Imagine you were one of the two miners trapped alive in the Beaconsfield mine collapse. You sense that rescue may be near. You perceive faint glimpses of communication from the outside world.
But your mate plays down your optimism as blind faith and misplaced hope. He takes a purely evidence-based empirical view of your shared new world, trapped almost a kilometre underground. From his perspective, one of his colleagues is already dead, and there’s insufficient reason to believe anything other than imminent demise through further collapse, starvation or exposure. He tries to convince you to give up hope of rescue.
Sounds like Richard Dawkins arguing for atheism, doesn’t it?
My adaptation of the Beaconsfield tragedy is hypothetical. Both Todd Russell and Brant Webb were, in fact, optimistic believers in their developing rescue as it unfolded. Their optimism helped them to survive their ordeal.
But my imagined scenario highlights the futility of arguing for atheism. Atheism, if true, offers no hope relative to its alternatives.
Theism, if true, offers unlimited hope, love and happiness.
Atheism offers no satisfying solutions to the deep questions of life – its origins, meaning, purpose or destiny.
Why expend energy articulating ideas that extinguish hope, meaning and purpose?
Perfect love allows freedom to believe that faith in God is futile. It even allows freedom to promote those beliefs, no matter how dark and sad they may be.
But why promote darkness and sadness over light and happiness (see John 1:1-14)?
Part of the answer is that the common picture of God has been so badly distorted from reality so as to make atheism attractive in comparison.
Like the erroneous doctrine of eternal hellfire. That one piece of distortion makes the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin look like child’s play. And God an absolute tyrant.
There are many more deceptions about God’s character, too. Their chief source? Ironically, the Christian church.
Back to my imaginary scenario at Beaconsfield. The trapped miner arguing against hope for rescue may have had good reason to mistrust the rescuers based on past negative experience. And that would make his pessimism more understandable, though still not justifiable.
How? Let’s follow my imaginary scenario just a bit further. Imagine that in the weeks leading up to the Beaconsfield mine collapse tragedy, your pessimist miner friend had tried to improve safety standards and culture at the mine. But the mine safety manager’s response was to show a blatant disregard for personal wellbeing. Instead he pursued vindictive vendettas for the purpose of his own career development. Under this scenario, his pessimism entirely makes sense!
But the good news is that God is love (1 Jn 4:8)! Just as the rescuers at Beaconsfield were actually working for the best interests of the trapped miners, so too God is good! In fact, perfectly good.
He truly does have your best interests uppermost in His heart and mind (Rom 5:8). When you realise the depth of His love for you, your life will make perfect sense (Jer 29:11). Your happiness will be unlimited (Jn 10:10, 15:11).
Atheism has gained increasing and widespread acceptance since the French Revolution a couple of hundred years ago. There are a lot of things right about atheism’s ‘correction.’ Atheism is a reasonable reaction against the excesses of the church.
Interestingly, atheism wasn’t the answer to preventing the needless bloodshed perpetuated by institutionalised religion. In its first few years the French Revolution was just as bloody as the Church to which it was reacting.
Why was atheism not able to provide a completely satisfying answer to the ills of religion?
Reality Simplified in Three Word Slogans
Human nature has a habit of taking an issue and simplifying it down to slogans that address only one end of the tension. Australia’s former PM, Tony Abbott, has a penchant for such “three word slogans” such as:
“Stop the boats”
“Axe the [carbon] tax”
“Islam needs reformation”
There are virtuous principles, good values, and undoubted truth behind elements of each of those slogans. But they clearly ignore a whole different set of principles, values and truths that quickly neutralise any enduring appeal or significance of such three word slogans.
Could it be the same with atheism and religion? Does “There are no gods worth having” eventually ring hollow?
History Repeats in Swings and Roundabouts
Election cycles quickly take care of political over-reach. Political leaders’ own parties can even intervene earlier – just ask Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd, and Julia Gillard. Political leadership changes tend to provide correction back and forth from one extreme to the other with only an occasional centrist refreshment.
Could it be that we have done the same in the area of religion and atheism?
Throughout history there have been many pendulum swings, over a variety of issues:
Democratically elected governments go between emphasis on a welfare state and free-market economic rationalism.
Germany’s territorial expansion associated with both world wars, with a period of overly harsh treaty provisions in between.
The Bible documents Israel’s inglorious history, going between abject apostasy and over-zealous Pharisaism.
The Christian church, going between syncretistic pluralism and fundamentalist persecution of heresy.
The renaissance and scientific advancement, going between belief in a Creator of natural order and the positive atheism of the New Atheists.
The above examples demonstrate that some pendulum swings can be fast; some exceedingly slow. A single pendulum isn’t always going to swing back to the exact same spot it came from last time. The cliché is true: history does tend to repeat itself, but the pattern can be irregular.
Atheism’s Future Correction: Back to Religious Fundamentalism?
What will be the popular opposing pendulum swing to atheism, when patience for its failures eventually runs out? I don’t think it’s likely to be a widespread return to narrow-minded dogmatic expression of religious fundamentalism. There may be the odd recruit to ISIS for whom fundamentalism is an appealing correction. But for society at large, we’ve come from there too recently to want that again.
Something that would both oppose atheism and have popular appeal would be a supernatural experiential phenomenon. An observable manifestation of a spiritual dimension would, by logical necessity, neutralise the appeal of a materialistic atheist worldview. It would also be likely to interest or even satisfy someone searching for more out of the vicissitudes of life regardless of their faith orientation.
In fact, it is prophesied in the Bible (see 2 Thes 2:9). True Christianity will soon be threatened not so much by disbelief in the existence of God, but by faith in manifestations from the spirit world that are fundamentally evil.
The world has lost its spiritual discernment, in part because it has largely chosen an atheistic worldview. Without spiritual discernment, any widespread appearance of spiritual phenomena will, of logical necessity, be embraced as enlightenment compared to atheism.
Another Overdue Correction
Not all pendulum swings are resolved by coming to rest in the middle position.
The one pendulum swing that we need above all others – without a settling into the middle – is a switch from widespread selfishness (Matt 24:12) to pervasive selfless love (Jn 13:35). The selfishness of our society is evident in such catchphrases as “if it feel’s good, do it.” It is a natural and unfortunate outcome of a Darwinian worldview where survival is for the fittest.
The world has seen one great display of self-sacrificing love, when Jesus Christ came to earth (Rom 5:8). That display sparked a revolution that spread internationally through the early Christian church. But institutionalised religion soon obscured any glimpses of God’s true character into one that looked like a coercive tyrant.
I believe we will see a widespread return (Rev 18:1-4) of this selfless Christian revival (2 Cor 5:18-21) in the near future (Matt 24:14).
Two Corrections Coming in Parallel
Thus there will be two pendulum swings away from atheism. One will be true (Rev 14:6-12), the other will be false (Matt 24:24-25).
The false one will swing from atheism to experience-based spiritual phenomena (2 Cor 11:14-15). The true one will swing from selfishness to self-sacrificing love (Jn 13:35).
