While I do value the dynamic nature of McLaren’s system, I am concerned with how it is conceived. McLaren’s grounding is not clear. Are we to start with scripture? If so, how are we to interpret it? Or are we supposed to start with our own intuition? Or do we abandon established belief in favour of a new mash-up that includes socially acceptable rules while doing away with the more unpopular ideas?

I do support the idea of cross-denominational collaboration. And by extension, I also support the idea of inter-faith dialogue as well. McLaren’s approach lends itself well to generating the kind of humility that is required to open up a positive dialogue between competing denominations. The current decentralized model of Christian ministry and mission are valuable in terms of covering a wide variety of causes and needs, but I often wonder how much more effective some Christian ministries would be had they aligned or pooled their resources with other Christian denominations to accomplish the same goals. The impact of these “coalitions” would be tremendous.

And while I do appreciate McLaren’s attempt to adapt Christian thought with contemporary issues like postmodernism and secularization, I do find myself drawn to the “Radical Reformation” approach of the Anabaptists, whereby they forgo many of the progressive technological advancements in favour of a simpler way of life as a conscious decision to focus more on community than on “speed, style, technology, convenience, efficiency and mechanization” (McLaren, 230). To me, the Anabaptist approach of making Jesus Christ central and keeping uncluttered lives makes a great deal of sense. And, that ideal seems to be unchanged over time, which suggests that theological adaptations to contemporary issues are not required.

The urgency of discerning an appropriate worldview has recently been on the front burner for me. My father has been struggling with a blood disorder for the last year and it has just recently manifested itself in acute leukemia. This affliction is terminal and it will soon result in my father’s death. Thus, the need for “an accurate orthodoxy” in my life is quite pressing. Ultimately, we cannot be certain of any of our beliefs. McLaren offers a hopeful enterprise by suggesting that we simplify our approach to theology by focusing not on the divisive aspects, but instead focusing on the similarities of different denominational attitudes. I like this approach, as it suggests an inclusiveness that we can all participate in. I find this particularly settling for me as I contemplate my father’s destiny as he negotiates his peace with God.

I believe that McLaren’s strategy is viable, helpful and constructive. It provides an inclusive nature in which anyone can recognize their own denominational strengths, while also marginalizing their weaknesses. One can only hope that the strengths continue to be accentuated while the weaknesses are actually suppressed. As a whole, I enjoyed the book. It does present a tension that cannot be easily settled, but I believe that this tension is part of the beauty of the book. Without addressing the tension between denominations, the hope for interfaith fellowship cannot be attained. And without a central discussion, the kingdom of God cannot be fully realized nor can Jesus’ directive to live in love be fully experienced.

Todd Dow

McLaren’s response to these critiques is contained in the closing paragraphs of his final chapter, entitled “Why I Am Unfinished.” (McLaren, 339):

So here’s the tension: we must always be discontented with our portraits of orthodoxy, but we must never, in frustration, throw the Subject of our portrait out the window. Otherwise, the revolution fails and falls, sprawling facedown in the dirt, and the whole whirling adventure is over. Until God’s kingdom comes in fullness, the revolution of generous orthodoxy must continue: “In the upper world, hell once rebelled against heaven. But in this world heaven is rebelling against hell. For the orthodox there can always be a revolution; for a revolution is a restoration”. And so for this reason also, the adventure of generous orthodoxy is always unfinished (McLaren, 339)

Thus, McLaren avoids condemnation by claiming that his theology is always unfinished, a veritable moving target that pursues Jesus Christ and God’s kingdom without abandon. This makes McLaren quite slippery because it leaves him unable to be pinned down or typecast. But is this really a bad thing?

There are advantages to this approach. McLaren speaks of a tension between different views of orthodoxy. This tension is present with all claims of knowledge. How can one discern whether or not the claim is in fact truthful? Perhaps the answer is to live in tension. Rather than striving for black and white answers, why not live in shades of grey? The tension experienced when one gives up any claims to absolute truth can be discomforting at first, but over time, it can become a comfortable place to exist. Without the chains of absolute claims of divine truth, the individual is free to explore various experiences of God using various different methods of worship and revelation.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some people cling to their denominational beliefs out of a sense of fear or insecurity about giving up their particular grounding in faith. McLaren suggests that some Christians carry on the Protestant ideal of protesting in an effort to “prove themselves right and others wrong” (McLaren, 138). Regardless of the motivations, many people cling to their denominational affiliations in order to remain validated in their Christian walk. Leaving the comforting confines of a congregational confession of faith suggests leaving behind the protection, purpose and destiny that is offered by that particular worldview. Should denominational change be viewed as a step backwards, or is denominational drift an acceptable part of the Christian faith?

Up next: “Personal Reflection and Final Wrap Up”

The main problem with McLaren’s approach is that it fails to provide a concrete vision or set of beliefs that believers can attach themselves to. This “generous orthodoxy” turns into a “personal denomination” that is determined by individual preferences. McLaren does a great job of grabbing the good stuff from each of his denominational or thematic flavours of Christianity, while failing to address the shortcomings or contradictions that are bound to present themselves in such a model.

For example, McLaren offers competing stances on childhood baptism. In chapter 13, McLaren discusses adult baptism as a form of religious expression from the Anabaptist movement. He downplays the importance of the “how and when” of baptism in favour of the more important “why and whether you live the meaning of your baptism” (McLaren, 228). In this section, McLaren provides an encouraging place for Anabaptist beliefs to reside. And yet, in chapter 15, McLaren provides support for a catholic belief that subscribes to a sacramental faith and a respect for tradition that clearly, from a catholic perspective, supports infant baptism. McLaren clearly articulates the Anabaptist position pertaining to personal commitment, yet reinforcement of the catholic sacraments and traditions (without supporting each sacrament by name) does little to quell the uneasy cohabitation that this particular issue is bound to introduce.

Several other examples could be gleaned from the text, but for what point? It is sufficient to agree that Christianity has become segmented because of the sharp denominational lines that have resulted from the numerous protests that have brought us to this “Protestant soup” that we find ourselves swimming in today.

A second, and equally troubling problem for McLaren, is how to reconcile the postmodern bent that asserts, almost ironically, that absolute knowledge is unattainable. Early in the book, McLaren argues that “certainty and knowledge” are problematic in a postmodern worldview (McLaren, 28) and thus, one cannot be absolutely certain that they know right from wrong. This epistemological puzzle forces one to wonder how McLaren can be so sure that his solution is the right one. While McLaren does overstate his “completely unqualified” (McLaren, 38) status in the realm of theology, this does not excuse him from responsibility for his claims. At the very least, McLaren has provided the reader with a contradictory argument, first suggesting that we can know nothing with certainty and then offering a way forward that expects fellowship. Shouldn’t McLaren’s postmodern epistemological argument invalidate his suggestions entirely? How can his claims be discerned under this cloud of skepticism?

Thirdly, how would McLaren discern the conflicts and contradictions that present themselves in his “cherry-picking” of denominational best fruits. How can one be certain that McLaren was accurate in choosing certain denominational traits over others? And further, doesn’t this collection of denominational best practices contradict McLaren’s earlier suggestion to marginalize denominational distinctions (McLaren, 36)? Why does McLaren focus so much on those denominational best practices if his ultimate goal is to flatten the Christian experience into something that can be palatable to everyone?

Up next: “Responses to these objections”

In this four part series, I’ll be providing a book review of Brian D. McLaren’s “A Generous Orthodoxy“. Today, I’ll provide an introduction and overview of the book. Next, I’ll provide some objections. From there, I’ll respond to some of those objections. And finally, I’ll wrap up with some personal reflection and a summary. So, stick around and be sure to provide comments and feedback!

In the book “A Generous Orthodoxy”, Brian McLaren presents an approach to Christianity that is both positively refreshing and troublingly devoid of a solid doctrinal foundation. While McLaren can be applauded for his inclusive approach to Christian practice, this also appears to be his biggest challenge. McLaren’s writing highlights the tension between dogmatism and the freedom and variety of Christian expression. Ultimately, the book is an inspiration to those that appreciate the loving inclusiveness celebrated and championed by Jesus.

McLaren has written a brilliant treatise that speaks to those who value the spiritual gifts of Christianity but who frown upon the doctrinal divisions that have split the church. McLaren speaks to the postmodern objection to certainty and knowledge by inviting a spectrum of religious worship in its many forms, perspectives and expressions of faith. McLaren argues that Christian orthodoxy, defined as “right thinking and opinion about the gospel” (McLaren, 35), is to be humble, charitable, courageous and diligent (McLaren, 34). The goal of this “generous” inclusiveness is to affirm “the importance of orthodox doctrine” (McLaren, 36), while placing doctrinal distinctives “in their marginal place.” (McLaren, 36) This “generous orthodoxy” not only encourages cross-denominational Christian discussion, but it also extends the olive branch to other faiths, allowing for interfaith dialogue and collaboration.

McLaren’s Christian vision centres itself on the understanding of Jesus as revealed in the Gospels. This view minimizes the doctrinal and theological extensions that have been generated through centuries of theological discourse and gospel-filtering. This vision demands that the practitioner appreciate the truth claims in competing religious experiences. McLaren, speaking of the “Seven Jesuses he has known”, asks:

Why not celebrate them all? Already, many people are using terms like post-Protestant, post-denominational, post-liberal, and post-conservative to express a desire to move beyond the polarization and sectarianism that have too often characterized Christians of the past (as we’ll discuss in Chapters 6 and 7). Up until recent decades, each tribe felt it had to uphold one image of Jesus and undermine some or all of the others. What if, instead, we saw these various emphases as partial projections that together can create a hologram: a richer, multidimensional vision of Jesus? (McLaren, 74)

Instead of focusing on the differences as divisive details, McLaren suggests that we embrace the differences, wrapping ourselves in a quilt of diverse and multifaceted perspectives. Ultimately, according to McLaren, we should “enjoy the feast of generous orthodoxy” (McLaren, 74) that such an all-encompassing perspective generates.

Up next: “Objections to McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy”

• Crossan, John Dominic, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
• Crossan, John Dominic, Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.
• Ehrman, Bart D., The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
• Ehrman, Bart D., The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader, New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
• Eusebius, Eusebius: The Church History. Paul L. Maier, ed. Kregel, 1999.
• Funk, Robert W., Hoover, Roy W., The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? the Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.
• Funk, Robert W., and The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998.
• Gonzalez, Justo L., The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: Volume One: The Early Church to the Reformation. New York, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1984.
• Onfray, Michel, In Defense Of Atheism. Toronto, Ontario: Penguin Group, 2007.
• Powell, Mark Allan, Jesus As A Figure In History: How Modern Historians View The Man From Galilee, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.
• Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Annette, Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1998.
• Witherington III, Ben, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 2001.
• Zondervan TNIV Study Bible, Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 2006.

Finally, Onfray argues that the New Testament is full of contradictions and improbabilities. Onfray calls into question the differing details pertaining to the wooden tablet, or titulus, that was attached to Jesus at the crucifixion. Onfray provides two potential areas of conflict here. First is the differing understanding of how the titulus was attached: was it nailed to the wood of the cross above Christ’s head, as per the description in John or was it hung around his neck, as per Luke’s description? And second, what was the actual text that was written on the tablet? All four gospels record slightly different wording for the charge that was affixed to the front of the titulus. Onfray argues that contradictions like these are numerous in the New Testament, which calls into question the validity of the New Testament as a whole.

Further, Onfray asserts several improbabilities as well. Onfray is adamant that Jesus was never crucified. He argues, “at the time Jews were not crucified but stoned to death. […] The fact is that Rome could have cared less about this business of messiahs and prophecy. Crucifixion implied a challenge to the imperial power, which the crucified man never explicitly posed.” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 128.]

Onfray is correct to highlight some inconsistencies between different Gospel accounts of the same story. However, this in itself does not make the stories invalid. If we look at the stories, there is a great deal of similarity. In fact, The Gospel of Peter [Ehrman, The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings, 124-126.], which was not included in the final canon, affirms many of the points made in the passion story, out of which this current debate arises. Robert Funk of The Jesus Seminar suggests that many of the specific elements included in the passion narrative were in fact fictitious, included merely to “reinvent the scene.” John Crossan agrees, suggesting that the passion event itself may have been historically accurate, but Crossan stays close to The Jesus Seminar opinion that the details were a combination of fulfillment of scripture and narrative dressing to paint the scene. [Funk, The Acts of Jesus, 156.]

Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz suggest that the inscription mentioned in Luke 23:38 may have been a historical fact. They detail numerous sources that mention the placement of placards, or titulus, above crucified individuals detailing the reasons for their punishment. Theissen and Merz do mention though that this custom was not performed “so frequently that it could have been invented by any narrator as a natural element in an execution” [Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, 458.]. Theissen and Merz further argue that since Luke’s Gospel focused on the Jewish refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah, there was no motivation to invent the political title used in Luke 23:38 to further Luke’s argument against the Jewish elders. Theissen and Merz’ earlier proof of Roman labeling of the accusations, combined with a lack of motivation to make up this fact make it entirely likely that this may have been more than random filler to help make the story seem more real.

Ben Witherington III also defends the historical accuracy of the placard.[Witherington, New Testament History, 158.] Witherington argues the same case that Theissen and Merz present, offering that the similarities between the three Gospel accounts, combined with the understanding that other Roman crucifixions of the time used tabula, are sufficient to defend the historical credibility of the details presented in the Gospel texts. Witherington concludes that “All this material contains the telltale signs that a historian looks for to discern whether a story has historical plausibility. The story of Jesus’ demise has many such features.” [Witherington, New Testament History, 159.]

Additionally, using Powell’s “Criteria of Authenticity” [Powell, Jesus As A Figure In History, 46-50.], we can easily see that multiple attestation is present, the content is memorable in the repetitious title of “King of the Jews”, there is appropriate language and environment, an adequate explanation is provided for this particular detail and the story coheres with the surrounding historical understanding of similar circumstances. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the titulus did in fact exist, even though the specifics of the item are under scrutiny. These arguments easily counter Onfray’s opinion that contradictory stories should be discarded as false.

One final thought on Onfray’s argument that Jesus was never crucified: Onfray’s argument is perplexing as Onfray contradicts himself. On page 118, Onfray himself provides examples of Jewish prophets and other rebels who were beheaded and crucified. Thus, not only do Crossan, The Jesus Seminar, Theissen and Merz, and others agree that the crucifixion happened, but Onfray himself also suggested that crucifixion wasn’t that uncommon. Yet, he argued that Jesus was not crucified. This contradiction further weakens Onfray’s writing.

Onfray’s attempts to discredit Jesus are disappointing. He provides no new scholarship nor does he cite any existing scholarship to support his claims. His arguments are weak, they lack and in some cases misinterpret available historical evidence and his arguments sometimes contain contradictions of their own. Thus, Onfray fails to deliver a coherent, valuable and honest discussion pertaining to the validity of the historical Jesus.

Up next: “Bibliography“

Next, Onfray questions the validity of the process that went into creating what we know as the New Testament canon. Onfray asks, “Why were some texts left out.” He responds with the following: “Who put together the corpus and decided on the canon? The church, its councils, and its synods toward the end of the fourth century of our era.” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 127.]

Onfray’s understanding of canon formation is poorly understood. The New Testament as we know it today was fairly complete by the end of the second century, which is one hundred years prior to the life of Constantine, who played a key role in organizing the first church councils and synods. And, the final works that were included in the New Testament were readily understood, in the first and second century, to be written by someone who could have been alive during the time of Jesus. Thus, the final canon was considered to be as accurate as possible.

The formal canonization of this already accepted package of writing came at the Council of Hippo in Africa in 393. The Synod of Cartage in 397 listed the New Testament books in the order that ours are in today. And, the final canon was reaffirmed in 419 at the Council of Carthage. The Gospels and Paul’s writings were never disputed. Some books were debated, but they were not debated based on political motivations. They were debated based on their Catholicity and value to the truth of the Church. This conflicts with Onfray’s version of events considerably. Why doubt Onfray’s version? With two councils and a synod separately documenting and validating the same list that had been used for quite some time, it makes it quite difficult to ignore this evidence. Councils and synods were convened for special purposes and their findings were documented quite meticulously. It would be quite difficult to forget these results, especially when considered against one another and against the multiple sources that exist to attest each individual council or synod. So, the overwhelming evidence dismisses Onfray’s claim in this regard.

Up next: “Contradictions and Improbabilities“

Next, Onfray likens Jesus to the numerous prophets and zealots of the time [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 118.], suggesting that later Christian writers expanded his role to include Messianic expectations. Onfray goes on to suggest that the Gospel writers attached to Jesus a great deal of supernatural elements that were commonly associated with venerable mythical figures of the time, including a virgin birth: “Plato too was born of a mother in the prime of life but endowed with an intact hymen.” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 122.] Onfray infers from this that Jesus was a product of fantasy and not fact due to the numerous similarities to existing myth.

This argument is really a straw man type of argument. Logically, the argument doesn’t hold up. Onfray basically claims that since he can find similar stories that resonate with the Gospel story, that makes the Gospel story inauthentic. While the similarities are interesting, this is extremely weak logic that doesn’t prove anything.

I expected at least a partial acknowledgment of the possibility of the validity of the Christian texts, rather than the dismissal of the Christian writing because it mirrors ancient myths so closely. Yes, Onfray’s argument does imply that the similarities between Christianity and other ancient myths are too similar to be coincidence, but Onfray doesn’t give any credence to any opposing points of view. The coincidental (or not) similarities to other myths does not in itself invalidate the possible accuracy of the Christian story.

And, discounting the New Testament based on Onfray’s argument of similarity discounts all of the evidence in support of Christianity, including the eye witness accounts documented in the Gospels and in Acts, along with the commitment of the martyrs to follow the faith that they experienced personally even when threatened with death.

Up next: “Politics of the New Testament Canon“

Onfray begins his critique of the historical Jesus by arguing that the documents that pronounce Jesus’ existence are forgeries. Onfray challenges, “Jesus’ existence has not been historically established.” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 115.] Onfray further suggests, “Nothing of what remains can be trusted. The Christian archives are the result of ideological fabrication.” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 117.] Even the historical documents of Flavius Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus are, to Onfray, of questionable accuracy. Ultimately, Onfray charges that the winners throughout history have been guilty of manipulating historical records to suit their own needs.

It is important to note that the New Testament actually did not go through numerous revisions. In fact, many of the books of the New Testament were originally collected as letters that were sent to various Christian Churches. Revisions were not made to these letters over time. Archeological research and comparison of ancient documents has proven that the New Testament is extremely accurate when compared to fragments that date from the earliest sources. Thus, the Christian archives are not as unreliable as Onfray would have his reader believe.

As an example of the accuracy of the New Testament Gospels, consider the Dead Sea Scrolls [Ehrman, The New Testament – A Historical Introduction, 237-240.]. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain hundreds of documents that scholars estimate have been hidden away since the middle of the first century. These documents are over a thousand years older than the oldest copies of the Hebrew Scriptures that were previously available. Comparing these older documents showed that “for the most part, they did” [Ehrman, The New Testament - A Historical Introduction, 239.] match up with the newer documents that were previously available.

Similar comparisons have been done for the historical writing of Josephus, for the Gospels and for the rest of the canon as well. This means that there is little debate over the literal accuracy of the texts themselves. Thus, Onfray’s point about forged documents is really a red herring with no evidence to support his claim.

Next up: “Jesus as Fantasy“

In a recent series that I wrote entitled, The Atheist Delusion – Why I don’t agree with Richard Dawkins in 10 parts, by far the most popular post was Part 5: The Historical Jesus. I don’t feel that I did this post sufficient justice. So… I’m now providing a follow up series that provides more detail pertaining to the Historical Jesus.

In this series, I will be using a book by one of Dawkins’ contemporaries as my starting point:

Michel Onfray, in his recently published book, In Defense of Atheism, attempts to discredit religious worldviews through a systemic critique of modern faith traditions. In the section of his book entitled “The Construction of Jesus” [Onfray, In Defense of Atheism, 115-129.], Onfray suggests that the historical Jesus is a mythological figure who is revealed within a flawed set of documents. After closer inspection of Onfray’s claims, it becomes apparent that his perspectives on the historical Jesus are both uninformed and speculative and his argumentation collapses.

Here are the topics that I will be discussing, in order of their appearance:

1. Historical Jesus Part 1: The Source Documents Are Forgeries
2. Historical Jesus Part 2: Jesus as Fantasy
3. Historical Jesus Part 3: Politics of the New Testament Canon
4. Historical Jesus Part 4: Contradictions and Improbabilities
5. Historical Jesus Part 5: Bibliography

Stick around and enjoy the ride. For those that criticized my last foray into this topic to be too light or not sufficient in its level of detail, this paper should be right up your alley. In this paper, I use many of the expected academic techniques to examine the evidence.

Note: I will be providing brief bibliographical information throughout the paper [in brackets] and I will provide a complete bibliography on the last day of this series. I’m just mentioning this up front in case anyone is wondering about specific sources.

And please do provide comments and feedback. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic further.

Todd

And now, back to Part 5: The Historical Jesus.

Robert took the time to provide some good questions in response to my post. Robert, thanks for these questions. I appreciate the time that you took to engage in this discussion. I hope that my answers are sufficient.

Robert asked: “You wrote, The most recent scholarship has not only further confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament texts, but it has also uncovered additional documentation to support the existence of Jesus Christ in the first century. The book you imply as “most recent scholarship” is Jesus as a Figure in History. which was published in 1998. This constitutes “most recent scholarship”? In truth, recent scholarship has vastly undermined the accuracy of the NT texts, and even of Jesus’s historicity. Books by Robert M. Price are especially compelling.”

My response: My apologies if you thought the 1998 text that I referred to was THE most recent scholarship. There is plenty of recent scholarship, much of which does continue to support the claims made by Crossan, Powell and others. I don’t think that your question in any way refutes the evidence.

Robert asked: “You wrote, There are multiple sources that point to the validity of the Jesus of history, both before and after his resurrection. I would be curious to know of any sources to the validity of the Jesus of history before his alleged resurrection.”

My response: Ahhh… I’ll take the blame for this one… This was bad writing on my part. I think I worded this part badly. What I was trying to say was that there are multiple sources that write about Jesus both before his crucifixion and after his resurrection. I think you may have read this that I suggested that there are texts from before his death in existence. That’s not what I was claiming at all… I’ll take the blame for this one as bad writing on my part.

Robert asked: “You wrote, “Can we trust the text of the Bible?”, I suggest the following: Why not? Christianity was built upon Judaism, which maintained an enormous oral tradition for a thousand years. They had the skills to maintain the accuracy of their traditions and they knew how to preserve their scripture. Why not? Because sciences like archeology and geology have essentially refuted major elements of the Bible, like the exodus and a global flood. Ability to preserve scripture doesn’t mean what’s been preserved was accurate.

My response: Sure, there are competing claims about the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. Christian insiders are constantly arguing over whether the Old Testament is literal or allegorical. Who am I to say which way that argument will go. The important part to me in this post (Part 5: The Historical Jesus) is the accuracy of the gospels. And, as I argue here and elsewhere, I believe that they are solid pieces of first person documentation.

Robert asked: “You wrote, “But what about the conflicting accounts in the gospels?… I offer the following: The Gospels are not a transcript, but they are an account that eye witnesses wrote down as witnesses. This claim is untrue. The Gospels are certainly NOT an eyewitness account, and are not even written as such.”

My response: Actually… each Gospel is read from the perspective of someone that witnessed the events. Whether this witness recorded these things with their own hand, or if they handed them down orally does not change the fact that the gospels were first person records of what happened in the life of Christ.

Robert asked: “You wrote, Each gospel will obviously have a perspective to them. Does this make them inaccurate? No, it just means that they were viewed through a certain lens. The “perspective” does no good in attempting to reconcile the conflicting claims of Jesus’s lineage or the date of his birth, to give just a couple examples.”

My response: I agree. But that does not mean that they are useless either. Major themes throughout the gospels are reinforced through the multiple attestation that we see running through all of the gospels. This in itself strengthens the argument in support of these first person sources as valid historical documents.

Robert asked: “You wrote, As religious scholars agree, the canon that we recognize today as the New Testament was complete and circulating together as a “package” by the end of the first century. Perhaps religious scholars agree, but historical scholars would laugh at this assertion.”

My response: Religious scholars include plenty of historical scholars. Religious studies scholars adhere to the same academic and research standards as any other history researcher. I don’t understand your distinction here as I view the two in the same light.

Robert asked: “You wrote, And finally, people suggest that the New Testament didn’t contain the earliest sources or that the church mixed and matched scripture in order to meet their own “agenda”. Nothing could be farther from the truth here. Scholars cannot pinpoint firm or exact dates when the early Christian writings were made; instead, they posit a range of dates. It is not true that texts were excluded because they were “late”. Many writings were not included, even though they’re dated around the same time as the canonical texts. You wrote, The content and structure didn’t match with the other books in the New Testament. The Gospel of John does not match the other Gospels, but was included anyway, so obviously this criterion was not used either.”

My response: Fair enough… I failed to include a complete explanation of the process of how the canon was collected. Thanks for adding this additional information. As for the Gospel of John being different… yes, it is quite different stylistically, but it does still hold to the same basic message of Jesus.

