He was almost always smart, funny, and interesting even when he was wrong.

I think this is just right. He was all those things and, in contrast to the other atheist horsenmen, likable. Unfortunately, his showmanship, bravado, English-accent, and astute observations in some areas of life gave his works and writings on all things metaphysical and religious, an undeserved reputation as an authority figure. Frankly, he really had no standing on which to argue as he did. As Feser continues:

[On religion, Hitchens] was a complete bore and an insufferable hack… Religion is the last subject about which to have a tin ear or a closed mind, and Hitchens had both.

Because people have already said so much and so well, I think I’ll be better served to just allow the others that have already said anything I might. I will say this however: Hitchens’s death was not a tragedy. The same thing said back when Michael Jackson died is applicable here, too: His life was the tragedy.

This was a man with such a mind, such gifts of communication and oratory, such a position to influence and affect so many people, yet used his gifts to slander, shock, belittle, and mock good people—a man that used all his talents to ultimately stand with a clenched fist at the God that gave him such things (a God whom he both disbelieved in and yet still hated)—was not a man whom one would hope to emulate, and certainly was not a man we should praise. His was a life poorly lived, and on his death, we should lament his lifelong rejection of the only hope one has in this life or the next: Jesus Christ.

Also read the thoughts by:
Doug Wilson
Peter Hitchens

That I have a conviction about my faith isn’t evidence that it’s true, and that I may or not behave better because of my faith is not either. At best, this argues for pluralism, for any of us that’s talked with their local LDS missionaries knows, each one has a testimony, and often quite sincere and heartfelt. What’s more, the LDS missionaries seem much more committed to their faith, at least in the willingness to evangelize and make personal sacrifices than a lot of evangelical Christendom. If we’re going to compare personal right-living, a lot of us are going to lose that fight.

But this isn’t the worst of it. The worst of it is that our testimony to unbelievers is often this:

I used to live like garbage. I used to ____, _____, _____, and especially _______. Now I do not. Sure, Im not perfect, but I am better and happier than I was back then. And you can have this, too!

But again, lots of religions offer this changed life. Even worse though, is that this is not what someone should become a Christian. Happiness, contentment, etcetera, are not reasons to convert to Christianity. Despite what the 700 club might had you believe, genuine conviction often (not always, but often) makes one’s life harder, it makes it worse, it makes it less happy.

You do realize we have a whole book dedicated to lamenting, right? This whole, “Hey, it’s worked for me, it can work for you too!” is nothing better than the pop-wanna-be “Your best smile now” Christianity. Frankly, it’s a lie. It won’t work for some people.

The only reason to become a Christian is because it’s true, because Jesus really did rise from the dead, leaving behind him an empty tomb, taking on himself the punishment due others that they might have life. It’s not about us.

Before the family was to set sail, urgent business arose and Horatio had to delay his departure, but instead sent his family on and he would meet them when he could. So Anna, his wife, and his four daughters set out on their voyage across the Atlantic.

Nine days later, Horatio received a telegram from Anna who had arrived in Wales. It read, “Saved alone.” On November second, their ship had colided with another, sinking in a mere 12 minutes. Anna stood on the deck with her daughters at her side, where one by one they were ripped from her side by the rushing water. She alone was saved as a floating plank propped up her unconscious body.

On hearing the news, Horatio boarded the next ship bound for England. While sailing, the captain alerted Horatio, noting to him as they passed the place where his four daughters were drowned. He returned to his cabin and wrote the following hymn,1

It Is Well With my Soul When peace, like a river, attendeth my way, When sorrows like sea billows roll; Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say, It is well, it is well, with my soul. It is well, with my soul, It is well, with my soul, It is well, it is well, with my soul. Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come, Let this blest assurance control, That Christ has regarded my helpless estate, And hath shed His own blood for my soul. It is well, with my soul, It is well, with my soul, It is well, it is well, with my soul. My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought! My sin, not in part but the whole, Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more, Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul! It is well, with my soul, It is well, with my soul, It is well, it is well, with my soul. And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight, The clouds be rolled back as a scroll; The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend, Even so, it is well with my soul. It is well, with my soul, It is well, with my soul, It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Certainly, Horatio’s soul wasn’t leaping with joy. Following years is hardship, the remainder of his living children were taken from him, and he wrote this hymn at the very spot where there bodies layed. But this hymn is not about his feelings or his emotions. More on this in a bit.