It’s hard for me to think of any biblical reason for desiring the use or availability of weapons. Yet conservative Americans, including many Christians, and indeed friends of mine, argue against gun control.
Why?
It baffles me.
I don’t have as much personal interest, experience or detailed knowledge as others in this debate. I will make a few high level comments, though.
Historical Accident
The Second Amendment to the US constitution provides for ‘the right to bear arms.’ Now I don’t have any additional personal insight as to why the founding fathers thought that was important to put there. There are a variety of views held by people who know a whole lot more about it than I do. There were no doubt a number of relevant contributing factors.
But I do put forward two thoughts for consideration:
If the founding fathers were alive today, and they were creating the constitution in today’s world of weapons of mass destruction, they may well have written the second amendment differently, if at all. If you find yourself recoiling at that idea, then consider the following.
Even if those particular individuals would have written it, in light of today’s weaponry, exactly as they wrote it over 200 years ago… so what? The fact that something is in a nation’s constitution does not make it sacred. It does not mean that it shouldn’t be questioned, reinterpreted or even changed. Although it does make it more legally complicated to change course.
It saddens me that Christians, usually of the conservative camp, appeal to the constitution or the founding fathers as though the second amendment were sacred. It’s almost as if it were on the level of the Bible or a fundamental and inalienable human right.
One of the pilgrim fathers, Pr John Robinson, said something of enduring significance:
“I Charge you before God and his blessed angels that you follow me no further than you have seen me follow Christ. If God reveal anything to you by any other instrument of His, be as ready to receive it as you were to receive any truth from my ministry, for I am verily persuaded the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth from His holy word.
“The Lutherans cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw. Whatever part of His will our God has revealed to Calvin, they (Lutherans) will rather die than embrace it; and the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were left by that great man of God, who yet saw not all things. This is a misery much to be lamented.”
Could it be that there is more light and truth available today than what was originally captured in the second amendment?
Problem Framing
Solutions invariably reflect the way a problem is framed. The issue of gun violence can be framed in a number of different ways:
Big government versus small government. Going along with the conservative ideology that big government is bad, it is easy to conclude that more regulation of firearms is therefore bad. More regulations require more regulatory bodies and law enforcement resources. Further, an armed citizenry is a potential check against tyrannical government. So under this framing, minimal governmental gun control is the logical solution.
Rights and freedoms. Assuming that individual freedoms are more sacred than anything else, gun control can be readily viewed as undesirable. However, a rights perspective introduces some tension. The right to life complicates matters, as that presents a direct conflict with the second amendment’s right to bear arms. Rights are only as protected as the legal frameworks that protect them. There is an obvious tension, as to ensure individual freedoms as well as protection of human life (in today’s world) requires some sort of government, laws, regulations and the enforcement of those. It may also arguably require some sort of weaponry, whether defence forces, militia or armed individual citizens.
Protection of human life. If preservation of human life is the most sacred objective, and government control to achieve that is welcome and assumed to be benevolent, then suddenly gun control is the logical solution. Of course this assumption of benevolent and necessary government intervention is not widely shared in the US, preventing any likely solution any time soon. Interestingly, however, it was a similar assumption that led many supporters of gun ownership to paradoxically support US government intervention to limit supposed WMD ownership in Iraq, leading to what now is seen as a largely unnecessary war. Talk about tyrannical government!
The solution all depends on how the problem is framed. How it is framed depends on the values and ideology of the person doing the framing. And sometimes also on the information at hand, but that seems secondary in this debate.
When someone says that others are framing the problem incorrectly, or are forgetting how it was originally framed by the founding fathers, they are often just arguing that their values and ideology are more important or more correct than someone else who chooses to frame the problem differently.
Is that fair?
Sharing your views on how you think a problem should best be framed can help enlighten someone who may not have considered the problem from your point of view before – especially if there is a knowledge gap. I have to admit I have changed my perspective on filling some of my own information gaps, and still have many more gaps.
But to expect someone to adopt your problem framing after becoming aware of the same information is hardly a selfless thing to do. After everyone has absorbed all the relevant information, perspectives will still differ because we all place slightly different priorities and hierarchies on our respective values.
Isn’t this clash of values at the root of most marriage conflict? Rarely is the solution found in both parties simply adopting one set of values over the other.
Christians can look to the Bible for some helpful guidance to help resolve value conflicts. Of course the Bible does not give definitive answers on every issue, though.
The ideology and values of relevance to gun control that I believe resonate most with those of the Bible centre around the protection of human life. One of the Ten Commandments says: “Thou shalt not kill.”
The Bible has very little to say about big versus small government. It does, however, uphold respect for the role of government (e.g., Rom 13).
Regulation of Other Killers
A common catchcry of conservatives is that “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” While this has truth, it is overly simplistic. The implication is that regulations should not focus on the objects but on the behaviours of people.
Yet there are so many regulations about everyday objects that present safety hazards. We now almost take these for granted. For example, it could be similarly argued that electric wiring doesn’t kill people. Yet regulations require shielding to prevent people from accidentally being electrocuted. The regulation makes sense; it has saved countless lives.
Electricity supplies aren’t designed to kill people. But guns are. Their purpose is to kill, maim, or at least threaten to do so. Electricity has utility outside violent conflict. Guns do not. (Unless you turn off the light in the same way as Mr Bean.)
Does it make sense to only regulate behaviours relating to objects which may pose a safety hazard to human health or life, and forego any regulations about the design, location or availability of the hazard itself? I think the answer is, clearly, that doesn’t make sense.
The Right to Bear Nukes?
The Bible and 18th century America do have some affirmative things to say about bearing swords (in Bible times) or guns (around 200 years ago).
But the technology of violence has moved from hand-to-hand combat capable of killing one person at a time to weaponry capable of wiping out entire nations at the push of a button.
Would anyone in their right mind want to allow all their neighbours to carry nuclear bombs?
However, on the other hand, nobody would want to make it illegal for anyone to carry a kitchen knife.
Both the nuke and the knife can be used to kill if placed in the wrong hands. But some weapons are clearly a whole lot more dangerous than others.
So it makes sense to have regulations limiting the dispersion and availability of the most dangerous of modern-day weaponry. The key question should be where to draw the boundaries so as to maximise quality and quantity of life.
Countries without anything like the second amendment are not, so far as I am aware, suffering abuses because of that lack. Therefore, in my opinion, questions about the role or size of government in light of a 200-year-old constitution should surely be secondary.
Statistics
There are many factors to consider. It is never so simple as comparing the statistics of one country against another. There are other differences beyond the level of gun control regulation.
However, the statistics must surely tell a significant part of the story, even if not the complete story. And the statistics from the Human Development Report do not look good for America. The US tops the pile for the gun violence, with daylight second:
#1: USA: 29.7 homicides by firearm per million people per year
#2: Switzerland: 7.7 homicides by firearm per million per year
Australia has just 1.4 homicides by firearm per million per year. And significantly, the rate here halved since tightening of gun laws in 1996.
