Trying to Pull It Off

Rick Warren is a mega church pastor in California that has reached a level of acclaim and notoriety almost unrivalled in contemporary history. He has done so using the momentum of his New York Times best seller's list work known as "The Purpose Driven Life".

Notoriety, popularity or whatever you want to call it, can be accompanied by many things; wealth, fame, favor, sometimes even scorn and criticism. Be that as it may, it at the least calls attention to one's self, desired or not. One of the interesting things about notoriety, escpecially in Christian circles as I observe, is that it gives the notion that the popular person is a source of knowledge that is to be sought out, listened to and followed. This is a common North American attribute of the famous.

In one of Rick Warren's latest emails to subscribers he communicated some things that at first glance are timely, practical and current. After some not so deeper examination, call it a second read, I find his comments empty, lacking and void of God's wisdom. I think he misses the point of Christianity and the Body of Christ and indicates erroneous thinking. After reading the quote I'll explain.


"It takes enormous amounts of energy, creativity, commitment, time, money, and preparation to pull off a worship service that will attract visitors and focus them on Jesus. Why go to all this trouble trying to bridge the cultural gap between the church and the unchurched? We do it in service to Jesus and we do it because we care about the lost people Jesus cares about."

Rick Warren


1. Like many North American pastors, the 'worship service' has been relegated to an event. No longer a corporate expression of the Body of Christ together, no longer an experience by all who gather to be edified together, the worship service is a show that is put on by the professionals or the ones who have auditioned and been deemed 'competent enough' to lead worship.

This thinking flies in the face of scripture and the writings of the apostle Paul when he wrote 'offer yourselves a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, this is your spiritual worship." (paraphrased). He encouraged the believers when they came together to speak to one another with spiritual psalms, making melody in their hearts. Worship was not reduced to a few pros on a platform, it was how you lived your life. Based on the teachings of scripture, a worship service isn't just something you 'pull off'.


Based on the teachings of scripture, a worship service isn't just something you 'pull off'


2. Attracting visitors. This is where I believe most people simply just get it wrong. It's not even their fault. We have inherited a Christianity that doesn't look like early Christianity and do the things we do without even knowing why.

The purpose of a worship 'service' is not, nor should it ever be, to attract visitors. A look at the New Testament writings of Paul would explain this fully. Ephesians 5:19 states, "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord," The gathering of believers for corporate worship was for them and not to attract and impress unbelievers. The expression of worship to God in both Old and New Testament contexts was to always be from a place of holiness and concecration. Even in the Old Testament Tabernacle time, unbelievers could be permitted in the outer court, but, for worship and sacrifice they could not enter the inner court.

Philippians 3:3 explains it this way, "For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh..." Worship was for the believers, those of what Paul called 'the circumcision' referring to the covenant relationship between God and his people.

All of this added to Rick's comments on how it takes a lot of time, creativity, commitment, money etc. etc. all point to even more things wrong with this philosophy. A worship service of showmanship will always be meant for impressing/attracting unbelievers. True worship will cost you nothing and you won't have to have a planning session or rehersal to 'pull it off'.

Bridging a 'cultural gap'. Many North American churches believe, teach and pursue this thing called 'cultural relevance'. I need to be frank here. I don't see Jesus, the apostles or even the early church fathers concerned about this. Jesus' parting words were to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature and to make disciples. I would contend that being culturally relevant can be fun, creative, and attract attention to religious organizations and personalities, but it is not on Christ's top listing of priority. Why? I write this because when one examines what people do to be 'culturally relevant', we see nothing more than mimicking a worldly, earthly pattern of finding significance. Some try to have dramatic presentations, others focus on current music styles while others incorporate the arts. I do not forbid the use and enjoyment of any of these as I firmly believe that they are good and given to us to be enjoyed. But that's it. They are not given to make disciples because they cannot. That is what believers do in relationship with other human beings. In the end, vast amounts of budgeted monies are spent on religious entertainment to validate paid professional positions in churches and organizations.

