Category: Christianity

I’ve run out of atheism headings

It seems to me that any time Christians (or theists) are critical of the nasty side of atheism we get shouted down as hypocrites. How can we pick on Dawkins, for how can we caricature them all on account of his vitriol when we had George W Bush as the public face of Christianity justifying unpopular wars with terribly out of context Bible passages? Or indeed or the televangelists et al who are a public bastardisation of the Christian message.

Is this a log v speck issue? Should we be trying to clear up the Christian brand (ie what the public think Christianity is) before we go charging at the bastion of angry atheism – namely Richard Dawkins and co.

Probably. Those loony fringes of Christianity are much better at garnering publicity than the mainstream evangelical orthodoxy. Like the woman in the US who kidnapped her kid because he has cancer and the State wanted to force him to undergo life saving medical treatment.

So long as that’s the public understanding of “Christianity” pushed by the media we’re going to have troubles criticising atheism because the public understanding of atheism is angry intellectual criticism of religious belief.

I actually started writing this post because there’s been a pretty angry response to that article in the LA Times the other day – and I wanted to talk about how angry atheists are, and how Dawkins seems to epitomise atheism, rather than being at its fringe.

That is all. For now.

May 22, 2009

Cross promotions

Wil Anderson just made this bold claim on the Gruen Transfer:

“The McDonalds Golden Arches are now more recognisable than the Christian Cross.”

True or false?

It kind of fails to take into account the historical brand recognition and needs to be more specifically defined.

A little bit of googling suggests that this was either a piece of corporate indoctrination fostered by McDonalds that has now become fact – or that there is an obscure survey that I can’t find from the late 90s conducted in Australia…

Your thoughts?

May 20, 2009

Quiet enough

I did have some serious reflections from men’s camp on the weekend that I thought were worth formulating into some sort of post – but it’s probably a bigger deal than just a “men’s camp reflection”. A while back I wrote about praying in church – I promised at that stage that I’d have a go at more “sacred cows”… and when it comes to Evangelical Christianity I don’t think there’s anything more sacred than the Quiet Time. And I don’t know why.

There are reasons. Good reasons, at least I think they are. So here we go.

  1.  Quiet Times feel too much like “self development” to me – they’re, by their very nature – self focused. They don’t, in and of themselves, serve others. They primarily serve the doer. I understand the argument that disciplined time spent in God’s word and in prayer will help you love and serve others more – I just think that given the choice – I would always choose to spend my quiet time with someone else – either a fellow Christian for encouragement, or a non-Christian proclaiming Christ – what good reason is there to spend time by yourself?
  2. I’m naturally an extrovert – I find other people stimulating, I learn through engaging in conversation, I do my best thinking while talking. I don’t think I’m unique. So for me, and this is where men’s camp comes in, wandering off into tranquil open spaces does nothing for me. I sit there resenting the fact that I can’t chew over the material with somebody, and if I’ve got a notepad I make angry notes about the fact that I don’t think this “self reflection” time is spiritually valuable.  
  3. The Biblical model of Christian life is communal. It’s relational. That’s the model of ministry demonstrated by Jesus, and then by the Apostles and the leaders of the early church. Why is our focus on the individual? I’d say that’s cultural rather than Biblical – and is a child of a self-focused personal development philosophy. I might be wrong. But I’ll need some convincing. 
  4. While knowing the Bible and prayer are important – doing both is not consistent with any Biblical passages I can find – even when Jesus wanted to escape the crowds for some “solitude” he took his disciples with him in most cases. Not, I acknowledge, in the Garden of Gethsemane – but even then he had his closest friends nearby. Can anybody point me to anything that encourages disciplined “personal devotion”? I haven’t found anything yet that suggests my theory is flawed. But again, I’m open to discussion on this point.
  5. I can see a place for solitude as “rest” from other people. But again, I would see this as an allowable exception rather than the general rule. 

What do you think?

May 20, 2009

The indefensible


When I first saw this I thought it was a piece of bad atheist satire on the way Christians use the Bible to justify killing people. Turns out I was wrong. Thanks Mr Rumsfeld. There are heaps more – and the SMH is reporting it, which doesn’t make it “fact” but makes it much more believable than I first thought…

That’s right people. We’ve been wrong all these years. The armour of God is a tank.