So I continue to have a hard time understanding why some Christians (or anyone else, for that matter) argue against tightening gun control in the US.
More than just numbers
According to the CDC, 11,208 Americans needlessly lost their lives in 2013 due to homicide by firearm. If the rate of deaths by firearm could be reduced to the level in Australia, that would save 10,680 American lives per year.
These are people like you and me. Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers. For each life needlessly lost, countless more are affected by the loss.
While gun control is not the only relevant factor it is by far the most obvious.
The conservative right was quick to take advantage of government power in response to the loss of 2,977 innocent lives lost in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Many now view that government response as tyrannical. The United States excused their declaration of war on Iraq by alleging significant hidden stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction that still have yet to be found.
The tyranny of government over-reach isn’t just felt in the Middle East. There is widespread recognition of loss of rights and personal freedoms through heightened internal security measures. Some would say it is oppressive or abuse. The world is a different place since 911.
But in the face of ongoing loss of life numbering an order of magnitude higher due to domestic (US) gun violence, the conservative right tend to ignore the numbers, human suffering and loss. They appeal to the second amendment. It seems they place a higher value on individual freedom to own weapons as a check against a perceived threat of tyrannical government abuse.
I am not arguing for or against a particular political party or policy option. I am not at all partisan. It’s not hard to find both good and bad on both sides. They’re all as human as the founding fathers, you and me. I.e., prone to mistakes. I simply care about human life.
For me to be prepared to elevate the value I place on an armed citizenry being a check against tyrannical government, I would need someone to point me to an example of a nation or state where the lack of a ‘second amendment’ type of legal provision has led to tyrannical government abuse. Until then, I will place a higher value on avoiding the needless violent deaths of 11,208 Americans every year.
11,208 human beings with families, friends, emotions, hopes and plans. Like you and me.
How can we know God’s will? Does God desire to direct all our decisions, or let us make them for ourselves? Or something in between?
Is there one and only one specific and distinct path that God has mapped out uniquely for each of our individual lives?
I believe that God’s will for our lives is a lot broader than that, encompassing multiple alternatives within His moral boundaries. Expecting to perceive God’s will as a specific choice between good options in all our decisions is inconsistent, arbitrary and impractical. In fact, impossible.
As our loving Father, God wants us to learn to make good decisions for ourselves based on the principles and values of His character of love and freedom. Not to treat Him as a Divine fortune-teller.
The Decision Dilemma
Christians often try to give God the responsibility for our own decisions as though they were His. Closely related is the thinking that “God’s will for me is one path and one path only. The exact career path, living locations, “the one” life partner. Any deviation from that one thread of decision-making is living out of His will.” So the thinking goes.
In contrast, I believe God delights in giving us freedom to choose our path within a broad range of options that are within His already-revealed will. His Word gives broad principles of how we should prioritise the kingdom of heaven in our lives.
God-Directed Decisions a Relative Rarity
Only rarely does God specifically tell us who to marry. Hosea and Gomer spring to mind as an example.
Or where to live. Enter Abraham.
Or what career to pursue: Jonah.
I believe these are special cases. Exceptions, not the rule. And even then, they do not provide a basis for the manner in which Christians today tend to approach finding God’s will to aid their decision-making much like fortune-telling.
In none of these cases do we find the human praying to God that He would reveal His choice in these specific matters. God simply came and unambiguously gave an unexpected life-changing plan.
Fortune-telling – Avoiding Risk
However, we want to avoid the hard work, risk and responsibility involved in constantly prioritising among good options for major life decisions. We want God to do more than simply tell us what is good and or bad. We want Him to tell us which specific option is best. Wouldn’t that make life much easier? I say this looking in the mirror.
To be consistent, though, we would probably need to take this ‘fortune-teller’ approach to all decisions, not just the major ones. For example, whether to drive in the left or right lane down the freeway. We usually make such small decisions thinking little of it. But the potential consequences of a lane-changing decision can be just as life-changing as any major life decision.
There’s some very practical and also some deep ideological problems with wanting to outsource responsibility for all the ‘major’ decisions of our lives to a ‘fortune-teller’ God.
Ideological Dissonance: Love versus Fortune-telling
God created us to be free persons, with the ability to creatively express ourselves. To be independent. To love. Love is only possible for one who has freedom to choose. Otherwise we are merely robots.
In a good marriage, both spouses try to please each other. But imagine if a wife tried to please her husband by asking him which job he wanted her to take, which clothes he wanted her to buy and wear, and made every decision according to his desires. One of them would soon become unhappy. The wife would tire of the husband’s overbearing control. Or the husband would tire of his wife’s inability to figure things out for herself. Or both.
Yet sometimes we treat our relationship with God like that. Do we want Him to make all our major decisions out of desire for a mutually satisfying loving relationship based on freedom? I suspect that’s hardly our motivation for effectively treating God like a fortune-teller. My motivations have been selfish when I’ve fallen into that trap.
The marriage analogy suggests that mutually loving relationships are optimised when there is freedom of choice – freedom of creative expression – within rather broad boundaries.
A parent-child analogy is also useful as we are also God’s children. If the parent makes every decision for the child, the relationship will soon become dysfunctional and the child will not learn or grow.
In reality, God gives us broad principles of right and wrong and gives us freedom to exercise our creativity and choice.
Isn’t that what we’d prefer for our kids?
Can you imagine wanting your kids to just ask you to direct all their career and life choices? Yet that’s effectively what we expect God to do for us. Wouldn’t you prefer your growing children to express their own unique identity and make decisions for themselves?
But, you say, asking God to direct all our ‘major’ choices has the added benefit of His omniscience and future vision informing what is optimal. (Like a fortune-teller.)
The problem with the fortune-teller approach is that God’s Word doesn’t work like that. It gives us principles on which to grow in making our own sound decisions rather than a recipe for discerning God’s choice as if we were reading tarot cards or astrology.
Pragmatic Conflicts and Dead-ends with Ad-hoc Fortune-telling
There are also many practical problems with the belief that God led you to a particular past decision that you made, or direction that you chose.
Let’s say you pray something like “God, if I get the job I’ve applied for in New York, then I’ll take it as Your leading that You want me to move my family there.”
At first everything seems to confirm that “God” wants you in New York. You get the job, your spouse also gets a transfer there. The kids find an excellent school. Everything is going swimmingly.
Then the company that employed you winds up. Your wife falls pregnant again so soon neither of you will be working. The kids’ school ends up becoming a negative influence on the kids due to bullying and other problems.
What do you do? “God” led you to New York, right?
If God really did enter into all our bargaining and direct our lives like that, would He put an expiry date on His leading in a particular decision? Might He say, for example, “OK, move to New York and stay there no matter what happens for the rest of your lives.” Or, “stay there for the next three years.” Or maybe, “until things go bad and you feel like going somewhere else.”
To take this approach consistently, you would really have to stay following a particular direction until you received a new or different direction.
How would you apply that approach to choosing which lane to drive in on a motorway? A lane change might be needed more quickly to avert disaster than you have time to even formulate a prayer to your fortune-telling “God”.