Final thoughts

As I walk my journey of faith I am challenged to, instead of accept the inherited Christianity we've been handed, read the scriptures and find out what they mean and try to live it. Sometimes I don't like the answers to my questions. Sometimes I don't like the fact that I have to change what I used to believe. Sometimes I don't want to change how I live. Yet, in all of this, it's the living Word of God that transforms all of us. The Holy Spirit is our teacher to help bring understanding to it all.

I have no personal vendetta against Rick Warren, nor do I write this as a personal attack. I do however have a personal passion for the correct and paramount regard for the teachings of scripture, not the mere interpretations of man. Counting myself among the company of imperfect, flawed humanity, I encourage you to re-examine what you do and why you do it and ask the hard questions. Re-read the scriptures and find their meaning and understanding. That's the one thing we all need to know how to pull off.

"Happy Easter"

"Happy Easter" the stranger said as he greeted dozens of families at a hockey tournament. Sounds so nice and polite, so sanitized. "Happy Easter" is what a couple of parents said to me as we all left our dinner party and headed to our hotel rooms. Happy Easter. "Easter" is the title of all kinds of photo albums on Facebook depicting little ones and their 'second Christmas' of the year. Happy Easter. "Got the kids a puppy for Easter" was another post I read online. Happy Easter. "What is your favorite part of Easter" I asked my own kids. "Candy" was their answer. My God where have I gone wrong? Where have we gone wrong? Happy Easter.

For he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed.

Happy Easter. An innocent man was murdered. He claimed to be the Christ and after death, rose again. While we have claimed that Jesus is the only way, truth and life, we have mingled the common with the holy. We have done so as an attempt to make the taste of Christianity more palletable to non-believers. Have we really remembered the significance of what Christ did? Do we really commemorate it and if so, how? With eggs? Chocolate? Bunnies? Bonnets? Have believing parents discussed the scriptures with our children? Have we opened the pages of holy writ, read it to them, questioned them and reiterated the truth we hold dear or have we reliquished this holy time to the infiltration of counterfeits?

The only way to commemorate 'Easter' is with the cross and I don't mean by displaying one. I mean, and spiritually, getting on one. This symbol of death does not look good or make us feel good. It should make us feel uncomfortable. It reminds us to put to death the deeds of the flesh, something we've forgotten in North American Christianity. It reminds us of the wages of sin. It reminds us of our human condition and the need for a savior. There no place for fun and games at the cross...it's all business; God's business. He's in the business of judging sin and giving grace and that's exactly what he did when Christ became sin and God's wrath was satisfied on that day.

It's a solemn occasion when someone dies. It's a special occasion when someone gives you a gift. "The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life" are the very crux of what happened on that first 'Easter'. Do we understand the deep meaning behind all of this?

May you experience the deep appreciation of knowing sins are forgiven and the liberty of God's grace while never forgetting what had to happen to make it all possible.

Happy Easter.

Will the Real Christian Please Stand Up?

Twice this week I have heard the quote 'we don't know what we don't know'. I have taken just a little bit of time to think about it and it is absolutely true. Those things that are outside of the scope of our current realm of personal knowledge really are unknown to us. It is from this thought that I bound into one of my points.



Several weeks ago one of my co-workers shared with me how they had heard Billy Graham's daughter being interviewed on television. They shared that they were a bit uncomfortable with the fact that she was saying that Jesus Christ was the only way to have sins forgiven, that Jesus was the only savior and outside of him there was no other way to know, see or please God. I must admit, being on television being viewed by millions and saying that can come across as a bit arrogant to some. Maybe elitist to others. Make no mistake though, as she uttered those words she did so with a passionate clarity. She drew lines that made it very clear what she believed and intended to communicate to those listening.