No wonder Christians get picked on…

May 19, 2009

LA Times on Atheism

I’m getting a bit bored with the whole atheism thing. While I haven’t engaged in any emailed debates for a couple of days the last 200 email saga is still playing itself out in my head. It just makes me angry. So angry that rather than beating my head against the desk I will share this recent opinion piece from the LA Times with you…

The problem with atheists — and what makes them such excruciating snoozes — is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God’s existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God’s omniscience with free will or God’s goodness with human suffering.

What does strike me about the whole debate – and this article brought it home – is that atheists feel like they’re in the minority. In the US they may well be – it’s politically incorrect to be an atheist. But I’m not sure that the “religion” stats from censuses are anything to go by. And I’d suggest that in Australia being an atheist is the normal or default position (assuming that agnostics are just uncommitted atheists because most religions would suggest that if you don’t act like you believe in God, you don’t believe in God) – not the exception to the rule.

“A recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, only 1.6% call themselves atheists, with another 2.4% weighing in as agnostics (a group despised as wishy-washy by atheists). You or I might attribute the low numbers to atheists’ failure to win converts to their unbelief, but atheists say the problem is persecution so relentless that it drives tens of millions of God-deniers into a closet of feigned faith, like gays before Stonewall.”

That’s certainly not consistent with my experiences where I would expect the majority of people I deal with to be either atheists, or agnostics.

I’m wondering why the whole debate bothers me so much – and I suspect it really is that somewhat selfishly I’d like to be taken seriously and not treated like an idiot for having “an imaginary friend”…

Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the “flying spaghetti monster” of atheists’ typically lame jokes. They think that lobbing a few Gaza-style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking (“If there’s a God, why aren’t I rich?” “If there’s a God, why didn’t he give me two heads so I could sleep with one head while I get some work done with the other?”) will suffice to knock down the entire edifice of belief.

May 19, 2009

Anti-pastor

I’m a “PK”. For those not familiar with the jargon it means the child of a clergyman. I can’t bring myself to say “Pastors Kid” – because I hate the word “pastor” as a title. I don’t know why. It just grates on me. I hate it. I will, when questioned about my “PK” status insist that the P is for Preacher. 

Is my loathing of “Pastor” unreasonable? I’m sure there’s a Biblical argument for it, but it just sounds a little soft. Wussy. Which I guess in the scheme of things isn’t a bad thing – people in ministry are called to be servant hearted or shepherdly. 

I just don’t like it. 

That is all.

May 19, 2009

Testing times

Lately I’ve been thinking about how churches should harness the power of PR a little more – particularly regional churches in cities like Townsville – where there’s a strong local media contingent and not so much clamour for media attention. I’ll probably turn that into a post all of its own at some stage – but for now, I have a case study for your consideration…

A group of researchers set out to conduct a series of experiments testing prayer. Their findings created a difficulty for those people who expect science to be capable of testing everything… both Christians, and atheists…

Christians who think science can prove God struggle because the people being prayed for fared worse than the people not being prayed for – and atheists because they’ll often argue that prayer should have a demonstrable psychological placebo effect – which it didn’t.

Christianity Today found a somewhat unpredictable spin to put on events. The study was conducted a few years back, but this article was produced pretty recently. Here’s a description of the study:

“STEP was simple and elegant, conforming to standard research norms and protocols: 1,802 patients, all admitted for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, were divided into three randomized groups. Two of the groups received prayer from committed Christians with experience praying for the sick. But only one group’s members knew they were being prayed for. The result: The group whose members knew they were being prayed for did worse in terms of post-operative complications than those whose members were unsure if they were receiving prayer. The knowledge that they were being prayed for by a special group of intercessors seemed to have a negative effect on their health.”

Here’s the Christianity Today editorial on the results:

The real scandal of the study is not that the prayed-for group did worse, but that the not-prayed-for group received just as much, if not more, of God’s blessings.

It’s an odd interpretation of the results and doesn’t seem to mesh well with the study itself.

Here’s the Harvard Medical School Media Release on the study – and a better description of the methodology… You’ve got to wonder who set these parameters and actually thought they’d work. This doesn’t seem to come close to any Biblical picture of prayer…

“The researchers standardized the start and duration of prayers and provided only the patients’ first name and last initial. Prayers began on the eve or day of surgery and continued daily for 14 days. Everyone prayed for received the same standardized prayer. Providing the names of patients directed prayer-givers away from a desire to pray for everyone participating in the study. Because the study was designed to investigate intercessory prayer, the results cannot be extrapolated to other types of prayer.”