In October 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed the Proclamation of Thanksgiving.2 Note that the civil war did not end until 1865. 1863 was square in the middle of one of the ugliest wars America had ever known. 1863 was not a happy time. I urge you to read it in its entirety, but to save your eyes, note this excerpt, especially in light of the history we noted,

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict… They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens….

This is qute in keeping with Thanksgiving and the statements issued by the office of the presidency. In 1789, George Washington made a similar proclamation, though after a war had ravaged the new America for over a decade. Washington said,3 (also, consider reading the whole thing)

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Two presidents, one in the middle of a war and one coming out of one paused to give thanks (and also called the nation to repent of their trangressions) to the God whom made all things possible, and even in light of suffering, to be thankful for that which they had. I find that attitude remarkable.

I’m encouraged by the example set by Horation above. He penned his famous words, “it is well with my soul,” during the darkest time in his life. How could he say such a thing? I said above that, obviously, he was not speaking of his feelings. Draw your attention to the second verse after the chorus. He says that, though trials should come, to consider the assurance that comes to even one such as he in his sad state: that Christ has shed His own blood for his soul. The state of Horatio’s soul was well, not because it was filled with joy, but because by the objective saving work of God, it was secure. His hope was in the Gospel.

1 John 4:10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

A man had a question. “What does it mean that the Lord wishes that none should perish, but that all should be saved?” If God wants all people to be saved, won’t they be? Is not God sovereign. Does God not get what God wants?

What does “all” mean? To answer this question, the preacher looked to the his Bible. But the question came from reading the Bible. What to do? Maybe if he read it in Greek? Well he doesn’t know Greek. He does, however, know Pig Latin! Latin and Pig Latin must have a similar language structure, so it’s almost like knowing Latin, and since Catholics do something or other in Latin, this must be useful. And anyway, Latin and Greek must be pretty similar. So the man looked at his Pig Latin translation.

Ethay Ordlay isway otnay owslay otay ulfillfay ishay omisepray asway omesay ountcay ownessslay, utbay isway atientpay owardtay ouyay, otnay ishingway atthay anyway ouldshay erishpay, utbay atthay allway ouldshay eachray epentanceray.

Hmmm. “Allway.” That doesn’t ring a bell. The man thought you moved the last syllable to the front and added an “a” at the end, right? Shouldn’t it be “Lla-a?” To make it shorter, drop the dupliate letters and it becomes “la.” Now he’s getting somewhere. “La!” Besides, nothing starts with “lla” but llama, and he never saw llamas in the New Testament so the context tells him that consolidation was the right move. Besides, didn’t they drop vowels in Hebrew, too?

La. A note to follow so. Julie Andrews… who was in New Year’s Eve with Robert DeNiro who was in Sleepers with Kevin Bacon. #winning

Okay, that got out of hand. No really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VePxbFQ-qfw

But the point I want to make is this, theology is dangerous, especially in small doses. Bible study is dangerous is small doses. What we don’t want to do is start by picking up some words or themes from the text, from scholars, from theologians, get a base definition of what this or that doctrine is and then run with it in any direction we choose, thinking we know what we’re talking about. But hear me, I don’t mean theology isn’t for everybody, or that study isn’t for everyone; it is.

The Christian creeds, the doctrines of the faith have a lot of work and though and labor put into refining them to specific understandings, and though reading scholars, in studying the creeds, etc., can lead us to a much fuller understanding of Scriptures by uniting themes and concepts and truths we might have misses, or misunderstood.