As my co-worker shared her discomfort with those statements with me, I shared with her about the interview I watched on Larry King Live with Joel Osteen. Osteen, who pastors the largest attended church in the United States was asked by King if Jesus is the only way to get to heaven or something to that effect. Mr. Osteen responded with some very uncomfortable utterances of things resembling, "I don't want to judge anybody. God knows a persons heart." etc. When Mr. King asked Osteen if Jews, who believe in God, were wrong and not going to heaven, Osteen back peddled and offered no definitive answers but only more words of things like, "Only God knows a person's heart etc. etc.".



Compare the two responses and one will clearly see a difference. Billy Graham's daughter made no apology and said Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him. Mr. Osteen was simply bent on not offending anyone with what the Bible says and insisted, despite what the Bible says, that we really can't know who has been a recipient of God's saving grace, only God can know that.



While Mr. Osteen is preaching the message that we don't know what we don't know, Miss Graham seemed more intent on focussing on what we do know. The difference in deciding on what to say to the people around us is found in the consequences stemming from what we have said. While it is more palatable to be the bearer of good news and supply all the warm fuzzies for people, one can find themselves being thrown under the proverbial bus for actually standing up and proclaiming Christ.



As we read Philipians, specifically chapter 1, we notice Paul saying something quite interesting. Our pastor at church pointed this out and hovered on this one Sunday morning. Paul said that "it has been granted to us that we should not only believe, but also suffer for his sake..." (I paraphrase verse 29).



In this amazing little verse we see that it is possible, it is within the realm of acceptability for the Christian, yes, even perhaps to be expected, and then taken as no surprise, that suffering may be part of our journey with Christ.



This isn't Sunday morning-bring-your-friend-to-church stuff. This is real life, at work, talking to someone about Christ and the Bible stuff. This is where the world meets Jesus in you and in me. What my co-workers don't need to hear is that I don't know what I don't know. What they need to understand is that God loves them, Christ died for them and that somehow, through an imperfect, awful person like myself, they can be introduced to the saving grace of God through Christ by getting the message that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.



I finished my conversation with my co-worker defending Miss Graham for it is her that stood up for what was true with passion and conviction despite the barrage she may have taken. My co-worker said, "I'll give you that, that's a good point." While one Christian was proclaiming Christ, the other was hiding behind what he didn't know. Would the real Christian please stand up? Are you standing?

Response to "The God Delusion"

Having recently finished reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, I put the book down having come to some immediate conclusions, some of which are apparent early into the book. In no way am I personally attacking Mr. Dawkins but I must say that it is evident that almost everything written in his book is an elitist, angry, condescending and sometimes sarcastic tirade against theists. For sure it makes for very interesting reading. Notwithstanding he's probably a nice fellow. He seems to be a man that couches his words from the view of science and Darwinism but ultimately proves nothing chapter after chapter. There are some things in principle that I do appreciate about the book that I have gleaned and find useful. There are other things that I do not. I will summarize some things that are addressed in his book and condense them here.



One of the glaring things I find is that Mr. Dawkins basically 'cherry picks' his examples of why he believes there is no God, or as he puts it "why there almost certainly is not God" (emphasis mine). Several times he refers to theologians that refute the writings of scripture. Of course it fits right in with his view that there is no God because the theologians that he likes to refer to agree with him on some points. How convenient. He doesn't get detailed in referencing their bodies of work at all. He simply slips in their congruent views and we're supposed to simply believe it's true.

On the same note, Mr. Dawkins writes that the Bible is inconsistent throughout and therefore it is an unreliable text. I would challenge any reader to re-examine that claim. The Bible was written over a period of fifteen hundred years by over 40 different authors. It is amazing how they all have the same story sewn into the fabric of each book. The documentation of the New Testament surpasses most of the writings of antiquity. To say that there isn't evidence of this is absurd. It is very clear, in my opinion, that Mr. Dawkins ignores the literary evidence of the continuity of the Bible, ignores the manuscript evidence that supports it and simply cozies up to liberal theologian opinion that bolsters his own views.



