When I got sent this picture last night I was reminded of a passage we had recently studied in the book On Guard by William Lane Craig. The point being made is that, as most atheists understand, it is very difficult to prove a universal negative, so the definition of atheism as the belief that there is no God has been backed off on recently, for what is considered a more workable definition. It is no longer the view that God does not exist, but an absence of belief in God (or in His existence). We will pick up Dr. Craig at this point:

“This is not only contrary to the traditional meaning of the word, but it is really hopeless as a definition. For on this new definition atheism is no longer a viewpoint or position. Rather it’s just a description of someone’s psychological state, namely, the state of lacking a belief in God. As such atheism is neither true nor false, and even babies turn out to be atheists! But can you imagine the following conversation between two young mothers?

Brooke: “Julie, I heard that you just had twins! Congratulations!

Julie: “Yes, thank you! But, you know, it’s so sad . . .”

Brooke: “What is?”

Julie: “Well, they’re both atheists!”

On this definition even our cat, who I’m sure has never even thought about the question, turns out to be an atheist!

Hmmmmm.

Secondly–Why is Job categorized as wisdom literature as opposed to historical narrative? Even a slightly careful reading will surface some rather obvious clues that it is the life lessons in the story which are important, rather than the details in the history. Here are a couple of examples–chapter 1 begins with a description of Job’s personal blamelessness and his worship of God. The chapter ends with his commitment to worship and his refusal to charge God with sin. Literally the character of this man becomes the bookends for responding to the suffering he begins to experience. The “wisdom” nature of the writing is also seen in the formulaic reporting of the compounding tragedy that comes upon Job’s possessions and family–repeatedly we read, as if it were scripted, “I alone have escaped to tell you.”

Allow me to make a disclaimer lest I be charged with heresy. I am not saying that Job was not an actual historical figure to whom some really bad things happened. What I am saying is that the point of the narrative is not in its historicity, but in it’s wisdom. This is vitally important because it affects the way we understand the opening scene in the “heavenly court.” We will almost immediately find ourselves in theologically murky water when we start attempting to build an understanding of “the accuser” (Satan) based upon a literal understanding of these verses. These questions normally center around Satan “being in heaven” and being numbered among the “sons of God.”

When addressing the question of the main thesis of this familiar and powerful book of Scripture the terms that normally get used are things like perseverance, suffering, patience, etc. I will suggest that while these are certainly present in the narrative, the principal overarching theme is that of the sovereignty and worship of God. As Job famously states in the first chapter–“The Lord has given and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.” In the good times and in the bad times–God is in control and worthy of worship!

There are a lot of people that have problems with “organized” religion–and rightfully so. Jesus Himself had some pretty choice words for the religious leaders of His day. I guess it could be argued that He might have had some problems with organized religion Himself–at least a certain form of it. What always must be kept in mind, of course, is that Christianity is not a religion–it is a relationship with Jesus Christ. So even if “organized religion” would “bite the dust” true biblical Christianity will never be eradicated–never! Which I am sure will be somewhat of a letdown for Dr. Dawkins.

These comments, by the way, were made yesterday at the Jaipur Literary Festival in Jaipur, India. I should probably point out that the reason I find Richard Dawkins mildly amusing on occasion has to do with the foolishness he starts delivering when he gets outside of his realm of expertise. It is my understanding that he is a world class evolutionary biologist. I say “it is my understanding” because I don’t know enough about biology to know how much he actually knows in that discipline–but he certainly is considered to be at “the top of the class.” Therefore, I would never attempt to take him to task in the biological field. I will leave that to the theistic biologists.

Unfortunately, a few years ago this preeminent scholar decided he was also an expert on theology and the Bible–that was a dumb move–and the more he speaks about it the more obvious it becomes. He can get some rousing responses from the friendly crowds he speaks to–but it is common knowledge that you can sound pretty astute when speaking to people who know even less than you do about any given subject. Keep in mind, this is the same man who won’t even debate Dr. William Lane Craig.

I did find it rather telling that when asked, in the midst of his normal vitriol against religion, how to stem the tide of religious fundamentalism in India, he demurred that he didn’t know enough about the situation in India to answer with any authority–however, that lack of knowledge has never stopped him before.

My favorite moment though was when asked when we might see the first atheist President of the United States. Now this is the man who condemns belief in God as being without evidence–“I suspect Lincoln was an atheist, probably so was Kennedy. Obama is an intelligent man, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a closet atheist.”