And if you felt that God chose a particular school for your children, would you be free to move them if they were bullied or abused at that school? Would you interpret any adversity as a new “direction” from God? Or maybe God is testing your faith? How do you know?
There are always going to be exceptional circumstances or permutations of events that your original “directed” decision doesn’t cover. So the only way for “God”-directed decision making (fortune-teller style) to work effectively is for God to direct literally every decision, no matter how big or small. Plus all revisiting and revision of every decision.
Difficulties Compounded when Others are Involved
A whole new set of problems would be introduced, however, when our outsourced decisions involved the lives of other people who may or may not share the same view of “God’s direction” in every particular life choice.
Andrew may think that God has directed him to marry Sarah and tells her so. But Sarah believes her prayers are leading her to a relationship with Harry.
Beth and Bill marry, believing God directed them to join their lives. They share their story with their friends Dave and Amy who didn’t perceive any particular divine direction for their marriage. Amy begins to question her choice to marry Dave. Their marriage begins to falter because she thinks there must have been someone else God had in mind for her other than Dave.
Back to Beth and Bill. Some years down the track, Bill abandons his faith in God and begins to have affairs, abuse Beth and threaten the kids. Is Beth obligated to stay in the marriage because “God” directed them to marry?
What a mess! Surely there’s a better way.
Urgent Decisions – Even More Complicated for Fortune-telling
Then there’s a whole different set of decisions that are required in an urgent timeframe. Like whether to put your hand out to stop your child from running out onto a busy road. Should such decisions also wait for a clearly visible direction from “God” that applied to that particular circumstance?
Another example of this type of decision is when someone asks us to do something. We feel as though we have to take the decision away and pray about it before we can accept the offer. That may well be appropriate. But why isn’t it also possible that you already know whether you will say yes or no to being asked to preach, pray, or be an elder? Your answer can be just as “spiritual” if it is given straight away, as you ideally have already communed daily with God about the gospel commission and its call on you to serve (2 Tim 4:2).
Why do we feel that we need a clear direction from God when asked to serve in any role or activity that will last for a year or more, or be in front of a hundred people or more, for at least half an hour. But we most likely never think like that before opening our mouth to make a comment in a small group Bible study.
Clearly, expecting to perceive “God’s direction” specifically for all “major” life decisions is inconsistent, arbitrary, impractical and even impossible.
How to Make Decisions that Please God
According to God’s Word, we have freedom to choose a variety of options within the broad range of His will (1 Cor 10:31). There are underlying principles that define the boundaries of options that are inside and outside of His will (e.g., see 1 Thes 4:3). These are clearly evident in His word, starting with the Ten Commandments (Ps 40:8).
Does God ever lead through providential circumstances or serendipitous answers to prayer? I believe He does. Often. I have experienced this. But in my experience He has done this more often for instantaneous opportunities to share His love that only make sense in retrospect.
Or to confirm decisions that we have already made ourselves using the principles and tools He has given us. It’s as if God says: “Good choice, Daniel. You understand My values and I will bless your decision so long as you keep trusting in Me.” It’s important to clarify, however, that had I made another decision within the broad boundaries of His kingdom’s principles, He could also have confirmed that alternative choice.
Who’s in Control – God or Me?
We should be always in submission to God’s indwelling Spirit – daily surrendered to His will. But we still take responsibility for our decisions. His ‘control’ does not make us robots. It is not a coercive control. It does not remove our independent freewill and creative choice. It protects us from the evil motives and selfish desires that would otherwise be in control.
The important thing is to live a life of continual communion with God – in prayer and study of His Word. Continually making the small decisions in harmony with the values of the kingdom of heaven. It is in this sense that we should be willing “slaves” to His will. And constantly seeking to know it. Though not as robots! Or fortune-teller clients.
Living like this will result in us also making optimal decisions in the big things.
How to Discern God’s Guidance
Think twice before praying: “God, I’ll marry the first person who speaks to me.” Such a prayer is foolish. It doesn’t make what happens next “God’s will” just because you put your fortune-telling “God” in a corner.
There are still multiple careers, living locations, and marriage choices that God can bless. Yes, still bring those decisions to God. But ask for wisdom (James 1:5). Ask daily for a deeper love for, and understanding of, His values and character, so that you can intelligently become more like Him (Ps 119:34, Jn 17:3). Not merely a robot or a fortune-teller’s client.
Does God ever direct particular choices for an individual’s specific life decisions? Very occasionally, yes. If He does, it’s, usually unexpected and unambiguous (e.g., Paul’s Damascus Road experience, see Acts 9:6,15). If this happens to you, follow God’s specific calling on your life with all your heart and soul.
If you do not discern a specific call on your particular life choices, it is not because you are any less spiritual. You can still live your life knowing you are within His will (Gal 1:4, Rom 12:2). Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and follow all the directions He’s given in His Word (Eccl 12:13, Matt 28:19,20, Rom 6:16,17).
Should we depend more on ourselves for making decisions and spend less energy seeking to know God’s will? Absolutely not. Seeking knowledge of God’s will is more about understanding His character (Eph 1:17,18) and growing in wisdom, faith and love (Eph 3:17-19) than about getting arbitrary signs that point to option A or B. Thus a greater investment of energy is required when we realise that we make our decisions with wisdom from God rather than treating God as a fortune-teller.
And yes, we should still give God the glory for His leading in our lives. For giving us wisdom, and growing our characters. But hesitate before you claim that God directed you to a particular choice as though He were a fortune-teller that could be commanded to give you an answer through a job interview or a flip of a coin. That will backfire on you and bring God’s name into disrepute.
Resolution
I want to come back to the “New York” example I gave above. That is the most plausible-sounding of all the examples that I’ve given under the category of “fortune-telling”. It may have raised some questions in your mind.
I’ve done almost exactly the same in the past. Not about moving to New York, but about doing a PhD. I prayed that if I got accepted to do a PhD, I would take it as God’s will. When I got accepted, I told people that God led me to do the PhD. In hindsight, I don’t know whether doing the PhD really was God’s ideal for my life at that stage. But it’s done and it’s not a question worth answering as I can’t go back and change the past.
What if you prayed “God, if I get accepted to be a drug mule I’ll take that as Your will that I should go to Indonesia.” In the highly likely event that you are accepted, should you really take it as God’s will just because you prayed that prayer?
Should Usain Bolt assume it’s God’s will if He prays, “God, I’ll take it as Your will that I should be on the athletics team if I get accepted”? Of course he’ll get accepted. Whether joining the team would be God’s will for him or not is an entirely different question.
A better approach is to study God’s revealed will through His Word (Ps 119:105). Seek advice from people of integrity (Prov 11:14). And ask God in prayer: “Please give me wisdom for this decision. If there is anything important that I’m missing, please open or close doors accordingly.” Then move forward in faith (James 1:5,6).
Often doors will open or close suggesting an answer to your prayers. But there’s always the problem of not knowing whether an obstacle is God allowing your faith to be tested or God closing a door. Or whether an opportunity is God allowing you to be tempted or God opening a door.