Another thing that Mr. Dawkins does to prove that there almost certainly is no God, is to tell the reader that because the first cause of the existence of God causes a problem that he can't think of a solution to, then God really can't exist. I don't know how that is theological or scientific. Just because something seems out of the realm of discovery by a human being doesn't necessarily make it not possible or improbable. It simply makes it unknowable.



Constantly Mr. Dawkins refers to Darwinian natural selection. This is a process that he says is scientific. I am not a scientist but, as far as I know, in order for something to be scientifically proven, it must be observable and repeatable, you know, like in an experiment. The Darwinain teaching of natural selection is neither. No one has seen natural selection actually take place (it is assumed like many things scientifc in the past). That would be the convenience of a theory that is based on changes over millions of years. Notwithstanding that, in all of nature as far as I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, genetic mutations of any kind are disastrous and detrimental to a species, they do not improve it. To base the improvement for survival of a species upon genetic mutations (in other words, messing with DNA) seems like a far stretch of the imagination knowing what is available to know and understand about genetic mutations. The record of genetic mutations is littered with 'train wrecks' and all sorts of problems. Simply put, genetic mutations are not good for a species.



It is interesting to note that while Mr. Dawkins accuses theists of unfairly indoctrinating others with theistic teachings about God and the existence of a God, Mr. Dawkins seems impervious to the notion that perhaps he is the victim of the same thing. While he accuses believers of filling young impressionable minds with theistic teaching, he himself, once a young impressionable mind, has fallen victim to the same thing. He sat under the Darwinian teaching of professors not knowing for himself what it may have entailed. Having become enamoured and then convinced of Darwinism, he was indoctrinated by professors of the scientific merits of Darwinism. By the way, Darwinian evolution still has yet to be observed and even proven. To say that one has observed it would not be true as one would actually have to personally witness, record and communicate to the world the first-hand account of what happened. This has never come to pass. Again, it is assumed as fact.

Ultimately, in the end, The God Delusion may attempt to explain the improbability of God and magnify any virtues of natural selection and Darwinian evolution all the way back to basic earth but there is one glaring question that is never addressed or even attempted to be answered in the entire book...where did matter come from in the first place? Yes, there it is. Evolution / natural selection need matter to start from. Never mind the origin of "life" itself. There is not one scientist that can explain how the matter that is present in all of the universe got here in the first place. It had to come from somewhere. Where? Matter didn't evolve from nothing. Can we even dare suggest that inanimate matter existed in infinity past on it's own accord?

Don't Read This Part if You Don't Want the Truth.

Mr. Dawkins DID indeed make some good points. One of the points is that, particularly in American Christianity, Christians are biblically illiterate. They simply do not know why they believe what they believe. He is also correct that high profile Christian leaders in America have made some very bold, inflamatory statements that lack the very love that they say Jesus showed us with his lifestyle. I witnessed this (sadly) as I read Facebook news feeds from friends and aquaintances that are Christian. He cites examples of unorthodox views and teachings of different Christians that, I would say, are simply not biblical in there origins. He also points to the apparent intolerance by Christians when opposed by people with different views. He refers to a deep seated 'respect for religion' that is inherent in our culture and despises the fact that people can't step on other's 'religious toes'. That got me thinking.

I could spend all day joining with people of like mind and faith criticizing and berating Mr. Dawkins for all of the areas in which we disagree. However, of even more concern to me is the fact that his book, The God Delusion even had to be written. Perhaps we could spend more time seeking to live the life of biblical Christianity instead of demanding that a non-religious world aquiesce to what we Christians demand from them.

Easter is Over...Are They Getting the Message?

For the last several years I have notice a trend. Just because I noticed it over the last few years doesn't necessarily mean it's started this recently. Actually the trend has gone on for many years. The trend is disturbing and alarming for it poses some deep questions and the consequences are dire. I challenge the contemporary Christian to refute it after seeing the evidence. So what is this trend and more importantly, what are the consequences of it?

