Richard Dawkins addresses many things in his mini-series The Root of all Evil. He's lucid and persuasive, but the timeframe limits him to simplistic arguments which I'm told are much better developed in his book, The God Delusion. I thought I'd add my 2 bob's worth in regard to how evidence operates in the life of your regular Christian.
Regular Christians may not go to any great length to investigate the evidence for their beliefs, and yet they think that having evidence for their faith is essential. "[I]f Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead . . . . if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Corinthians 15: 14-15a & 17-19)
So why do regular Christians think there is evidence for our faith? Because the people through whom God wrote the Bible saw Jesus killed and three days later saw him alive. Many of them died proclaiming this truth.
This is how Luke introduces his account of Jesus' life, death and rising: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (1:1-4) And this is the importance that the disciple John places on evidence in his biography of Jesus: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (20:30-31)
For what is hopefully a thorough, reasoned and loving rebuttal of Dawkin's arguments, see The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath).
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Men and boys
Here's my current thoughts about relating to men. Thanks to the godly men who have given me insider tips, who I have observed leading and disciplining boys etc. I'm far from an expert on the subject, not being married and not being a man - so I would appreciate and learn from anyone's thoughts.
One proviso before you begin: This reflection is directed at women and so runs the risk of coming across as patronising to a male reader. Please think of it as if I were teaching women how to follow in salsa. There is a real skill and character to following well. But it is not some sort of back-door way of women being in charge. It certainly does not guarantee that the man will lead well, though a good follower no doubt helps and is no doubt a pleasure to dance with if you are a good leader. And though I do have respect for the man I dance with simply because he is taking the lead (and because I know it's a hard job), he does also earn greater respect from me if he is a good leader (decisive, clear, respectful, fun, graceful, manly, oh there's quite a few).
Men, at best, are Men. They are leaders, whether humbly, of wife and family, or leaders of many. [Women too can be leaders. I am myself. But leadership is not part of women's fundamental identity. It may be true of an individual but it is not true of her, as a woman.]
Leadership then, is the key to relating to men - and boys. They need to see and to be treated with the respect we have for them. And if they do not have our respect, then it is generous and kind to give them the opportunity to gain or regain it.
The easiest way to show your respect for men's leadership is to let them lead. This doesn't mean women can't be heavily involved, it just means that men lead. [This principle should be particularly clear in Christian relationships, and yet it may be harder to spot - because Christian leadership is counter cultural. Christian leadership is still that of initiating, of making the final call, of protection; but it is also servant leadership. It chooses self-sacrifice, it is humble, it serves the other.]
But there are times when a woman is in leadership over a man - as a university lecturer for example, or perhaps running a short training course before church. How can we respect men's inherent leadership in these situations? Perhaps by deferring to them when we can, in expectation that they will be wise; just as we defer to other women, respecting their worth and contribution. We should also recognise that these situations aren't inherently disrespectful. They involve teaching of a specific area, which does not imply that men's fundamental, general authority is deficient.
There are also times when boys need to be told their boundaries and both men and boys need to hear of their wrongs. How can we do this without belittling them? We should first of all recognise that it can be cruel to men's egos to be constantly rebuked (just as it can be cruel to women's self-worth). So we might choose to let some things pass. We should realise that men are rightly ashamed when they have not been Men, and boys are understandably belittled when everything is prescribed and the initiative to be good is taken from them. So we should perhaps get rebukes over with quickly and only set rules when we have to.
We need to establish rules or rebuke knowing that men - people - are sinful. Yet we must also have the expectation that, by the Spirit, they will of course want to become good men. We need to look honestly at sin, grieve for it and yet have hope and confidence in our men and in our God.
One proviso before you begin: This reflection is directed at women and so runs the risk of coming across as patronising to a male reader. Please think of it as if I were teaching women how to follow in salsa. There is a real skill and character to following well. But it is not some sort of back-door way of women being in charge. It certainly does not guarantee that the man will lead well, though a good follower no doubt helps and is no doubt a pleasure to dance with if you are a good leader. And though I do have respect for the man I dance with simply because he is taking the lead (and because I know it's a hard job), he does also earn greater respect from me if he is a good leader (decisive, clear, respectful, fun, graceful, manly, oh there's quite a few).
Men, at best, are Men. They are leaders, whether humbly, of wife and family, or leaders of many. [Women too can be leaders. I am myself. But leadership is not part of women's fundamental identity. It may be true of an individual but it is not true of her, as a woman.]
Leadership then, is the key to relating to men - and boys. They need to see and to be treated with the respect we have for them. And if they do not have our respect, then it is generous and kind to give them the opportunity to gain or regain it.
The easiest way to show your respect for men's leadership is to let them lead. This doesn't mean women can't be heavily involved, it just means that men lead. [This principle should be particularly clear in Christian relationships, and yet it may be harder to spot - because Christian leadership is counter cultural. Christian leadership is still that of initiating, of making the final call, of protection; but it is also servant leadership. It chooses self-sacrifice, it is humble, it serves the other.]
But there are times when a woman is in leadership over a man - as a university lecturer for example, or perhaps running a short training course before church. How can we respect men's inherent leadership in these situations? Perhaps by deferring to them when we can, in expectation that they will be wise; just as we defer to other women, respecting their worth and contribution. We should also recognise that these situations aren't inherently disrespectful. They involve teaching of a specific area, which does not imply that men's fundamental, general authority is deficient.
There are also times when boys need to be told their boundaries and both men and boys need to hear of their wrongs. How can we do this without belittling them? We should first of all recognise that it can be cruel to men's egos to be constantly rebuked (just as it can be cruel to women's self-worth). So we might choose to let some things pass. We should realise that men are rightly ashamed when they have not been Men, and boys are understandably belittled when everything is prescribed and the initiative to be good is taken from them. So we should perhaps get rebukes over with quickly and only set rules when we have to.
We need to establish rules or rebuke knowing that men - people - are sinful. Yet we must also have the expectation that, by the Spirit, they will of course want to become good men. We need to look honestly at sin, grieve for it and yet have hope and confidence in our men and in our God.
Posts