Robert asked: “You wrote, Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century, mentioned Jesus. You failed to note that many consider these mentions to be interpolations by later Christians, in whole or in part.”

My response: I don’t feel the need to dispute this as it is a disputable claim.

Again, thanks Robert for your comments and questions. It is this type of careful eye that I appreciate in my writing. You are keeping me honest and ensuring that I don’t overstate my evidence. If/when I decide to write for the purpose of being published, you’d make a great proofreader and editor to have on hand ot keep me honest.

Now, to further support my support for the historical Jesus, I’d like to spend a few days presenting a paper that I recently submitted for school entitled, “Critique of “In Defense of Atheism” by Michel Onfray, Specifically “The Construction of Jesus” (pg 115 to 129)”.

Stay tuned for more!

Todd

Some good points were made at the end of my last post in this series: Dawkins Part 10: On Evolution and Concluding Thoughts. I offer the following responses:

The evidence… here we are again… always looking for the smoking gun. Well… I’m sorry… I’ve provided some discussion on the historical Jesus. We’ve looked at some primary sources as well. While I cannot with 100% certainty provide proof that God exists or that Jesus walked the earth, I can say that the evidence that I have been presented with is sufficient for me to believe. The rationalist critique of religion has provided a healthy discussion on the subject of God’s existence. I appreciate the tighter discussion of God that has resulted from this more stringent set of rules pertaining to evidence.

Unfortunately, an ironic shift has occurred as a result of this “modern” approach to religion. Nietzsche, one of the stronger and more influential voices in the atheistic discussion of the last couple of hundred years, prophetically spoke in his story, The Parable of the Madman. In this story, the madman runs screaming through the streets looking for God. He rants on and on, telling the gathered crowds that we (the modern scientific man) have killed God. He goes on to say, “Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? [killing God]“ And here is the irony… In all of this discussion of God and atheism, we, as learned individuals, have become Gods unto ourselves.

One of the responses to my Part 10 post plays perfectly into this discussion. Urbanshutter argued, “It is man that decides what is write and wrong, in the God force realm there is no such thing because so such need exists.” (the spelling mistakes in the quote are his) This is exactly the kind of thing that Nietzsche was arguing about. In sidelining God, we become Gods unto ourselves.

Urbanshutter, I appreciate your comments. They were full of insight and I in some ways do subscribe to them. I hope you don’t mind that I used your response to help prove my point. It was meant most respectfully.

Ultimately, we must be careful not to make ourselves into God. If we are theists, then we must continue to look to God and not become God ourselves. And for those that are atheists, isn’t it suicidal to kill God, especially if you purport to be God yourself?

My final comment is directed to Dave. And Dave, I really appreciate your comments throughout this series. They’ve kept me on my toes and knowing you’ve been reading has really motivated me to put my all into this series. Now, to respond to your points in Part 10 of my series.

First, you suggest: “If we can’t modermize this portion, why can’t we modernize other portions of the bible like allowing women be priests, or priests to marry, or allowing for gays. This was a new religious theory made by man not god. Science at least allows for itself to be corrected and modernized in a consistent manner, religion does it in ways that suit the institution, not man or God.”

My response: I agree with you on this point. You’re coming at this from a Catholic perspective, with the women priests, priests being married and allowing for gays. Other denominations struggle with these issues as well. I would like to think that I am more progressive than most in the church. For me, the answer to these questions can be found in the heart of Jesus’ message of love and peace. He tells us to love our neighbour as we love ourself. I agree with this and I try to live my life this way. It is unfortunate that “church governance” gets in the way of living out this life of love sometimes.

Next, you ask: “As for comments on Love and Free Will. Once again, why does the fact that science cannot specifically explain these things mean that there must be a god?”

My response: I don’t see this as binary. I was simply pointing out some problems that science fails to address. And, I was showing how religion fills these gaps. I think the two (science and religion) can be helpful to one another. If anything, I think that it is science that is attempting to be binary.

Dave’s final comment: “If you need a God to believe in to be a good person, than so be it. My issue has always been with organized religion. If God/Jesus did exist I genuinely believe he did not wish for the way organized religion has conducted itself over the centuries.”

My response: “If you need a God to believe in to be a good person, than so be it. My issue has always been with organized religion. If God/Jesus did exist I genuinely believe he did not wish for the way organized religion has conducted itself over the centuries.” (Thanks Dave. I couldn’t have said it better myself!)

Thanks to everyone that has made this such an enjoyable series for me. Your comments, questions and critiques have been quite appreciated. I think it is important to question what we believe. For me, this is an important step in my faith journey. It helps me to solidify my beliefs which makes me more certain of my convictions and my sense of self.

“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” – Hebrews 11:1.

Todd

A couple of comments were left on the post Dawkins Part 8: Are All Ideologies Bad. I offer the following responses:

Bad suggests that “One can claim faith beliefs to justify good things, but the method can be equally employed for bad with equal measure: the method is simply capable of anything, assuring nothing.” I would argue that faith beliefs can be used to justify good or bad, but to truly discern whether the motivations are pure or not must be examined from a view of the whole. Christianity is a religion that takes Jesus as its central figure. Thus, living out a life in a way that would be pleasing to Jesus is extremely important. And, if we look at Jesus’ sayings, it is hard to establish that Jesus was about anything other than love. Thus, if one is able to use the Christian worldview to incite violence or hatred, then it would be obvious that the intention was misplaced. If you immerse yourself in the words of Christ himself, it is difficult to find any reason to fault this worldview.

The problem comes when certain texts are taken out of context or when they are adopted in a less than honest manner. I’ve tackled some of the heavy lifting on this topic already in a previous series entitled What Are We Fighting For? In this series, I provide an overview of the “Christian warrior movement” and how the Christian Scriptures have been hijacked to justify violence throughout history. It is disappointing to see how the Bible has been twisted to support events such as the crusades. Check out this series for an in-depth examination of this topic.

If we are to look at Jesus and sincerely ask what he expects of us, we find a clear outline of the sort of moral life that we should live. By contrast, what does science provide in terms of a moral bearing? I’d argue that science is silent on this front. Like I argue late in this series on Dawkins, science is great for providing us with some great tools for surival, science definitely lacks the tools to help us discern how best to use these tools.

So, as Ed asks in his counter to Bad in the comments section of Part 8, “Tell me, what clear side would scientism or evolutionism take on that subject? And on what grounds?”

Todd

Alrighty… today’s post will be a response to a few comments I received in my series on Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”.

A couple of comments were left on the post Dawkins Part 4: The Objective Roots of Morality. I offer the following responses:

To Dave: Dawkins’ argument in support of morality is troublesome to me. Dawkins supports a scientific worldview that provides no moral guidance whatsoever. This is problematic as it provides no grounding for moral good and bad. Thus, how are we to decipher the right and wrong way of doing things. This is evident when we look at utilitarianism as a decision making tool. Utilitarianism, remember, suggests that the decision that provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people is considered the best decision. Some would argue that the Nazi final solution was using this decision making model. It ultimately disregards the rights of the individual in favour of the collective whole of society. Pretty dangerous stuff, as morality will shift as social needs shift. This does not suggest a good moral compass to me. I speak more about the problems of morality and science in week 10: “While science provides us with tools for survival, science lacks the moral compass required to be wise with it. for that, I look to God.”

As for evidence… what evidence does science have that it has determined the final explanation for where we came from, how we are to live and what we are to believe? I’d love to know how the scientific worldview can be so certain that it has a monopoly on the “evidence” or lack thereof. While spiritual belief and experience is not as repeatable and measurable as scientific research requires for “proof”, this does not mean that it does not matter or that it should be so easily excused.

To Ed: You pointed to some great questions that Dawkins’ brought up in this section of his book. These questions are ultimately questions of theology, dogma and church polity. I purposely skipped these questions for a couple of reasons. First, I feel that I am not sufficiently equipped to answer these questions. He asked some questions about church doctrine and the questions assume a lot. Not all denominations believe the same interpretations that Dawkins assumed. And, I don’t have the skills to adequately untangle his cross-denominational assumptions, nor do I have the theological expertise to answer them once I get them untangled. I don’t think it was fair of Dawkins to compress these questions into the short section that he did, as I think he gave them short thrift without doing sufficient research to understand what he was explaining and how best to approach the subject. So… I will respectfully defer any answers to these questions to another forum as I don’t feel that I could do them justice. And, I don’t feel that this response should in any way weaken my arguments against Dawkins’ book.

I’m going to skip over Part 5 (The Historical Jesus) for a bit. Don’t worry, we’ll come back to this. In fact, it’ll make a great segue into my next series. So hold your thoughts for a bit… I’m going to address some of the other feedback I received first.

Todd

Folks, my apologies for being absent for the last few of weeks. I’ve got a bunch of excuses for my tardy responses to The God Delusion series, but I’ll spare you the details.

The good news is that I have a bunch of new content for you. I haven’t forgotten about the numerous comments that I received to my Dawkins series. I have been thinking these through and will be addressing some of the more prominent responses in the upcoming days.

And, related to that, I’ve been working hard on a paper for school that discusses the historical Jesus. The book, In Defense Of Atheism by Michel Onfray, challenges the validity of the historical Jesus and my paper critiques Onfray’s arguments. I’ll be posting this paper as a multi-part series over the next week or so.

So stay tuned. There’s plenty of exciting content to come. And again, my apologies for the gap in my posts…

Todd

Dawkins flogs the factual accuracy of evolution throughout this book. He is an evolutionary biologist, so I would expect nothing less. I respect his authority in this area of study and I appreciate the scientific explanations that it provides for the development and ongoing manipulations to life that see around us.

Unfortunately, Dawkins is out of his league when he tries to apply his learning to the religious domain. At best, he misses some key details when he attempts to criticize religious faith and its historical, philosophical and ideological ideals. At worst, he fails at the basics of which he should know better: he uses red herrings to distract from articulating and dealing with the topics at hand, he fails at applying proper logic in many of his arguments and when he questions Christianity, he fails to address the great volume of academic literature in support of Christian source validity. This is disappointing, as Dawkins’ valuable academic accomplishments should better equip him than what we see in this book.

For a moment, let’s take a look at “science as God-killer”:

The scientific method is not perfect. Early research into new areas of study can look like a child dipping a toe into a pool of water to check the temperature. If scientific method was bang on, there would be no wasted research or hypotheses that fail to obtain a tangible result. I know… I know… all research is valuable as even in failure, it can discount potential theories so that they can be discounted for further study. That is valuable, yes. But if science has all the answers, then why wouldn’t the hypotheses be right the first time?

As an example of science-gone-wrong, consider the recent problems highlighted in recent reports about Dr. Charles Smith, a high profile coroner who specialized in the field of forensic child pathology. His scientific conclusions significantly contributed to several convictions in suspected child abuse cases. The problem is that under closer examination, Smith’s findings were found to be problematic. Science definitely failed the ruined lives of those that were potentially falsely accused.

Or, closer to this discussion of evolution, let’s look at a recent finding by Maeve Leakey and his colleagues in Africa: Paleontologists continue to question the factual accuracy of evolution. Consider this article in The Washington Post as just one example off the ongoing debate:
Fossil shakes evolutionary tree

Nature, the “International Weekly Journal of Science” published these findings as well, so this is peer-reviewed work.

While I don’t dispute the basic claims made by Dawkins about evolutionary theory, I do question the logic that says that evolution completely replaces the idea of a creator God. Who’s to say that God didn’t use evolution as his tool to generate life.

My point here isn’t that evolution is wrong or that Leakey has disproved evolution. My point here is just that evolution has yet to be fully explained or understood. I would argue that we may never fully understand evolution. And similarly, God is not fully understood, nor do I think God ever will be. This doesn’t disprove God though.

And for those that are still claiming that there is no evidence for God, well… just because you refuse to examine the evidence and consider it in support of God doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist.

I’ve got two more “scientific conundrums” for you:

LOVE: Science has tried to explain love for years but with little success. For those materialistic atheists out there, I’d love to understand how you can explain love if you strictly look to the material world and empirical evidence to support your claims. Why do we love? Does love not exist because we can’t scientifically explain it?

FREE WILL: Does the scientific worldview support free will? Science can’t seem to answer either way, as it will end up contradicting itself either way:

• If yes, then doesn’t free will run contradictory to the idea that everything can be predicted based on the conditions and circumstances that lead up to each action? If science can ultimately answer everything, then it must subscribe to a worldview based on predestination.
• If no, then are we really capable of making any decisions for ourselves, including whether or not we follow a religion? In this case, does Dawkins feel powerless to make a difference on his own, or is he simply following the predestined path that has been set out for him?
• No – part 2 And further, if no, what caused this “causal chain”? And then where did that first un-moved mover come from? The 18th century Enlightenment philosophers questioned the validity of the causal chain, saying that we don’t necessarily live within the boundaries of a causal chain. So, if Dawkins’ scientific worldview does not support free will, then how does the idea of cause and effect balance out based on this paradox? Don’t we need cause and effect in order for evolution to work?

So, just as we don’t have all the answers about religion, there are plenty of problems there with the scientific worldview as well. I’m no expert in this area, but if my simple mind can understand these scientific problems, then I can just imagine the more complex problems that exist and that have no answer. So Dawkins, my question to you is, “Why are you so arrogant?” You don’t have all of the answers. You’re hardly in the right place to be talking down to other people with such an authoritative tone.

Ultimately, I think the answer becomes one of cohabitation. I feel the presence of God in my life every day. And, I appreciate God’s presence, just as I appreciate the scientific progress in understanding the world that God has provided for us. I am thankful for the scientific research that allows us to lead fuller, richer lives. But I am conscious of the limitations that surround practical scientific research. While science provides us with tools for survival, science lacks the moral compass required to be wise with it. for that, I look to God.

A quick thanks to everyone who has been patient and dedicated enough to take this trip through Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” with me. I hope that you’ve found it as valuable as I have found it. I’ll take the next couple of posts to respond to some reader comments. Thanks to everyone that has submitted comments so far. Your questions and comments have been enjoyable. I’m especially grateful to the skeptics out there who I have been constantly aware of when writing my posts. You’ve kept me honest and at the top of my game.

Thanks again and talk soon,

Todd Dow

I do agree that religious types have abused their children in the name of religion. This still continues to happen. In fact, we need look no further than a current story in the US media pertaining to polygamy and child marriages: Man Charged in Rape of Teenager in Fundamentalist Sect.

Mormonism encourages polygamy and marriage to minors. Mormons have claimed that this is part of their religious beliefs and that they are entitled to live their lives in this way. To some extent, that argument should be allowed to stand. But, that right should not extend to harming other people in the process. And, in my personal opinion, I think it’s great that the US attorney’s office has finally found a way to deal with some of these crimes that are being committed in the name of religion.

Protection for the weak and vulnerable among us is something that I hold in high regard. In some cases, this competes against some other rights that I hold quite high, including freedom of religion and freedom of speech. There are numerous ideas that I do not want to introduce my children to, but I don’t think it is right that those ideas and opinions be abolished. If we allow that, then what’s next? Burning books and censoring our news sources? Censorship is occuring in the world, notably in China. The state control of media and information can lead to population control, which can then be abused for the sake of state motivations. Without checks and balances like freedom of speech and freedom of information, there is no way to ensure that abuses are not taking place.

Which brings me back to religion… Some religious people try to limit the amount of information available to believers. I remember when I first started taking an interest in my own Christian faith. I asked my pastor for a good resource that would explain the various types of religions to me and that would provide a good explanation for what made my faith something that I should believe. Unfortunately, I didn’t receive the response I had hoped for. I was told that there is no need to look at other faiths. I should just focus on the my own faith by reading the bible and some “my-faith-specific” reading to solidify my beliefs. It was disappointing, to say the least. And, when I mentioned that I was going to go to University to study philosophy and religious studies as a potential precursor to ministry, I was again disuaded. I was told that questioning my faith in this way wouldn’t strengthen it, but instead, would only weaken my faith and my ability to believe.

Good advice or bad? What do you think? I didn’t buy it… I’ve always been one to question things. I think questioning things is healthy. Unfortunately, any opinion is open to question. Any time someone puts a stake in the ground, someone else will come along and challenge it. I think debate is good. It is healthy. It leads to more understanding. It leads to increased awareness and if the argument is a good one, it will stand up to scrutiny. And, bad arguments will be exposed for what they are: bad arguments.

So… I didn’t particularly like the advice to keep my head in the sand and sit still. If my faith was worth following, it should stand up to scrutiny. So, I did the opposite of what I was advised to do. I went out and compared and questioned my faith. I believed then, and I still believe now. And my faith is stronger now because of this journey. To be fair, I must say that not everybody learns or believes or requires this level of commitment. And that is fine. But I do think that there is danger in not being able to explain what we believe and why. “Just because…” is not sufficient. There’s gotta be something more.

And that’s where I think that many abuses stem from… isolation and lack of information. If people are kept in the dark and are unable to ask the tough questions, then how can this work out for the best?

As with other abuses that we’ve already discussed in this series, I do think that the church has contributed to numerous abuses within society in the past. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that these abuses are identified, corrected and that proper controls are put in place so that they cannot happen again. But, no system is foolproof… didn’t World War Two prompt the expression, “Never again” in response to the holocaust? Well… what do we make of the recent ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia or Darfur? I say this only to say that even the most visible of abuses cannot always be prevented. They should be prevented, but they aren’t. But at the very least, they should be recorded and their perpetrators brought to justice.

So… what can we do? Well… we should start with open minds. We should be allowed to question. If our beliefs are worth believing, then we should be able to explain them and defend them. As I’ve demonstrated over the course of this series, Dawkins hasn’t provided anything that should disuade our beliefs in religion. He’s highlighted some of the abuses that can occur as a result of belief, but that doesn’t discount the belief itself. All it does is highlight the crimes that have been committed by misrepresenting the belief.

And, we should also ensure that sufficient controls are in place to avoid the obvious abuses that can occur. We can easily ensure that physical and sexual abuse are guarded against. Censorship… well, that’s a matter of opinion. The argument over what to believe and why is a tough one. It’s quite subjective in nature. Just look at the current “should creationism be taught in schools” argument. I think that kids should be taught about the debate, if only so that they understand that there are different worldviews. And, part of that education process can be to help kids assess what they believe and why. But I don’t think the people that are most invested in the debate want that… they don’t want the kids to think for themselves. They are too busy fighting about what they want their kids to believe. And that’s the real shame of that situation.

As for my two cents on what worldview a child should be given… well… it’s not my place to push my worldview on anyone else, but I have written a series that has taken on a life of its own since I published it. This article started as a philosophy assignment during my undergrad. I wrote it quite sincerely, but from the perspective of a philosophy student. I don’t intend for this to become public policy in any way, shape or form. My only request is that it make you think about what you believe and why. This series has earned me more scorn and vilified hatred from anonymous readers than I thought possible… So much for freedom of expression, eh? hahaha. Anywho… Give it a read and let me know your thoughts:

Should atheists have children?

But back to today’s discussion…

Dawkins and others within this genre offer the following argument: Religion has led to the abuse of people throughout history. Because of this, religion should be abolished. Well… our global economy is currently supporting the slavery of children in the manufacture of the products that keep our global economy humming along. Should we abandon our current economic system in favour of more local production so that we can do away with these abuses? But that would be crazy talk… the global economy has opened doors and created opportunities for untold numbers of people that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. That’s the typical response that we hear.

The obvious point here is that we should try and correct the wrongs and to continue to support the rights. So, onward and upward. Let’s keep an open mind. Let’s open up the dialogue. It’s already happening in a lot of places. Educational institutions are rife with debate over the pros and cons of reliigon. I think it’s great. I think that the critical reflection that we’re currently experiencing will strengthen the church in extremely positive ways.

So… I guess I should be thanking Dawkins, Harris, Onfrey, Hitchens and the gang. So thanks guys. Thanks again for the great press you’re giving to religion. And thanks for your criticism. I view you guys as external auditors. You’re doing a great job of keeping religious folks honest. And, you’re also helping to weed out the bad apples. Soon enough we’ll be in tip top shape. Couldn’t have done it without you.

Much appreciated,

Todd

Next up: “Dawkins Part 10: On Evolution and concluding thoughts“.

So… Dawkins has been going on and on about how religion has been so bad and that it should be abolished in favour of scientism, evolutionism or some other worldview of his liking. He suggests that a religious worldview leads to child abuse and human rights violations.

Dawkins argues:

“As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect for the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers. The alternative, one so transparent that it should need no urging, is to abandon the principle of automatic respect for religious faith. This is one reason why I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself, not just against so-called ‘extremist’ faith. The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” (pg 306)

I find this extremely short sighted and dangerous. Isn’t it this kind of narrow-minded censorship that religious extremists have exhibited in their abusive theocratic rule throughout history? As I have mentioned numerous times during this series, I am in complete opposition to the extremist views that fanatical religious adherents try to push on other people, but I adamently oppose any sort of censorship or blanket persecution of a worldview or ideology just because a few twist that perspective for their means.

In fact, I’d like to suggest that in many instances, it hasn’t been religion that has been persecuting people, but instead, it has been the political ambitions of the religious leaders that has hijacked religion for their own needs. Throughout most of recorded history, the church provided the main religious AND political leadership throughout the developed world. This often led to a conflict of interest when it comes to following Jesus and satisfying the material needs of society. Consider these examples:

• 313 CE: Augustine & the Political Realm – In the early 4th century, the Roman empire was being attacked from barbarian hordes from lands that surrounded the Roman empire. At this time, the population was becoming more and more Christian which was problematic as Christianity was a religion of peace up until this time. And, since the population was becoming more and more Christian, willing military conscripts were becoming fewer and fewer. This meant that in order for the Roman empire to survive, the military required Christian participants. At this time, Augustine (one of the early church fathers) developed a Christian justification for violence in order to support military participation. It has been suggested that Augustine was under extensive political pressure to develop this treatise.
• 1095 CE: Pope Urban II & The Crusades – I’ve argued in the past that Pope Urban II abused his authority as Pope to kick off the Christian Crusades, which are one of the greatest blemishes on the face of Christianity, even today.
• 2001 CE: Modern Day “Crusades” – This one’s kind of a no-brainer, but the US is currently involved in a political and economic war in the Middle East to secure oil rights and to advance economic interests in the area. George W. Bush kicked off this campaign against the “war on terror” with this rousing quote:
  

  “On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.”

  (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html)

  So far, the US has done a great job of creating their latest victim (who remembers the red menace of communism?): Islam. While vilifying this same enemy that the US used to be so chummy with (who remembers the assistance that the US provided to the Taliban in fighting against Russia in the 80s?), Bush has done a fantastic job of creating a “cover” under which to obtain carte blanche to stir up a hornets nest of resentment in the Middle East that is sure to last for at least the next generation. For more on this topic, check out this article: A Tragic Picture of Death

• Economic Human Rights Abuses – For more on this topic, I’ll defer you to an internationally respected organization and their extensive catalogue of abuses: Amnesty International – Economic Globalization and Human Rights.

So yeah… if we apply Dawkins’ logic, we may as well disassemble our democratic state and our economic system in its entirety. In fact, I’d argue that religion has in some cases indrectly led to human rights abuses by a few, extremely influential yet extremely misguided individuals. The economic and political ideals that we as a modern society have adopted, on the other hand, provide a system whereby a few are allowed to prosper, while at the same time ignoring the plights of the majority who are underfed and under cared for.

Dawkins seems intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Religion has also been responsible for the majority of the world’s charity up until the 20th Century. And, these institutions (hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc.) were set up with the ideal goal of providing universal well being. Today’s capitalist health care system doesn’t seem to reflect those same ideals.

So where’s the problem here? Is it religion, or the abuses that its members have commited? In my opinion, we need to focus on oversight to ensure that the needs of everyone are met and that abuses don’t occur. And when abuses do occur, we should be proactive in removing the abuser(s) and correcting the situation. After all, isn’t that what Jesus would do?

Next up: “Childhood abuse and brainwashing“

In chapter 8, Dawkins talks about abortion. He makes a couple of startling claims. First, he argues that religion is bad because a select few fundamentalists kill abortion doctors, and then he goes on to argue support for abortion because fetuses aren’t really human anyways.

Dawkins’ logic is seriously flawed in this chapter. There are two problems here.

First, he uses the red herring of religious fundamentalists that have killed abortion doctors as a protest against abortion. I touched on this in my last post when I talked about fundamentalism. Even though a select few choose to kill in the name of their cause, that doesn’t necessarily make the cause a bad one. Thus, Dawkins yet again shows a flawed sense of logic in his arguments. Another strike against Dawkins and his writing in this book. I talked quite a bit on this topic of religious fundamentalism in my last post and I’ll be talking about it again in my next post. So, I’m going to put this aside for now.

The second problem is this: Dawkins tries to dehumanize abortion in an attempt to justify it in some way.

My views on this topic have gone from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. I think of myself as fairly liberal in a lot of respects. I lean towards rehabilitation for criminals, I’m against capital punishment and I think that social assistance is an important safety net for all of us, including the least among us. Those aren’t typical conservative views. To stick with the stereotype, many liberals support free choice, while most conservatives are pro life. Yes, this is a generalization, but I think it’s a fairly accurate and it does seem to represent the “typical liberal or conservative” agenda.