The trend in North American Christianity is to lure non-believers into a church service and utilize presentation and mulit-media (none of which are evil or bad) in hopes to boost attendance and gain adherents. The mark of success of such an event is, of course, how many people showed up.

How do I know this? Look and listen to blogs, instant messages or facebook statuses and read what people are saying. It's things like, "God was good, we had a packed house this Easter weekend." Or, We had a great Easter, all three services were jammed!" etc. etc. As if God wasn't good if the house was empty or Easter wouldn't be great if only a few showed up. I am of the persuasion that words mean things and if we take what people are saying, we are seeing revealed what is really valued. Don't misunderstand me, I am delighted to know that people are assembling in great numbers at any given church. However, the FACT remains that these people, for the most part, do not come back. If they indeed stay and participate in such an assembly, they are often succeptible to an experience-driven spectacle which is focussed upon a once-a-week gathering. This gathering is a resource-rich endeavor which, many times is about the presentation and not the message of the gospel. Some may differ with my viewpoint, however, the FACT remains that the masses of North American church goers remain biblically illiterate.

George Barna, a Christian pollster based in California has tracked Americans' beliefs of Christian faith and practice for decades. While showing great opportunities for evangelism among the population, his research has astoundingly shown a decline in the embracing of biblical Christianity. Churches are planted, outreaches are conducted, thousands of dollars are spent while Christmas and Easter productions abound but in the end do people really understand what biblical Christianity is all about? Sadly, if we look at the evidence, the answer is no!

(George Barna, the author of nearly four dozen books analyzing research concerning America’s faith, suggested that Americans are constantly trying to figure out how to make sense of biblical teachings in light of their daily experiences. For a full article, go to the following link, www.barna.org.)

Why is it that North Americans are still trying to figure out how to make sense of biblical teachings? I have an opinion. As a sinner, saved by grace, in need of God's word alive in my life, I humbly offer what that opinion is.

1. Our proof texting sermons do not work.

I implore preachers everywhere to stop taking one Bible verse and base-jumping off into what they want it to say. Not only is it risky doctrinally but it leaves the hearer misguided on what the Bible is really saying most of the time. There are too many examples of God's word being mishandled on a weekly basis to list. It's one thing to use creativity to illustrate what God's word is saying. It's entirely different, and I believe erroneous, to use one's creativity to bolster what one thinks God's word could be saying based on one verse.

While some are obsessed with being creative, catchy and cute, congregations leave every Sunday morning malnourished spiritually. In some cases it's like going to the fair and having a good time and leaving with a mound of cotton candy on a stick. The experience is fast forgotten and nothing gained.

2. Reading a book and getting a sermon from it is short-changing our congregations.

There I said it. Not only that, I have been guilty of it. Instead of doing the work of reading the Bible, poring over the contents of the text, studying the context and knowing what it all means, many, including myself, have taken the broad road, the easy route. We've busied ourselves with other things, deemed them more important than studying the word and then picked up a great book. This book provided an outline, an illustration, a pat anwer and a way to save time so we could conjure up something we call 'relevant' for our congregation on Sunday morning.

Remember "The Prayer of Jabez"? There were books and devotionals and sermons and videos and on and on and on. All of the sudden God promised almost everything to everyone. People couldn't get enough of it. Was the prayer of Jabez really about God increasing our stuff? Who was Jabez? Does anyone know and does his prayer apply to everyone? We should find that out.

What about "Wild at Heart"? Remember that book? Pastors preached sermons on that for weeks all over North America. Was that book even biblical in all points? If we look at it in totality we must admit that the book alludes to, to some degree, an impossible force of male human nature that is not subject to the obedience of scripture. Do we really want to buy into that?

