can be no objectivity in history: that's objectively certain! There are no absolutes, and that's absolutely final! It's all a matter of personal interpretation. What's true for you isn't necessarily true for me. Joe Boot, you really have been living in a box; you are so behind the times! Your parents merely passed on to you their human projection of a 'father figure' due to their insecurity and poor relationship with their parents; what you now depend on as 'god' is a psychological disorder - Freud taught us that. No, I'm afraid this biblical concoction of God will not be tolerated in our tolerant society. It's back to school for you, Joe Boot."

I love this paragraph because I've heard so many of the lines myself from people who cannot believe that I, an educated person, could actually believe this Christianity stuff. I see a great deal of my own journey in Boot's story. I left the faith of my childhood in search of truth only to arrive back home after other worldviews had left me empty and needing more. The more I learn of God, His Word and His world the more I am convinced that Christianity is true. His use of a quote by Cornelius Van Til at the beginning of a chapter called No Apology is appropriate here: "Faith is not blind faith... Christianity can be shown to be, not 'just as good as' or even 'better than' the non-Christian position, but the only position that does not make nonsense of human experience."

Boot then gives some helpful tools to actually assess the validity of worldviews, much of it I believe from Ravi Zacharias. I have some of this information in an older blog if you're interested. The point is that Christianity is not only true - it works in real life, which is where all worldviews should be measured.

I encourage you to read this book, particularly if you're on a search for truth. If you're one of those that I hear from on occasion who have rejected Christianity for whatever reason, I really would like your feedback on this one. If you are a Christian, I believe that this will help to bring some things into perspective for you.

Assumptions

By definition, an assumption is: "the act of assuming or taking for granted." I've been surprised lately by how often I've encountered the thought-stifling power of assumption. We all do it. We look at someone and we draw a quick conclusion by appearances and we place someone in a category - often the wrong one. Or sometimes even worse, we make assumptions about our own, or others, ideas and beliefs that are based on nothing but tradition or regurgitated opinion. It reinforces my opinion that a large majority of people do not want to do the hard work of thinking.

I can relate to this myself because, particularly as a High School student, I spent my time looking for creative ways to get out of doing anything that required serious thought. But that changed for me in College. Somehow the lights came on and there awakened in me an insatiable thirst for knowledge. I love to read from a wide variety of fields and subjects and explore new concepts and ideas.

One of the common denominators that I have found in my reading is that, as I alluded to earlier, there are a great number of people who have not learned the discipline of critical thinking. I think that this is so important for all of us to master: to be able to ask the right questions, to question the assumptions and the preconceptions of those who would presume to teach.

We live in a culture that has moved far from the ideal of a free exchange and debate of ideas. Now we live in an age of political correctness, of acquiescence for fear of offense, with some notable exceptions. The problem with this is that we end up in the ridiculous position of moral relativism which, taken to its extreme, contends that all views have equal merit and that objective moral truth does not exist.

But ideas have consequences. It was Malcolm Muggeridge, the distinguished British journalist, who commented, “One of the peculiar sins of the twentieth century which we've developed to a very high level is the sin of credulity. It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything.” He did a great deal of writing about the consequences of the atheistic communist regimes of the Soviet Union, China, et al. Those regimes were/are responsible for the murder, imprisonment and denial of human rights to billions of people. These abuses flow directly from the idea that people have no intrinsic value; there's nothing special or unique about anyone except as a cog in a machine. A Chinese official, when confronted by an American tourist about the fact that thousands of people had died at the hands of their own government in the Tianenmen Square massacre in 1989 replied, "so what, we have billions of people in China."

While communism has gone out of vogue for the most part in the 21st century, we are still left with its intellectual roots - atheism. The new atheists (men like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens) have become more and more strident in their condemnation of all who would dare to differ with their assertions. There have been bestselling books recently trying to convince people that God is simply a figment of our imagination.