For example, trinity is not in the Bible, at least the word is not. But the concept is there. So when someone uses the word trinity to describe God, they are not using a “Bible word,” but they are using a biblical idea. But trinity means something specific. If left at face value, we get people, often well meaning, that come up with various analogies that attempt to explain it to others that oftendo a much better job of describing rejected Christian heresies and not orthodox Christian doctrine. (e.g. an egg: shell, yolk, and white; a man: husband ,father, and son, etc.) As a consequence we end up teaching falsely about God.

We ought not learn the spelling of a few big words and then think we’re capable of teaching difficult concepts. I’ll give an example of this in an upcoming post.

If for no other reason, Tolkien’s close proximity to other intriguing figures and groups is enough to give a Horne’s book a read, though not the only reason. Tolkein lived in a very interesting time, WWI through WWII periods, and influenced and was influenced by some very fascinating people (C. S. Lewis, etc.). Horne goes into more detail in the relationship with Lewis than he does in the like of Tolkien’s wife Edith. My favorite quote from Horne notes an early meeting between the pair where he says,

Lewis wasn’t too impressed at the time. He said later that he had been taught by his Protestant family and then his English literature professors never to trust a papist or a philologist. Tolkien was doubly suspect to him.

I’ve not read anything else about the life of Tolkien, but only heard tales of parts of his life anecdotally (and I suppose some elements in the lengthy LotR preface that describes the laborious process of publishing the book(s)), and on even that note, Horne does a wonderful job elaborating on just how coplex that process actually was, both form Tolkien’s obsession with perfection and with the difficult task of publishing such a lengthy novel in general.

*Note: I recieved a “reviewer’s copy of this from BookSneeze.com (my first review book ever!). All the thoughts are my own and given under no obligation for favorable reviews. I’d consider checking them out for yourself!

Some time ago I saw an article by Albert Mohler titled, Preachers Who Don’t Believe. The article takes a look at a study spear-headed by atheist, scientist, and philosopher, Daniel Dennet. The article is, I would suggest, worth reading. My intent is not to rewrite what Dr. Mohler says, but draw some attention to some specific points.

Early in the article that caught my attention. Commenting on Dennet, Dr. Mohler says,

Dennett… [proposes] that many modern people claim to be Christians while holding to virtually no specific theological content, [suggesting] that their mode of faith should not be described as “belief,” but rather as “believing in belief.”

And this seems to me to be an unfortunately accurate assessment of a lot of evangelical Christianity. It’s a more detailed way of phrasing, “I don’t need no doctrine; I’m just a simple man that loves Jesus.” Sadly, it seems that this kind of statement often works itself out in a church member that shows little difference in his theology and that of a cultic group that he, on principle, rejects.

The article goes on to note the story of a minister that no longer has a believe in a god or God, but for reasons (mostly financial), he’s kept that hidden. As someone that works for an institution that requires the signing of assent to a lengthy doctrinal statement, I’m very simpathetic to the plight. If my theology changes enough, the financial security is at risk. That is, unless I lie about it.

Clearly, this would also be a serious consideration for pastors, too. I did see an article recently where a pastor mused on Facebook about his adoption of some seriously divergent theological views and he was subsequently fired by his congregation. While, I do think my (hypothetical!) lying about my own views to keep my employment would be very serious, for a pastor to do that is so much more, especially because what is at stake.

Dr. Mohler goes on to say asserts that, and I agree with him, that unbelieving pastors are a curse on the church. And they ought not be there. Further he says,

If they will not remove themselves from the ministry, they must be removed. If they lack the integrity to resign their pulpits, the churches must muster the integrity to eject them. If they will not “out” themselves, it is the duty of faithful Christians to “out” them.

And this I also agree with. But, I don’t think it starts and stops there. While no doubt this as it happens is a serious scourge on the church, the two ends are not faith and atheism, for in many churches theology matters (or should matter) on points more broad than the question of God’s existence. It starts there but does not end there.