What about Jeremiah's "I know the plans I have for you..." That was God's answer to everyone who had a problem at one point. Was Jeremiah talking to all God-fearers of all time or was he talking to a select group of people? Do we forget that Jeremiah was the one who prophesied that God would bring Israel into captivity? Do we forget that God had plans to almost obliterate Israel in their rebellion?

Read chapter 4 of Jeremiah's prophecy and you'll see in the language that God was angered and he was about to throw down some serious punishment for Isreal's rebellion. There was a lot of punishment and anger language LONG BEFORE there was any word of "plans for a future and a hope" from Jeremiah.

It's sad to say but it looks like, in many cases, we want to offer people a real hope without the right heart.

3. Realize that it's not about Sunday morning shows or even small groups. It's about the health of a community of believers with Jesus Christ as the common denominator.

This is hard because, unfairly, many pastors are evaluated as successful or not based upon weekly attendance. They are judged on displays of creativity on Sunday mornings and marketing. Sadly, the job of the pastor has changed from spiritual shepherd of the flock of God to paid professional clergy. I know of one pastor in Illinois who got the word from his board that, because attendance hadn't grown as quickly as they would have liked by a certain time, he would have to resign as pastor of that church. How biblical. I might remind people that "church attendance" during certain times of the Roman Empire during persecution were quite low, but the numbers of the Church increased dramatically! Why? They were in desperate need of relationship with each other.

In the book of John, Jesus prayed a prayer before he was taken to be crucified. It is absolutely amazing what he said because it really boiled down what it's all about. It's absolutely amazing what Jesus said to his father. Among the things he said were, a) I told them YOUR message, b) YOUR word is truth, c) I want all of them to be one with each other.

The gospel is about people hearing the truth of God's word and becoming interconnected with the family of faith that has done the same. Why? Because we do not belong to this world. We are separate from it, hated by it and will experience pain and suffering while in it. Instead of focusing resources on presenting a media-rich message to experience one day a week, we should be promoting a connectedness among the community of faith throughout the week as well. We do this so that we are encouraged, that our needs are met and the gospel goes forward.

So, pastors, teachers, evangelists, let's make sure that together, we are doing the hard work of teaching and promoting the kingdom of God as disciples of Christ, not just church attenders. Pews might not be packed like we would want them but we'd be wise to make sure people get the right message.

There's Probably No God Part 2

...There, you should feel good now.



After reading Part 1 of this blog, one would notice that the Canadian Free Thought Association urges the masses to believe "There's probably no god. Stop worrying and enjoy your life." I contend that this isn't just about the debate of the existence of God or not. This is about feeling good.



Getting a free pass for something feels good. For instance, I was skiing with my kids and because of windy conditions on the mountain, several portions of the mountain were closed. The resort issued "snow checks" or "free passes" to come and ski again due to adverse conditions. It felt good.



Getting off the hook from something feels good to. Getting pulled over for speeding and the authority with the badge gives you just the warning, you breathe a sigh of relief. You were just let off the hook. You feel good.



I contend that much of atheism proposes a 'no limits' lifestyle. There is no right or wrong or moral code, nor can there be for the essence of right or wrong or morality is up to the individual. There can also be no absolutes. Everything is contingent upon the will and whim of the individual.



Atheism says there are no absolutes...and says so with absolute surety! I'm not even sure how that can be possible.

The right to do what one wants, to pursue one's desires to produce maximum pleasure in life is at the heart of the "there is probably no god. Stop worrying and enjoy your life" philosophy. Selfish ambition, decadence, narcisism and self-gratification are the driving forces of life. Where does this lead? What road does this take a person down?

For some reason, the atheist or agnostic thinks people feel bad about things because of a belief in God. Guilt. Regret. Whatever you may call it, they think it's devestating. I hold that while a belief in God may proudce those things, and even should do so, it's not all bad. For if guilt or regret can lead to change, and change leads to a new start and way of life for someone, how can that be bad?