But, that’s not what I’m here to talk about today…

Like I said, I used to be extremely pro choice. I always thought that abortion should be the individual’s choice. My views on this were strongest in my teens and early twenties, which is the age at which most of us may feel the need to deal with this issue on a personal level. And, I remember at the time feeling that this would be “the best choice for me as I wasn’t ready to have a kid yet.” Fear, uncertainty and unreadiness are the thoughts that came to my mind when I considered the options available to people in my age group when it came to having children. If I wasn’t ready, well… the medical system had the easy out, the so-called “get out of jail free” card.

It wasn’t until I had matured more that I revisited my thoughts on abortion. And, I didn’t revisit these views until I started to think I was stable enough to have a family of my own. At that point, my views started to take a turn in a different direction. All of a sudden, abortion represented the death of a child. As any expectant parent understands, that week 12 visit to the doctor is extremely symbolic. At week 12, most parents hear the heartbeat of their new little baby for the first time. I remember the first time I heard Noah’s heartbeat. I was instantly connected to the baby. And the connection was more vivid for Julie as she started to experience Noah kicking and punching inside of her as he grew in her belly.

It’s interesting how perspectives change depending on the circumstances, eh?

Dawkins tries to bring in a third view, which takes us in a totally different direction. He tries to debate whether or not fetuses are fully human, or if they are just a “bundle of cells”. The distinction is a strange one to me because a scientist could look at any living person and make the same distinction. By dehumanizing the new life growing inside of a woman is to grossly misrepresent that life. The standard argument is that a fetus is not a human for numerous reasons, including that the fetus has no nervous system, thus it will not suffer or the fetus is unable to survive outside of the womb, thus it is not a viable life. There are many other justifications to support abortion as well.

My primary response to these types of justifications is this: would you take a human life if the person was in this kind of position? Non-responsive nervous systems or inability to survive outside of the womb… well… any baby I’ve ever seen is unable to survive for long outside of the womb without assistance from a parent or guardian. Should we be allowed to kill babies at our leisure and pass it off with a dismissal shrug of the shoulders? I think not. Strange how Dawkins can so trivialize the act of abortion by turning it into a scientific procedure with no mention of the human life that is being affected. Would we accept his argument if he were talking about newborns? I think not. So why is it okay for him to talk about it in such stark terms with an unborn child?

But… I guess this is where it all goes back to perspective: as parents, we eagerly grasp that first inkling that we’re fostering new life. That first glimpse of life, no matter how small, is such an exciting time. Is Dawkins really being serious when he suggests that it is just a bundle of cells?

Don’t get me wrong… abortion is a tragic situation no matter what the circumstances. I am sure that in many cases, the options are quite limiting and abortion seems like the easiest way out. I feel for people in those situations as it can’t be an easy decision to make. And the last thing I want to do is judge people. It is tragic any time the decision to take a life occurs. What can we do to save more lives?

Regardless of the outcome, this is where, in religion, love and support must shine through. Times of struggle are the times when people most look towards God for help. But with abortion, many people are afraid to look to God. Not only has the individual dismissed an innocent life, but in many cases, the individual has also convinced themselves that it wasn’t a life at all. Turning to God after denying him is next to impossible. Thus, it is important to reach out to people in times of struggle like this type of situation.

This issue is one that polarizes us as a society. It’s not an easy topic to agree upon. There are compelling arguments on either side. But, I think that if we consider the unborn life inside of the mother and if we approach this unborn life with the same rights as any other person, then how can we not think of abortion as murder? I know that my own personal views from my teens and early twenties still haunt me sometimes. I think to myself from time to time, “what was I thinking? Was I really supportive of the ending of another human life? Would my own happiness be worth the cost of taking a human life?” If only we could give people the understanding and experience of planned parenthood before they have to embark on a decision such as abortion… I’m sure if that happened, the outcome would be much different in plenty of situations.

In fact, some states in the US are now requiring that women have an ultrasound before they have an abortion. This is an interesting new approach, as it counters the dehumanizing process that has been propped up by pro choice arguments and scientific approaches such as those by Richard Dawkins. And interesting enough, it is science that is having the greatest impact on these vulnerable decision makers. By attending an ultrasound, the mothers-to-be get to experience first-hand the new life that is inside of themselves. While statistics are difficult to come by, anecdotal evidence suggests that the scientific tool of ultrasound is making a difference in reinforcing the new life and saving it at the same time.

I wonder if Dawkins would consider that to be an example of evolution and survival of the fittest at its finest.

Next up: “Why not rid ourselves of religion, politics and economics all at the same time?“

We’re all fundamentalists in some way. I find it quite contradictory that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the like criticize others for being fundamentalists when they themselves are so adament about their atheistic worldviews.

Dawkins spends a fair amount of time criticizing the extremist views of some religious people. He talks about Christians that kill abortion doctors. He talks about Muslims that kill people that have converted from Islam to Christianity (or other religions). And we’re all aware of the many “fundamentalist preachers” in the US and throughout the world that discriminate against homosexuality, women and other differences that they claim somehow make people unequal.

This is one area where I’ve gotta agree with Dawkins. I agree that fundamentalist views are problematic. They divide us. They split us into factions. These divisions work against all of us. There is no community spirit in division. That being said, we’re not all going to agree on everything. Human nature doesn’t make this possible. We all ahve different opinions. We all like different things. We don’t all like the same movies, the same food, the same music or the same books.

So, why does that mean that we all have to like the same worldview?

It doesn’t.

But, does that mean that we should impose our opinions on other people? I’d argue no, but then I’m bound to be called a fundamentalist by someone that disagrees with me. And there’s the rub… we’re all fundamentalists in some way, shape or form. Does this make us wrong? No. What is right and wrong when you’re debating ideas that have competing evidence? There’s a whole lot of grey in those discussions.

For a lot of years, I loved to live in the black and white of right and wrong. I didn’t function well with shades of grey. Structure and rules provide comfort and stability. But I eventually realized that each of us look at things through different sets of eyes. I see things as a middle aged white male living in a middle class neighbourhood after growing up in a blue collar family. There are plenty of other perspectives though. Factors that influence our perspectives include gender, cultural background, colour, age, education level, geographical location, etc. All of these things will impact our views, our values, our opinions and our prejudices (whether real or perceived).

Trying to view things as others see them is a worthwhile exercise, as it allows us to understand each other better. Give it a try. Juggle some of the factors that I mentioned above. Imagine how you’d perceive the following sitatuations:

• Money if you are rich versus poor
• Food if you are hungry versus well fed
• Sex if you are loved versus abused
• etc. – the list could go on and on

So my question here is: What makes religion any different? Why can’t we all have differing worldviews? What’s wrong with understanding and connecting with God in different ways?

The problem here, as Dawkins has so articulately put it, is that some people don’t allow for freedom of religion or of expression. Some people believe that it is their duty to convince others of their perspective, even to the point of persecuting them if they don’t agree. Thus, we are faced with the problems of extreme responses that I mentioned above.

My religion tells me:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)

But surely, Jesus, saying these words, didn’t mean to forcefully convert people, did he? That would be contradictory to his earlier teachings on peace. Remember, Jesus also said:

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Matthew 22:37-39)

These two quotes are two of the “biggies” in Christianity. The first quote, Matt 28:19-20, is known as The Great Commission. The second, Matt 22:37-39, is known as The Greatest Commandment. Thus, these are primary verses for Christians to understand.

Some have had a difficult time interpreting these two and allowing them to coexist together. To some, the order to “go and make disciples” has been understood as an active, forceful directive in which coersion is to be applied to convert people. One of the greatest recorded abuses of this is by the Spanish and others that arrived in the New World only to massacre hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Native Americans. These massacres were at least partially justified through the directive to “convert or die”. Yet, this directly contradicts Jesus’ pacifist message of love, as highlighted in The Greatest Commandment.

This type of tension is present in numerous different worldviews. Religion isn’t the only place that this is present, but it is worrisome when it leads to extremism.

The media has reported numerous examples of religious extremism coming from the Muslim faith lately. As I look at the facts in the situations of suicide bombers and freedom fighters, I do understand some of the motivations behind their actions. Persecution and lack of options is high on the list of reasons for what pushes people to go to such extremes. But, when these people claim to be doing the work of the Lord by carrying out such acts, that doesn’t really jive with what others within their own faith believe. Further investigation tends to suggest that these extremists follow an extreme interpretation of their texts, in much the same way that Christian extremists distort and disregard the message that is provided in the New Testament of Christianity. Thus, there is some concern with the validity of their claims.

And really… do we really think that killing someone will make our point of view any more right? I argue no. If anything, it will distract anyone from listening to the original argument and will instead focus them on the violent action. If I need violence to defend my opinion, then I’d best re-examine my argument because it can’t be that strong of an argument if I can’t defend it by other means.

The key here is tolerance and confidence that we are following the right path for the right reason. No matter what factors play into our individual worldviews, I do believe (here goes the fundamentalist in me again!) that we are each, individually responsible for having a rational and well thought out worldview. Otherwise, why do we believe what we believe?

So yeah… I’m onside with Dawkins here. I agree that extremist views do exist and that violent coercion to convince others is the wrong way to go. If your argument isn’t convincing enough, then perhaps you need to reconsider your argument. And, if your argument doesn’t make sense, then why do you believe what you believe? And further, if you hold a religious worldview that involves Jesus or the Quran, which both preach love and peace, then why would you follow a violent path to represent that faith? Doesn’t it make you a hypocrite?

That’s my challenge for you today… take some time to examine what you really believe.

Next up: More moral discussion in “The Slippery Slope of Abortion“.

“Where is God in our world?” is the question that atheists often ask. To many, God does appear to be absent. Miracles don’t happen to the poor, to the oppressed, to those that lose children or loved ones. God does appear to be missing from the lives of those that are down and out.

But wait… haven’t you read the Bible? The Old Testament is full of stories of God interacting with people in the world. Religious opposition challenges that this is simply myth that has been preserved for thousands of years.

What about the New Testament? Didn’t God come to earth in human form? He certainly did. He came in the form of his son, Jesus. Much debate has been conducted over the actual substance of Jesus: was he God, was he man, was he a combination of the two? I’ll save that debate for another day. But for now, let’s focus on the historical record of Jesus walking among us.

The Historical Jesus provides us with a temporal link to God. This is one of many links to God. Some claim that they experience God on a daily basis. I’d like to think that I spend time with God daily, but I have no empirical evidence with which to prove it to my doubting friends. Thus… today’s post: proof of God walking among us. And to provide my answer, I’m going to borrow heavily from some writing that I posted on Feb 24 2007 entitled, “What is an evangelical – III“.

The 20th and 21st Centuries have seen an unparalleled interest in the truth claims of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Numerous academics, skeptics and religious challengers have been attempting to subvert the historical validity of the New Testament. The most recent scholarship has not only further confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament texts, but it has also uncovered additional documentation to support the existence of Jesus Christ in the first century.

Mark Allen Powell, in his book “Jesus as a Figure in History“, provides a great summary of the standard criteria used in religious studies research to comment on authenticity. Powell provides six criteria. They are:

1. Multiple Attestation – are the same ideas found in multiple sources?
2. Dissimilarity – an idea is more likely to be authentic if it is different from the typical perspectives of the period in question. In this case, perspectives that differed from typical Judaic thought would be considered more likely to come from Jesus.
3. Memorable Form – memorable phrases, stories or sayings would be more likely to be authentic. It is assumed that stories pertaining to Jesus were first transmitted in oral form, it is more likely that proverbs, beatitudes and stories in memorable forms would be more likely to be accurately remembered, shared and passed on.
4. Language and Environment – Does the language and environment fit the historical period in question? If so, this supports the authenticity of the claim.
5. Explanation – Does the story or quote in question further support the claims made about the person, place or thing in question.
6. Coherence – Does the story under scrutiny fit with the rest of the factual information known about the topic at hand? If so, this lends additional credence to the argument in question.

There is plenty of writing out there to support all six of these categories. There are multiple sources that point to the validity of the Jesus of history, both before and after his resurrection. There are numerous sources that date back to the same century as Christ’s life. And, these sources come from numerous different perspectives. This multiple attestation shows the abundance of early documentation in support of the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. The criteria of dissimilarity fits, as Jesus’ message definitely went against the grain of the Jewish leaders of the day. We need look no further than the Sermon on the Mount to see the criteria of memorable form at play. The language, environment and explanations for the stories of Jesus all seem to fit together quite well. And, there is a coherence to the stories of Jesus that suggests a valid historical foundation as well.

Further, let’s consider some additional factors at play here. Asking the question, “Can we trust the text of the Bible?”, I suggest the following: Why not? Christianity was built upon Judaism, which maintained an enormous oral tradition for a thousand years. They had the skills to maintain the accuracy of their traditions and they knew how to preserve their scripture.

And to answer those that ask, “But what about the conflicting accounts in the gospels? (The Gospels are the first four books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)”, I offer the following: The Gospels are not a transcript, but they are an account that eye witnesses wrote down as witnesses. Each gospel will obviously have a perspective to them. Does this make them inaccurate? No, it just means that they were viewed through a certain lens. And really… what historical reports are not presented through a lens?

And finally, people suggest that the New Testament didn’t contain the earliest sources or that the church mixed and matched scripture in order to meet their own “agenda”. Nothing could be farther from the truth here. As religious scholars agree, the canon that we recognize today as the New Testament was complete and circulating together as a “package” by the end of the first century. This was quite early in the history of the church.

Further, the additional “questionable texts” like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas had two problems that kept them from inclusion in the New Testament:

1. These books were written much later, dating anywhere from the mid-second century for some of these books to others that dated into the third century. These were much later writings than the texts that are included in the New Testament.
2. The content and structure didn’t match with the other books in the New Testament. Many of these texts that were not included have a style that marks them as Gnostic texts, which were much different theologically than the New Testament that we know. This makes them markedly different from the early texts, which, because of their much earlier dating, are considered to be much more accurate and theologically agreeable to the intentions of Jesus and the early church.

While there is modern discourse about the dating and ordering of the New Testament in the early church, there is little disagreement over the relative accuracy of the claims that I’ve summarized above. Thus, the documentation itself is relatively solid from a date perspective.

The one final question is, “Yeah, but what about outsiders? Did anyone outside of the church validate the claims of Christianity, or did they all have a vested interest in furthering the Gospel of Jesus?” Luckily, there is some external evidence to support the claims that Jesus was stirring things up in the early church. The external documentation doesn’t go to the same depths as the Gospels do to proclaim the good news, but they do validate that a person named Jesus was on the tongues of the early Christians and that Jesus provided a motivation to spread the Gospel message across the Roman Empire and beyond. Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century, mentioned Jesus. Josephus provides one of the few historical accounts of this period of history and his writing about Jesus provides at least a partial validation about the existence and influence of the man named Jesus.

While Josephus does not delve into the theological claims of the New Testament, he does place Jesus in the early first century and he does mention that he had followers.

There is plenty of scholarly research to support these claims, but for the sake of expediency and adequateness, I’ll refer you to a wikipedia entry on the Historical Jesus that provides the main points for the time being. The wikipedia entry also provides some additional links for further study. And, if you are interested in reading further, check out the following great resources that I’ve referenced in the past:

• The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant by John Dominic Crossan
• Jesus As A Figure In History : How Modern Historians View The Man From Galilee By Mark Allan Powell
• Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz

Obviously, one cannot be absolutely certain of anything, regardless of the proof provided. In today’s day and age with all of the technical wizardry available, we cannot even be certain that what we see in the news is even true. But, based on the documentation available and the evidence that I’ve outlined above, there is a very strong foundation upon which to lay our belief in the historical facts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If this topic interests you, I urge you to read further on this interesting topic. There is a great deal of current research pertaining to the historical Jesus that is both interesting and educational.

It is this undersanding of the historical research that allows me to say, “Look, here’s God interacting in our world! What more do you want?” The Gospels present, to me, the most compelling evidence to support my faith. That, combined with the additional evidence that I see around me every day – I do believe that we are all products of God – leaves me satisfied that God exists and that atheists are missing out.

Next up: “The Problem With Fundamentalism“

I’m taking a rest day today to catch my breath and to get caught up on some other items that are currently outstanding. That being said, today is not a total wash… I’ve got a challenge for you today. Read on for more…

But first, I’m really excited by this latest series on Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Your feedback has been great. I appreciate both positive and negative comments. Positive comments encourage me. The challenging comments force me to strengthen my writing (and they keep me on my toes!). Thank you to everyone that’s commented thus far.

Now, for the fun part… This is your chance to get involved!

I’d like to get your thoughts and opinions on what you’ve read so far. I don’t want to interrupt this series by responding to comments in the middle, but I am eager to respond to some of the feedback that I’ve received. So, once I’ve completed this series, I’ll take a couple of days (give or take, depending on the feedback I get) to respond to questions and to discuss this topic in more detail.

So… there are a couple of ways you can participate:

1. You can provide a comment (or two… or more!) to any of the posts in this series; or
2. You can email me directly (toddhdow [at] gmail.com);

I’ll take a sampling of these comments and build them into Q & A type posts at the tail end of this series. Should make for some fun discussions as I’m sure that we’re not all in complete agreement on any of this stuff. But, that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a positive dialogue.

One request: please do not use profanity or offensive language in your posts. I don’t want to censor any content, but I do want to keep the content respectful. I don’t blush at the odd swear word, but swearing, name calling, threats, etc. will result in comments either being modified or deleted completely.

Thanks and I look forward to your thoughts!

Todd Dow

At every turn, Dawkins seems to mess up a perfect opportunity to have an intelligent discussion about God. Chapter 6 is titled, “The roots of Morality: Why Are We Good?” and this is a great place to discuss the ultimate goal or purpose of God. Unfortunately, Dawkins squanders this opportunity. Instead of arguing against the need for God in the moral equation, Dawkins spends his time distracting us from the task at hand, instead offering up several anecdotal experiences to support his claims. This is yet another failed attempt by Dawkins to convince the reader of his claims. And, with more poor logic in this chapter, Dawkins further harms his overall goal of convincing the reader of the atheistic worldview.

In today’s post, I’ll highlight some of the errors in Dawkins’ logic, then I’ll provide my commentary on where morality must come from in order to be useful within the world at large. So, without further ado, here we go!

Dawkins starts by providing some examples of negative emails that have been sent to him. These letters were supposedly written by Christians and they were quite offensive and threatening. In my view, these types of letters go against everything that Christianity represents. I’m not quite sure what Dawkins’ point is here, because it would be silly to argue that these letters represent all Christians. And, it would be silly to suggest that these letters have any moral grounding in the writing of Christ. Note: the letters that he quotes do not provide a coherent argument that grounds itself in New Testament theology. Thus, they don’t really count as accurate representations of sound Christian doctrine. To me, and I’m sure to many of you, these letters are simply the work of individuals who may or may not be misguided in the pursuit of their faith. And, in case Dawkins was suggesting that misbehaving Christians mean that God is not the answer to moral grounding, well… I’ve received my fair share of disrespectful and violently offensive emails from atheists. So Dawkins, I hate to disappoint, but I don’t get your point here. It seems that you’re barking up the same tree that I discussed yesterday: bad representatives do not mean that the faith itself is flawed.

After this rather pointless introduction, Dawkins makes the argument that our morality is pre-programmed within us. He suggests that we have within ourselves an innate altruism (behaviour where we put the needs of others above our own needs – charity, good will, etc.). This innate altruism is, according to Dawkins, beneficial to our survival and growth as a species. It is part of the genetic make-up of the “survival of the fittest”, so to speak. Dawkins explains that this type of altruism benefits the individual by inspiring similar acts of altruism to be returned to the person giving the charity to others. Ultimately, this altruism results in greater benefits for the individual in question, thus extending the success and prosperity of the altruistic individual. This suggests to me that Dawkins version of altruism is self-beneficial and is thus, not necessarily altruistic after all.

One might counter this by saying, “doesn’t that mean that behaving because God or Jesus tells us to is equally self-beneficial and thus equally un-altruistic as well?” That is a good point, but it greatly diminishes the purpose of the love that Jesus talks about in the New Testament. The altruistic behaviour that Jesus talks about in Mark 12:30-31 is called agape love and it is divine love, which is an unconditional love. It has no strings. It expects nothing in return. It does not need love in return. It is simply love freely given. To apply agape love means to become like God in the way that God loves. And, Jesus provides the example of agape love that we are to strive for. Jesus brings us the message of agape love and instructs us to love one another in this way. For more on agape love, check out my previous series on love entitled “Who Do You Love“, and specifically “Part 4 of 5: AGAPE – unconditional love.“

Dawkins’ love doesn’t sound like this. It isn’t altruistic in the least. Dawkins himself argues that his version of altruism is self-serving. So much for that argument, eh Dawkins?

Next, Dawkins calls out the great flaw in atheistic thought… he asks the question, “If there is no God, why be good?” It is this question which cannot be answered by atheists. There is no good answer to this question. Dawkins opens up the discussion by pulling in one of the premiere explanations from existentialism on the abyss that is a Godless existence. Dawkins quotes Dostoevsky in his masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov (I highly recommend this book – it is absolutely briliant!). Dawkins quotes a scene where Ivan Karamazov argues that without God, ultimate meaning can only be derived from within. Ivan says that “egoism, even extending to the perpetration of a crime, would not only be permissible but would be recognized as the essential, the most rational, and even the noblest raison d’etre of the human condition.”

Dawkins also mentions the book Outsider by Albert Camus. This book makes the same point: there is no absolute grounding or meaning in life. Thus, we are what we create as our reality.

I’ve argued the problems with this already in an earlier post about the myth of Sisyphus. The larger context of the series is quite contentious, but the point is the same. For the purpose of this discussion, focus only on the story of Sisyphus, and ignore the surrounding content of the post series. If you feel strongly compelled to discuss the content of that series more, feel free to do it within the bounds of that series. Don’t bring that discussion back to this series please.

But where were we… Sisyphus: the argument goes that Sisyphus was condemned to roll a rock up a hill for eternity. Every time Sisyphus approached the top of the hill, it would fall back down the hill again. Thus, Sisyphus was faced with a potentially meaninglessness existence. Ultimately, the story becomes one in which Sisyphus creates for himself a purpose and a meaning to motivate him to continue to roll the stone. But by so doing this, Sisyphus was lying to himself. This ultimately leads to living a life of meaninglessness or lying to oneself about one’s ultimate purpose. Either way, these are pretty desolate choices. (I’ve skipped some logic here… for the full argument, check out the link above to the article on Sisyphus).

So… without a purpose and without a proper grounding, what motivations are there for an atheist to live a life of moral goodness? And what does goodness mean to a purposeless person? And further, if we are all individually responsible for creating our versions of reality, what’s to stop each of us from having completely different versions of good and bad? One person’s hedonism might be another person’s morally bankrupt lifestyle. Problems abound here.

Consider the “final solution” suggested by the Nazis in WWII. To an atheist, Hitler’s justification for “purifying the human race” could have been seen as noble and good. Nietzsche’s atheistic writing seems to reinforce this view as well, as does that of his contemporaries including C. Schmitt and others. My point here is to simply point out that atheism doesn’t provide any motivation for acting rightly in the world. If anything, atheism has propagated the increasingly problematic sense of pluralism and relativism which is leading to further religious, political, and social strife in the world. There are some benefits to central rules of moral authority, as long as those central rules are morally sound and humane. And, in the atheistic worldview, there is no grounding for moral goodness, nor is a central authority encouraged. In atheism and the nothingness that it purports, the individual is the only priority and everyone else is simply a means to that individual’s ends.

In this chapter, Dawkins did nothing to further the atheistic grounding for morality. It is unfortunate, as Dawkins is now over half way through the book and he has yet to mount a convincing and logically sound argument to support his cause.

To conclude, let me offer a couple of thoughts on the grounding of morality within religion. As I have argued elsewhere and will continue to argue in upcoming posts, God’s existence and his participation in our existence provides us with a concrete, absolute source of moral grounding. With God as our moral compass, we have a baseline upon which to make decisions. Jesus provides the clearest explanation of this moral imperative when he tells us to love God and to love our neighbours. His rules in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 to 7) provide an outline for Christian living which are pretty hard to screw up or to misinterpret.

You’d be right in suggesting that even Christians don’t live their lives the way that Jesus suggests. Good point. But I defer you to my last post where I talked about separating the organization from the faith. While the organization may distort the views of the faith, that doesn’t mean the faith is flawed. It simply means that those representing the faith are flawed.

Thus, if we can be grounded in an absolute sense of right and wrong, then we can live our lives with a sense of purpose and clear direction. Any other way is simply a lie or a meaningless struggle in futility.

Next up, we’ll talk about The Historical Jesus. This post should be fun. I’ll be speaking to those that have been asking, “In what ways has God connected with us?”