Sadly, the whole report is now going to be used by misguided atheists to bash all Christians over the head as they call for amputees to grow arms.

May 18, 2009

Bad movie plot: Mormon Theology

Here’s a fairly old piece of orthodox Christian criticism of Mormon theology… Interesting viewing, this, along with a South Park episode, and some segments of John Safran vs God, forms my understanding of the teachings of the US-centric religion. It’s really not at all linked to Christianity – despite what your friendly neighbourhood doorknocker might tell you.

May 17, 2009

Helpful Atheists

I’ve been challenged by my recent conversations with my atheist friends to consider my comments on morality – apparently atheists find the suggestion that Christians are more inclined to act morally somewhat abhorrent and arrogant – they argue that there are plenty of nice atheists. Which is true. 

I made my suggestion in what I thought was a logical and coherent manner. If atheists are prepared to acknowledge that Christianity – in its pure, biblical form complete with love and an other person focus, is a force for good – then it follows that Christians must be gooder than average. I thought that made perfect sense. It lead to vitriol and condemnation. 

I may have countered the standard accusation that “religion” has killed lots of people and done bad stuff by breaking Godwin’s Law – and invoking Hitler, and other terrible atheists who have killed many more people throughout human history as a response. This is altogether another argument and worthy of a separate post – this line was rejected on the basis that they weren’t motivated by their atheism. I disagree slightly, but take the point… anyway, that’s a rather long intro to this little story about a nice, helpful atheist who has agreed to help out those Christians who subscribe to rapture based theology. He’s going to send mail on their behalf, post rapture. You can choose from a series of letters and greeting cards… like this one…

So there you have it. Atheists can be nice people after all…

May 17, 2009

Want a youth ministry that rocks?

Let Ignatius ignite you.

His essential ingredients of Youth Ministry:

  1. An Xbox 360
  2. A copy of rock band
  3. A book deal
  4. A moderately priced hair cut

He’s edgier than Mark Driscoll.

“Ignatius makes Song of Solomon look like Dr Zeuss”

And all about rigourous training and preparation…

“I’m very serious about preparation – I’ll spend two or three hours doing prayer lattes.”

It’s 10 minutes of awesome Youth Ministry instruction…

Relax children, it’s a mockumentary…

May 15, 2009

More on atheists

I’ve had a pretty long debate stretching over two days with my atheist friends. I have some observations I’d like to make… they are generalisations so come with the standard general disclaimer.

  1. Atheists being branded as they are will always immediately dismiss Christianity on the basis that they’ve made the debate occur a step before Christianity – this means not engaging with any Christian material (ie the Bible)…
  2. They’re a-theist not a-Christian. If you argue the questions from a Christian perspective they dismiss them immediately because you’re not tackling the issue at the root.
  3. They will also refer to God as “it” and remove any Christian terminology from the argument – which makes arguing from a Christian perspective difficult. The Christian then becomes an apologist for Islam, and any other theistic world view in the process. In fact, by doing this they bring in every non-credible and crazy religion and ask you to defend them on equal footing – which is why the “atheist movement” for want of better nomenclature – have invented the Flying Spaghetti Monster and describe Jesus as a Zombie Carpenter…
  4. In attacking the rhetoric this way they’ve moved the goal posts – and apologists must adjust accordingly.
  5. The fundamental differences between the two positions are, in my mind best expressed as follows: Theists look at a complex universe and say a big creator must have made this, atheists look at the complex universe and say it’s too complex for a big creator, it must have been small particles accidentally colliding, or its complexity is a product of infinite possibilities occurring in infinite time. Alternatively, as expressed by one of the atheists in the discussion:

Theism uses the impossible to explain the rational.
Science uses the possible to explain the irrational.

Where somehow, if I understand that point correctly, science is equal to atheism. Which comes as a surprise to me, and no doubt to many Christian scientists.

May 13, 2009

Prayer fail

One of the proofs that one of my atheist friends suggests would swing him towards faith is some sort of observable scientific testing of prayer.

The problem with this is that too often they then demand the test meet some “observable” criteria, that they set, like growing an amputee’s limb back…

I think prayer works, my personal experience of prayer suggest that it works, but then I tend to pray within the constraints of rational possibilities (eg not that an amputee will grow a limb back) consistent with instructions on prayer from the Bible.