The good that comes out of this is that there can at least be debate, and there should be. This question is the greatest question of our time, or all time: Does God exist? This question needs to be asked because the greatest assumption of our day is the negative statement that God does not exist. This basic assumption underlies much of our culture: science, education, our judiciary, government, etc... The results of this belief can be seen in virtually every corner of our culture. It is at the root of the "intelligent design" debate in the U.S. Since the basic assumption of modern science is that there is no God and therefore there can only be a naturalistic explanation for everything that is, anything appearing to demonstrate "intelligent design" must be the result of other processes. I have read two articles recently in which respected scientists have gone so far as to say that either intelligent aliens somehow implanted life forms on the earth or life must have arrived here on the back of a meteor. This leap of faith was necessary in order that we not appeal to someone called God. Bizarre to say the least.

Complicating things further are what I would term "functional atheists." These are that large group of people who would claim to be Christians and to believe in the God of the Bible, yet who live their lives as if He does not exist. They are a far bigger threat to the Church than the new atheists will ever be. They ignore, or are completely unaware of, the clear teachings of Jesus. They confuse those who are sincerely seeking because of their hypocrisy.

Part of this (most of this?) must be laid at the feet of the church, which has failed to disciple people properly. Much of the church has turned away from the confusing controversies and hard questions and retreated to their "holy huddles" where they sing Kum-By-Yah and reminisce about the good old days. Well, the good old days are gone, and it's time to ask the hard questions. Is the Gospel of Jesus Christ relevant for today? Is there evidence for the existence of God? Why should I believe the Bible? How can we know the truth? Is there such a thing as truth?

There are good answers to these questions and, if Christians really care about people around us, we would be making sure that we know why we believe what we believe. And no, just because your Momma told you so is not a good enough reason. As 1 Peter 3:15-16 says: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

What we believe does matter. I love the C.S. Lewis quote: “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” I believe that it's of infinite importance. Jesus Christ has made all the difference in my life. Let me challenge you to start looking at the evidence for yourself.

You can start by attending a debate we're showing live via satellite on Sunday, May 2, 7:00 PM at Clearview Community Church in Stayner. It features Christopher Hitchens vs. William Lane Craig on the subject "Does God Exist?" It ought to be very interesting. Who knows, it might even make you think.

The Golden Compass

Every once in a while I point you to a blog that I found interesting. This one is especially for parents of young children. The blockbuster children's movie - "The Golden Compass" is due to be released for the Christmas season. What many don't realize is that the books on which this potential three-part series is based are very heavily anti-God. Read this blog and let me know what you think.

Worldview continued...

We've now looked at the easy part - the four questions that a worldview needs to answer: the questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny. Obviously, anyone can throw out an answer to these questions, so we need more than the four questions in and of themselves. Ravi Zacharias uses three tests to verify any statement's claim to truth. I think you'll find them helpful.

The first of these tests is the test of logical consistency. Is what is being claimed logically consistent or are there obvious contradictions? Many people's worldviews fall apart at this first question - they simply contradict themselves.

The second test is the test of empirical adequacy. In other words, is there any evidence to support what is being claimed? Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make it true. What facts or datum back up those claims? This test separates mythology from the historical claims of Christianity.

The third test is experiential relevance. The question here is does it work in real life? For example, atheism would have to make the claim that there is no real basis for values - and therefore they don't exist in reality. But this leads to some ridiculous claims. Ravi Zacharias recounts a speaking engagement at a university. One young man wanted to argue that there was no such thing as evil. Ravi asked the following question: "If I were to place a live baby on this table; take a sword and proceed to cut that baby in pieces, would that be evil?" The student was obviously pushed into a corner and stated, "I would not like it, but I could not call it evil." Yet, instinctively, none of us can live with that conclusion. We know that evil exists. So, in this case, atheism fails the experiential relevance test.

So, in review. The three tests are: the test of logical consistency, the test of empirical adequacy and the test of experiential relevance. I hope that you will find these tests helpful in your search for truth.

Worldview - Part 4 - Destiny

The final question in helping to define a worldview is "what is our ultimate destiny?" Once again, from a Biblical perspective, man's destiny springs from the fact that God created us in His image. His original intension for us was to be in relationship with Him. Man's disobedience brought about a separation between us and God. This precipitated the coming of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice to build a bridge back to God.