By far, I would argue that organized religion has posted the biggest problems for God. Paradoxically, the very institutions that have grown to recognize God have done the most harm. A quick look through history will highlight many problems that the Christian Church has perpetrated in the name of our Holy Father:

• The Crusades
• The repeated persecution of the Jews throughout history
• The European Conquest of North America
• The Inquisition
• The 17th Century Wars of Religion
• The extreme prejudice that has faced scientific advancement: Galileo’s persecution comes to mind, as do numerous other barriers to scientific inquiry during the Enlightenment
• Silence by some in the church (many criticize the Catholic Church for not speaking out during WW II) in the face of such evils as slavery and the Nazi “final solution”
• Several types of abuse (sexual, physical) by Catholic Priests & the subsequent cover-ups to protect the priests
• Assassination of abortion doctors by fundamentalist Christians
• George W Bush’s “crusade” in the war on terror

I could go on, but you get the point. And this is only some of the problems that the Christian Church has contributed. Islam introduces a whole host of additional problems, most notably questionable human rights practices like intolerant laws (Sharia Law), inequality of women and children and the quite visible violent fundamentalist actions of Muslim extremists.

For the record, I do not in any way support any of these actions in any way. In fact, I have subscribed to a Christian denomination (Mennonite) that is pacifist. Mennonites strongly identify with the peace teachings of Christ, and Mennonites hold that Jesus’ pacifist message requires that we turn the other cheek and that we avoid violence at all costs. For a more complete overview of my views on this subject, check out my four part series entitled, “What Are We Fighting For?”

So yeah… where does this leave us then? Organized religion has, and continues to, contribute to many of the problems facing the world today. And, it’s easy to argue that almost every war has been at least indirectly caused by religious belief. Does this mean we should get rid of organized religion then? Well… that would be like saying that politics has led to plenty of civil strife so we should get rid of politicians. Or use economics: economics has led to the financial persecution of some poorer countries, most notably in Africa. Does that mean we should do away with economic ideas as well? I’d argue no. Look around us. Organized religion can do a lot of good as well. Numerous religious organizations provide a great deal of good throughout the world. Organizations like Mennonite Central Committee, The Salvation Army, World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse all contribute a great deal to those in need. These and many others work toward peace and healing to people that nobody else feels the need to reach.

This isn’t to diminish the hard and effective work of the numerous secular charities that exist. My point here is to show that religious charities do contribute a great deal to helping those in need. This strongly contrasts the numerous problems that I mentioned in my opening paragraphs.

And further, the Christian Church has been, throughout most of recorded history, the main protector of much of the rich cultural heritage that we in the west have enjoyed. The artwork of Michelangelo, the writing of The Bible (arguably the greatest literary achievement ever) and the storage and preservation of almost two thousand years of history has been done by the Church. The Church financed the exploration and discovery of the New World (North America – for good and for bad). The Church supported the abolition of slavery. And the Church has stood up vigorously for human rights throughout the world.

But my point here isn’t to keep score on both sides of the organized religion debate. The pros and cons could go on and on all day. Instead, let’s talk about the “sociology” of religion.

I want to tell you about a really interesting undergrad course that I took called “Sociology of Religion.” This course highlighted numerous theories that explained where religion comes from. To Sociologists, religion is a man made apparatus used to provide mankind with a need that we cannot find elsewhere: the human need for a purpose and higher meaning. Sociologists suggest that religion is a lie that is told to placate the masses. Remember Karl Marx: “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” Marx, Weber, Freud and Feuerbach have provided some of the more famous social commentary on religion. They’re unanimous that organized religion is simply a tool used to keep the public in line and on target with the key goal of the aristocracy. We need look no further than the current US Administration to see the effectiveness of religious imagery to motivate the American public to get behind the war in Iraq. Unfortunately for Bush and his team in the White House, they could only fool the public so long. Their long abuse of power doesn’t seem to be going well anymore.

Dawkins subscribes to the same school of thought as Marx, Weber and the gang, but Dawkins pulls in some other examples to make his point. Regardless of the sources, the point is the same: that religion has no basis in reality and it is the creation of faith out of myth for the purpose of population control at the expense of reason. And, Dawkins has some buddies that like to argue this same line of thought. Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Michel Onfray are among the current crop that push the same agenda.

In response, I have three responses to the suggestion that organized religion, specifically Christianity, is a made up religion:

1. The original Christian martyrs wouldn’t have died for the cause: – Imagine you’re part of a new group that claims that they have the ultimate truth. Would you go to the grave to defend it? Without proof, I doubt it. And, what sort of proof would you want? You’d need to be pretty convinced before you’d sacrifice yourself. Enduring stoning, being fed to the lions or worse would require the utmost conviction.These first martyrs include Peter. Remember that Peter denied Jesus three times to avoid persecution. What changed for Peter? Well… Jesus did come back to visit after he rose again. That would be pretty convincing to some.Or consider Paul. Paul could have gone on living the good life, persecuting others, including early Christian martyrs (like Stephen, as seen in Acts 7:578:3 – Paul is referred to here as Saul.) But after meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9), Paul changes course, blindly following Jesus in the pursuit of the Christian Kingdom.
2. Does a “social theory” discount the original claim? – So what if people can put together a great sounding explanation for the birth of a religious movement. Sociologists are quite adept at showing how religion works. Does that make Christianity, or the existence of God, any less real? I can explain how I get to work in social terms (groups of like-minded communities have built an infrastructure that allows for shared transportation and civil obedience) or technical jargon (my automobile runs on a combustion engine, which pushes me down the road to my destination). Do either of these explanations give the whole picture? No, they don’t.Sociology does allow us to better understand our relationships among one another. But that doesn’t necessarily discount religious communities.
3. Should the abuses of a religious community mean that the religion itself is false? – This one’s like asking if banks should be banished because some of their employees commit fraud or other financial crimes.

So where does this leave us? Should we throw the baby out with the bathwater? I argue no. Religious belief has a legitimate place in our lives for those that wish to participate. I am conscious of the abuses made by organized religion and I am in favour of punishing those responsible for those abuses. But I don’t think that those abuses should be representative of the Church as a whole. Christianity has published its book of rules. It’s called The Bible. As Bruxy Cavey, the Teaching Pastor of the Meeting House, tells us, “What Jesus came to establish was a subversive spirituality outside the boundary markers of traditional religion, and in the process he made religion itself obsolete.”

Thus, Jesus himself tells us not to be religious, but instead to be spiritual in the way we live our lives. We should live in community with other Christians in order to live out our lives as Christians, but Jesus’ message is quite simple: he tells us to live in peace and to love God and one another. Why overcomplicate it? I don’t see the point.

So… where does this leave us? How does this apply to Dawkins? Well… Dawkins argues that religion is dangerous and should be abolished. In cases where religion becomes abusive, I’d have to agree. But that doesn’t mean removing faith. That simply means removing the organization that is misrepresenting the message. And the message that I hear loud and clear is a good one:

Matthew 22:37-39:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’

Romans 12:21:

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

I hope that this post puts to rest a lot of the comments on organized religion. I’m with you. I agree that organized religion can be problematic. But let’s not let that prevent us from having a relationship with God.

Next up: “The objective roots of morality”

I refer to chapter 4 (“Why There Almost Certainly Is No God”) as The Ultimate Distraction. Dawkins uses the example of the Ultimate 747 as a red herring that distracts us from the argument at hand, namely, if God exists.

After setting up his straw men to “defeat” arguments in favour of God’s existence, Dawkins attempts to offer an alternate theory of how our universe works… an explanation that he claims is “God free”. This doesn’t prove anything. He offers an interesting and common sensical explanation for the origins of life. I can’t argue against it, as I wasn’t here at the beginning of time. But these scientific explanations of our origins do not disprove the existence of God. I welcome science, as it offers some tangible explanations of how God worked his magic in creating us. Instead of dividing us, I think that science and religion can co-exist. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. If anything, the two can compliment one another.

In this chapter, Dawkins begins with an argument that he hears from creationists (religious people that believe the literal 6 day creation story in the Bible) when they try to argue against evolution. The argument is in the form of an analogy that goes like this: Evolution and the “chance combinations” that make up our livable existence are too random and the probability is too low to be a viable alternative to the creation story of the Bible. Dawkins quickly dismisses this idea by saying that creationists don’t understand evolution. He explains that evolution is more than random chance. He argues that evolution is indeed intelligent in the way that enhancements are made to life forms. This doesn’t mean, to Dawkins, that an ultimate designer must be involved. Dawkins argues that evolution is self directed over time as a sort of metamorphosis based on the material needs at hand.

Dawkins further argues that this system of evolution, if it is true, would be less complex than a designer God that would have had to build this complex evolutionary system which would make God more complex (as per previous arguments that the creator must be more complex than the creation).

While Dawkins does pose a good argument, he makes a few assumptions here that don’t hold up on their own. Thus, when these assumptions fall, the rest of his house of cards falls as well. Let’s give this a closer look:

Assumptions:

1. Evolution is factual – This is a theory, not absolute fact. This theory is quite compelling and I do like the way that it explains a lot about our existence and our development as a species. But there are still some significant factual challenges to the complete evolutionary model that remain unanswered. Archeological evidence hasn’t completely supported this model. In fact, a recent find in Kenya shows the difficulty that science has had in providing an airtight scientific case to support evolution.This doesn’t mean that I am anti-evolution. I fully support the research that scientists are doing. In fact, I hope that science is able to explain where we came from in scientific language. This stuff fascinates me. But that doesn’t in any way diminish the existence of God.Dawkins’ argument doesn’t disprove God. If anything, it equally allows or dismisses God AND evolution AND any other theory of our existence, as any theory that we want to discuss is extremely complex. This doesn’t make any one of them more or less true. Consider you or I. We’re all extremely complex individuals. Not only are we complex from a human standpoint, but our individual personalities make us that much more unique. Does the fact that we are each extremely complex mean that we do not exist? No.Yeah… I know that there’s evidence that we exist. We can see ourselves. Yes, that is true. God offers plenty of evidence for his existence as well. His creation and the way he has revealed himself throughout history provide ample proof for his existence. I will defer further discussion on this item until Day 5 when we discuss the historical Jesus.
2. If our scientific explanation of reality is complex, then God would have to be more complex, which would negate the existence of God – This is a logically flawed argument. It isn’t valid or sound. The relative complexities of the two do not imply that God can’t exist. Does a car factory fail to exist if the car becomes overly complex? Give me a break. I expect more from a PhD. Shame on you Dawkins!
3. “What the religious mind then fails to grasp is that two candidate solutions are offered to the problem. God is one. The anthropic principle is the other. They are alternatives.” – Yet another error on logic from Dawkins. As I’ve said before, these explanations do not have to be mutually exclusive. Competing claims can co-exist. We see this in politics, economics, sociology, etc. Many different disciplines offer different, competing explanations to explain things. Science isn’t even immune to this. For more on this, check out this article on scientific realism, which is just one method of discussing this in more detail.

So yeah… Dawkins certainly didn’t uncover a smoking gun in here anywhere. This is yet another lightweight chapter in the book.

Next up: “Problems with Organized Religion and Sociological Explanations for Religion”

A straw man argument is an argument that is set up so that it can easily be defeated. This is a favoured technique of politicians. MediaMatters.org provides some excellent examples of George W. Bush’s use of straw man arguments.

Richard Dawkins provides several arguments for God’s existence, starting with some serious philosophical justifications for the existence of God. Unfortunately, Dawkins dismisses these arguments without properly addressing them, and he moves on from sophisticated arguments to some extremely weak “proofs” that have little in common with current, philosophically challenging explanations for the existence of God. So… let’s go through Dawkins arguments one by one and see what we’re left with.

Without spending too much time on the specifics (you can read the chapter for the full outline on all of the proofs mentioned here), Dawkins does begin this chapter with noble intentions (or so the reader should assume). Dawkins highlights the three main “heavyweight” arguments for the existence of God. They are:

Cosmological Argument

God is the first “uncaused cause” of everything – Just like the Genesis account of creation, God was the first cause and he created everything that came after it. Aquinas argued this.

Ontological Argument

We have an understanding of perfection that we experience in our world. God is obviously more perfect than anything that we could possibly comprehend. Since the existence of God is more perfect than God not existing, God must exist.

Teleological or Design Argument

This is the “watchmaker” example, where it is argued that a watch is extremely complex and therefore must have been built by a creator that was more complex. By comparison, the world is extremely complex and therefore the world’s creator must be more complex.

One of Dawkins many logic flaws in this section include his argument that if God is omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful), then God knowing in advance that he (or she) would intervene in the world means that God is unable to change his mind about his intervention, which suggests that God cannot be omnipotent. The logic is flawed here, as the free will argument frees God from being powerless to decide upon his course of action at the time of the event. With free will, God simply knows the free will choice he will make in the future, thus freeing God from being trapped in a pre-determined decision that God cannot change when the time comes. This same free will logic is applied to us… even if we could see into the future, this would not limit our freedom to make choices even if they were known in advance. Those choices would simply be known in advance, but they would not limit our free will choices available to us.

But back to the big three: Dawkins picks a set of arguments that are rarely quoted in modern debates. Aquinas’ argument from degree and the teleological argument are debated upon from time to time, but not with much success in philosophical circles today. As for the cosmological or “uncaused cause” arguments… well… these arguments have been expanded and are still used in modern debate. Modern arguments highlight the ability for God to exist outside of our space and time and thus are used to point to that first cause. Science refers to such an event as the Big Bang. Theists lean towards calling this an act of that uncaused cause, namely God.

It must be noted that these proofs don’t in themselves offer a slam dunk case for the existence of God. At best, they do offer the need for a first cause, but the truly philosophical argument still revolves around the nature of that first uncaused cause.

Note that most of these proofs have long since been rendered logically flawed and thus, are not worth addressing here. Dawkins offers nothing new with his arguments, nor does he do much to further his argument by picking up on these “dead examples”.

It would appear that Dawkins gives up at this point. Done with his “heavy lifting”, he goes on to set up some truly bizarre examples. I have to admit that some of these examples were new to me, as they typically would not hold up as “philosophical arguments” in the true sense of the world.

The Argument from Beauty:

This is simply another version of Aquinas’ argument from degree, which has long since expired. At best, this is a straw man argument.

The Argument from Personal Experience:

Dawkins takes the view that objective scientific proof does not exist to explain the occurrence of “miracles”. Miracles typically refer to “supernatural events” that cannot be explained in ordinary scientific language. Some argue that miracles are scientific phenomena that we simply lack the ability to properly explain. Regardless of the definition, personal experience is typically not seen as a reliable witness unless the action in question is reproducible. Dawkins takes the position that personal experience is subjective at best, and psychotic or fraudulent at worst. Regardless, I don’t feel the need to argue this one. I am fine with setting it aside as neither a proof nor a disproof in this discussion.

The Argument From Scripture:

Dawkins brings up some fair questions about the reliability of scripture. He points out some inconsistencies in the New Testament gospels (Gospels = the first four books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke & John). While he does raise some valid points about inconsistencies from book to book, this misses the main (and consistent) message that is provided in the New Testament: Jesus is the Son of God who brings a message of peace and salvation to all of us.

By picking apart the inconsistencies between the various accounts given in the Gospels, Dawkins could be seen as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Note that these are four accounts of Jesus from four different sources. In situations like this, discrepancies are to be expected. It would make me more nervous if all four accounts were completely in sync. Think of a murder investigation: if all of the witnesses were completely in sync on every minor detail, it would make me suspicious that the witnesses had collaborated in advance. The scriptures are sufficiently clear and in sync on the message that Jesus brings to us that the relatively minor inconsistencies should not affect the overall message of the texts.

Further, Dawkins makes some critical mistakes by arguing that the official New Testament canon (the final set of books that we see as the NT) “were chosen, more or less arbitrarily”. This is incorrect. The New Testament as we see it was being circulated in its final form by around the end of the first century. This was much sooner than some of the later books that Dawkins refers to, including the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, etc. Scholarship has shown these documents to have come along much later, sometimes as much as 100 or 200 years later than the NT canon. Dawkins makes several other erroneous claims that are not consistent with modern religious study. He “guesses” at why some gospels were omitted from the final canon (I just explained above that the canon was complete long before some of these other books arrived on the scene). He also tries to compare the Gospels to the Da Vinci Code by calling them both great works of fiction. Dawkins’ “speculation” is a fatal flaw in his ability to authoritatively comment any further on the quality and content of scripture. For an academic, Dawkins is embarrassingly weak in his justifications for his claims in this regard. It would be better off if he had not commented at all in this section.

The Argument From Admired Religious Scientists:

You’ve gotta be kidding me… Dawkins suggests in this section that religious scientists are enough for some people in their belief in God. That’s all fine and good, but this in no way addressed objective proofs for the existence of God. I don’t know why he spent time on this one…

And the final two, which can be combined:

Pascal’s Wager and Bayesian Arguments

These aren’t so much proofs as they are reasons to believe in God. They’re about playing the odds, probability and hedging one’s bets. Pascal’s Wager is simply about covering your butt ni case God is real. And the Bayesian Arguments explain the odds in favour of God’s existence based on a series of subjective and poorly defined factors, none of which offer air tight arguments that do God much justice.

So that’s it… Dawkins should be issuing a refund for this chapter of the book. He offers up some age old, flawed arguments for the existence of God, combined with a few extremely weak straw man targets that he easily knocks down. And, in the rare instance where he thinks he’s on to something, he doesn’t do his homework which leaves him with a a failing grade for accuracy and authority.

Modern debate continues to circle around some of the traditional discussions I highlighted above, but it also looks at some additional ways of thinking of God. These include:

• Faith and reason – can the two exist apart from one another?
• Rational Theism – check out Kant’s “Religion Within The Limits of Reason Alone for an overview.
• Evidentialist arguments – What exactly constitutes a proof one way or the other?
• The Historical Claims of Religious Intervention
• And many others…

Dawkins ignored these modern discussions in favour of his weak straw man choices. Dawkins offers no new thoughts here and his approach is disappointing as his attempt is akin to taking candy from a baby. It’s a weak attempt to weaken the argument for God, but without very strong ammunition. It is to his detriment as it greatly reduces the value and authority of his writing in this area.

Next up: “The Ultimate 747 – Is that the best he’s got?“

Richard Dawkins has put together an interesting package. His book, The God Delusion, has inspired a great deal of discussion and controversy. After reading the book, I find myself disappointed. I was expecting so much more. For such a great deal of noise, I expected some solid, faith-shattering arguments. Instead, I felt that Dawkins’ arguments were weak, lacking in solid logic and poorly assembled.

Why then am I going to spend time and effort refuting a book that I found to be so negative? Well… the popularity of the book requires some strong refutations in order to set the record straight. That’s my main purpose in posting this set of responses. Additionally, I can’t stand to see these guys (Dawkins, Sam Harris and the rest of their “crew”) thinking that they’ve got the upper hand. I have a keen interest in apologetics, so refuting this type of writing is a great passion for me. Note, apologetics doesn’t mean apologizing for my faith, but rather defending it on intellectual grounds.

Before I get started on my critique, a couple of first thoughts. There are a couple of things that Dawkins does quite badly throughout this book. They are:

1. Lack of respect – Dawkins takes on a very confrontational tone in his writing. His arrogant and offensive tone is off-putting and it distracts from his writing. While he is entitled to his opinion, his negative attitudes towards religious belief can at times be seen as an emotional response rather than a rational one. Thus, his lack of respect towards those of alternate worldviews takes away from some of his arguments.
2. Stereotyping – Dawkins groups all religious believers into one big pot, confusing the beliefs of many different faiths into his own, convenient negative hodge-podge. Rather than develop a clear and concise definition of his fundamentalist religious targets, he bunches all religious believers together. His glossing over of religious belief leaves the reader wondering if he has a clear understanding of the religious claims of each reader.

So without further ado, over the next few days, I’ll be tackling the following subjects, one by one:

1. Straw Men – Dawkins weak proofs of God
2. The Ultimate 747 – Is that the best he’s got?
3. Problems with Organized Religion and Sociological Explanations for Religion
4. The objective roots of morality
5. The Historical Jesus
6. The problem with fundamentalism
7. The slippery slope of abortion
8. Why not rid ourselves of religion, politics and economics all at the same time?
9. Childhood abuse and brainwashing
10. On Evolution and concluding thoughts

Be sure to check back daily. My goal is to post a new section each day, but this will ultimately depend on how much time I can devote to my posts each day. Please do forgive me if I can’t keep up to the daily writing requirements to get these finished on time.

Ultimately, I think the answer becomes one of cohabitation. I feel the presence of God in my life every day. And, I appreciate God’s presence, just as I appreciate the scientific progress in understanding the world that God has provided for us. I am thankful for the scientific research that allows us to lead fuller, richer lives. But I am conscious of the limitations that surround practical scientific research. While science provides us with tools for survival, science lacks the moral compass required to be wise with it. for that, I look to God.

In Him,

Todd Dow

This is part four of my four part series entitled, “Family Matters.”

3. Being Loving:
Not only do we have to be present and wise, but we also have to be loving. Love is something that we all crave. To a child, love is paramount. Without it, a child feels a tremendous sense of loneliness and isolation. And this can lead to significant problems later in life. It’s a parent’s responsibility to ensure that a child feels love always.

This doesn’t mean that we can’t discipline our children. Discipline is important in teaching children right from wrong, which is an important part of growing up. But discipline can be done lovingly. It’s a matter of how it’s applied.

On the positive side though… love can come in many forms. I’ve narrowed it to three kinds, but I’m sure there are many others. These are play, laughter and affection.

1. Play: this is playtime as a family. Digging in the sandbox, throwing around a football, having a water fight or playing a board game as families are all examples of play.
2. Laughter: Keeping the mood in the home light and welcoming is done through laughter. Laughter removes dark shadows that can otherwise creep into a positive family dynamic.
3. Affection: Show your love to your children and your spouse. Hugging and kissing are important forms of showing love to those you care about. And it’s important that children see a healthy relationship between parents as well. The odd kiss or hug doesn’t hurt in front of the kids.

The fuel of any family is love. Play, laughter and affection are key ingredients in maintaining a healthy dynamic at home.

How many of you are nicer to the gas station attendant than you are to your spouse when you walk in the door at night? Most of us say please and thank you to service workers. But do we always extend the same courtesies at home? I’m guilty of it. I think we all are from time to time.

In fact, here’s something that I want you to do today. I want you to talk to your family. I want you to tell them what they mean to you and how much you value them. We don’t do this often enough… we think about it. But how often do we vocalize it? In fact, right now, most of us are here with someone we love… I want you to look at the person beside you and give them a quick smile, a wink or a nudge, just to tell them that they’re important to you. Do that right now. I’ll wait.

And today, at some point, maybe lunch, maybe dinner, I want you to go around the table and tell each other what you mean to one another. Give it a try. It might feel awkward at first, but I guarantee that you’ll feel invigorated.

Wrapping Up:
All of this leads to a family that feels happy and healthy. And, from there, anything is possible.

I’ve talked a lot about families in the traditional sense of the word. But all of the things I’ve mentioned here easily transfer over to the other types of family that we discussed at the beginning of this discussion. Let’s take another look at today’s sermon passage:

Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it.

I’m starting to see myself as part of the “old” group that is mentioned in this verse. I’m definitely not a child anymore. So I think this verse applies to me as well… I’m still going on the way that I should go. And so are the rest of us here. So, for the adults here today, let’s continue on in the way that we should be going. And, for those of us that can influence children or be a mentor to someone else, do that. Lead them in the way they should go as well. In this way, we can build not only our individual families, but also our collective church family as well.

This is part three of my four part series entitled, “Family Matters.”

2. Being Wise:
The Power of Why
One of the things that motivated me to explore philosophy and religion in university was the fear that someday I’d be unable to answer the following question:

“Daddy, why are we here?”

I knew that that question would someday come and I felt ill equipped to handle it. I know the basic answers presented in the Bible, but I was afraid that my kids would find out that I had a superficial understanding of the New Testament, at best, and that the inevitable follow up “whys” to my questions would become more and more difficult to answer. This frightened me. And it also left me feeling inadequately prepared to raise children. In addition to feeding, clothing and taking care of my kids, I also feel it is my responsibility to instill a sense of purpose in my children.

I somehow feel relieved to know that I am obtaining the skills to either:

1. Answer every possible why that my kids can come up with; or
2. Sufficiently bore my kids so that they’ll take my word for it and won’t ask any further questions;

Either way, I feel fairly comfortable with the inevitable questions that’ll be coming my way in the next few years.

But more important than this are the numerous moral and ethical decisions that our kids will have to face someday. The complexity heightens as we get older. It starts out with being nice to our friends. No hitting, no pulling hair. It extends to not making fun of the new kid in the class at school and not spreading gossip. As we get older, problems like peer pressure towards sex and drugs become issues for some. As adults, we face extremely complex choices, like the morality of abortion, the rights of convicted criminals or whether or not we should be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Whatever the case… it’s our responsibility as parents to understand the choices and to be ready with answers and guidance to those under our care. It’s up to us to be wise, because our children certainly aren’t going to obtain their sense of right and wrong from the media or from most of society today. During my undergrad at U of T, I sat through numerous lectures that focused on moral and ethical thought. I appreciate and respect the right for different perspectives, but I’ve gotta tell you… today’s education system isn’t teaching right from wrong. It’s teaching how to understand different points of view. Don’t get me wrong…this is a very important skill. It is important to be able to approach a problem from multiple angles. It is important to be able to empathize with others. But that doesn’t help us to teach our kids whether or not we should discuss the pros and cons of war, abortion or capital punishment. It’s wrong to kill. It shouldn’t matter what the situation is. We shouldn’t kill. It’s that simple.