There is however, another side of the coin. Where people can pray in stupid ways that just lend themselves to atheists pointing and laughing.

Like this 63 year old Indian man who has refused to bathe for 35 years as part of his regular prayer ritual.

I would suggest, that if you’re hanging on to some sort of superstition in order to achieve a particular, and stated aim, that 35 years is too long. Particularly if the aim is to have a male child.

An Indian man who fathered seven daughters has not washed for 35 years in an apparent attempt to ensure his next child is a boy, newspapers report.

Kailash “Kalau” Singh replaces bathing and brushing his teeth with a “fire bath” every evening when he stands on one leg beside a bonfire, smokes marijuana and says prayers to Lord Shiva, according to the Hindustan Times.

May 12, 2009

YouTube Tuesday: An Atheist on evangelism

This has been floating around for a while – but I haven’t posted it yet. It’s timely based on the emails I’ve had flying back and forth between my atheist friends and myself today…

It’s magician Penn Teller, renowned atheist, encouraging people who believe in hell to evangelise – and presenting an interesting set of instructions for evangelistic methodology.

“How much do you have to hate somebody not to evangelise…”

May 12, 2009

Houstons, we have a problem…

So the Hillsong takeover of the Garden City Church is in full swing – with the church to be renamed: Hillsong Brisbane Campus.

The Houstons are turning their global domination strategies back to Australian shores and focusing on “multisite” expansion – ala Mark Driscoll.

Here’s how the previous minister of Garden City felt about the expansion – this is an excerpt of an article in the SMH today:

Garden City’s senior pastor for eight years, Bruce Hills, was forced out before the arrival of the Houstons. Garden City Christian Church announced Mr Hills’s resignation in December, amid criticism that the church was not growing enough. Yet in an address to a Christian conference at Easter, Mr Hills revealed he had a nervous breakdown last September. “Emotionally I just imploded,” he said.

When he returned from eight weeks’ leave, Garden City Christian Church elders told him: “We’d rather have more of a CEO leader than you. We’d like you to resign.”

Describing it as “the deepest, darkest experience I’ve ever been through”, Mr Hills said he was “really angry about what these people had done”.

Steve Dixon, who has been acting pastor at Garden City since Mr Hills’s resignation, will now be “campus pastor” of Hillsong Brisbane.

I love the way this church – and Hillsong – have been so caring and compassionate to their leader. Very biblical. Especially the bit where they sacked him because the church was not growing enough… I assume they mean numerically, because this would certainly indicate a level of spiritual immaturity.

Oh, and Craig reckons they’re now a denomination. In completely unrelated news – have you ever noticed that you only have to switch one letter in denomination to make it demonination? That would be a Freudian slip if ever I saw one…

May 11, 2009

Swines flew*

Ok team. I have a question. Well, two questions. I was reading through the passage in Mark this morning where Jesus encounters the demon possessed man – with the demon called Legion. It’s an odd story, not because it’s all about demon possession and features a crazy guy living in a cemetery – it’s crazy because there’s a herd of pigs wandering around, being tended to. Here’s the story for those needing a refresher:

9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”

“My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.” 10 And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.

11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” 13 He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

14 Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. 15 When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. 16 Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man—and told about the pigs as well. 17 Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.

So, as I was saying, I read this this morning with a friend who’s a new Christian – and we speculated about why there would be pigs being tended by people – in a presumably Jewish city. We presumed it was Jewish because there seems to be no reaction to the fact that 2,000 pigs have just been demon possessed and drowned. If I were a farmer and some guy caused 2,000 of my stock to die, I’d be pretty upset. When I was working in a law firm at uni there was a case I did a lot of photocopying for where the government had culled a bunch of cows on the suspicion that they had tuberculosis – and that was a case worth millions of dollars… so there wasn’t much of a reaction recorded re the destruction of livestock… they just asked Jesus to leave town.

So we were wondering why Jews would be keeping a herd of 2,000 pigs that they couldn’t eat and didn’t seem to care about.

But Wikipedia suggests the region Jesus was in was a Gentile region – which just makes the story odder not simpler. Because you would assume these Gentile farmers would be pretty unhappy with a Jew killing their herd.

So what’s your take on the story?

*I wonder if swine flu is a case of a phonetic fulfillment of any contractual obligation to partake in an activity when “pigs fly”…

May 9, 2009