A person with a heart to be concerned about the needs of others, a willingness to help someone and a selfless appreciation of others can produce a lot of good in the world. What would happen if people, instead of living according to a self-centered/self-gratification lifestyle, lived according to the teachings of Jesus Christ on loving your neighbor, being concerned about other people and doing unto others as we would have them do unto us?

After Katrina hit New Orleans, it was the God-believers that were there first. The president asked the nation to pray. Church groups from all different denominations sent aid and even went and helped themselves, giving their own time and resources. I'm not saying atheists weren't there helping, I'm saying that there was and is something about a belief in God that is far more demonstrable than what atheism has ever produced. This is for a reason.

The real heart of atheism is humanism.

Yes, man wants to be the boss. He wants to be master of his destiny. He wants to be accountable to no one. He wants to call the shots. We're pretty high and might for a species that, like all others, ends up in a hole in the ground. The human that is not beholden to the dictates of a God can do anything he wants with impunity.

"If God is not, everything is permitted."

Fyodor Dostoyevsky


Humanism/atheism produced communism (Stalin, Lenin).

Humanism/atheism has, out of self-interest and exultation, anhiliated millions of innocent people (Hitler, Mao Zedong).

Humanism/atheism has watch millions starve to death.


Conversely...


Belief in God produced Mother Teresa who served for decades in Calcutta helping the poor, the orphaned.

Belief in God feeds, clothes and educates thousands of kids in Haiti through people like George DeTellis at New Missions (http://www.newmissions.org/).

Belief in God brings the prostitute and drug addict off the streets of Los Angeles, California through places like the LA Dream Center and introduces them to a brand new start in life.


Yes there are atheists that have not killed and yes there are believers in God that have done little for the cause of Christ. In the grand scheme of things however, one would have to admit that far more than atheism, a belief in God has the propensity to produce far more virtue in life.


To summarize, the atheist/agnostic/humanist doesn't want to be held accountable from a God or a higher power for anything they do in this life. Doesn't make them a bad neighbor. Doesn't make them a mass murderer either. It does make them at odds with what many people hold as the truth, and that being that they believe that God does exist and does play an active role in our universe. Because that God exists, they, one day, will be accountable for what they did do with their lives.

So you have a short version of what I think about atheism/agnosticism/humanism. Another question, however, comes to my mind. Does God believe in the atheist? What exactly does Christianity teach about the non-belief in the existence of God? What exactly does Christianity teach and compel it's followers to do?


Lots to discuss.
Worth a look.

There's Probably No God Part 1

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

This is the add that will most likely be seen plastered to the sides of city buses in Calgary, Alberta. The same add is in Toronto, London and Madrid. This statement was met with criticism from the Calgary Catholic Bishop. He said that the best date to launch such a campaign would be April Fool's Day. Obviously, this is going to be a hot button. The Free Thought Association of Canada has opened a can of worms on this one. Christians oppose this idea. I won't get into whether they should or should not because we do, in fact, live in a free country with the freedom of speech. We usually don't like it when people aren't saying what we want them to say. That's natural. I do, however, want to look at the very words that the Free Thought Association of Canada actually do say.

The statement, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." evokes a few sentiments that I think are worthwhile to look at.

1. Probably.

The word probably means "in all liklihood" or "presumabley". It is a word that definitely leaves room for error. It is based upon presumption and not evidence. Presume means "To take for granted that something is true or factual". This is in direct contrast with the word "true" which means, "factual". This idea of "there is probably no god is usually based upon no or a lack of evidence.

So you have a statement that is, in it's own beginning, saying it's not necessarily true, but should be believed as true, with no evidence to support it. The people who say "probably no god" should not be classified as atheists, as atheism proclaims that there is no god, while agnosticism proclaims that there is no knowledge of a god. The Free Thought Association of Canada can't even come out and say for sure that there is no god. Where's the guts?

The Free Thought Association people are, as a co-worker of mine suggests, "chicken atheists" at best.