I didn’t get that message from my philosophy lectures. I got differing worldviews. I got a bunch of “yeah, but what about this or that” types of scenarios. In today’s secular society, nobody is wrong. Everyone just has a “different opinion”. Well… I’ve gotta say, I appreciate different opinions, but there comes a time when the line has to be drawn. And that line has to be drawn by parents and we have to teach our children when to draw the line. Our schools teach critical thinking. I do appreciate that. But it is being left up to us, as parents, to teach our children how to make appropriate moral and value judgments.

It’s up to us as parents to have the wisdom to guide our children until we can impart sufficient wisdom on them so that they can make their own decisions.

And in an increasingly secular world, it is increasingly more important that we pass on our religious traditions to our children.

Coming up next: The 3rd Building Block of a Healthy Family.

This is part two of my four part series entitled, “Family Matters.”

3 Building Blocks of a Healthy Family
1. Being Present:
I heard a terrible story earlier this week… I’m not sure if anyone here heard this story or not. A mother forgot her two year old daughter in the backseat of their SUV a few days ago. The daughter was in the car for over 7 hours before someone found her. The baby didn’t survive. It was a tragic, heart-rending story. My heart immediately went out to this woman and the rest of her family. I can’t even imagine the pain and anguish that this family is going through now. It must be devastating.

What is surprising though is that this story isn’t uncommon. There have been numerous examples of this in recent years. What is going wrong when people forget their kids in the car? I’m a parent, and I can’t understand where things would go that bad that you forget your kids in the backseat. When I am driving with Noah or Katie, I’m always talking to them and interacting with them. Julie’s the same… she is always trying to engage with them. Mind you… it’s not always easy to interact with a 2 year old, but we do what we can to communicate with our kids. They’re not just a package that is being delivered to day care or to the grocery store. They’re precious cargo. We wouldn’t stuff adults in the back seat and ignore them for the entire ride, would we? So why should it be different with kids?

When people start forgetting that their kids are in the car, I think that’s a sign that LIFE IS MOVING TOO FAST. If we find ourselves forgetting about what’s important in life or if we’re slipping into a state where we’re living just to work, well… it’s time to re-evaluate and re-align ourselves.

But all around us, family seems to be taking a back seat to personal gratification. As a society, we’re:

• Working longer hours;
• Too busy doing recreational activities to spend time with our kids;

It seems to come down to time management… What are we working longer hours for? Most of us would say to make more money for our families. This is a fair argument, but only to a point. How much money is enough? What about the father looking back on his life, looking at the missed opportunities to spend with his kids when they were young because he was too busy working. Does the money seem worth it at that point? You can’t do it over again. You can’t go back and spend time with your kids when they’re grown. They’re grown up by then as well. Opportunities are missed.

It is a cruel joke though… I could easily get swallowed up in work, school, working out, spending time with friends and doing a host of other activities. But instead, I’ve made a commitment to my family:

I’ve quit work… no, I’m just kidding.

But seriously, as a family, we’ve assessed what’s important in life and what’s not. We’ve put together our list of priorities. And family ranks high on that list, right around the same level as working to support our family and going to church. We fit the other stuff in where we can, but we seldom sacrifice family time to accommodate some of the lower hanging fruit. Family time is just too precious and too important to miss out on it.

And the fact that Noah recognizes when we’re “all together as a family” speaks volumes to me. Sometimes, it sounds like a question, like he wants that affirmation that this is going to happen as a family. Other times, I can tell that it’s a statement of excitement and anticipation. Either way, if a two year old can figure out his priorities, then his or her parents should be able to figure them out just the same.

Coming up next: The 2nd Building Block of a Happy Family.

In this four part series, I’ll be posting a recent sermon that I delivered entitled, “Family Matters.”

Topic: Family
Title: Family Matters
Key Verse: Proverbs 22:6

Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it.

Prayer:
Lord, may you be present in this message and in the reflection that results from it. I ask that you bless this time to our continued walk with you, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.

Introduction:
Family matters. Each of us can relate with that. When we look at someone’s success or failure, we tend to look at the influences that have defined that person. And first and foremost on that list is the impact that family has had on an individual.

I read an article this past week in the Hamilton Spectator about a guy named Jesse Lumsden. He’s a football player for the Hamilton Ticats. His dad was a football player as well and the article went into great depth about how Jesse grew up in a family surrounded by football. The article provides a great deal of insight into the years of football influence that went from father to son. Thus, it’s no surprise that Jesse grew up to be a football player. And he’s turning into a pretty good one, at that. His father has had a tremendous impact on Jesse’s direction in life.

Look at others as well… I love biography books. Augustine, Billy Graham… They all point to the impact that their childhood had on them. I’ve been reading Bill Clinton’s autobiography, entitled “My Life”, and in it, Bill spends a great deal of time highlighting the influences from his upbringing and how they affected his policies and decisions throughout his life, including how they influenced his policy decisions as president.

There’s no denying that family, or lack thereof, is perhaps the single most important influencer that we’re likely to have in our lives.

What is a family?
Family can mean different things to different people. Traditionally, we’re talking about mom, dad and a couple of kids. But families come in plenty of shapes and sizes. There are single parent families. Some families consist of two sets of parents. Other families have no parents at all. Some athletes refer to their teammates as their family. Soldiers refer to their comrades as their family.

Jesus expands the meaning of family further when he says:
Mark 3:35: “Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

So we have a pretty wide definition of family going on here. Family, loosely termed, could be a group of like people that rely on one another as part of a team. In a more traditional definition, family consists of parents and children. For the sake of my message today, I am going to focus on the traditional family situation, but the core of my message could just as easily apply to other types of “family” situations as well.

Within the family, there is tremendous opportunity. As parents, we all know the responsibility that comes with raising kids. I’ve got two little ones at home. Noah and Katie. Noah’s almost two. Katie’s coming up on four months old. I love them both more than I ever thought possible. Five years ago, there is no way I was able to comprehend the deep level of love that I feel today for them. It’s crazy. It’s so great.
I want to share a story of something really touching that happened this week with my family:
The other night, Julie, Noah, Katie and I were going out for dinner. We were all in the car and we were driving. Noah, in his tiny little two year old voice, from the backseat, excitedly said, “we’re going out all together.” We hear this from him at home when we’re together as well. “We’re doing this all together.” He’s also started saying, “We’re doing this as a family.” They’re such great statements. He gets so excited when we’re doing things “all together” “as a family”. He recognizes when we’re together as a family and he announces it. He’s only two and he’s already recognizing the importance of doing things “all together” “as a family”. There’s something innate in him that recognizes and yearns for that time together.

Sociologists have long thought that family dynamics play an extremely influential role in one’s personality later in life. Several factors play an important role in childhood development, including number of parents present, birth order, gender, parenting styles and birth order of the parents. These and many other factors all contribute to the experience that a child has in the home.

To most of us that grew up in a traditional family, this doesn’t sound like a big deal. But when you look back and start reflecting on your childhood within the context of these factors, you start to recognize the impact that these factors play. Gender is huge… girls and boys are typically encouraged to do certain gender specific activities.

Birth order’s another one… how many older siblings here today still feel a nagging feeling that your younger brother or sister is getting away with something that they shouldn’t be?

And how many younger siblings feel that their older brothers or sisters are too bossy and domineering?

Last year, in our Christian Parenting class, we spent a few classes discussing these factors. We found that these factors were present in many families. And we also realized that while we might be able to ease some of the effects of these factors, it isn’t always possible to remove these factors entirely. And really… would we want to? These factors make us who we are.

And really… it’s in our best interest to have happy healthy families. Remember that today’s children will be tomorrow’s parents, teachers and leaders. Strong, healthy families now will ensure strong, healthy leaders for tomorrow. Investing now will certainly pay off in the future.

So what can we do to make strong families? There are plenty of recipes for healthy families. I’ve boiled down a ton of research into three buckets.

Coming up next: The 1st Building Block of a Happy Family.

So… I finally finished reading “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. I’m a bit disappointed by the book. Yes, I’m obviously biased, but I did try to keep an open mind about the book. I must say that even though I kept an open mind, I still had a hard time being convinced by him. He did raise some good points about the overzealous nature of some religious practitioners, but I felt that he stereotyped and assumed too much about religious people as a whole. As well, his attitude was far too condescending and self-righteous for his own good. And, I felt that some of his arguments were just plain weak. I’m glad that I read the book though, because now I can make an informed opinion about his writing.

Watch for my full review coming up in the next few days. It’ll be a multi-part review.

Next on the agenda though will be sharing a sermon that I presented this past weekend at my home church. The topic is the importance of family. I’ll be posting it over a number of days. Give it a read and let me know your thoughts.

And I’d like to thank those of you that have written to me recently telling me that you’ve enjoyed my posts. Your comments have been extremely motivating.

Thanks again and God Bless!

Todd  Dow

So I’m sure that some of you are probably asking, “Okay, so you’re working in a career in computers. Why are you going to school for theology and what are you going to do with that?” And I’ve even had a couple of friends ask, “How are you gonna make money doing that?” These are good questions. And, I have some good answers. Here goes…

I love my career in IT. I work with a great team of people and we build websites for a living. I don’t really feel like leaving this career path. It’s been very rewarding and it continues to provide sufficient challenges and opportunities for growth that I would have some serious problems with walking away with it for good.

That being said, I feel quite lucky to be able to live my double life as an IT professional, as well as being a student. And, I really enjoy the fact that I’m expanding my knowledge base on something that contributes to my personal growth.

So what are my priorities for the next five years or so? I’ve got four main “buckets” that I will be devoting my energy over the next five years or so:

1. MY CURRENT CAREER – For the time being, my first priority remains my current career. This is my livelihood and it’s also a great passion of mine. So, if my boss is reading this post, until I say otherwise, I am committed to my job and am not looking at going anywhere anytime soon. Don’t worry!
2. MASTER OF DIVINITY – Obviously, my most important next step is to finish school. I am committed to finishing my masters degree. Doing it part time will likely take me another four or five years.
3. GAIN EXPERIENCE – This four or five year period will coincide great with my practical time spent at my home church. I am the student pastor at my home church. That means shadowing the rest of the pastoral staff, giving sermons, leading worship services and teaching sunday school. All of these activities provide excellent opportunities for me to apply my studies and to become more comfortable in a church leadership setting.
4. WRITE – Writing has provided me with a great outlet for my creative energies. In fact, I am seriously considering writing as my long term ministry outlet. This would allow me to continue my career in IT while practicing my craft at the same time. I will continue to write my blog. And I am also interested in writing to get published as well. I would like to write some articles for magazines and I have some ambitions to write a couple of books as well.

So yeah… that’s where I’m at right now. These are my priorities. I hope you’ll continue to read my blog, to provide me with words of encouragement from time to time, and I hope that I’ll be seen as a positive encouragement to all of you in your faith.

This is the last of my biographical posts for a little while. It’s been great sharing a bit about myself with you. I thought it was important to explain a bit about myself and to give everyone a grounding of who I am and where I’m coming from in my writing.

What’s next, you ask? Well… I’d like to start developing a couple of book ideas that I’ve had for a while. I’ll be using my blog to stretch my legs a bit and to help develop some sound arguments before I put them into book format. So, you’re gonna get a look at some topics that I am extremely passionate about in the next little while.

Coming up next: My critical reflection on The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Last time I talked about my experiences so far as a student pastor. There has been some overlap between grad school and my student pastor experiences due to the overlapping nature of the content involved. School requires work term placements within a church setting and my classroom learning has been incorporated into my role as a student pastor. It’s been great to apply what I’ve been learning directly into a practical setting. I couldn’t ask for a better way of practicing what I’m learning in real time.

Grad school has also allowed me to discuss some difficult topics in a non-threatening and supportive environment. Well… for the most part, it’s been non-threatening and supportive. I have noticed a bit of a difference between my undergrad and my grad school experiences though. How so? Well…

Many people in undergrad philosophy programs are there to question the established church. There were plenty of challenges to the established religious opinions. I felt outnumbered most of the time and I felt that it was an uphill battle to defend my faith in the face of so much “post modern opposition”. But, everyone was able to respectfully ask the questions and share the opinions that they wanted to ask, regardless of their perspectives (myself included).

Grad school has been a little different. Most of the time, I’ve felt comfortable to ask questions or discuss things in an open and non-judgmental environment. But unfortunately, there have also been times when I’ve detected a little resistance to my questions from other students. It feels to me like there are those that don’t like their denominations questioned or their worldviews to be challenged. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I have sort of felt that disagreement was seen as a slight to some other students. Don’t get me wrong… for the most part, classroom discussions have been great. It’s just been the odd comment that has made me feel this way. Note: I’ve only felt this from other students. The professors have always been open minded, approachable and encouraging of alternate viewpoints, regardless of their own opinions.

The other thing that’s been great about grad school has been the chance to solidify my Christian worldview in a supportive and encouraging atmosphere. My undergrad was neither encouraging or discouraging. It just was. But my grad program has been about building stronger faith and encouraging me to walk with God. Being surrounded by like-minded individuals has been extremely motivating and I am thankful for the opportunity to learn in such a great atmosphere.

I look forward to continuing my grad studies. I’m working on my master’s degree part time, and it’ll take me another 5 years or so to complete it. I’m looking forward to the additional learning that I’ll be receiving in the years to come and the additional growth that will come out of it as well.

Stay tuned… I’ve got one more post left in this series of biographical posts. Next time, I’ll be talking about my next steps and where I’m headed.

I don’t easily agree with David Warren’s writing, but he’s on a rant against atheism right now, and I couldn’t agree more with his current series of messages. Instead of stealing his thunder, I’ll direct you right to his stuff:

Unmoved mover
More heresy
That’s it for now… just wanted to share those links. Talk soon!

Todd

I am definitely in my early days as a religious leader, but that doesn’t mean that I should avoid practical experience. I’ve been fortunate enough to have my home church support me in my walk with God and they have embraced me as their student minister.

Note: I am still growing as a religious leader and I definitely have gaps in:
a) my knowledge of how to be a pastor; and
b) my strength and moral conviction as a spiritual leader;

But, that’s part of the journey: living, growing and breathing in God’s presence as we strive to grow closer to him and to represent ourselves and our faith in an appropriate way.

My home church has offered me numerous opportunities to serve and get involved in various roles within the church. There are three valuable growing experiences that stand out in particular as tremendous areas of growth:

1. Prayer – My self-proclaimed weakness has and continues to be public prayer. This is an area that need to exercise in order to make it strong. I have had the opportunity to develop this through prayer groups, worship leading with the congregation and leading sunday school classes.
2. Preaching – Until a year ago, I had never delivered a sermon. Period. Since then, I have performed numerous sermons, and each one has been increasingly better. I have a greater sense of confidence at the pulpit, greater confidence in my knowledge of the subject matter and a greater maturity at delivering my messages.
3. Leading – My largest area of focus at my home church has been as a Sunday School teacher. I have had the priviledge of building a Christian parenting and marriage group. This experience has been extremely rewarding. it has given me the chance to learn a great deal, while working to build a community of like-minded people in a fun setting.

My biggest lesson so far has been the power of relationships. Pastoral ministry is about building relationships and connecting with people. At first, I thought that strong academic content would be the best way to connect with people. I found that academic language quickly took a back seat to relaxed group discussion, anecdotal examples and personal reflection. My experience has shown that group dynamics typically require short, easy to understand and quick to explain snippets of information. Thus, I quickly adjusted my teaching style to present succinct examples that prompted group discussion. I noticed that the content became secondary in many of our group discussions. The content was simply to start conversations. From there, the discussions typically took on a life of their own.

Does this mean that I no longer care about content? Hardly. On the contrary… I focus more on content than I did in the past. Valuable class outlines require tight agendas and meaningful content in a brief, organized and accurate layout. This type of an outline is harder though: it’s harder to convey meaning in a short explanation than in a longer one. And, each week, I try to make my descriptions as short and concise as possible.

I have a long way to go in order to perfect my skill and ability as a pastor, but the experience I have received so far has been extremely helpful. I look forward to continuing my education on an ongoing basis.

That’s it for today. Next time, we’ll discuss, Grad School – my experience so far at Divinity School.

I’m the type of person that has to ask why about things. I can’t just do things in a half-hearted manner. It’s either all or nothing for me. And, if I am going to be serious about my faith, then I need to understand and articulate my faith in a way that makes sense. It’s not enough for me to just say, “because” as an answer to the question, “Why do you believe what you believe?” And, I can’t be a lightweight: I need to be able to defend and articulate my faith in the face of skepticism and disbelief.

So, what better place to increase my understanding and to stretch my faith than philosophy and religious studies at university? With courses like “Modern Atheism”, “The Rationalists”, “Sociology of Religion” and “Issues in the Philosophy of Religion”, I can honestly say that I put myself right in the middle of some serious debate pertaining to the existence of God and the adequacy of faithful living.

After wrestling with the likes of Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Kant, Darwin, Daley, Paley, Dennet, Weber, Schmitt and many others, I think that I’ve put myself sufficiently in the line of fire to challenge my faith. And, after reading the best that classical philosophy can offer. And, I’ve also examined some writing from the more “popular philosophists” of our modern time – Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” and Christopher Hitchens’ “God Is Not Great” are among these.

The two greatest faith lessons that I learned from my studies at U of T are the following:
1. Faith and reason speak different languages – this doesn’t mean that they are mutually exclusive.
Faith and reason use different methods of understanding the world around us and our existence within it. Where reason requires tangible empirical evidence to support its claims, faith based arguments rely upon belief based on feelings and historical reminders of God’s intervention. Where reason may provide practical applications to living within the natural world, religious belief is much better at articulating a worldview wrapped in purpose and ethical understanding. Neither worldview claims to provide all of the answers, but both can coexist on top off one another to greatly benefit an individual or community.

2. History does support the claims made in the Bible.
The Bible is under constant attack from those that question the validity of its claims. Most prominent in the eyes of Christians is the truth claims of our Messiah, Jesus Christ. The 20th century has been rife with “religious studies scholars” who have attempted to repackage Jesus as a magician, a charlatan or even a cynic philosopher. Although the Jesus Seminar and other similar groups appear to be sincere in their intentions, they are disappointing in their conclusions. Like Tom Harpur in his book, “The Pagan Christ”, they attempt to dismiss the Jesus of the gospels as an impostor or a straw man that they build up and then quickly knock down. But they don’t consider the full scope of documentation in support of Jesus (look at the earliest gospel sources and the historical writing of Josephus and others for mention of Jesus during the first century AD) or the trials and tribulations endured by the earliest followers of Jesus. I find it hard to believe that the original apostles would die for Jesus in such horrible ways if they were not convinced of Jesus’ position as savior. I could go on, but I’ll save this discussion for another time.

My most enjoyable debates are always with those that favour an existential view of the world. For Heidegger or Husserl, we could gain a worldview that there is nothing outside of our immediate understanding. Time and space are figments of our imagination. “The Nothing” is the real state of our existence. My response: wow, that sure is something! Funny how we can make something out of nothing just by talking about it. There are parallels to this existential understanding when we look at time and space in our universe and beyond. I don’t claim to understand the external world around us, but I do think it’s a bit egocentric to think that we exist strictly within our minds. And really… doesn’t that just take us back to Leibniz and his first draft of “The Matrix” in some crazy way?

So… this is my personal “40 days in the desert” story. I did my best to challenge my faith and to be tempted in the wilderness. I deliberately searched out alternate worldviews that might convince me against following Christianity. But, I wasn’t convinced. And I’m here to share my story with you.

Regardless of the source of criticism to religious debate, I remain unflinching in my belief in a God who is good, in his son who died and rose again for my sins and salvation and for the message of peace, love and forgiveness that I should live by. The Bible is a living, breathing document that retains a voice of the past while offering a roadmap for the future.

That’s it for today. Next time, we’ll discuss, My Pastoral Experiences Thus Far.

Talk soon!

Todd

I thought I’d take a few days to give a bit of biographical detail on my religious walk. I’ll take the next few days to give some commentary on the following topics:

1. My background – Where I come from, what prompted my search, my ambitions, etc.
2. Maintaining My Faith as a Philosophy Undergrad Student – this isn’t as easy as it sounds!
3. Pastoral Experience – What have a I learned so far as a student pastor?
4. Grad School – My experience so far at Divinity School.
5. Next steps – Where Am I Headed? What are my plans?

Today, I’ll talk a bit about my background and what prompted me to become so strong in my faith.

I grew up in a Christian home and I went to chuch when I was little. But religion was never pushed on me as a child. I was given the choice to pursue my faith as I grew older. For a while in my teen years, I drifted away from the church. As I moved into my 20s and started to think about settling down and getting married, I started thinking about the importance of church in family life. I always had this idea that I would like to get back in tune with God, but it wasn’t until I got married that I found my way back. My wife, Julie, is a strong Christian and she became my catalyst for coming back to Church. We were married in her home church. I was baptized in that church about a year after we got married (there was no peer pressure from my wife – it was my choice.) I became comfortable going to church again as a result of these activities.

That’s all fine and good, but why the strong attraction to religion? Plenty of people find themselves going to church as a family. That doesn’t mean that they go and sign up for divinity school and have ambitions of becoming a pastor. What prompted my desire to become so closely aligned with God?

Well… around my mid-twenties, I started working on my undergrad degree part time at the University of Toronto. I was working full time and I wanted to finish my degree to further my career and also for the personal benefits of additional education. And, I was experiencing a reawakening of my faith, so I thought what better topic to study than my belief in God and my interest in Chrisitanity. So, I enrolled in a specialist program in philosophy and religious studies.

This was just what I needed: the chance to learn more about my faith from experts in the field. Little did I know when I enrolled that this program that many of the thoughts that I would run into during this time would challenge the established views of the church. I’ll speak more on this next time though. I don’t want to get ahead of myself.

My goal during my undergrad was to firmly establish my faith and to learn how to intelligently articulate my faith to others. I wasn’t happy to just say that I believed because that’s what I was taught in Sunday school as a kid. I needed to be able to understand and explain my faith to others in a way that made sense.

And, I also used my undergrad years to temper my faith. I quietly researched potential career options in ministry during my undergrad years, but I kept I pretty quiet as I wanted to see just how serious I was and I wanted to make sure that my interest in Christian ministry wasn’t just a short term fad.

Well, I’m well into my graduate degree, and there are no signs of waning passion for ministry. So… looks like my faith has survived so far.

Stay tuned! Next time, we’ll discuss Maintaining My Faith as a Philosophy Undergrad Student.

Talk soon!

Todd

Part five of my five part series entitled “Who Do You Love?”

Is this possible? Are we able to love those that are against us? This is where the challenge comes in. Agape isn’t easy. It isn’t fair weather love. It doesn’t come and go as your feelings change. Agape is unconditional. It doesn’t judge. It doesn’t categorize people into lists of cool, smart, popular or funny. Agape is consistent with all people. It provides dignity, respect and compassion to everyone. This is what God asks of us.

I’ll wrap up with a personal story of dignity and respect. When I was living and working in Toronto, I became friends with a guy named Larry. Larry panhandled a block from my workplace, just outside of the subway that I rode to work every day. For months, I would walk by Larry every day, not really acknowledging him. Larry became a familiar sight in the morning and at night when I would come and go from work. One day, I decided to stop and talk to him for a minute. I was curious to see what his story was. If nothing else, he was dedicated to what he was doing. I think he showed up for his work of panhandling on a more regular basis than some of my co-workers.

I was curious to know who Larry was, what made him tick. Over the course of six months or so, we slowly got to know one another. We’d say hi and bye each day, we’d occasionally stand and chat for a few minutes while I was on my way to work or on my way home to my family. Through conversation, he shared some of his life story with me and I shared some with him. I learned that he was making ends meet through panhandling and by working part time as a youth street counselor. He felt the need to dedicate some of his time to preventing kids from making some of the same mistakes that he had made.

I asked him what I could do to make a difference with some of the social problems that he was experiencing himself, or that he was witnessing in those kids that he visited on a regular basis. His answer summed up agape so well for me. He told me that just saying hi to people and making them feel like people was a good start. He said that just recognizing someone as a person and providing them with that level of respect made such a difference. It didn’t cure their problems. But it gave them a sense of dignity and worth.

To me, that’s an example of agape in action. Just recognizing someone and acknowledging them is important. Ensuring that everyone can contribute and that nobody is marginalized is part of God’s plan. It’s about encouraging dignity and respect in the lives of others.

It’s ultimately about community. Loving your neighbour, regardless of who they are, what they do or why they do it.

I’m going to leave you with a question. Write it down and put it on your fridge or your bathroom mirror or somewhere that you’ll see it on a regular basis:

What can you do this week to express God’s divine love?

Thank you and God bless each and every one of you.

Todd Dow

Part four of my five part series entitled “Who Do You Love?”