I believe often God simply does not intervene at all, beyond natural cause and effect, to allow us to mature and grow in our decision-making. Slowly we begin to realise the confusion created by treating God like a fortune-teller.
Instead He is a loving Father who delights to give us wisdom and freedom to creatively express ourselves in living out our loving response to His goodness. This does not lead to decision-making independent from God, but to closer intimacy with our Heavenly Father as we realise the profound awesomeness of free will.
The freedom to choose one’s own destiny is a profound element of human existence. It makes love possible.
Love is only worth something because there is another alternative. Love that was automatic or compelled would simply be robotic.
Philosophers have come up with concepts such as determinism, compatabilism and incompatabilism as different ways of dealing with the deep questions arising from the experience of free will. Some of these are attempts to account for reality through a materialistic lens – a naturalistic worldview.
It seems fairly self-evident to me that a materialistic worldview can only account for determinism, not for free will. This poses a philosophical problem. An existential riddle. For the naturalist, materialist and atheist, that is.
Everything we do as humans, everything we are taught, is on the assumption that our decisions matter. That we really do have freedom to choose.
I would suggest that compatabilism has simply been made up, though logically untenable, to deal with the cognitive dissonance created by trying to marry materialistic atheism with freedom of choice.
In the Great Controversy between good and evil, it suits the forces of evil to promote the belief that freedom doesn’t exist. Either that God doesn’t exist (naturalistic determinism) or that even if He does exist, He controls every decision and outcome and that there’s still not freedom of choice (Calvinistic predestination).
But human experience powerfully argues that you really can choose. A trivial example is that you can freely choose whether to alter your breathing pattern right now or not. And that no scientific theory could be devised to accurately predict your choice of breathing pattern, even if all your knowledge, emotions, surroundings, circumstances, and all other relevant factors could be taken into account by such a theory.
If such a theory were to be true, it would remove all motivation to make the world a better place or to pursue personal growth or ambition. Such aspirations only make sense if there truly is freedom.
The fact that this freedom exists is what the new atheist unwittingly tries to take advantage of when he or she tries to persuade others to choose to abandon belief in God.
The fact that this freedom exists also powerfully argues that a powerful intelligence (God) designed it that way. That God loves you enough to give you the choice of whether to believe His claims or not. To serve Him or not. And to love Him back or not.
Paris had barely left global headlines for its terrorist attack before taking centre stage again earlier this month. The global climate change summit – “COP21” – brought world leaders and policy-makers together. Outcomes have been widely hailed as significant.
Climate change is widely considered to be the defining global issue of our times. The policy response was stronger than expected, suggesting that the world is waking up to the reality of a looming climate crisis. Paris had reason to celebrate this time. Or did it?
The emission of heat trapping gases continues almost unabated. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has just passed 400 parts per million. Last year (2014) was the hottest on record, very likely soon to be broken by 2015. Extreme weather events are occurring more frequently and are taking an increasing toll.
In reality, though, anthropogenic global warming is just one of many global issues that make our times perilous. Reading the news is not too dissimilar to reading 2 Timothy 3 or Matthew 24.
Terrorism, armed conflict and refugee crises are other big global issues that carry more imminent risk for many.
From a biblical Christian point of view, climate change could well be one of the defining issues of the last days. Catastrophic climate change provides a good platform for the pursuit of world government control and removal of personal freedoms (see Revelation 13).
In addition, prophesied natural disasters and plagues (Matthew 24 and Revelation 16) are quite compatible with a warming world. While God does reserve the right to actively punish the wicked, more often than not we bring disaster upon ourselves. Anthropogenic global warming fits neatly here. Meanwhile our loving Saviour is “holding back the four winds” of strife (Revelation 7:1).
How should the Adventist Christian relate to a warming world? Broadly, “Lift up your heads, for your redemption is drawing near” (Luke 21:28).
Specifically, though, there are things that we can do to share the hope, faith and love that we find in biblical Christianity and the Person of Jesus:
Most of us have considered the question: “What would I do if I had more money?”
Chances are, just asking that question indicates an unhealthy attitude.
I don’t know if or why you may have considered that question, nor your life circumstances. So I can’t judge your motives or attitude.
Squatter village around Pasig area Manila Philippines. Photo by Benjamin Myers
But I have asked that question myself, and can share what I have learned from mistakes and hard experience.
I’ve also lived in some very contrasting economic situations: from subsistence villages in Africa to affluent Sydney.
Plus I’ve done a lot of reading on the topic to help gain freedom in the area of money.
Wealth is Relative
There’s always going to be someone wealthier than you. Unless you’re Bill Gates. And someone else more destitute than you. Unless you’re… I don’t know whether Nathan Tinkler or an orphan street kid in Calcutta is the better reference point here.
When I lived in Africa and Asia, I would often have conversations with the locals about wealth and happiness. They wished that they had the wealth of Australians. I wished that Australians had the happiness, contentment and strong relationships that they had.
Act Your Wage
So many people wish they earned more yet already live as though they did earn more than they actually do.
A family on say $80k will live constantly in debt, yet have multiple cars including a loan or lease on a new car. Then their income increases to $100k. They upgrade their leased or financed vehicles and rent a nicer house. They buy slightly better gadgets, clothes, appliances and food (and an increasing proportion of take-out). They end up still being just as much in debt as they were before – and probably worse.
“People buy things they don’t need, with money they don’t have, to impress people they don’t like.” Clive Hamilton, Growth Fetish
The cycle doesn’t end with increasing income. It ends with a change of attitude toward money.
There is much secular evidence for why we should be content with what we have rather than wishing for more.
For the Christian, however, the call to stop wishing we had more money should be felt even more strongly.
“Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” Jesus, Luke 12:15
Christians sometimes try to disguise or justify their desire for more wealth by imagining all the good things they could do for others if only they had a bit more money.
Do we trust more in dollars or God? Source: Huffingtonpost.com
But really this shows that we still put more trust in dollars than we do in God. Does God want us to live for and help others? Yes. Does He promise to give us everything we need to do so? Check.
“And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.” Phil 4:19
(In fact, read the whole chapter of Philippians 4! Especially verses 6,7, 11-13.)
If the Christian thinks they would live their life differently if they had more money, it’s a clear indication that they are putting their trust in money more than in God. I know that from my own experience.
If it was God’s will for you to be doing something different than you are now, wouldn’t He also furnish the means to do it?
There is argument over whether aid comes with “strings attached”. Source: Telegraph.co.uk and gluearts.blogspot.com.au
A lot of humanitarian organisations claim to provide aid with “no strings attached.”
What are the “strings” that could have been “attached”? They must be bad, right?
Is it even possible to have “no strings attached”?
I’ll attempt to answer those questions from a biblical Christian perspective.
What are “strings”?
It’s a loose term – “no strings attached.” Nevertheless it carries well-understood meaning. Many faith-based and secular humanitarian NGOs have signed up to the 1994 Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It states that in disaster response: “Aid will not be used to further a particular political or religious standpoint.” This Code has gained popularity as a guide for all humanitarian programs – whether development or disaster relief.
