Religion for Atheists results in a new moral certainty.

Alain de Botton has recently suggested a new kind of religion for atheists – one which takes all the best bits of religion such as community, generosity, creativity but leaves behind all the less desirable parts such as the rules and the actual beliefs. Ed West in today’s telegraph commented how this would always end up like an alcohol free lager – missing something crucial and something that doesn’t do much for anybody.

An interesting article – his last paragraph was this:

The real problem is that religion is always replaced by something else. The rise of fads such as homoeopathy is well documented, but more commonly people’s religious desires for certainty, morality and community are transferred to their politics; that is why there is this sense that those outside the communion of correct beliefs today are morally unclean, and new sins such as “racist” and “sexist” replace “heretic” and “sinner”. That is the real “religion for atheists”.

This struck a chord with something that we were discussing on Jon Marlow’s blog, about whether postmodernism was giving way to something else – a sense of ‘correct belief’ where everything outside of the prevailing view is not tolerated, shouted down or responded to with the refrain “You can’t say that!”. We called this ‘neo-conformity’. Interesting that this trend has been spotted by others and I wonder if it is really leading onto a change in era.

Humanism and the Census

The British Humanist Association are making a big thing about the UK 2011 Census, in particular the question that asks “What is your religion?” They say that on the 2001 census, the first time such a question was asked, the question was a leading question added to the fact that the first option was ‘Christian’ and the option for ‘No Religion’ was at the bottom of the list. This year the BHA have come us with a huge campaign which includes, yes, bus adverts (seems to be the main thing they do), encouraging people to tick the ‘No Religion’ box. Some of their adverts were banned because they were deemed ‘offensive’ to some people. One of them , ironically, was preaching about how one person didn’t like to be preached at! They want people who do not subscribe to any religion to say so.

But it really comes down to what the question is asking. Sociologists agree that there is a difference between religious practice and religious affiliation. In the last census a huge proportion of the population ticked that they were Christian – a staggering 37 million people out of the 52 million census forms in 2001. Compare this to only 7.75 million people who ticked ‘No Religion’ and a further 4 million who did not answer the question. No-one is stupid enough to claim that they were all card carrying practising Christians because they are evidently seen in church not often or at all. But it is possible to feel affiliated to a religion without practising it. Every year thousands of couples get married in church despite the fact that there are plenty of beautiful country houses around that offer non-religious ceremonies. And thousands of couple bring their children to be baptised even if they are not regular church-goers. Why is this? It clearly doesn’t say much about their religious practice, but does say something about their religious affiliation. They obviously have some sort of link with the church or religion in question even if it stops short of regular committed faith.

So I ask, is it not legitimate for someone like this to tick the box ‘Christian’ because it is expressing their affiliation if not their practice? The BHA would like them to tick no because it would like us to think that atheism is more prominent than it is. In practise we have a lot of nominal belief around. People may be reluctant to go to church but it seems they are also reluctant to give up on the idea of God too. It will be interesting to see what this years census brings.

Bonheoffer on civil courage

A long quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Letters and Papers from Prison. From here we get to his thoughts about responsible action in the face of evil. It seems, even if you’re not sure, an action done in genuine faith in opposition to evil is better than inaction.

“Civil Courage? What lies behind the complaint about the dearth of civil courage? In recent years we have seen a great deal of bravery and self-sacrifice, but civil courage hardly anywhere, even among ourselves…. We have looked upwards, not ins servile fear, but in free trust, seeing in out tasks a call, and in out call a vocation. This readiness to follow a command from ‘above’ rather than out own private opinions and wishes was a sign of legitimate self-distrust. Who would deny that in obedience, in their task and calling, the Germans have again and again shown the utmost bravery and self-sacrifice? But the German has kept his freedom – and what nation has talked more passionately of freedom that the Germans, from Luther to the idealist philosophers? – by seeking deliverance from self-will through service to the community. Calling and freedom were to him two sides of the same thing. But in this he misjudged the world; he did not realise that his submissiveness and self-sacrifice could be exploited for evil ends. When that happened, the exercise of the calling itself became questionable, and all the moral principles of the German were bound to totter. The fact could not be escaped that the Germans still lacked something fundamental: he could not see the need for free and responsible action, even in opposition to he task and his calling; in its place there appeared on the one hand an irresponsible lack of scruple, and on the other a self-tormenting punctiliousness that never led to action. Civil courage, in fact, can grow only out of the free responsibility of free men. Only now are the Germans beginning to discover the meaning of free responsibility. It depends on a God who demands responsible action in a bold venture of faith, and who promises forgiveness and consolation to the man who becomes a sinner in that venture.