Lucky for us, we have a third kind of love, agape. This is the kind of love that allows for reunions with loved ones in the future. God’s saving grace ensures that we will see our loved ones again in heaven.

This is the love that God has offered us. It is divine love, which is an unconditional love. It has no strings. It expects nothing in return. It does not need love in return. It is simply love freely given. Agape is the word for love that is used over and over again in the New Testament. Whereas eros is worldly or material in nature, agape is divinely inspired and powered by faith.

To explain it quite simply, agape is unconditional love.

Agape is based on Jesus’ sacrifice and our acceptance of this through faith. Agape comes to us from God. God wraps himself around us in his cloak of loving fatherhood. It is an intimate individual relationship with each one of us. God’s love is unconditional. It is eternal. Love, to God, should be given to everyone in equal and universal measure.

God’s love is meant for everyone. Remember Jesus’ words:

Mark 12:30-31 – the greatest commandment:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

Loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength transcends the physical nature of eros and the fleeting nature of Philia. Agape absorbs both of these forms of love and it builds on them, pushing for a complete, selfless, unconditional form of love that should be freely given to everyone.

This kind of love doesn’t keep score. It doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t check to see if the recipient is popular, cool, smart or funny. Agape is meant for everyone. I’m glad for this kind of love because I’m not popular, cool, smart or funny.

Paul’s order, in 1 John 4 is as follows:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

We are to love one another in the same way that God loves us. This isn’t just a physical form of love or a form of love based on shared benefits. It is a love based on pureness of intention and a caring and unselfish spirit.

Let’s look at this in a bit more detail:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Love comes from God. This love is divine love. Everyone who experiences love expresses it in a way that is pleasing to God. And, because you love, you also relate with God, because you’re sharing the essence of God. You can’t give what God gave you without interacting with God.

And further, if you don’t love, then you couldn’t possibly know God, because God is about love. And if you’re not sharing love, then you’re not right with God.

This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Alright… so, you want to know what love is? Well, here’s how God showed his love to us. He sacrificed his one and only son so that we might live through him. This selfless sacrifice for the betterment of us is what love is about. Love is selfless. It is unconditional. It applies to each and every one of us. God doesn’t expect something from us first. He gave it to us. Free of charge. All we’ve got to do is reach out and accept it. What a wonderful gift God has given us.

Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

And finally, because God loved us, then we must pass this on to others. We are obligated to share this gift from God. We can’t just keep it to ourselves. We must get out there and spread this selfless, unconditional love that comes from God with who? With everybody else.

And when we share this love with others, God appears. God is with us when we love those around us. In loving one another, we become God’s agents, effectively saying hi for God to those that need it.

I think that’s incredible. When we love our neighbour, we are giving them a glimpse of the divine love of our creator.

But who should we love? Should we love those people that fall under the category of “Philia”? Is it enough to love our family, friends and co-workers? Or is there more to it than that?

Jesus said it is easy to love those that love you:
Matthew 6:43-45:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven;

Matthew 6:46-47:

For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

But… is this possible? Are we able to love those that are against us? This is where the challenge comes in. Agape isn’t easy. It isn’t fair weather love. It doesn’t come and go as your feelings change. Agape is unconditional. It doesn’t judge. It doesn’t categorize people into lists of cool, smart, popular or funny. Agape is consistent with all people. It provides dignity, respect and compassion to everyone. This is what God asks of us.

Coming up next: Part 5: How do we provide unconditional love?

Part three of my five part series entitled “Who Do You Love?”

Now philia, while similar to eros, does not contain within it the features of desire or passion that eros is famous for. Philia is the kind of love that we have towards family, friends and neighbours.

Philia is the kind of love described by:

I love my mom.
I love hanging out with my friends at school.
I love playing football with my friends.

And, unless I misunderstood this quote, like this:

Friend 1: “heyyyyy <insert friend name here>
i love you toooooo!!! ?”
Friend 2: “no im pretty sure that
I ? YOU MOREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Philia entails a fondness and appreciation of the other. Philia is the kind of love that is shared between people who like and appreciate one another.

Philia is about maintaining right relationships with those within your immediate circle. Family tends to be closest in this circle. Next, we have close friends and those that we have shared experiences with. Work friends can sometimes be part of this group as well. The underlying principle here is that these are people that you wish to keep close, those that you wish to remain loyal to.

This type of love tends to be motivated because the friendship is beneficial to one or both of the people involved. In the case of family, there is a distinct bond there between parents and children, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers. It is beneficial to love one another as this results in a stronger family unit. There are times as teenagers that we might not like our parents, but there is a sense of obligation and loyalty to a parent that keeps our love alive for our parents.

With friends, there tends to be an advantage to keeping those friends and for feeling a sense of affection towards those friends. In many cases, when a friendship breaks down, it is caused by differences of opinion or interests. The benefits of remaining friends leaves and the relationship tends to stagnate. Like a flower that is left untended, it withers and dies.

Relationships with co-workers fall into this category as well. Many times, we don’t get to choose our co-workers, but harmony in the workplace goes a long way to making it more enjoyable. Thus, we have a vested interest in getting along with our co-workers. Thus, good business relationships tend to be one the benefits that come from getting along with one another.

Philia is the kind of love that many of us are most familiar with, as it is the kind of love that most of exercise most often. We interact on a daily basis with our family and friends. We appreciate those that are close to us. We interact with one another and we share the love. It’s important to do this. In fact, some of us don’t do this enough. We should do more of this. It’s important to spend time with family and friends.

About six or eight months ago, my father was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. Based on the research that we’ve done and what the doctor’s told us, this condition will likely be fatal. The questions that can’t be accurately answered are:

• How will this impact my dad; and
• What sort of timelines should we expect;

It’s hard. Not knowing is extremely difficult. But I tell you, it’s made my love for my father much more vivid. For me, it has stirred up my love for my father in such a vibrant and urgent way. And, for those that have experience with these kinds of emotions, I’m sure you’ll be able to relate: These feelings of love that I feel are at least partly due to my selfish emotions. I don’t want to lose my dad. I want him to be with me always. I don’t want to lose him, or anyone else that I value in my life.

Coming up next: Part 4: AGAPE – unconditional love

Part two of my five part series entitled “Who Do You Love?”

Eros is definitely the “I love the way he looks in a bathing suit” kind of love. Eros is the desiring and passionate kind of love. It’s about sparks flying and heart rates going up. In a marriage relationship, eros can be a fantastic and beautiful thing.

The ancient Greeks described eros as that love between a man and a woman which is neither planned nor willed. Put another way, the Greeks saw eros as something uncontrollable. Eros is considered to be the most primitive kind of love. Because of its primitive nature, it can be seen as imperfect and misguided at times. It’s been compared to the instincts of an animal. It’s the type of instinct that we see all around us in popular culture today. People excuse their desires as something that is outside of their control. People blame everything else for their lack of willpower.

A well known evangelical Christian in the US was recently in the papers for his inability to control his desires. Ted Haggard is a married man and he came under fire for his extra-marital sexual encounters. This has been a difficult time for Ted Haggard. His family has suffered, and I’m sure still suffers today, from this difficult situation. The activity at the root of this is an example of eros, this passionate, desirable type of love.

The problem with eros is that it can sometimes be irrational. It can be destructive when pursued without considering the consequences.

Additionally, eros can be fleeting. Physical pleasures don’t last forever. We all age. Our emotions change over time. There is something impermanent about eros. Even though eros has a beautiful and seductive side to it, it doesn’t last forever.

But most importantly, we need to consider what eros represents. Desire and passion is about what we want. It is a selfish emotion based on our own wants and needs. In today’s day and age, people tend to confuse sex and love. No more are relationships about loving that other person. Love is confused with lust. In these situations, people turn into objects of affection. Men and women become objects of affection instead of individuals that have feelings, emotions, wants and needs.

When we replace love with lust, we run the risk of wanting someone, in much the same way that we might want a car, or a new cell phone or maybe even concert tickets. Do we really love people in the same way that we drool over the latest gadget?

With eros, the important building blocks of good community are forgotten. In eros, the relationship is built on the phrase, “What’s in it for me?” At its base, eros, as the most primitive form of love, is considered to be self-serving and selfish.

Coming up next: Part 3: Philia – friendship love

In this five part series, I’ll be posting a recent sermon that I delivered entitled “Who Do You Love?”.

In Him,

Todd Dow

Title: Who Do You Love?
Key Verses: 1 John 4:7-12

1 John 4:7-12:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who
loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not
know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He
sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is
love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning
sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love
one another. No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in
us and his love is made complete in us.

Part 1: Introduction

Most of you know me as the resident student minister. But I lead a double life. During the week, I work full time as part of the team that manages a website called Canada.com. One of the coolest parts of my job is developing the community tools for the Canada.com network. We’ve got a site called communities.canada.com and it is all about building relationships, communicating with people, sharing pictures and generally having a good time. These types of sites are quite popular on the Internet. These community sites are referred to as “social networking sites”, which is a fancy way of saying “community building”. They foster a lot of great discussion and a lot of relationship building. I have a lot of friends that I have never met in person, thanks to the Internet. And, I have also been able to reconnect with a lot of friends that I haven’t talked to in years, thanks to the Internet.

Speaking of social networking sites, who has heard of Facebook? I have an account on Facebook. Facebook is all the rage with the kids nowadays. Facebook is one of these “social networking sites”. The thing that I find great with Facebook is that it allows so many people to communicate in such a convenient way. Facebook has this thing called a “Friend List” and it keeps track of how many people have granted you permission to have their name on your “Friend List”. It’s absolutely phenomenal how this feature has led to such incredible growth for Facebook, the company. Think about it: people love to collect things, and what better things to collect than friends! It’s brilliant.

And recently, Facebook has come out with some new features. One of the new features is a thing called “Top Friends”, which allows you to sub-categorize your friends a little further. Now, you’ve got your main friends list, but you can also give special status to some of those friends as “Favourites”. By the way, for those that have already sent me a notification that I’m on your “Top Friends” list, thank you. I really appreciate it. And, not only can I be categorized within my friends lists, but my friends can also give details about how we know one another. Some of my friends have said that we know each other through work, others through school and others from way back in high school and elementary school.

It’s great. In this one place, I can get a list of all of the people that I’ve connected with online and I can see where I know them from, how long I’ve known them and what they’re up to now. It makes keeping in touch so easy. It’s been great for me, having a 21 month old and a newborn at home. As those of you that are parents can agree, new parents don’t have a lot of free time for socializing. Facebook’s allowed me to keep in touch with my friends and it’s given me the chance to reconnect with old friends.

One of the great things that I see going on across Facebook is all of the love that is shared. Here’s one exchange that I saw between one of my friends, and one of their friends on Facebook:

Friend 1: “heyyyyy <insert friend name here>

i love you toooooo!!! ♥”

Friend 2: “no im pretty sure that

I ♥ YOU MOREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

It’s great to see so much love, don’t you think?

I find it fabulous. And seriously… the Internet has given us the opportunity to build such vibrant online communities that we can participate in. It’s made our communities larger, more diverse and easier to keep in touch with. I have seen countless examples of people sharing their love with one another online. And whether we’re online or offline, it’s easy to find examples of many different kinds of love that can be experienced.

How many of you feel love in a given day? I bet you’re wondering, well… I think I feel love, but is what I’m feeling really love? Let’s take a look at some examples…

I love my mom.

I love hanging out with my friends at school.

I love playing football with my friends.

I love the way he looks in a bathing suit.

I love him as a person, even though nobody else likes him.

I love Hank even though he is homeless and others don’t want to be around him.

And we can’t forget about this kind of love:

Friend 1: “heyyyyy <insert friend name here>

i love you toooooo!!! ♥”

Friend 2: “no im pretty sure that

I ♥ YOU MOREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

You can’t tell me that these are all the same kinds of love. And you’re right. When we talk about love, there are many different ways of thinking about love. There are many different categories of love, shall we say. Philosophers and theologians have thought long and hard about the different kinds of love and here’s what the best and brightest thinkers could come up with:

When we look at these kinds of love, we can break them into three basic categories:

1. Eros = romantic love
2. Philia = friendship & family love
3. Agape = divine love

So, let’s take a look at each one of these in turn.

Coming up next: Part 2: EROS – romantic love

This past week, I received a great question from one of my readers. Thanks Mark for your question. I hope that this response is helpful. Please do drop me an email and let me know what you think.

Question: In your understanding, is there any difference between pacifism and nonresistance?

To answer this question, I think it would be best to first define the terms. From there, I’ll answer the question directly.

Terms:
Pacifism – “the doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable” (source = Princeton Wordnet)
Nonresistance – “group refusal to resort to violence even in defense against violence” (source = Princeton Wordnet)
Nonviolent Resistance – “peaceful resistance to a government by fasting or refusing to cooperate” (source = Princeton Wordnet)

To me, the terms pacifism and nonresistance are quite similar but I am not sure if I would use them interchangeably. Pacifism is the term typically given to the doctrine or way of life that demands complete nonviolence under any circumstances. Nonresistance, because of the specific word, does have a sense of complete surrender to it. When I hear that term, I hear “no resistance, in any way”. Pacifism, on the other hand, while it does sound like the word “passive”, is not saying the same thing at all. Nonresistance does not necessarily imply the potential for active resistance that is discussed within pacifist situations.

Nonviolent resistance can derive from either pacifism or nonresistance, but as I mentioned above, nonresistance tends to imply that no resistance is offered, which would negate options such as nonviolent resistance. Examples of nonviolent resistance can include protests, civil disobedience and sabotage.

Wikipedia provides a great description of nonviolenct resistance:
“Nonviolent resistance (or nonviolent action) is the practice of applying power to achieve socio-political goals through symbolic protests, civil disobedience, economic or political noncooperation, and other methods, without using violence.” (source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance)

The Albert Einstein Institution provides a very thorough list of 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action. While some of these will be more favourable to people than others, it does show the wide variety of options available outside of violent response, some of which can be extremely effective.

So, in a nutshell, I would say that I see a difference between pacifism and nonresistance and the difference is in the nature of passive versus active resistance.

I’d love to hear other opinions on this one. Please do provide your comments.

Talk soon,

Todd

Part four in my four part series entitled “What Are We Fighting For?”

The question then becomes: what are we supposed to do? Do we just continue to turn the other cheek? Definitely. Lead by example. If you claim that you are a disciple of Jesus, then you have to live the part. That means standing up for the principles of Christian living, as they are provided to us in the Bible.

I think we have to go further though. Others are speaking on our behalf in the public square. Christians are speaking up and saying that war is okay. Christians are speaking up and saying that violence is allowed if it’s in OUR best interests. It is our responsibility to speak up and correct these false assertions about Christianity. Ours is a religion of love and peace, not of war and domination.

We have so much potential. We live in a land of free speech. We have access to the internet. Blogging is so simple. Writing and publishing books has become a breeze. Organizations like MCC are just waiting to help us channel our energies into positive changes across the world, represented by the healing and loving hand of Jesus.

We need to embrace our gifts and take advantage of the opportunities available to us to make a difference, to represent our faith in a positive manner and to build a relationship of love and peace throughout the world.

Let me leave you with this thought as I wrap up:

Current U.S. expenditures in Iraq (according to Harper’s, Oct 2006):

• $246 million each day, or more than $10 million an hour
• direct costs. And those costs continue to grow:
  • $77.3 billion in 2004
  • $87.3 billion in 2005
  • $100.4 billion in fiscal year 2006
• Estimated that staying in Iraq another four years will cost at least $1 trillion.

By comparison, Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2007 provided the following numbers required in Afghanistan:

• Amount raised during a 2006 summit attended by approximately 60 countries with the stated goal of providing economic and military aid to reconstruction efforts: $11 Billion USD
• Amount required, as per estimated provided by the World Bank and the Afghan government: $28 Billion USD.

Something is askew when priorities are that far out of whack. Imagine investing those war dollars into the local economies to make them self sufficient? I don’t know about you, but it sure seems like a better use of money than building bombs and bullets that will only further divide all of us.

Now, it’s important that you don’t just take my word for it. Research the things that we’ve talked about today. Make up your own mind. And if you disagree, I’d love to talk further with you. I have yet to be convinced that the peace position is wrong.

My hope is that we will be able to work together to raise awareness of the radical reformation that the global Christian church requires sooner rather than later.

Thank you and God bless each and every one of you.

Todd Dow

Part three in my four part series entitled “What Are We Fighting For?”

2001 CE: Modern Day “Crusades”

Here’s a quote taken from late 2001, after the attacks of 9/11:

“On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.”

(http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html)

Did I hear that right? Did George Bush use the term “crusade”? Yup. I’ve confirmed this with various sources. He did use the term “crusade.” It seems that we’re right back where we were in 1095 with Pope Urban II and his Holy War. Advanced civilizations? I beg to differ when I see quotes like this one. It’s like we’ve learned nothing from history.

The problem with the Just War position is that it means different things to different people. One person may justify war in order to defend themselves, but that war is likely to harm other innocent people that were not the target of that justified response. And, both sides in a conflict believe that they are justified in what they are doing. Surely both sides can’t be the “Just” side in the confrontation, can they?

And, we need look no further than recent history to see the problem of “Just War”: remember the weapons of mass destruction? Well… so much for that justification.

So the question then becomes: Which justification is the right justification? The US claims to have the moral justification in current world conflicts. But, non-Western people don’t view it that way. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? How do we judge? And, in what ways should we judge? War is so permanent, irreversible, and cripplingly painful to experience. The damage caused by mistakes in judgment are extremely expensive and can rarely be reversed.

To put it into perspective for you, here’s something to consider:

A few days ago, I stumbled across a heartrending picture (see my blog post of this event) of an 18 month old Iraqi boy who had been killed after being fired upon by US forces during a street battle in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood in June 2004. The boy, lovingly dressed in his best clothes: a pair of red shorts, a colourful buttoned up short sleeve polo shirt and a pair of sandals, looked like he was dressed to go to church, a family picnic or maybe even to school. In any other setting, he would have been a bright image of sunshine on an otherwise dreary day in Iraq’s war-torn land. But instead, his family was preparing to lay him to rest. I can’t even begin to imagine the pain and frustration that family must have experienced that day, and for many days before and after. I’m sure it’s something that you could never recover from.

This picture really hit home for me, as I have a young boy myself. It really put into perspective for me how I would feel if one of my loved ones was hurt or killed in such a manner. The picture has repeatedly left me numb, unable to move. I keep thinking of the grief that has been experienced by that family and countless others from the violence that exists in the world today, much of it senseless.

Perhaps most of all, this picture provides a very real jolt to those that feel removed or disconnected from a conflict occurring far away from our comforts of home.

While I would like to think that I would have the moral strength to turn the other cheek and to try for a peaceful resolution with those that I felt were responsible, I know that my initial response would be one of anger and seeking revenge. It’s tough not to feel that way with something as permanent as death, especially of the young and innocent among us.

Can anyone justify any action when it results in loss of life in this way? Does it matter when irreversible damage is being done? Loss of life, loss of hope, loss of civility and respect are all at play here. There is no easy answer.

Is violent response an appropriate way to honour God? Is violent response an appropriate witness as a Christian? I want to go back to an item that I mentioned at the beginning of this sermon: the image of the baptized soldier, heading off to war in Iraq. What does that image say to you? There are a few tings that I see in that image:

1. First, the image says to the American soldier: your actions are okay according to God;
2. Second, it says to the American’s family, watching helplessly at home: your son or daughter will be watched over by God and his or her soul will rest with God should things end badly for them in Iraq;
3. Third, it says to the rest of the Western World: God is with us on the battlefield. We have God’s backing. Our troops are walking with God in this war;
4. And Fourth, it says to the enemy: These soldiers are Christian soldiers, marching off to war.

For a secular society, the United States certainly did frame the “War on Terror” as a religiously supported crusade. Very dangerous indeed.

And don’t kid yourself. This reflects upon all Christians. Time magazine is a very popular magazine. It is read by a huge cross-section of people every day. Do you feel at all mis-represented by the media in this way? Do you feel that the mainstream media misses the mark when it comes to capturing the spirit of Jesus and his message of peace?

Coming up next: Part 4: What are we supposed to do?

Part two in my four part series entitled “What Are We Fighting For?”

0 CE: The original message of Jesus

As I have already mentioned, Jesus presented his pacifist message quite clearly in the Sermon on the Mount. Additional support is provided in areas like:

Matthew 5:38 – turn the other cheek:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;”

Mark 12:30-31 – the greatest commandment:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

Paul carries on this message of peace. He gets it. Consider today’s key verse:

Romans 12:17-21:

“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Pro-war Christians point to other scripture verses to support their cause. They point to:

1. Jesus overturning the tables in the temple in John 2:15;
2. Jesus’ praise towards centurions and warriors (Matthew 8:10 and Acts 10:1); and
3. Jesus’ and Paul’s respect for the governing authorities (Mark 12:17, Romans 13);

In all of these situations though, there is nothing to suggest support for war. Jesus is demonstrating his authority in driving out the moneychangers. It doesn’t say that he actually hurt anyone. As for praise towards centurions and governing authorities… well… Jesus also hung out with tax collectors and sinners. Does that mean that he condoned their actions either? And as for Romans 13… didn’t Paul end up in jail in the end for refusing to keep quiet with his gospel message? Hmmm…

313 CE: Augustine & the Political Realm

Augustine was an influential Christian. He lived in the 4^th Century and he was the first influential Christian to codify the terms around justification for Christian violence.

During Augustine’s lifetime, the Roman Empire was facing extensive threats from the far reaches of the Empire. Barbarians were banging at the gates. Self-defense was required or the Empire would not survive. The Christian leadership required some wiggle room in order to protect the state and all of its inhabitants from violent ends.

As Jesus and Paul had not written specifically about these types of situations, Augustine took it upon himself to outline some times in which violence could be used. This writing was considered the official word of the church due to Augustine’s high standing within the Church at the time.

In a nutshell, Augustine argued that Christians can support war, but it is only to be used to gain peace.

The Just War argument hinges on Romans 13, which argues that individuals are to be subject to the authorities. But where this means that the authorities should proceed with war is beyond me.

Due to the political need for advocating war, Augustine’s Just War tradition quickly became the de facto preaching of the church. With the need for military intervention to protect and expand the Roman Empire, the Just War tradition became an important tool to maintaining military superiority throughout the early modern period.

1095 CE: Pope Urban II & The Crusades

Up to 1095, the Christian world was suffering greatly from a number of attacks from Muslim invaders. Augustine’s Just War theory was still being used to justify war, but it was justified in a self-defense type of situation. This changed in 1095.

Pope Urban II felt that his back was against the wall and that he wanted to fight back against the Muslims and reclaim land that had been taken by Muslims in earlier battles, including Jerusalem. Urban’s goal was to retake Jerusalem at any cost.

To muster the troops, Urban went on an extensive year long pre-war tour, spreading the news and gaining support for his upcoming offensive. Finally, in the fall of 1095, Urban gave a rousing speech to a large number of willing Christian warriors. Urban’s speech was loosely based on Augustine’s Just War law pertaining to self-defense. Urban argued that Jerusalem had been taken illegally from the Christians and that it was the duty of the Crusaders to take back what was theirs.

In addition to the religious charge to reclaim holy lands, Pope Urban II further motivated his troops by offering a “remission of sins and great reward in heaven to those that participated in this Crusade”. These were heady words for someone speaking on behalf of the divine.

It seems that Pope Urban II forgot to direct his charges regarding respectful conduct when fighting though. Instead of simply defeating the Muslims, the Crusaders destroyed their enemies, legend holding that the conquerors were knee deep in Muslim blood from the slaughter. This sounds more like that Holy War that I mentioned earlier, not the Just War that was supported by the Christian Church at that time.

Needless to say, this kicked off a couple of hundred years of embarrassment for Christians everywhere. The behaviour during this time showed the dangers that can come when power is left unchecked. Even hardened war-defending Christians agree that the Crusades went too far with their abusive violence.

1527 CE: Mennonite Roots: The Radical Reformation

In 1517, Martin Luther kicked off the Protestant Reformation by posting his disagreements with the Catholic Church (his 95 theses) on the front door of one of their Churches. This began a period of great instability in the church. When the dust settled, there were a wide variety of Christian denominations, many centred along national boundaries: Anglican for the English, Lutheran was mainly German, France stayed Catholic, etc.

Out of this Reformation came what historians refer to as “The Radical Reformation.” This is the term given to a small group of churches that aligned themselves around ttwo fairly unique actions:

• First, believer’s or adult baptism (not infant baptism, which was standard practice in the Catholic Church during this time); and
• The pacifist position that was presented by Jesus;

Many of these people chose to become baptized again to show their adult confession of faith. This is where the term Anabaptist comes from. It means, literally, rebaptized.

This led to many problems for the Anabaptists. Although scripture does support these two Anabaptist practices, they were considered unpopular as they differed from the traditions that existed during that time. Because of this, the Anabaptists were mercilessly persecuted. It has been suggested that more Christians were martyred in the 1500s than in the early church times. Talk about Christian commitment.

Thus, the pacifist position remained very unpopular and supporters of the pacifist position were greatly persecuted.