“Strings attached” carries with it the connotation of selfishly motivated coercion. “Furthering a religious standpoint” is a little more neutral. But the choice of words “religious” and “standpoint” still make it sound “old school.” And probably also more polemical than if it was, say, “furthering spiritual wellbeing.” That would probably be acceptable in today’s mainstream culture.
Let’s test this language out with concrete examples.
Thirst No More
A US aid group, Thirst No More, was thrown out of South Sudan’s Darfur region for stockpiling Bibles without providing justification to the Muslim rulership. The abovementioned Code of Conduct was not followed, and the aid work was forced to end prematurely.
IAM
Ten IAM medical workers were killed in Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2010 for no more than being part of a Christian NGO. They did not proselytize. Some of those murdered were more humanist than Christian, yet suspicions were raised simply because of the name of their organization. The above Code was followed, but the outcome was still disastrous.
Mother Teresa
Mother Teresa is widely regarded as one of the great humanitarians of the 20th century. Her tireless work for the poor of Calcutta was recognized with no less than a Nobel Peace Prize. Yet the leader of a Hindu organization in India stirred national controversy when he said of her work: “It’s good to work for a cause with selfless intentions. But Mother Teresa’s work had an ulterior motive, which was to convert the person who was being served to Christianity.”
This was not the only criticism of Mother Teresa and her work. Prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens concluded that Mother Teresa was “less interested in helping the poor than in using them as an indefatigable source of wretchedness on which to fuel the expansion of her fundamentalist Roman Catholic beliefs.” Mother Teresa is reported to have had a reputation for proselytizing.
Mother Teresa apparently did not follow the Code, but the outcome of her lifework was largely positive in the eyes of most observers.
Policy statements of humanitarian organisations
A number of faith-based humanitarian organisations and donors expressly prohibit proselytisation, which is defined as:
“Activities undertaken with the intention of converting individuals or groups from one faith and/or denominational affiliation to another” (ACFID Code of Conduct Section F).
Prohibitions against proselytisation or even evangelism are variously justified along lines which appear to take a moral high ground, such as:
We believe that love, as embodied in Jesus and which is the motive for our work, is unconditional.. People have inherent dignity and basic rights and so they should be supported without an eye for their potential for conversion. It is important to us that we serve communities for their sake, not our own. The distinction of proselytising and development helps us as churches to be more true to God’s unconditional love embodied in Jesus. Our action is meaningful in itself as service to our neighbour. It doesn’t need to be justified by other reasons, and must never be reduced to becoming an instrument for other purposes. (Australian Church Agency Network Statement on Proselytisation and Poverty, Feb 2014)
This reasoning looks sound but it actually introduces profound cognitive dissonance for the Christian.
Jesus’ Example and Instruction
Let’s see how Jesus approached His humanitarian ministry:
His instructions to His disciples in Matthew 10:7-23:
“And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.
“Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out.And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet….
“And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in this city, flee to another.”
In Matthew 11:5 He gave this report of His work:
“The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them.”
Jesus’ instructions for ministry merge religious persuasion with humanitarian intervention. Even to the point of moving to another group of people when the proposed ‘religious standpoint’ is rejected.
Note that Jesus’ instructions were not specifically for disaster relief. This is an important distinction, as I’m not necessarily questioning the Red Cross Code of Conduct itself so much as the apparent overreach in its general application across a broad range of humanitarian work.
What did Jesus actually do Himself? Jesus met a Samaritan woman at a well as documented in John 4. The woman’s felt need was humanitarian. She needed water, but was marginalized so came at an odd time of day. Instead of helping her draw water, Jesus asked her for a drink. He then offered her living water. Jesus went straight to her spiritual need and offered eternal life.
She presented with a physical need, but Jesus offered a spiritual solution.
If the Red Cross and Red Crescent Code existed two thousand years ago, we would probably have to conclude that Jesus didn’t follow it either. He regularly got into trouble for failing to keep quiet on the religious front. He didn’t just heal the paralytic, for example, but ruffled feathers of the religious establishment when He offered forgiveness of sins.
Rick Warren
Rick Warren is the pastor of one of the biggest megachurch congregations in the world – Saddleback. They work with aid agencies all over the world tackling a range of issues including health care and AIDS in Africa. Warren’s perspective on “attaching strings” is instructive:
“All compassion should be without strings. If it is not unconditional, then it’s not compassion… I don’t believe in coercion, but I do believe in persuasion. Everybody is trying to persuade everybody else — but it has to be fair.”
Resolution
Rick Warren comes the closest to resolving our original questions from a Christian perspective. For me he comes closer than the Australian Church Agency Network’s resolution.
The Church Agency Network’s statements seem to do more to appease those who would be offended by the gospel of Jesus than they do to honour the God who commanded us to share the gospel of His kingdom.
Rick Warren highlighted an important distinction. “Strings attached” are never acceptable where coercion is involved. But persuasion is an entirely different matter, particularly when the subject is the good news of eternal life in Jesus.
You may have noticed the flawed logic in a couple of the above examples. The Hindu leader insinuated that Mother Teresa’s motives in proclaiming the good news of Christianity necessarily involved selfish ulterior motives. The criticism of Hitchens and the Hindu leader is actually hypocritical in that they also advocated for converts to their respective belief systems.
And is it fair – or even logical – to assume selfless motives for humanitarian aid for the poor, but selfish motives for sharing with them the gift of eternal life?
Donor countries often choose where to give depending on their own interests. Sources: chnistiantoday.com and 4shared.com
If I was to generalize, I would assume the exact opposite. And with good support. There is a good argument that humanitarian aid always has strings attached. For example, distribution of non-food items such as torches or stoves after a disaster has the “attached string” of increasing the likely ongoing demand for batteries and fuel supplies. In fact many development and relief programs are laden with Western liberal capitalist values. This need not be coercive. In fact I am an active supporter and contributor to many of these programs. But, to be fair, the perception of attaching strings is warranted.
Further, since when is God’s desire for humanity’s conversion to Christianity selfish or coercive? I understand that evangelism may be perceived as “attaching strings.” I’ll happily take the risk of being accused, along with Mother Teresa, of having a hidden motive to convert everyone to Christianity. That’s a criticism worth wearing in following the gospel commission. In fact it’s a risk Jesus thought was worth taking too. But Jesus’ motive for sharing the gift of eternal life, rather than being coercive and selfish, is literally self-sacrificing love.
Cognitive Dissonance for the Christian
A lot of statements against mixing proselytism and development insinuate that evangelism is somehow selfish, coercive and exploitative. Sure, evangelism has been done that way. Evangelism done that way is wrong from every angle!
But Jesus commands us to evangelise, and to do so on the basis of love and liberation. My argument is that true evangelism has no strings attached. If it has strings attached, it’s not the good news of Jesus Christ.
However evangelism and proselytism are very much a dirty words in development circles.