Preaching Jesus

Notes from the Dwell UK session by Mark Driscoll, 12th July 2008, at St Paul’s Church, Robert Adam St. London.

Session 5: Preaching Jesus

Everything is about Jesus. If we talk about Jesus then our congregation will. During 1 to 1 talks, groups, preaching -> everything is about Jesus. So how do we preach about Jesus well?

Driscoll uses some framing questions to guide him in his preparation.

1. What does the original text say (do Hebrew and Greek work if you can)
2. What did it mean in that culture, then, when it was written [this will start to guide us as to what it means now]
3. How can it be memorable -  The sermon needs a hook to hang itself on. This could be a doctrine, a theological issue, an emotion, an image, a character study etc.
4. Answer possible objections to the point as these will be going on in the minds of our hearers. Why do we resist what the passage is saying? Engage in apologetics over the point.
5. Why does it matter?  – What is the missional approach? This is not just about a personal application, but why does it matter to our community now. Church is a witness of real community to the city – are we preaching a false gospel by how we live?
6. How is Jesus the hero? How does this sermon witness to Jesus through the passage. This will quietly train people to be evangelistic.

Teach and preach in such a way that everything is about Jesus.

But how do we find Jesus in more obscure parts of the Old Testament?

• forshadowing – OT prophecies directly about Jesus
• Christophenes – Jesus showing up as the Angel of the LORD in the OT
• Types of Jesus – e.g. Adam, priesthood, David and the kings, Prophets, sacrifices, Temple, shepherd, Judges, Bread, Vine, Light
• A Service that an OT character performs that Jesus does perfectly – e.g. Isaac laying the wood for his own sacrifice.
• OT Events – passover, exodus, exile
• Titles For God – e.g Son of God, King of Kings, etc.

Careful not to turn OT stories into moralising or simply stories of superheroes. The big idea is to tell people about Jesus. It it’s about Jesus it is good, even if other things about it are not good!

One other thing Driscoll said that I liked:

Until you’ve preached, like, 200 times, don’t worry that you’re not any good at it.

Gospel of Grace vs Religion of Works

Notes from the Dwell UK session by Mark Driscoll, 12th July 2008, at St Paul’s Church, Robert Adam St. London.

Session 1: Gospel of Grace vs Religion of Works.

The Gospel is something we continually learn – we don’t just learn it and then move on from it, we need to keep reminding ourselves of it and keep learning what it means.

1 Cor 15:1-4 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

From this, the gospel is:

1. proclaimational – it must be spoken. Community, relationships and stories are great, but they are not sufficient.
2. personal – it is something that each needs to personally receive. We can ask of people ‘What do you believe?’
3. essential – no-one can be saved apart from the gospel of Christ.
4. central – it is of primary importance and it mustn’t be changed
5. Biblical – contained in the scriptures.

The gospel is about Jesus. If church leaders talk about Jesus naturally in their conversations and in their services, the people will get used to talking about Jesus

• they will not be ashamed of him
• negative reactions to Jesus are often against incorrect stereotypes of him
• give people the truth about Jesus, and people will at least hear it and maybe accept it.

Enemies of the Gospel: Idolatory and Religion

Both idolators and the religious need to repent and come to faith in Jesus

1. Idolatry
Luther said – all sins are the fruit of idolatry

• something that takes the place of God
• the root of coveting, lust etc. is the worship of something that is not God (cf. Rom 1)
• idolators end up worshipping something created.