Coming up next: Part 3: The Modern Crusader ethic

In this four part series, I’ll be posting a recent sermon that I delivered entitled “What Are We Fighting For?”. This is an important topic to me. I believe that peace is an important part of our responsibility as Christians. I hope that this sermon rings true in your heart as well.

In Him,

Todd Dow

Title: What Are We Fighting For?
Key Verses: Romans 12:14-21
Topic: The Peace Position

Romans 12:14-21:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice;
mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be
willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take
revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to
avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Part 1: Introduction

We live in a strange world… We live in a world of contradictions.

The phrase “War on Terror” confuses me, especially with all of the bad press coming out of the US about prisoner abuses and civilian casualties. I just finished reading a memoir of a World War I vet named Stephen Pike and in the memoir, he is quoted as saying: “War: You don’t have to do any lyin’. You can’t tell it as bad as it was.” We’ve all heard similar descriptions when talking about war. If anything, I’d say the “War on Terror” should be aimed at preventing war. War seems to be the real terror here.

Speaking of contradictions… I read a Time magazine story that ran just before the Iraq war started. In the March 17 2003 issue of Time, there was a picture of a group of soldiers being baptized in the desert before marching off to war. This was an important image to many American families who believe wholeheartedly that their mission in the Middle East is sponsored by God and that they are doing God’s work in bringing democracy to the Middle East through violent intervention.

I’m puzzled by the theology behind baptizing a person that is being prepared to break not only one of the ten commandments, but also the greatest law of all, as spoken by Jesus: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. […] And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself.” How anyone can take that quote and mangle it into support for war is beyond me.

Today I’m going to talk to you about a topic that I am very passionate about: the peace position. Pacifist Christians have been quite unpopular ever since Augustine’s conversion in the early 4^th Century. Even today, the peace position is considered a “radical” perspective. Regardless, I’d like to suggest that there’s nothing radical about pacifism. In fact, I find it more radical that someone could claim that they follow the teachings of Jesus, but that they miss the pacifist message. I don’t know about you, but that’s far more radical to me.

Today I’m going to share with you the story of how Christianity evolved from Christ’s pacifist message into a message in support of “Just War”. And, we’ll ponder what Just War really means. That’s another one of those confusing phrases that I was referring to a minute ago.

War and persecution is nothing new. It’s been going on for centuries. We see numerous examples of war in the Old Testament. I remember a sociology class I took in my undergrad days, and the term given to wars like those described in the Old Testament are “Holy Wars”, where entire groups of people are completely wiped off the map. My sociology professor argued that Holy War, no matter what the religion, is always the worst possible kind of war. Nobody is spared in a Holy War. Everyone on the opposing side is considered evil and must be destroyed, men, women and children included.

But Holy War isn’t on Jesus’ agenda. He is completely adverse to violence in any way. Look at the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:4-12):

• Blessed are the:
  • Meek;
  • The merciful;
  • The pure in heart;
  • The peacemakers;
  • And those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake;

So I have to admit… I’m quite confused. I don’t know how a Christian can open the New Testament and justify war in any way. I’ve been studying this topic for quite some time, and I’m not convinced by any of the arguments I’ve heard thus far. If anything, Jesus is a pacifist, which is someone who believes in a non-violent approach to conflict resolution.

And just to be thorough, I’m sure that some of you are wondering what Just War is. Just War refers to a war that is considered fair and respectful for all involved. In a nutshell, a war is considered just if it is:

• Based on a just cause (self defense against a hostile attack from an enemy);
• That it is based on a right intentions (to defend oneself, not to get revenge); and
• That it is a last resort (all other efforts have failed).

There are other criteria, but these three cover the main idea of Just War.

To understand the current debate and the mad circle that we keep going in, it helps to look at the past. Understanding the past gives us tools to deal with the present. Let’s take a quick look back and see where the Christian message of peace has changed from the time of Christ to the present day.

Coming up next: Part 2: The Historical Context of Christian War

Kudos to Marcus Borg for his brave piece of writing pertaining to the US political establishment and their responsibilities. This article, an many other like it, are just a sampling of the growing swell of uneasiness that are calling for change in the US’s foreign policy plan pertaining to war in the Middle East.

If we really must call ourselves Christian and we look to Christ as our savior and our role model, then who better to look to for ways of living than the early Christians? Borg lays out the message well, reminding us how early Christians stood up for their beliefs, even if it meant martyrdom. If we are to call ourselves Christian, shouldn’t we at the very least try to model our behaviours, including our political and social behaviours towards others, after the Christian model of behaviour?

And as for those that argue that Christians are responsible for all of this violence… well… I’ll agree that most conflicts are the result of religious intolerance, but I also argue that these conflicts are the result of people who have misinterpreted or misused religion for their own political gains. I see great value in faith. I see only criminal intentions in people that attempt to use religious claims, especially Christian claims, that violence is required to uphold a religious belief. Faith is a freedom that we should be afforded, but it should not trump the free thought that others have.

And, for those Christians that think they have “God on their side” in committing violent acts, well, show me where Jesus allows violence in his name. I’m sure you’ll be hard pressed to show where Jesus supports killing in his name.

My two cents…

Todd Dow

Links mentioned in this entry:
Just Ways to Repair an Unjust War

I stumbled across a heartrending picture of an 18 month old Iraqi boy who had been killed after being fired upon by US forces during a street battle in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood in June 2004. This picture, attached to an article in TruthDig, really hit home for me, as I have a young boy myself. It really put into perspective for me how I would feel if one of my loved ones was hurt or killed in such a manner. I debated on including the picture with this article, but finally decided to include it as it is a powerful testament to what happens in war. The picture is not nice, but it provides a jolt to those that feel disconnected from a conflict occurring far from home.

While I would like to think that I would have the moral strength to turn the other cheek and to try for a peaceful resolution with those that I felt were responsible, I know that my initial response would be one of anger and seeking revenge. It’s tough not to feel that way with something as permanent as death, especially of the young and innocent among us.

That being said, anger and revenge just continue to feed the violence and hatred that have spiraled out of control during the US-led “war on terror”. What needs to change in order to turn things around? It’s difficult to say, but the current climate of violence must end sooner rather than later.

I’m sure I’ll be hearing from the hawks out there that say, “Well, what about our dead?” and you’re right. All sides have suffered in recent years through numerous tragic events that have been inflicted from all sides. Nobody is innocent in the current world makeup. Freedom fighters, terrorists, secret agencies, spies, guerillas, armed insurgents and legitimately identified armies all have been vying for top spot in political games of domination ever since the dawn of recorded history. What differentiates the good from the bad, the right from the wrong or the morally acceptable from unacceptable?

All sides could easily justify their actions for their contributions to the current climate of violence in the world. Just War is just that… it’s justified. The question becomes: Justified by whom? The picture that I referred to above brought it to me in stark clarity: I could understand why any parent would feel the need for revenge against the US forces for what they saw was the reckless death of their young child. It doesn’t matter if the gunfight was only a small event in a much larger war on terror. The fact remained that it was a US bullet that killed their child. Numerous other examples of this abound.

And to be fair, the US has plenty to be angry about. 9/11 is only one example of terrorism at its worst. There are numerous examples of the US being targets in other countries from embassy bombings to targeting killings of US citizens overseas. None of this should justify the killing of innocents though. Unfortunately, war is a blunt instrument that doesn’t always hit with precision clarity. And that is a shame indeed.

For war is supposed to be the last resort in a politically charged game of cat and mouse. But in this case, in the Middle East, there are too many unanswered questions pertaining to the justification and causes of this conflict with no positive end in sight. In fact, there are few tangible facts to substantiate all of this loss of life. Looking back, the history books have been clouded with bad judgment, poor intelligence and hidden agendas. Conspiracy theorists are able to thrive in this market as there is no final answer or explanation for the cause of this war.

The greater problem is the implications. For the parents that have lost loved ones, there is no easy way to put aside that hatred. There is no easy way to overlook the recent past and to move towards reconciliation. There is no easy way to recover what has been lost. That’s the problem with war: the finality of its actions. Not only does it leave terrible scars in its wake, but it also leaves no easy method of recovery.

For war to be effective, there must be a way of measuring its results. In this, the US has failed miserably. There is no method of measuring success at this point. The US has provided few timelines and poor indicators of accomplishment. It would appear that the US is playing a game of whack-a-mole with no end-target with which to measure their progress.

If only the responsible world governments would approach this in a more systematic way. There are numerous causes at play here, many of which are just as vicious and harmful as the “war on terror”, only they are more subtle. Economic sanctions in particular cripple nations and lead to massive suffering among the general population. While this and other methods are important tools in controlling despotic regimes, they do little to help public opinion in these regions in the long term.

What are the solutions then? The October 2006 issue of Harpers contained an excellent article entitled “The Way Out of War” by George S. (George Stanley) McGovern and William Roe Polk that provided a detailed plan for leaving Iraq, along with some associated financial costs and benefits. It was an interesting read, as it provided some of the much needed answers to “what else can we do but fight?” The article defends strong investment in internal infrastructure as the US-led forces are phased out. The money currently spent on military intervention in Iraq would easily build a substantial infrastructure for further stability as the US pulls out. There are numerous other strategies suggested in the article, many of which mirror suggestions offered by Human Rights Watch and others.

The bottom line here is that there are numerous peaceful approaches that will help build bridges between differing cultures. The current method of blunt force trauma inflicted through war is doing little to build relationships. The current US-led actions in the Middle East is further fracturing relationships, and this is likely to impact an entire generation of people, thus delaying peace for the foreseeable future. I know that I, for one, would have a very difficult time extending an olive branch if I were in the shoes of a parent who has lost a loved one in the current fighting. It is the right thing to do, but when the impersonal nature of war becomes personal, it makes it much more difficult to be emotionally fit to resist revenge.

The way ahead must be one of peace and reconciliation. War has no place in settling disputes, regardless of the perceived benefits. Machismo and stubbornness will only continue to lead us down the path that the current US administration has been leading us down. Make a difference: Research the contributing factors into this conflict, identify workarounds or fixes to those problems that don’t rely on force, and help put them into action.

Todd Dow

Supporting links:
Truthdig article: A Culture of Atrocity
Wall Street Journal: Iraqi Death Toll Exceeds 600,000, Study Estimates
The Lancet: Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq
Human Rights Watch

Dear atheists,

I’m elated that God is getting so much press lately. And even more surprising is who’s talking about God. Atheists! On the one hand, I’ve gotta say that I don’t agree with the current batch of atheists selling their wares: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others. On the other hand, I’ve gotta say “Way to go, guys!” You’ve definitely raised God’s awareness to levels not seen since the beginning of the War on Terror.

Now, I know your goal is to convince people that God doesn’t exist. But I’ve gotta tell you, your arguments are weak. You’re relying on old arguments (Hey Dawkins, does Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot mean anything to you?) And Harris, yes, your education does bring you some authority, but unfortunately, I don’t see how you’re tying your research interests in with your arguments? It would be great if you could use your neuroscience background to help prove that God doesn’t exist. But, I doubt that’s in your curriculum, isn’t it. In fact, I’m willing to bet that there’s plenty still unknown in your field. I’m thankful for the advances in medical science, but I also know that it’s not an exact science, nor is it a replacement for God.

Now, I know that many of your arguments are against the inhumanities that are committed in the name of God. I’m right there with you. I don’t think that religion, and Christianity in particular, should motive the troops to go out and kill the enemy. In fact, I believe just the opposite: Jesus was a pacifist. Plain and simple. But, that doesn’t mean that we should discount the religion due to some misguided leaders of the religion. Should we abandon university campuses because of a few bad professors? I don’t think so…

The beauty of faith is the positive life force that it gives to an individual within a community of believers (and even sometimes in solitary – just ask the monastic members of a faith). God truly does scale to meet the needs and challenges of each one of us in every situation on earth. No, God doesn’t always answer our prayers. But, perhaps those are blessings in disguise as well. Who am I to know? I don’t have all of the answers. And I know that science can’t provide any better explanations either.

And speaking of explanations… where do we get our moral compass from? If we rely simply on rational thinking, what would a moral high ground look like? Would we align our good and bad impulses towards ourselves or towards the community of which we are a member? If there is no God, then what’s the point in being anything other than self-centred? In that case, do you become a threat to those around you? Or, do you think that there is some merit to community-driven moralism? And if there is some compassion towards fellow man, why would that be in an atheistic world? There are no rewards to be had. Aren’t you just wasting precious resources that you should be spending on yourself before your time runs out?

Do you get where I’m coming from? You question my motives for believing, while living a paradox yourself. You really do confuse me… you come across as so smug and so confident in your knowledge that God doesn’t exist, yet you sit on the edge of a moral cliff, trying to convince yourself that your actions don’t really matter, all the while continuing to further your chosen field of study. Why bother if we’re just ashes to ashes and dust to dust?

In any event, like I was saying earlier, thanks a ton for the great press you’ve been drumming up lately. Nothing like some star-studded name dropping to keep God in the news and to keep him on the tips of our tongues. It really is true… there’s no such thing as bad press, and guys, you’re doing one heck of a job.

Thanks!

Todd Dow

Note: disturbing content ahead.

I stumbled across an article today entitled “Church under fire for video parody“. According to the article, Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church has been vigorously campaigning against homosexuality and that a recently released video, “God Hates the World“, which is a parody of the 80’s tune “We Are the World”, is the latest salvo in that ongoing campaign.

According to the article, “The church [Westboro Baptist Church] contends that soldiers’ deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are God’s punishment for a tolerance of homosexuality in the United States.”

The video shows what appears to be a group of church members singing the song “God Hates the World”, along with various video snippets taken from protests and other, assorted activities pertinent to the words of the song. The video furthers the church’s argument that God hates the world due to homosexual behaviour.

The church group is currently being accused by Warner/Chappel Music Inc. of Los Angeles, who feel that the video infringes on its copyright to “We Are the World.” In their defense, the church claims that the song and video are protected under their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religious expression. I do believe that freedom of speech and religious expression are important and therefore, I can’t argue that these people be forcefully silenced. However, I am disappointed at the controversial and confrontational method that this church has taken. And, I am disappointed that this group is associated with me through the masthead of Christianity. But, we’re all together through the masthead of “humanity” so I guess we have to take the good with the bad.

The Bible does speak out against certain activities. The Old Testament is full of rules and guidelines that must be adhered to or else. I’m concerned that this church group has missed the message of Jesus though in their zeal to reform society into their ideal of cultural identity. Jesus brought a message of peace, love and non-judgment. To Christ, God loves everyone no matter what. And it was through Jesus’ atonement on the cross that we are allowed to walk in peace, knowing that our destiny is fulfilled. This message is quite different from the fire and brimstone message being presented by the folks in Topeka. I wonder if Westboro Baptist Church subscribes to the Old Testament law of stoning people for transgressions? That would make for an interesting Sunday morning service!

Fear-mongering is nothing new in religion. History is full of religious fundamentalists that attempted reform through fear. Unfortunately, fear only works for so long… reason must weigh in in order to protect the rights of everyone involved. Otherwise, we’d be left with a bunch of fundamentalist groups, all claiming righteous fury. Ultimately, we’d be left with one righteous fundamentalist group, the winner of one heck of a fundamentalist war. hmmm… sounds kinda like current global tensions, doesn’t it?

Who wins in a fundamentalist war game? Does might equal right? If so, why have an opinion at all? If truth is what we’re after, will war and intolerance solve anything? I think not.

Todd Dow

I’d argue no… in fact, I’d argue that the Enlightenment, while enforcing rational investigation into the nature and existence of God, did God a favour. Although the Enlightenment was great at showing us our human limitations, it brought us no closer to God than any other religious faith. And really… didn’t the Enlightenment just trade one religion for another (Mnotheism for Scientism)?

The Enlightenment is seen as the “Age of Reason”, which has led to the diminishment of church authority in the political and academic realms of society. The Enlightenment marked the transition from medieval “faith” to modern “knowledge”. Enlightenment thinkers concerned themselves with “rational thought”, which led to scrutiny of all things within the natural world. A newfound skepticism arose during this period. Questions of worldview (metaphysics) and what we can know as humans (epistemology) came to mark this period. From Descartes’ “cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) to Kant’s “Metaphysics of Morals”, the Enlightenment saw a great deal of thought pertaining to the nature of our world and our place within it.

In previous generations, education and religion typically ran hand in hand, with one defending the other. Following the development of the printing press and the revolt of the Protestant Reformation, the church’s hold on academic thought dissipated significantly. Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) scientific method provided an early framework for later Enlightenment thinking. Voltaire’s Dictionnaire Philosophique continued this tradition. And, Voltaire’s wry caricatures of the religious leaders of his day (Candide is a great read in this regard) lent more fuel to the anti-religious fire that was burning during this time.

There was a tremendous focus on the material world during this time. Rational thought tended towards that which could be measured (empiricism) or explained (rationalism). It was important to be able to explain events within the limitations of the natural world, as opposed to the traditional spiritual explanations given by the church. This led to great debates on the nature of miracles (see Hume’s “On Miracles” in particular) and the value of religion in personal life.

While skeptical thought did negatively impact the church, it did not disprove the necessity and value of religious belief, nor did it supplant it with anything other than a new religion, namely “scientism”. I find it ironic that the last of the Enlightenment giants, Emmanuel Kant, offered a newfound explanation for God through his idea of moral justification. So much for the skeptical death of God provided by his contemporaries…

The irony in this article is too good to pass up. You have to give it a read:

All the rage from The Walrus Magazine.

I was reading the following article tonight and it prompted me to write:

Praying for the Apocalypse

People have been claiming that the end is sight ever since… well… since people could say those words. I still find it surprising though that people actually bank on that kind of a worldview. From global warming to nuclear war, the pessimists out there have been calling out like Chicken Little for as long as I can remember. I find this disappointing, because, while I do have the occasional negative day, I don’t sit and dwell on the end times at the expense of living in the present.

Last time I remember, Jesus gave us instructions to stick around and to live our lives according to God’s rules. We weren’t to pack up and wait for Jesus to come back. Some instructions:

I could quote numerous other passages, but the point is this: Jesus directs us to live according to his principles in the world. As we read in John (John 17:14-19), we are in the world but not of the world. We are all visitors here on Earth and we are here for a brief amount of time. As visitors, should we foster a positive or a negative perspective towards others?

Church history is full of urgent appeals based on the understanding that the end is near. Unfortunately, these battle-plagued end times scenarios have never turned out well for anyone. The end times have yet to arrive for the persecutors, and the persecuted suffer as a result. And, more importantly, the persecutors that once demonized the targets of their aggression end up looking like the demonizers. This begs the question: “Who is the real demon in all of this?”

We have a responsibility to live responsibly under the guidance and spiritual presence of God. We, as Christians, have moral obligations to love our neighbours and to make the world a better place. Even those that are not Christian agree that our moral compasses are fairly well aligned when it comes to good and evil.

Be on guard against temptations to become a demon in the name of religion. Be responsible and follow Jesus’ calling to wait out his return in loving and caring fashion. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be caught compromising my values in the name of religious justification. And raising our hands in violence in the name of Christ would definitely be compromising those values.

Todd Dow

Commitment to prayer, discipleship, and faithful service to wider humanity

Christian service calls for a personal relationship with Christ, loyal commitment to the church and an obligation to assist others within society. Evangelicals take seriously the call to action given by Jesus:

Mark 12:28-31:
“One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, ‘Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’”
“‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.’”

Love the Lord your God: Prayer and discipleship ensure an ongoing relationship with God. We talk to our friends, neighbours and co-workers every day. Similarly, prayer is required to keep an ongoing dialogue with God. What is life without communication with our creator? Communication with God ensures an ongoing commitment to a future of salvation and eternal life. We must maintain this relationship just as we would a relationship with one of our friends. Talk with God often.

Discipleship is equally important. Living as a follower of Christ provides our witness to those around us about our allegiance to the Kingdom of God. True discipleship does not come without a cost, however. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a 20th Century theologian, provides a fantantastic explanation of the cost of discipleship:

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.
Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son… Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.
– Taken from “Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, The Cost of Discipleship, Toronto, Ontario, Touchstone Books, 1995, pg 45.”

Faithful service to wider humanity is also a requirement. As Jesus says: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Thus, we have been charged with loving and caring for those around us in the same way that we love God. We have a responsibility to express our love to God through our love, care and compassion to those around us. Numerous Christian organizations provide such services. We are all responsible to help support the least among us in any way that we can.

The instruction is clear, simple and easy to understand. And, it is full of richness and life. It is difficult to object to this message of love and community that is ordered by Jesus. We must embrace this as participants in Christ’s Kingdom here on Earth.

This is the last post in this series on “What is an Evangelical”. I’m certain that many people identify with these tenets and agree that they are central to one’s faith. My goal here has been to highlight the similarities that are present between the numerous Christian denominations throughout the world. Instead of focusing on the divisions between believers, I prefer to focus on the similarities. From there, we can build a network of trust, mutual understanding and teamwork, all of which translates into a more influential and effective worldwide movement. Christianity, at its roots, is a religion of love. We should focus on this love and work together for the betterment of society as a whole. I trust that this calling will sit well with each of you as you consider your personal contribution to spreading God’s light throughout the world.

In Him,

Todd Dow

Belief that Jesus’ death and resurrection were historical facts, necessary for our new life

The 20th Century has seen an unparalleled interest in the truth claims of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Numerous academics, skeptics and religious challengers have been attempting to subvert the historical validity of the New Testament. The most recent scholarship has not only further confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament texts, but it has also uncovered additional documentation to support the existence of Jesus Christ in the first century.

Mark Allen Powell, in his book “Jesus as a Figure in History“, provides a great summary of the standard criteria used in religious studies research to comment on authenticity. Powell provides six criteria. They are:

1. Multiple Attestation – are the same ideas found in multiple sources?
2. Dissimilarity – an idea is more likely to be authentic if it is different from the typical perspectives of the period in question. In this case, perspectives that differed from typical Judaic thought would be considered more likely to come from Jesus.
3. Memorable Form – memorable phrases, stories or sayings would be more likely to be authentic. It is assumed that stories pertaining to Jesus were first transmitted in oral form, it is more likely that proverbs, beatitudes and stories in memorable forms would be more likely to be accurately remembered, shared and passed on.
4. Language and Environment – Does the language and environment fit the historical period in question? If so, this supports the authenticity of the claim.
5. Explanation – Does the story or quote in question further support the claims made about the person, place or thing in question.
6. Coherence – Does the story under scrutiny fit with the rest of the factual information known about the topic at hand? If so, this lends additional credence to the argument in question.

There is plenty of writing out there to support all six of these categories. There are multiple sources that point to the validity of the Jesus of history, both before and after his resurrection. There are numerous sources that date back to the same century as Christ’s life. And, these sources come from numerous different perspectives. This multiple attestation shows the abundance of early documentation in support of the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. The criteria of dissimilarity fits, as Jesus’ message definitely went against the grain of the Jewish leaders of the day. We need look no further than the Sermon on the Mount to see the criteria of memorable form at play. The language, environment and explanations for the stories of Jesus all seem to fit together quite well. And, there is a coherence to the stories of Jesus that suggests a valid historical foundation as well.

Obviously, one cannot be absolutely certain of anything, regardless of the proof provided. In today’s day and age with all of the technical wizardry available, we cannot even be certain that what we see in the news is even true. But, based on the documentation available and the adherence to the six criteria listed above, we have a very strong upon which to lay our belief in the historical facts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Next, we’ll tackle the concept of “commitment to prayer, discipleship, and faithful service to wider humanity“.

Until then, I urge you to read further on this interesting topic. There is a great deal of research pertaining to the historical Jesus.

In Him,

Todd Dow

Affirmation that, suddenly or gradually, individuals are transformed (“reborn”) into believers

I have my black belt in the martial arts. I have also earned my undergrad at the University of Toronto. Many others have followed similar paths. As pretty much everyone will attest to, you don’t become a black belt or a university graduate just by waking up one morning. The journey to accomplishing these goals are long and arduous. They require commitment and hard work. Knowledge is required in order to obtain these goals.

Christians feel a similar sense of growth in their acceptance of Jesus as Christ. For most, it is a journey of faith that requires knowledge. Individuals make an informed decision to commit their lives to Jesus and for some, this is a long process, similar to completing a series of courses. For others, it is almost instantaneous. Regardless of the length of time required or the amount of work dedicated to this transformation, there is a sense of rebirth that occurs in this conversion.

I hadn’t thought about reconsidering my relationship with God until a casual conversation with a good friend of mine at a wedding a few years back. My rebirth occurred over a number of discussions with this friend. I had always believed in God, but my walk with Christ had been neglected for quite a long time. I had many questions to ask before I could get back on track with God. I knew that I had lived a life outside of Christ for quite some time and I yearned to rebuild that relationship but I didn’t know if God would accept me. My learning consisted of understanding what God expected from me and how he would forgive me for my sins. Although I knew that God was forgiving, I was skeptical about how forgiving he could be. With the help of a few close friends and family, I was comforted in the love of the Lord and his unconditional acceptance of me into his kingdom.