Yet Jesus did it. So was Jesus dirty?
Are Christian development professionals who are argue against evangelism actually personally grateful for the gospel? Yet apparently don’t wish to share the greatest gift ever (forgiveness and eternal life) because they believe it’s fundamentally coercive? That’s a profound piece of cognitive dissonance that I’ve never been able to resolve. Because I don’t think it can be resolved – it’s logically inconsistent and unsustainable.
I think a fundamental rethink and rewrite of key policy statements is required, to remove what appear to me to be damaging, un-Christian insinuations. Of course I’m sure they’re not intended to be so, but yet that’s still the way the come across when compared with Jesus life and teachings.
A Reaction to the Atheist’s Cognitive Dissonance
This cognitive dissonance has been made easy to live with, accept, ignore, and even miss because:
The secular atheist West (in Europe and Australia in particular) believes all evangelism (and all religion for that matter) is coercive, so Christians have unwittingly taken that feedback on board in order to deal with their cognitive dissonance.
Donor government funding and the approval of recipient governments are streamlined if faith-based agencies distance themselves from their faith’s call to proclamation.
There has been so much said, written, felt, experienced, thought, acted, voted, etc, along the lines of separating development and evangelism that it has become second nature to Christian development workers to keep them separate.
If someone tries to tell me that evangelism necessarily is attaching strings, then I would respond that if that’s what the Christian gospel commission is by definition, then I reject Christianity. I want to be something else that isn’t coercive. That’s the only way I can solve the cognitive dissonance for myself.
I’m hoping that through this conversation people within faith-based agencies begin to realise the presence of this cognitive dissonance that’s arisen because they’ve patched over the cognitive dissonance of the atheist in a way that isn’t, in my opinion, biblical or Christian.
Burning Townships
Imagine you live near the townships of Kinglake and Marysville northeast of Melbourne. The year is 2009 – just before the Black Saturday bushfires. Your neighbourhood is safe from the fires. But just a few kilometres away, people’s houses and very lives are at risk. You can think of two options:
Go to Kinglake with a carload of wet towels and barrels of water to help people prepare their houses for the coming bushfires.
Go to Kinglake with the same carload and offer, but in addition, when you’ve unloaded everything, offer to take as many people as you can back to your own house to save their lives.
The second option is no more coercive – it attaches no more strings – than offering people eternal salvation from sin and death through Jesus. That’s assuming the Christian gospel and worldview is actually believed.
Conclusion
It is definitely true that evangelism can be done in a coercive and selfish way. Unfortunately it has been done that way. Often. But sharing the good news of eternal life in Jesus should be the most selfless and loving thing possible.
It is sad that many Christians now feel that the better model for humanitarian work is to keep it separate from evangelism. They do great humanitarian work for the poor and marginalised. But much more could be done for their eternal and spiritual wellbeing. Of course great care needs to be taken to find the most appropriate and sensitive way to do this, but that’s another question for another time.
Jesus kept humanitarian work and evangelism very much together, and encourages us to do the same. Out of selfless love, not coercion.
I am very much encouraged to observe that Christian humanitarian organisations are already starting to reexamine their orientation toward mission in a way that is returning more toward a biblical Christian perspective. May that continue until the Christian’s cognitive dissonance is completely resolved.
Not because I’m partisan to the Christian club and want to knock the atheist, earn brownie points, or make my club bigger. God forbid! Rather, I believe in the love and freedom that comes from knowing God.
The group claiming responsibility for the deadly Paris attacks goes by the self-assigned name of Islamic State. Should their claim of doing the attacks in the name of their religion bring Islam into focus to determine if it is a safe, peaceful and helpful religion?
A lot of people feel that the question needs to be asked and answered. I don’t blame them. I do too, but not in the way you may be thinking.
Progressives say no, don’t question the religion as a whole
On the other hand, a popular response among progressive Western thinkers is to protect and quarantine Islam as a whole but just shine the torch on the extreme views of ISIS. I have heard convincing defences of this perspective. An interview by Reza Aslan comes to mind.
But I’m not entirely convinced or satisfied by this response. Finding other causative factors avoids the question of whether Islam is also a causative factor. It does not absolve Islam of responsibility.
Atheists say yes, but question all other religions too
I tend to resonate more with the response of the atheist, who questions not just Islam but all religions. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins argue that religious wars waged by people of all faiths have accounted for millions of deaths throughout history.
Yet I’m also not entirely convinced or satisfied by the atheist response, either.
The argument of other causative agents comes back
There are equally valid counter-responses to this criticism of all religion, too. The first is that atheists such as Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and (arguably) Hitler were also responsible for genocide. And the second, even more convincing argument, is that wars waged under the guise of a religious cause were often more motivated by distinctly local, temporal and physical needs, such as resource scarcity. This has been documented in detail in the Encyclopedia of Wars by Philip and Axelrod.
Nobody to point the finger at?
So what can we reasonably conclude, then? I argue that we should probably think carefully before we either point the finger at Islam, or alternatively, before we shield Islam from critique along the lines of popular progressive, inclusive rhetoric.
Is this a self-contradictory approach? Sitting on the fence?
Let me explore this a little further.
Logical fallacy to ignore the question
Just because the various social problems and conflicts of Muslim majority countries have other causative factors does not logically preclude examining whether Islam itself is also a contributing factor.
The fact that Islam has existed for thousands of years and has billions of adherents is not a conclusive defence of its integrity. But that over-generalised historical overview does demonstrate that Islam probably isn’t violently destructive on a grand scale and in urgent need of preemptive military intervention lest imminent catastrophe should strike. We’ll come back to why this is not logically sufficient to let established religions off the hook.
Extreme religious groups that definitely deserve scrutiny
But first, let’s acknowledge that there are religious groups that most would probably argue do deserve proactive intervention to protect people’s lives and safety. Islamic State is one example of an extreme expression of an interpretation of Islam that, for many, probably falls into this category. I’d be happier if that ideology was eradicated completely. Yesterday.
David Koresh’s Branch Davidians also fits this category. It was an extreme and violent expression of the Christian faith that cost needless suffering and death.
Atheists aside, few would associate all of Christianity with such extremism. A similar defence of Islam logically has to be equally appropriate, at least from a secular religious rights perspective.
Extending the argument to scrutinising all religions
The atheist may beg to differ, claiming that the world would be better off without religion altogether.
And I have to agree with the atheist to a significant extent; but my partial agreement with the atheist is based on a biblical Christian prophetic worldview.
The Bible supports the atheist’s argument against traditional religion
You see, according to the Bible, for much of its history, Judaism missed the point of its religion. Read the scathing rebuke Jesus gave the leaders of the Jewish nation in Matthew 23.
Bible prophecies about the Christian church in our day say there will be false prophets (Matt 24) and an antichrist that sets itself up as though it represents God but actually opposes God (see 2 Thes 2, Daniel 7 & 8). The book of Revelation warns that this fallen religious system will bring untold suffering to a large proportion of the world’s population (e.g., see Revelation 18), despite its claims to be Christian. It describes this “Babylon” false religion as lasting at least a thousand years, and having numerous adherents (e.g., billions).