A concern I’ve had for a while in reflecting on the life of the church has not been of the unbelieving pastor in particular, but broadly the pastor who simply will not be dogmatic about anything other than a very, very small circle of issues. That, to them, there is almost nothing in the theological landscape worth addressing if it means disagreement. And I’ve myself wondered why in some congregations pastors are not only slow on correcting, but almost ambivalent to false teaching.

A lot of our churches have adopted intentionally vague and small doctrinal statements and when faced with overt challenges to clear-cut teachings in Scripture, they ignore them, instead appealing to the desire for unity, putting aside even Scripture itself for the sake of so-called peace.

On the global scale, however, I’m not sure how many pastors are concerned with peace as much as the are in being cagey with their own theologies, reflecting largely on their own interests. Why else, if the Bible were true, would one resist guiding those in error to a road out of it? Would not the easiest of conversations be with those whom you both love, care for, and already share openly at least a base of similar worldviews?

I think, sadly, that a strategic decision made by some is to keep their own theology close to the chest, as it were rather than speak plainly about it, not because theology doesn’t matter, but precicely because it does matter. This, I think, is why with some notable teachers, that questions are much more important than answers. When we speak plainly, the stakes are much higher. Obfuscation is the solution.

But then again, putting our own interests ahead of what’s right isn’t unique to the pastors of whom this assessment might fit, is it? For don’t we all, to at least some extent mask who we are or what we think, what we say or what we do or want to do? My goodness, is anything more telling than social media, in the persuit of image-shaping? As Christians, not only for pastors, we need to be open and honest, bringing clarity and light, goodness and truth. Craftiness is not a virtue. Certainly as Dr. Mohler says, such pastors are a curse on the body, and yet the practice of presenting one’s self falsely is a vice for all and a curse upon anyone. Such hypocrisy is a plague.

What the New Atheists Don’t See – “The British parliament’s first avowedly atheist member, Charles Bradlaugh, would stride into public meetings in the 1880s, take out his pocket watch, and challenge God to strike him dead in 60 seconds. God bided his time, but got Bradlaugh in the end. A slightly later atheist, Bertrand Russell, was once asked what he would do if it proved that he was mistaken and if he met his maker in the hereafter. He would demand to know, Russell replied with all the high-pitched fervor of his pedantry, why God had not made the evidence of his existence plainer and more irrefutable. And Jean-Paul Sartre came up with a memorable line: “God doesn’t exist—the bastard!””

Male sexuality and marriage-onlyism — or, actually… – “Anyone thinking the ‘male sexuality’ battle is over & done, we still have a long way to go. Marriage-onlyism, even when delivered with trendy clothes & a cool haircut, is still merely the oppression of men. My heart aches to see younger men grow up free from this teaching, so they don’t have to doubt their sexual gifting, their equality in the Body of Christ, or their equality within society.” You must read the whole article (it’s not long!) for that to quote to really mean what it ought.

It Only Takes One Generation for a Church to Die – It’s important that we not take our churches for granted. This is why.

> Step 1: Launch an unhinged, fallacious attack on your opponent, focusing your attention on arguments he has never given.

> Step 2: Studiously ignore the arguments he actually has given.

> Step 3: Declare victory and exchange high fives with your fellow New Atheists, as they congratulate you for your brilliance and erudition.

> Step 4: When your opponent calls attention to this farcical procedure, accuse him of making unhinged, fallacious attacks on you….

> Step 5: Exchange further high fives with your fellow New Atheists.

> Step 6: Repeat 1 – 5 until your disconnect from reality is complete.