My walk was both sudden and gradual. I knew immediately that I wanted Jesus in my life and that I believed in him. But it was a gradual process in bringing me closer to him. This is a process that never ends… Every day I still find myself growing closer and closer to God. For me, at least, this is not simply a one time event that leads to a conversion that never has to be revisited again. I find myself constantly yearning for a higher understanding of my faith and for the God that I live for.

The rebirth that Christians experience is an inner event. It happens within the individual. Nobody can make you reborn. Well… nobody except God. But even then, it is left up to the individual believer to accept Jesus as our personal saviour. Like a parent that wants to love their child, it is only when the child freely accepts that love that the love can be shared between the parent and the child.

After one’s private affirmation of faith, a public declaration normally follows. This public declaration is known as baptism. In baptism, water is used as a a sign of a believer’s cleansing from sin. This symbolic event can take many forms including a mere sprinkling of water in a church setting to complete dunking of the participant in a river or some other body of water. This public affirmation of faith is important as it announces one’s wish to participate as a Christian in the church community.

Consider Jesus’ teaching to Nicodemus in John 3:1-5:
Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.”
“How can anyone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.(John 3:1-5, TNIV)

It is important for each of us to recognize this yearning to live our lives in direct relationship with God and to heed this call to become born in God’s presence. Don’t hesitate. If you want to know God better and to live life in his presence, take the time today to take this walk of commitment in faith with God. It might take seconds to feel comfortable in God’s presence, or it may take years to grasp the many difficult questions that come from knowing Christ in your life. Either way, embrace the commitment to get to know God better and to learn what life spent in Christ is all about.

Next time, we’ll discuss a topic that is especially exciting for me. We’ll discuss Jesus’ death and resurrection as historical facts.

Until that time, I encourage you to continue your walk with God.

In him,

Todd Dow

Acceptance of the authority of Scripture over all other documents and traditions

Have you ever had someone challenge your faith by asking if you really believe what it says in the Bible? In today’s post, I will provide my response to this question. I must preface this article by saying that this is a difficult topic and I can only pray that I will do this posting justice. Many great theologians throughout history have provided their input on this topic. I do not hold a candle to many of the greats. Thus, I will standing on the shoulders of giants in my meagre attempt to do this topic justice.

According to the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective:
4. We believe that all Scripture is inspired by God through the Holy Spirit for instruction in salvation and training in righteousness. We accept the Scriptures as the Word of God and as the fully reliable and trustworthy standard for Christian faith and life. Led by the Holy Spirit in the church, we interpret Scripture in harmony with Jesus Christ.

Most other Christians follow a similar doctrine. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association stresses the importance of scripture as the infallible word of God as the first and foremost belief in their statement of faith: The BGEA believes: “The Bible to be the infallible Word of God, that it is His holy and inspired Word, and that it is of supreme and final authority.”

I could go on, listing many other Christian organizations that stress the infallibility of scripture. As we can see, this is considered one of the core beliefs of Christianity.

But why? What is it about scripture that makes it so important. There are many reasons, including:

• The Bible outlines God’s commands to us.
• The Bible contains the history of humanity from the beginning of creation.
• The Bible displays God’s power.
• The Bible shows Jesus’ ministry and his message of hope and salvation.
• The Bible contains God’s direction on how to live.
• It is filled with birth, death and rebirth.
• It is filled with miracles both great and small.

The Bible is quite fascinating… The Bible has provided comfort and guidance to Christians for hundreds of years. It contains guidance for both the layman and the minister. It contains messages that are layered with meaning. Consider Jesus’ numerous parables and the duplicate messages contained in his messages.

Leading scholars have debated the truth claims of the Bible for years. Scholarly research continues to validate the historical accuracy of the Bible. And, for those passages that are troublesome to the rational mind, metaphorical interpretation is acceptable.

The spectacular thing about the Christian scripture is that it captures the good news of our Messiah, Jesus Christ, in great detail. Religious studies scholars weigh source documents using a concept called multiple attestation. In a nutshell, this concept holds that the more original source documents provide the same facts, the more historically accurate the story in question is held to be. Thus, a source document that has no other “attestations” or collaborating documents, would not be considered very strong. In the case of Christianity, we have four original gospels, or accounts, of Jesus Christ and his ministry. Further, there are scores of additional source documents that also speak of Jesus as our Messiah. This large number of original texts suggests that there is strong compelling evidence to support the truth claims of the New Testament. I therefore hold that the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show me that my beliefs are not valid. I have yet to find anyone that can shake my firm belief in the historical accuracy of the good news of the New Testament.

Now, why would I take this scripture to be the ultimate authority? Well… The Old Testament is filled with numerous commands from God. Further, Jesus’ directions in the New Testament are equally important. As a follower of Jesus, it is my duty to follow his direction. Therefore, the scriptures that contain these directions are considered the authority over all other documents and traditions.

That being said, many would ask me if it appropriate for me to follow the law as laid out in Leviticus. According to this book, numerous offenses demand punishment by death. Jesus alleviates us of these severe punishments by forgiving us for our sins. The New Testament provides us with a more humane way of dealing with our human failings. Thus, I defend this book against those that would criticize it as backwards or inhumane.

The heart of the Bible is the message of Christ’s salvation and our direction to love God and our neighbour. To lose sight of this clear message is to get stuck in the weeds. Legalistic interpretations and arguments do nothing to enhance the community-building gifts that Jesus gives us. We must not lose sight of the fact that Christianity is God’s Way and it is the way of peace, tolerance, harmony and love. Missing this point means to miss the true meaning of living in spiritual bliss with our creator.

I urge you to look to scripture with an open mind, looking for the positive influence that it can bring to your life. Learn from its historical failures. Learn from the numerous wisdom texts contained within. And most of all, absorb the life-changing influence of Jesus’ message of love and peace.

So here we are… Acceptance of the authority of Scripture over all other documents and traditions.
Now that we have laid this foundation, I urge you to reacquaint yourself with scripture. Whether this is a continuation of a bible reading from earlier today or your first time looking through the good book in quite some time, there’s no time like the present to remind yourself of the power of God’s word.

‘Teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom’ (Psalm 90:12, KJV)

Next, we’ll tackle the concept of “rebirth” that is so important to Christians.

Until next time, may God bless you and keep you safe.

Todd Dow

I’m going to spend the next few posts defining what I think it means to be an evangelical Christian. I believe that this is a valuable exercise, as it allows me to outline where I’m coming from and to give us a level playing field. I regularly experience articles in the media, where they refer to different religious groups, but they don’t really explain what they mean by the terms they use. So… to avoid any sense of confusion that may arise on this blog, I’m going to take the opportunity to fill you in on where I’m coming from.

My definition might be slightly different from definitions used by others, but I will do my best to draw in other reference points where it makes sense to add credence to my arguments and to help clarify my explanations.

So, where am I coming from? Well… I am a Mennonite Evangelical Christian. Those three words all carry a great deal of meaning. There are stereotypes involved in each of them. I’ll use the next four posts to explain my take on the word “evangelical”.

I recently came across an interesting article that outlines what it means to be an Evangelical Christian. Many in the media have portrayed Evangelicals in a negative light. Fortunately, Evangelical is not a bad word. In fact, I’m happy to be an Evangelical. As Michael Davenport, the author of the article in question, points out, Evangelicals approach their faith in a manner that allows them to “participate creatively in modern society”. To Davenport, Evangelicals are reaching out to their peers, trying to share the good news of Jesus. In addition to the good news of Jesus’ death, which offers us salvation for our sins, this good news also outlines a way of life that benefits all of mankind. Just think of how much better the world would be if we all adopted the advice that Jesus gives us concerning how to live our lives. The world would be a much better place indeed if we followed his greatest commandment:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” – Matthew 22:37-39

Evangelical is a word to describe an approach to faith, as opposed to describing a specific denomination. Davenport identifies four key features to the Evangelical approach. They are:

• acceptance of the authority of Scripture over all other documents and traditions;
• affirmation that, suddenly or gradually, individuals are transformed (”reborn”) into believers;
• belief that Jesus’ death and resurrection were historical facts, necessary for our new life; and
• commitment to prayer, discipleship, and faithful service to wider humanity.

Over the next few posts, I’m going to work through these four features. What do these features really mean to me? How do they influence my behaviour? What do they tell me about how I should be living? Most importantly, will embracing these four features bring me closer to God? I’m going to hazard a guess and say you betcha!

Read on and let me know if you agree or disagree with what I’ve got to say.

In Him,

Todd Dow

Book Review: Night by Elie Wiesel

Elie Wiesel’s gripping account of his time spent in a Nazi concentration camp is both deeply horrifying and also deeply insightful. Like Frankl’s “Man’s Search For Meaning”, Wiesel addresses existentialism in the most terrifying and soul-depleting circumstances possible.

And yet, Wiesel has managed to survive this trauma and to use his witness as a powerful challenge for peace. In 1986, Night was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I am struck by the strength of character in Wiesel’s acceptance speech. After the persecution that Wiesel has been through, he has managed to lift himself to a place of prominence in speaking out for those that cannot be heard. Consider Wiesel’s words in his Nobel acceptance speech:

Wiesel’s sense of Lent Time is especially stirring, especially in light of the Night that he has shared with us.

May this powerful story be a witness to our collective humanity.

Todd Dow

Title: Lent Time
Key Verses: Galatians 6:7-10
Topic: Following the calling of God’s spirit in our lives

Part 4: Putting the call into action
So how do we go about living in this way? Paul provides a pretty good rulebook of do’s and don’t’s. We could spend a lot of time talking through each of the items mentioned in Galatians 5:19-26, but we’ll leave that for another time. For today, let’s all try to take away at least one tangible way of enhancing our spirituality.

We’re all different. In our fall Christian parenting Sunday school class, we discussed the personality differences in birth order with children. We also looked at the different dynamics that tend to develop in families between boys and girls as well as between male and female parents. In today’s society, we accept that people have different learning styles and that each of us is expected to express ourselves differently from our neighbours. This is okay. In fact, it is encouraged. Such a rich diversity is bound to confuse those of us that thrive on structure and formulas for success (I’m one of those “structured types”). Lucky for us, there are many different ways to achieve success in the area of spiritual growth. I can guarantee you that for each one of us, there is a method for enhancing our spiritual health and well-being.

For starters, we need to understand what it is we want to accomplish. In what ways do you want to enhance your spirituality? Do you want to increase your ability to pray out loud? That’s one of my personal goals. I struggle with public prayer. As a student pastor, I’ve made that one of my learning goals for this year: public prayer. It’s hard for me and I want to improve it. So I’ve committed myself to practice. And now that I’ve shared it with you, I’ve committed myself further. Now I have to improve. Otherwise, others will know. That’s a lot of pressure! Haha

Other goals:

• Increase your knowledge of the Bible;
• Connect with other like-minded Christians;
• Enhance your marriage relationship;
• Or maybe even go back to the basics (The Alpha Program and Baptism);

Thinking outside of the box, we can see opportunities to build relationships with people outside of our immediate church and family communities in areas such as:

• Helping the poor in our communities and beyond;
• Caring for the sick; or
• Participating in public discussion about peace, war or some other cause that might interest you;

The possibilities are endless. All of these are examples of ways to connect with God and to position ourselves as a Visible Community of Christian believers. Just as we are called to be stewards with our money, we should also be called to be stewards with our time and with our intentional worship.

It’s one thing to identify these goals. It’s quite another to execute on them. How do we turn these goals into action? Looking within Niagara United Mennonite Church, we can see plenty of opportunities coming up in January:

• Our Sunday school program is filled with classes that are sure to appeal to everyone here;
• The library has a ton of great material that can be borrowed for free;
• The pastoral team is approachable and well equipped to help as well;

And there are plenty of other ways to get involved here at Niagara United Mennonite Church. The volunteer opportunities are endless. Each of us is uniquely skilled and we are all able to contribute in our own distinct ways.

Outside of NUMC, the resources are endless:

• Take a wander down to Chapters or Mitchell’s Bookstore and you’ll see a ton of material just waiting to engage you and inspire you;
• You can take classes at local schools. There are plenty of opportunities for those interested in pursuing Christian spirituality in an academic setting;
• Almost every hospital, nursing home, educational institution and many other facilities have volunteer programs that are looking for help;
• MCC: If your local neighbourhood isn’t challenging enough, then Mennonite Central Committee just might be able to find an offsite missions trip that will keep you challenged and spiritually invigorated;

This is only a small sampling of the many possible opportunities and methods of connecting with God. And remember, you don’t have to go big or go home. This isn’t about who can volunteer the most or who can raise the most money for a cause. It’s about being involved in Christian community in a way that pleases the spirit. Whatever your calling, whatever your interest and whatever your skill, I can guarantee that there is a need for anything that you can provide. We are all uniquely skilled and we are all uniquely valued within our community.

There’s one last one that I’d like to mention that I haven’t touched on yet. This is perhaps the simplest and the most effective method of developing spiritual well-being: Direct communication with God. The gift of prayer is something that each of us can do. And we can each do it in our own way and in our own time. Before bed, after waking in the morning, at a special time during the day or even while commuting to and from work, there are many different ways to connect individually with God. The important thing is to be intentional about it and to do it on a regular basis. Make it a habit. Make it a routine. Make it meaningful. And make it happen. Just as we communicate with our spouses, our children, our parents and our friends, make conversations with God a regular part of your day. Nurture that relationship and watch it grow.

Alright… We’ve been given clear instructions. What is holding us back? I challenge us to identify those barriers and find a way to overcome them. We don’t want to be caught off-guard. Embrace the freedom that faith can provide. And remember Paul’s words: “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” We all want to be there for that harvest.

So… set your personal spiritual growth plan for 2007.

This is about intentional living and making every day count. We’ve been given the gift of life. Should we squander it, or should we use it for God’s glory? Should we use this time to be a “Visible Community”, or do we hide under the cloak of anonymity? Use our Lent Time to honour God in ourselves and within our community.

God bless you in the year to come. I wish each of you a very exciting and spiritually rewarding year in 2007.

Todd Dow

Title: Lent Time
Key Verses: Galatians 6:7-10
Topic: Following the calling of God’s spirit in our lives

Part 3: Understanding the call
But what exactly should we do to satisfy our Spiritual nature and to avoid our sinful nature? There are numerous lists in the Bible of positive and negative acts. Galatians contains a pretty good overview of appropriate and inappropriate actions. Consider:

Galatians 5:16-26:
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

I don’t want to dwell on each of these items at this time. What I do want to highlight again though is the intentionality of these acts. Those who live only to satisfy their own sinful nature will harvest decay and death from that sinful nature. But those who live to please the Spirit will harvest everlasting life from the Spirit.

We must understand that our motivation is the key. As I mentioned earlier, if my family doesn’t meet our family goals for 2006, we haven’t necessarily failed. Circumstances change. We sometimes miss the mark. We all suffer setbacks. The important thing is how we deal with those setbacks. Do we simply give up and call it failure, or do we reassess the situation and modify our plan so that we can keep moving forward? Do we quit, or do we persevere as Paul tells us to do in verse 9: “we will reap a harvest if we do not give up”.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer provides us with the concept of “The Visible Community” in his book, The Cost of Discipleship. Consider:
Thus the life of the Christian community in the world bears permanent witness to the truth that “the fashion of this world passeth away” (I Cor, 7:31), that the time is short (I Cor. 7:29) and the Lord is nigh (Phil. 4:5). […] The world is growing too small for the Christian community, and all it looks for is the Lord’s return. It still walks in the flesh, but with eyes upturned to heaven, whence he for whom they wait will come again. […] They show the love of God to all men, “but specially to them that are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10, II Pet. 1:7). […] But they are only passing through the country. At any moment they may receive the signal to move on. Then they will strike tents, leaving behind them all their worldly friends and connections, and following only the voice of their Lord who calls. They leave the land of their exile, and start their homeward trek to heaven.
Bonhoeffer: pg 269-270.

As Christians, we are a Visible Community. We live within the world, yet we are striving for a life of salvation in heaven. The question to ask here is, “Are our eyes upturned to heaven”? And do we use Jesus’ example to live our lives?

Are we making the most of this time that we have been lent? As Paul mentions in Galatians 6:9: “for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up’” Thus, it is important to be disciplined and to intentionally use the time that we have been given, this Lent Time, to make every day count and to look to that long awaited harvest.

Coming up next: Part 4: Putting the call into action

Title: Lent Time
Key Verses: Galatians 6:7-10
Topic: Following the calling of God’s spirit in our lives

Part 2: Contextualize the letter to the Galatians

Today’s scripture reading is taken from Galatians. The book of Galatians is a letter from Paul to the churches in southern Galatia, which had previously been founded by Paul and others within the Christian church. The letter is dated to approx 49 AD. The Galatians were struggling to understand how to live as Christians. There were disagreements pertaining to how to live as a Christian. Many within the Galatian community were falling back on old customs and laws, specifically many of the Jewish traditions.

As we can all see in the Gospels, Jesus was constantly at odds with Jewish traditions that involved strict adherence to the laws set forth in the Torah. As Paul reminds the Galatians in Galatians 3:5: “Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?”

Paul’s letter to the Galatians served to remind them to be careful when following ritual and tradition at the expense of faith and intentional Christian living. To Paul, and Christians everywhere, the new law brought by Jesus could be summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” This law appears to be quite simple, but when put into practice it can be quite complex and all encompassing.

Paul urged the Galatians to do good to all and to live lives of positive Christian intentionality.
Galatians 6:7-10:

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

The key here is the word “please”. As in “the one who sows to please his sinful nature” or “the one who sows to please the Spirit”. The word please means to gratify or to appease. The New Living Translation uses the word “satisfy” in this context.

Galatians 6:7-10:

Those who live only to satisfy their own sinful nature will harvest decay and death from that sinful nature. But those who live to please the Spirit will harvest everlasting life from the Spirit.

To Paul, your motivation is key. Without the motivation to please the spirit, your intentions miss the mark. With proper motivation, you please the spirit. And to Paul, it is important to persevere and to use the time that we have been given for good and for pleasing the Spirit.

Coming up next: Part 3: Understanding the call

In this 4 part series, I’ll be posting a recent sermon that I delivered entitled “Lent Time”. This is an important topic to me. I believe that we are stewards of our time and that we should use our time wisely. I hope that this sermon rings true in your heart as well.

In Him,

Todd Dow

Title: Lent Time
Key Verses: Galatians 6:7-10
Topic: Following the calling of God’s spirit in our lives

Part 1: Introduction
I’ve been given the next 20 minutes to share this message with all of you this morning. I’ve been given 20 minutes to share God’s word with you. This 20 minutes isn’t something that I’ve freely taken, it has been given. It’s been lent to me. By all of you. And by God. It’s my responsibility to use this 20 minutes wisely. There’s a sense of stewardship in this opportunity. In a way, we could say that I have been lent this time to do God’s work in his community of believers.

This isn’t taken time or stolen time or stumbled-upon time… this time has been given to me, lent to me, so that I can share this message with you.

Time isn’t something I can create on my own. The past, present and future that I live in has been lent to me by my creator. Through the grace of God, I have been given the freedom to live with this lent time in any way that I please. It’s up to me what I do with this time. Should I squander this time? Or should I use this time wisely?

I might be getting ahead of myself though… let’s come back to this thought in a moment…

It’s New Years Eve. New Years resolutions. How many of you have or will be making some resolutions? Saving money, losing weight, quitting smoking, eating healthier… We’ve all got habits to kick or more disciplined approaches to living to commit to.

How many of us use a financial budget? How many of us set yearly goals? Julie and I do both of these. It’s sometimes fun, sometimes not so much… But, it helps keep us on track.

Does all of this sound familiar to you? I’m sure that this is familiar ground and that most of you can relate. We all make plans. We all anticipate the future. We all look forward and try to maximize what we are doing now to make us more comfortable in the future. In this way, we use our “lent time” to live our lives to the fullest.

But, I’m not here today to talk about financial goals… I’m here to talk about something much more important. Something else that requires upkeep, planning and long-term decision-making. Something that impacts more than our material needs and our short-term challenges. I’m here to talk about our spiritual well-being. Do we use our collective lent time to enhance our spiritual lives? Do we have spiritual goals? Do we have good spiritual health? Do we feel a close relationship with God? Do we understand the gift that Christ gave us on the cross? Are we using our lent time to make the most of that gift of salvation that we have been given?

What are our spiritual goals? Do each of us have them? Do we plan our spiritual growth in the same way that we plan other parts of our life? Many of us make budgets. Many of us make exercise plans. And many of us make school or career plans. But how many of us take the time to sit down and identify where we want to be spiritually and build a plan to achieve our spiritual goals?

I like to call this intentional living. It is about consciously living our lives for the things that we believe. We all believe that we need a financial plan because we need money to survive, to buy food, to pay the mortgage, etc.. We all believe that we need a school or career plan in order to obtain a better standard of living. And since we’re all here this morning, we are in agreement that God plays some part in our lives. In the same way that we plan in other areas of our lives, do we plan spiritual health, growth and well-being? My challenge for you this morning is this: Do you have a spiritual plan and if not, why not?

Coming up next: Part 2: Contextualize the letter to the Galatians

Interesting article from rabble.ca:

Evangelical Sabre-rattling won’t lead to peace

This article comments on the allegiance of some Christian leaders, including Billy and Franklin Graham, with American military might. While I do respect Billy Graham, I have often asked myself whether his chummy relationship with the White House was positive or negative. This article raises this same concern. And, it also highlights the troublesome violent messages of Billy’s son Franklin in his recent comments pertaining to Afghanistan and 9/11.

The article challenges us to look deep within ourselves and ask if war is the correct answer to conflict, or if we should try to rise above it and offer peaceful alternatives to violence instead. The following excerpt is, to me, the most powerful piece from this article:

Franklin Graham, brandishing a tone not heard from his father, called Islam “a very evil and wicked religion” and, in the wake of 9/11, said the U.S. should drop nuclear weapons on Afghanistan. He has backed down somewhat from the former statement but refuses to retract the latter. Rather than countering increased division in the world with calls for understanding and unity, he is digging the trenches deeper.

To be clear about what Rev. Graham suggested for Afghanistan, picture in your mind the apocalyptic images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — disfigured people and a lifeless smoldering moonscape.

Is that what the religious imagination has to offer the world?

Compare that with the Amish of Nickel Mines, Penn. When faced with senseless violence, they did not respond with righteous vengeance but reached out to the family of the man who killed their children, setting up trust funds for his kids. Confronted by unthinkable violence, they responded with unthinkable forgiveness and compassion. For them, faith meant replacing the human impulse for fear and retaliation with something kinder and gentler.

I have yet to see the same compassionate, loving and gentle side to Franklin that I see in his father. I hope that this will emerge from Franklin as he fills the void left by Billy. Yet, I can’t help but feel alarmed at the influence that Franklin will have as he inherits the large and far reaching audience that his father developed through his years of dedication to spreading God’s word.

One can only hope that a voice of peace emerges in Christian circles with the same kind of influence as Billy Graham to help fill this void and to help replace the more hardcore and intolerant messages being preached by his son.

One can only hope…

Todd Dow

Book Review: Velvet Elvis
What do I read in my spare time? I sift through a wide variety of stuff. And from time to time, I’d like to use this forum to share some of my reads with you. Some good, some not so good, but all of them thought provoking in one way or another.

This first “book review” comments on a book called Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. For those of you that don’t know who Rob is (I didn’t know who he was until I read this book), he’s the lead pastor at Mars Hill Church in Michigan. He planted this church and has been instrumental in its growth. This book is his statement on what Christianity should be about.

The title Velvet Elvis is the visual queue that he uses to help convey the constant and never-ending growth that occurs within the church. As Rob describes it,

“What if the painter of my Velvet Elvis announced there was no more need to paint, that he had painted the ultimate painting? We would think he had lost his mind because of our instinctive understanding that art is never done – it’s the endless process of learning, exploring, shaping and forming. And it’s no different with faith. The Christian faith will never be complete. We will always be exploring and discovering what it means to live in harmony with God and each other. If we don’t, our faith may end up in the basement. This book is about the endless need to keep painting.”

The most memorable portion of the book is in “Movement 3″ (this is how chapters are denoted) under the heading “Everywhere”. In this section, Bell describes the awakening of an awareness of God within friends of his as they prepared for their wedding. My description couldn’t do it justice. Read it for yourself. Trust me. You won’t be disappointed.

In any event, I don’t want to hold you up from reading the book. So go get a copy. Read it. Share it with a friend. Enjoy it. Contemplate on it. And drop me a line to let me know if you agree with my recommendation.

Happy Reading!

Todd Dow

Happy New Year!

Sorry for my lack of posts over the holidays. I indulged in friends and family to the max this holiday season, which was nice for a change. Previous Christmas breaks have been spent working, but I was fortunate enough to get the whole week off this year between Christmas and New Years. It was great!

In any event, I trust that you had a safe, happy and restful holiday season and I wish you all the best for 2007.

And, on a related note, I gave my second public sermon over the holidays. Sunday December 31st marked my second official pulpit appearance. I wasn’t nervous this time (unlike last time), the feedback was good and I felt quite comfortable delivering my message entitled “Lent Time”. I’ll post the sermon in pieces over the next few days. Watch for it!

May God bless you and comfort you in your walk with him in 2007.

Todd Dow