2. No God.

This conversation can go on for infinity, that is if infinity exists since we humans are not infinite. So, for the purposes of our finite conversation on the topic of the existence of God, think about these things (and please take the time to research them if anyone lacks understanding)...

- DNA and RNA. How do we get DNA? From RNA. Where does RNA come from? It is made by DNA!

- Brownian movement. It's really cool.

- Stars. Okay, so attempts to explain our earth as being formed by no god are accepted by many, but how do other things in the universe just get there?

- Where did the substance to make Earth come from? Seriously, where did the first particles to make "stuff" come from? You just can't get something from nothing. It's a universal fact.

- The Theory of Evolution. Where are the missing links of species? If evolution is still happening, there must be evidence of it taking place. There simply has to be. Whether global warming is happening or not, the theory of evolution should simply allow the strongest of the species to adapt and survive so what's the worry anyway right?

3. Stop worrying.


The Free Thought people are really patronizing the population they speak to by saying this. They are minimizing people's real worries and elevating themselves as the authority by which their worries will be removed. They are saying in essence, "you are worrying about the possibility of God not being pleased with what you are doing. We're going to fix that by saying there is probably no god anyway." Linking worrying to the thought of the existence of a god does not seem rational. I know people that worry about money. They worry about their kids. They worry about whether or not their marriages will survive. They worry about keeping their house in this particularly declining economic environment. They worry about whether they'll have a job tomorrow. They worry if the chemo is going to work, and if it doesn't, who will take care of the kids? I have never met anyone who stays up all night worrying that God exists or not.

4. Stop worrying.

The proponents of the "no god" agenda use fear to manipulate their audience, yes, just like corrupt church leadership did in the Middle ages. Fear, guilt and superstition were used to make people fearful of doing or not doing certain things to propagate the church's agenda. That agenda, many times, was for the selfish ambition of the corrupt leadership. The atheist/agnostic position plays on the supposed or real fear of many and gives them a feel good pill that lets them off the proverbial providential hook. If it wasn't for the supposed fear of some people who believe in God, this particular position of "stop worrying about it" wouldn't be valid. The very act of using the "no god, stop worrying" is equal to the "God is watching, be afraid" mentality. Both are based upon perceptions that seem, to the adherent of those philosophies, to be true. But are they?

5. Enjoy your life.

It is very elitist, in my opinion, to simply say to someone, if you believe there is no god like "I" do, you will be free of worry and will enjoy your life. It is equally repulsive to me that someone can say that because a person believes in God, they will be full of worry and therefore not enjoy life. That is what they are saying when they write "there is probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life. What else can it really mean? Empirically one would have to admit that because of their belief in God, millions of people enjoy their life. Likewise, there are probably (in other words I don't have evidence but I presume that it could be the case) people that are afraid that, if there is a God, this God may not be pleased with them for whatever reason and therefore, may be worried about that. I want to thank the atheists for taking care of their problem. They have solved it beyond a shadow of a doubt and now, the world can be joyful. Or is the problem actually solved?

I, for one am not going to put my head in the sand and ignore centuries of history. There were, and still are, things done in the name of Christ that had and have no place in Christianity. Because a pope or a king or a priest or a minister or any other person past or present simply says that they are a follower of Christ and therefore excercises the authority to simply do things that are in opposition to the teachings of Christian scripture, does not in any way, shape or form make them Christian. My atheist and agostic friends, please understand this. I am not going to suppose that the abuse of power of some probably made you less than able to see the truth of Christianity, but if that is the case, I can understand. I would hope that those who embrace atheism or it's half brother, agnosticism, would be equally able to hear a Christian perspective as well.

In closing, I'd like to sum up what the slogan in the opening says in my own words...

We have no evidence or facts to back up what we believe, but, we're going to believe that there is no god. In fact, because we have the audacity to think that your life isn't enjoyable, and your belief in a god has produced fear and worry in your life, we want you to believe like us, with no evidence. Now you can stop worrying. There, you should feel good now...