Herein lies the choice. The Bible teaches that the eternal life God offers is available to "whoever believes in Him (Christ)..." The word "believe" in the New Testament is not simply an intellectual assent but it implies a commitment, a reliance on Jesus as Saviour. On the other hand, those who choose not to accept God's offer of reconciliation will face an eternity in that condition. Hell has been called "God's ultimate compliment to man's freedom to choose."

So, in summary, the Bible teaches that man was designed with a soul that lives on after the body dies. His destiny stretches far beyond the confines of earthly experience.

Conversely, an atheistic view of man ends at the grave. Since he is simply a product of a blind evolutionary process, he has the same ultimate destiny as a dog, a cat or even a bug. This view of man diminishes his value and ultimately leads to despair.

One of the byproducts of a Biblical worldview is the concept of hope. Failure does not have to be final. Redemption is possible. Even the worst reprobate can have the hope of a better eternity as demonstrated in the promise of Jesus to the thief dying beside Him - "Today you will be with me in paradise."

Worldview - Part 3 - Morality

Today we're dealing with the third issue in the examination of a worldview, and that is morality. The question is, "how do I determine right from wrong?" Again we'll begin with the perspective of a biblical worldview.

The Bible teaches that morality flows from the very character of God Himself. We learn that God is a righteous God, and that He demands the same of us. The Ten Commandments have provided the framework for the legal system of the Western world for centuries. Those commands are not arbitrary, but are reflections of who God is.

For example, God is the life-giver, the Creator; therefore, we are not to commit murder. It is wrong because each person is created in the image of God and, therefore, valuable. God is faithful, He keeps His commitments; therefore, we are not to commit adultery. He ordained marriage and designed it for one man and one woman for one lifetime. We are to be faithful to each other in that relationship because God is faithful. The same is to be said of God's commands regarding not lying; not coveting, etc... There is a reason these things are wrong - they violate God's character.

In our society today we see the result of decades of moral relativism as our secular culture has done away with a fixed moral compass. As non-Christian influence has expanded we've seen a growing disregard for human life with abortion on demand and an increasing tendency towards euthenasia. If we are simply the products of time and chance and a blind evolutionary process then who is to say what is right or what is wrong.

It was the Nazis after World War II that were being tried for war crimes who clearly demonstrated the difficulty when we declare there are no absolutes. They asked who we were to judge them, by what standard were we going to hold them to account? If there are no absolutes, who judges what is right or wrong? This is where modern man runs into difficulty. On the one hand we know that some things are right and some things are wrong; on the other hand, without an absolute standard we don't know why. We're left with standards that float on the whim of public opinion, watching a legal system make decisions which make us scratch our heads. Much of this stems from the secular worldview embraced by much of Western society.

An argument I've heard from some is that you don't have to believe in God to be moral. This is true. There are, I'm certain, a great number of moral atheists. However, logically, they have no reason to be moral. If they believe that there is no higher authority, and that there are no absolutes, therefore morality is simply one choice among many. They have no reason to be moral unless it is of some personal benefit to them.

Ultimately the question boils down to this: Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Most people, regardless of their religious beliefs, come to the conclusion that there are some things that are simply right or wrong. Where does that realization come from? Scripture would tell us that all humans are born with some sense of right and wrong because they are created in God's image.

Tomorrow we'll look at the final question and then look at some cultural examples.

Worldview: Part 2 - Meaning

Sorry for the delay - it was a busy New Year's Eve. But here we go with part 2 of our series on Worldview. If you're just tuning in, you may want to go back and start with the introduction. The last edition dealt with the question: where did we come from? Today's question is: what is the meaning of life?

From a Biblical perspective, the meaning for which we were created springs from our Creator. God made us to have relationship with Him. As Augustine said, "Everlasting God, in whom we live and move and have our being: You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You."

Throughout Scripture we find many references to the fact that God calls us to co-operate with Him in His plan of redemption. Simply put, the Bible speaks of an originally perfect creation, defined by a deep and loving relationship between God and mankind. This was followed, however, by man's disobedience and rebellion against God, which led the human race into spiritual separation from God. God's ultimate answer to this rebellion was the willing sacrifice of His Son to pay the price for our rebellion, and to satisfy the demands of justice. Jesus Christ became the way back for all of us into relationship with the Creator.