Feser goes on to detail what promted his post, but I think his overall summary is applicable to more than just the example he gives, as he points out. We see this in a lot of the New Atheists. Just consider the debates William Lane Craig has done with some of the leading New Atheists like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and the almost-debate with Richard Dawkins (side note: consider that Dawkins has been unwilling to defend even his own books). While only some of the examples that could be presented, in formal debates on “The Existence of God” little or no arguments are ever given to actually argue for there being no God by the people that dedicate their professional careers to maligning people that affirm there is one. And consider that many of the Christian arguments go unchallenged, either by refusal to engage the actual argument overtly, or passively by missunderstanding the argument (either by intent or ignorance) and instead refuting straw men.

Most of the attention in these debates (and careers) is spent instead drawing attention to how evil religious peple are (Hitchens) or how stupid they are (Dawkins), and all seem to focus on how evil, wicked, unjust, unloving, etc., God is. In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins sumarizes: >The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And let’s be serious. This is really what it’s about isn’t it? It’s not that God doesn’t exist. I cannot recall whom I first heard say it, but it’s been echoed many times sumarizing Hitchens’s main focus in his religious writings, ‘There is no God and I hate him.’ And that’s it, isn’t it? It’s not that God doesn’t exist, it’s that people hate him.

I was prompted to jott down this post after reading a post by Amy Hall or Stand to Reason, making this same point: > Christianity is Vile to Atheists > >In John Loftus’s book, Why I Became an Atheist, he quotes “exbeliever,” one of his fellow bloggers, who gives the clearest, most accurate illustration I’ve seen to describe the mindset of outspoken atheists toward God and Christianity…. >> For a long time, I was an ardent admirer of Dr. John Piper. I remember a sermon of Dr. Piper’s in which he described God as a flowing fountain of delight…. But what about those of us who have left the fountain with a horrible taste in our mouths? We came to the fountain and drank as deeply as we could and, for a while, could not get enough of it…. But, then, something happened. The fountain became foul to us…. We opened the Bible and, instead of finding wisdom, we found violence and the justification of immoral acts. We found anti-intellectualism and backward thinking. We found oppression….

>> We tried to hold on to the fountain, but something had changed. It wasn’t the fountain; it was our taste for it. We realized that the fountain wasn’t a being; it was a religion. It was just dogma. It is like we had been drinking from it with our eyes closed and noses plugged. Somehow, though, we opened our eyes and unplugged our noses and discovered that we had been enjoying filth. The fountain was a fountain of blood and other foul things. We realized that we had spent most of our lives consuming a vile concoction….

For some more insight on this, I refer back to my debate where the mudslinging of how evil church is and how irrational Christians are, yet when called to actually discuss the issues at hand, the debate was literally closed off.

I really am convinced that this is the big issue. It’s not “does God exist.” While there is an obvious need for being able to answer this question, if we can discern anything from the way almost every single debate on the existence of God goes, the issue is really not existence but God’s character.

So I go back, again, to Amy Hall’s post (which I think you should read in its entirety): >What does this mean for us as we speak to these atheists? In the end, no person’s taste for God or the Gospel will change unless the Holy Spirit changes his ability to taste. But the Holy Spirit moves people when we explain and glorify the beauty of God and the Gospel, so we need to make a more concerted effort to, first, in the midst of every topic of our apologetics, keep the arguments close to the idea that we’re ultimately conversing about a Person—a real Person whom we love, Who is distinct from us, and Who has a will and purposes; and second, we need to focus on understanding, explaining, and honoring His character and actions. I’ve come to believe that this is where we need to begin, even before arguments for His existence. This is where we need to concentrate our speaking and writing.

>Further, within this core issue of God’s character, I believe there is a truth even more deeply central to the divide between Christians and atheists—God’s surpassing holiness. I’m convinced that the atheists’ inability to comprehend God’s holiness is the particular turning point from which they have gone completely wrong. If the Holy Spirit were to reveal a glimpse of the majestic righteousness and holiness of God (and, by comparison, our sinfulness) to these atheists, the answers to 90% of their questions would fall swiftly into place. Since the Holy Spirit often uses our words as the means by which He reveals such things, we need to be prepared to speak on this subject.