Idols make promises that are lies.

• They usually promise good things, such as identity or value, but they can’t take the place of God
• what we love generally enslaves us. (aside: was the plague of the first born sons in Exodus a judgement of God agains the idol of family?)

Idols work my pulling us from a bad definition of hell to an unbiblical definition of heaven. For example:

• being single = hell, married = heaven. The saviour then becomes the partner
• of – begin childless = hell, the saviour is then the child.
• just about all advertising and movies promote a false heaven

The question “What are you most afraid of?” or “What do you most long for?” can help point us towards our idols.

People who use Jesus to get to what they want  – such as health, a spouse, a job etc, are just making Jesus the means to get to an idol. We have to ask ourselves whose approval we are seeking.

All people struggle with idolatry. All are spiritual for the wrong thing. All need to repent and turn to God

2. Religion
Idolators assume they are righteous enough or good enough. The religious person assumes they need to o something (through guilt or shame) so they strain to get to God.

Religion

• If I obey God, he will love me
• keeps people in fear and guilt and in condemnation to control people
• sees the world as good and bad people. If they are good – they’re on our side. This is used over Bible interpretation, eschatology, politics and more. It creates a scorecard for righteousness
• is about what you do. Why do you read the Bible, for how long, have you spoken in tongues
• sanctification (holiness) leads to justification (being seen as right before God)

Gospel

• God loves me, so I am able to obey.
• there are no good and bad – we are all sinners  – just some have repented and some have not
• Jesus said “It is finished”. He has done everything for us
• justification is offered for free and this leads to sanctification

Ultimately – religion is about me and the gospel is about Jesus. Religion leads to either pride of despair – you either make it or you don’t.

Rom 1:16-17  I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.“

Everyone needs the gospel – both idolators and the religious.

The atheist delusion

There’s a great article in the Guardian from a couple of days ago talking about Dawkins, Hitchens and the new breed of atheists that seem to be zealous about their faith. He underlines the flaws in believing solely in scientific progress, and highlights some of the less than scientific theories that it is built upon. I don’t pretend to understand it all but it’s worth a read.

Some thoughts on the origin of the universe

Dawkins (and some others like him) expose the view that there is no God. The universe came about through natural processes. There is nothing eternal that had to have kicked off this process, and no need for a creator.

There are lots of other theories out there – creationism (God created the universe literally as it is recorded in the Bible), evolution, Intelligent design. Some say the big bang started everything off. But what caused that? Where did the matter comes from? I see three options which can begin to explain the origin of life. All theories fit within one of these three options (from David Robertson, ‘The Dawkins letters’ p58 )

1. Something came from nothing. At one point there was no universe, there was no material, there was no matter [physical stuff], no time, no space. And out of that big nothing there came the Big Bang and out vast universe, tiny planet, evolution and the human species. Such a notion is beyond the realms of reason and is a total nonsensical fantasy

2. Something was eternal. In other words matter has always existed. There is a lump of rock, or a mass of gas, or some kind of matter which had no beginning and will probably have no end. And at some point that matter exploded and we ended up with the finely tuned and wonderful universe we now inhabit

3. Something was created – ex nihilo – out of nothing. And that Creator has to be incredibly powerful, intelligent and awesome beyond our imagination.

So we either have the universe being created out of nothing by no-one, the physical material which makes up the universe having always existed, or we need a creator. There are no other logical choices.

I do not subscribe to creationism – you do not need to in order to take the Bible seriously. Likewise there are flaws in the theory of evolution and in the theory of Intelligent Design. But the simple existence of ourselves and our universe necessitates something eternal. Either the universe was eternal (option 2), or it was created by something (option 3). There is no other logical option.

Some more quotes from eminent scientists (both quoted in ‘The Dawkins Letters’, p64):

“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole” (Arno Penzias, Nobel-prize winner for his work on finding background radiation which supports the theory of the Big Bang)

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of God who intended to create beings like us” (Stephen Hawking, in ‘A Brief History of Time’)