Those who come to God in Christ and are restored to relationship with God become a part of the community called the church. The church has been described by the Apostle Paul as "the Body of Christ." We are His agents in the world, with the expressed purpose of being "ambassadors" for God, helping others to be reconciled to God. As people created in the image of God we are called to reflect His nature by using our creative gifts to make the world a better place. The Bible teaches us that, as Christians, everything we do reflects on God. For that reason, Christians, though not perfect, ought to be exemplary in whatever enterprise they find themselves engaged.

Following a secular worldview would lead to the conclusion that there is ultimately no meaning in life. We are simply here to have a good time while we can. There is no real purpose to help others other than it may make us feel better about ourselves. Some secularists would counter that meaning comes from perpetuating the species and becoming a part of the ongoing process of evolution. But that is only cold comfort when at the end of your life you simply face oblivion and non-existence.

Other religions, such as Hinduism, would tend towards fatalism, as demonstrated in the Indian caste system. According to that religion, you were born as you were as a direct consequence of karma - the cause and effect of how you lived in a previous incarnation. They view it as bad karma to interfere with this process. Therefore, outcasts (lower caste people) in India are unable to rise above their lot in life and are faced with a lifetime of poverty in the hopes that their actions might provide for a better life in their next go-around.

What is your purpose? Is there meaning in your life? Why? All questions worth asking. As Plato said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

Worldview - Part 1 - Origin

The first question to be dealt with in a worldview is that of origin - where did we come from? The answer to this question has a lot of implications for how we live our lives.

From a Christian perspective, the answer is that we were created by a personal God who loves us and has a purpose for our lives. Using the Bible as our frame of reference, we see from Psalm 139 that God was intimately involved in the smallest detail of our formation. Genesis 1 tells that God gave each human being a living soul, designed for relationship with Him. This applies to every human being, and so affects the way Christians are to treat others. Jesus stated that all of God's law can be summed up in two commandments: to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and then to love our neighbor (our fellow man) as ourself.

This view of origin changed the way that people treated each other right from the first days of Christianity. Christians cared for the outcasts of society, not because they could contribute anything, but because they were people created in the image of God. It was Christians like William Wilberforce and John Newton who eventually brought an end to the inhuman slave trade for the same reason. Today, still, Christians minister to the poor and the outcast of society because, in each of them, we see the "Imago Dei" - the image of God.

Critics would quickly point to the pogroms and the persecution of which the church has been guilty over the centuries - and that criticism is valid to a point. However, those who would perpetrate such evil in the name of Christianity go against the teachings of the God they claim to serve. In other words, they are living in a manner that is inconsistent with a Biblical worldview. Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21). It would be akin to a medical doctor who, rather than healing, contributes to someone's illness, breaking his hippocratic oath.

On the other hand, a secular worldview would take as its view of origin that mankind evolved from a series of random occurrences in amindless universe. We are here simply because we survived while other species didn't. We are merely highly developed animals, whose final destiny is the dust. The logical outworking of this belief is the devaluing of human life. What, after all, is the justification for helping the disadvantaged when they have nothing to offer back to the species?

If we are only flotsam and jetsom in the universe and have no purpose beyond this life, why keep the unwanted child - abortion makes sense; why care for the severely disabled - they serve no purpose. It was this reasoning that led Hitler to destroy millions in the gas chambers of World War II. He was a staunch believer in the superiority of the Aryan Race and set out to destroy the "mongrel races." He believed, as he learned from evolutionary theory, in the survival of the fittest. He was merely helping nature along. The Nuremberg Trials were an eye-opener in that they had to appeal to a "higher law" in order to find the Nazis guilty of crimes against humanity.

While the criticisms of a sometimes violent church history are somewhat valid, as admitted above, what about the atrocities committed by those with a non-theistic view of the world? The worst tyrants in the history of the world have been those who denied the existence of God and therefore lived as though there was no-one to whom they must ultimately give account. I speak of men like Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Chairman Mao and those who have inherited his office. If you believe that we are all the products of a mindless process, on what grounds do you say that they were wrong?

What I've tried to demonstrate here is an example of how worldview does shape the way we live our lives and affects culture at large. We need to think about what we believe and why because ideas have consequences. We'll pick up on the second question tomorrow.