So Christians should hesitate before pointing the finger at Islam.
Also, the fact that a religion has been around for over a thousand years and has over a billion adherents does not give it protected status according to the Bible. In fact, the Bible shines the torch on corrupt Christian religion and calls it out in no uncertain terms as damaging to human life both here and now and for eternity.
While the Bible says very little about Islam, it clearly and boldly states that there is no other name by which we can be saved other than Jesus (Acts 4:12).
So where does Islam as a whole end up under scrutiny?
From a secular legal perspective, evaluation of Islam ends up no differently to evaluation of Christianity. I’ll come back to that point later.
But from a biblical perspective also, Islam should not suffer under scrutiny on any fundamentally different level to traditional apostate Christianity either.
The Bible encourages holding everything up to scrutiny, including Islam. It says to test all things and hold fast that which is good. There are a number of elements of Islamic beliefs, values and culture that are indeed good, and worth preserving. According to the Bible, however, Islam is not a path to God. Only Jesus is the way, truth and life (John 14:6).
There are also a number of Islamic teachings that contradict the Bible, and for that reason I hold to the Bible’s teachings over those of the Koran. Examples:
Jesus is not Divine
Salvation by merit not sacrifice
Marriage and treatment of women
Treatment of those who do not respect Islam
Note that there are a number of different interpretations of Islam, just as there are of the Bible. But it would be fair to say, in general, that the respective teachings in these areas are at least somewhat contradictory.
Does the Christian church fare any better?
There are numerous teachings of traditional Christianity that are clear contradictions of the Bible’s teachings, too. For example:
Immortality of the soul
Eternal torment in hell
Worship of Mary
Sunday worship
Confession to priests
However, the Bible teaches that God loves all people regardless of their race, religion or past errors, and freely offers salvation for all – including apostate Christians, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on (Gal 3:28, Tit 2:11).
God is calling us all out of these false religions (Rev 18:4, Jn 10:16).
So where do we land with this – to scrutinise or not?
To answer the original question, yes, the teachings of Islam can be productively scrutinized to see whether Islam is a helpful way of life. Just as all systems of belief should be.
But by who and for what purpose? This definitely should be done on an individual level, so that each person can make an informed decision as to their own belief system. There are many different belief systems out there!
But once we make our own personal choice we should respect the choices of others even if they are different to our own. This is consistent with the Bible (Matt 23:37) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Should there be government review of beliefs and intervention where beliefs are deemed unsafe? The general view in Western liberal democracies, and upheld by the Bible (Rom 13), is that secular governments have a right and responsibility of upholding law and order. But that does not give governments the right to forbid or even recommend systems of religious belief.
While Christians may take issue with statements in the Koran, atheists are just as likely to take issue with statements in the Bible.
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is not up to secular authorities to evaluate belief systems or intervene over beliefs. Secular authorities only intervene to uphold law and order in people’s behavior as it affects the rights of others.
Experience throughout history suggests that people of all creeds and belief systems, or lack thereof, are capable of committing heinous crime.
What difference does this make to me?
In summary, I conclude that there is not much value in pointing the finger at Islam in isolation when traditional Christianity deserves similar scrutiny. In fact, as we saw, corrupt Christianity cops the lion’s share of criticism in the Bible.
I do personally see value in all individuals scrutinising all belief systems and choosing for themselves.
While I personally disagree with the teachings of Islam, I don’t see any value in condemning the people of Islam. I also disagree with the teachings of traditional Christianity, but open my heart and arms to all people of all faiths.
This is where the rubber meets the road. I also open my heart, wallet and the place I call home to refugees of all faiths. I’m all for shielding and protecting Muslims, even if not the religion of Islam, or any religion, for that matter.
The idea of “Islamic State” or ISIS is something that strikes dread in most hearts that I know. It defies our sensibilities to think that, for ISIS to exist, some people around the world must be drawn to their rallying cries.
Why?
To explain the appeal of ISL is difficult. I don’t know that I have a clear picture of what the ISIS rally cry is, much less any resonation with it.
But lots of people have been drawn into it, to the point where they are willing to give their lives as ‘martyrs’ for their cause. We simply think of them as malicious suicide bombers; but in their minds they die as heroes.
The key to the success of the “Islamic State” recruitment narrative is not that it is coherent, real or virtuous. Rather that it has successfully deceived hearts and minds to believe that it is more coherent, real and virtuous than the alternatives.
How could something so barbaric as to slaughter 129 (and counting) innocent Parisians be more appealing than its alternatives? The answer speaks volumes to the incoherence, unreality and lack of virtue of the predominant narratives in our world today.
Contemporary narratives are all about “what’s in it for me?” They can be summarized by one word, “get”. That’s true for consumer capitalism of the West, communist China, also the corrupt and/or rapidly developing countries of Asia, South America and Africa. And it’s true for the Middle East – including ISIS.
Even most religious movements have been co-opted by this narrative of greed and selfishness. Unfortunately that’s definitely true for most professed adherents of my religion: Christianity.
That doesn’t sit well with me. Nor do I believe Christianity to be selfish at its heart. The Christianity that I know and hold dear is all about others. It’s about loving. It’s about giving. Love that gives everything for the sake of others. In one word, “give” – the opposite of “get”.
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life.”
If that powerful idea of self-giving love was believed and lived throughout even just the Western, so-called Christian world, I don’t think there’d even be a so-called “Islamic State” based in Syria right now. It doesn’t gain traction and followers because it is coherent, real or virtuous, but because there is a worldwide vacuum of coherence, reality and virtue.
There’s nothing good about the widespread self-focused, materialistic worldview. Many of us intuitively know that money can’t buy the things that the human soul most deeply desires: love, happiness and peace. And we also know these core human desires can’t be acquired by grabs for power. Nor by forceful dispossession of territory, belongings or life itself.
But we’ve all been deceived by the idea that selfish desires for power and material things need to be gratified for the pursuit of happiness. How else can we explain rampant materialism juxtaposed by skyrocketing rates of crime, depression, anxiety and suicide? Our beliefs and values may not really be much different to a suicide bomber claiming to be acting in the name of their God.
So we’ve all been infected with the same ideology as ISIS. We all operate out of rampant self-preservation and self-exaltation.
The solution to the problem of ISIS is actually the solution to a problem we all share in common. We need a switch from a worldview infected by selfishness to a worldview where love and giving are the actuating principles of our behavior.
The results of this switch will be love, joy and peace like we’ve rarely seen.
The method to achieve it: authentic biblical Christianity. Not the corrupted religion of the West. And not the discarding of all religion. To follow Lennon’s “Imagine”, where there is no religion, still leaves us with not much more than a ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality: fundamentally selfish. That’s the problem, not the solution.
Not sure? Try Christianity for yourself. Read the gospels. “Taste and see that the Lord is good.” This is the one narrative that I’ve found that truly is coherent, real and virtuous.