It doesn’t get much richer than that!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Look-forward-to-the-death-of-organized-religion-Richard-Dawkins/articleshow/11609561.cms

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/24/south_carolina_message_112875.html

That being said, receiving ridiculous amounts of money to play a game is one thing–being paid ridiculous amounts of money to sit on the sideline for an entire season is an entirely different matter. If you follow sports then you know I am making reference to the $28 million bonus due to Peyton Manning, former (most likely) star quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts, who, because of neck problems, did not play a single down the entire season. I am sure there are some die-hards out there that will attempt to convince me that he is owed this because of what he has done in the past and it is his legal due, but it is his own ethical make up (or unethical) that actually provides the answer to this indefensible situation. From my perspective this is completely “out of hand.”

But that is not the only outrage that occurred in the football world yesterday. The second item relates to something that took place at the end of the Giants and Forty-Niners game. Due to an injury to the starter, the back-up punt returner for San Francisco was in the game–his name is Kyle Williams. He made two key mistakes during the contest. First, staying too close to a kick that had already hit the ground which resulted in it touching his knee which allowed the Giants to recover the ball with excellent field position. Secondly, he fumbled the ball on a kick return in overtime which led to a field goal by the Giants which resulted in the win. All of that is simply a back-drop for the real outrage. It is in the news today that following the game Kyle Williams has been been receiving some very threatening messages–I will quote from a local paper in San Francisco–”And while there was support for Williams in the locker room, there were people tweeting death threats on his Twitter account. Sunday night, several hateful messages and veiled threats were posted. Many of them were taken down that specifically talked about wanting him to die.”

I will admit that I can get somewhat passionate watching a football game. There are teams that I like to see win and teams that I like to see lose. Therefore I can be as exhilarated or disappointed at the result as the next person–that of course depends on who “the next person” is. But the response of these fans clearly has gone way, way overboard. Out of hand and way out of line.

But as I consider these two seemingly different scenarios I have to wonder if they represent a common thread. When the fans see and contribute to an athlete receiving millions of dollars to play a game, those same fans expect million dollar performances. And as unrealistic as it may be, they expect mistake free performance. And when those expectations don’t get met–well let’s just say they are less than satisfied.

This came to a head Saturday night following Newt’s shellacking of Mitt Romney in the South Carolina primary. The circling of the wagons around Mr. Romney became embarrassingly obvious. In light of the rantings of the Romney apologists it would have been easy to mistakenly assume that you been secreted away to an MSNBC broadcast. Anybody that watches Fox expects this kind of behavior from people like Juan Williams. There are times that he is able to mask his liberal leanings, but that is a rarity.

However, one of the things that was so astounding was watching similar behavior from people like Brit Hume–a conservative voice that many of us felt could be trusted. One can only assume that an order came “from above” to do everything possible to show what a fluke this was and that this certainly was no reason to support Newt and every reason why Rick Santorum should stay in the race. Lest I be misunderstood, this may have been a anomaly for Newt and Rick should probably stay in the race, but for Fox News it was shameful to present this argument in the breathless and desperate way in which they did.

It will be very telling to see if this intensifies tomorrow as I expect it will. They will join forces with the Republican establishment in attempting to prematurely coronate a nominee. The common mantra being that Mitt Romney is the only candidate that can beat the President–a thesis which I believe is easily challenged. This will, I believe, create a bit of a backlash among many conservatives. Specifically because, as a rule, people do not like being told what they are supposed to think and who they are supposed to follow–at least a lot of the people I know. It will be quite interesting to see how all of this plays out.

On to Florida we go!

However, one of my favorite elements of the film is what it does not do. So often in a storytelling environment the “storyteller” is so concerned you get the message that “the point” is put forth so forcefully and “in your face” that it loses it’s impact. Such is not the case for this film. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close allows the images to speak for themselves. When a mere look or a single image suffices to convey volumes, the movie does not turn preachy–and in doing so (or not doing so) the impact is all the more palpable. And there are many of those moments in this movie.

As a vehicle for reliving the pain of 9/11 it is a disturbing film–and we vicariously experience that pain through nine year old Oskar Shell whose father (Tom Hanks) died in the World Trade Center. Meant as a tool to get his socially awkward son to get out among people Thomas Shell had created an elaborate “scavenger hunt” for his son. This had been an ongoing part of their relationship. Soon after the death of his father Oskar finds a key and he is assured that his dad meant for him to find this and his mission is to find the lock this key fits and Oskar is convinced that if he is able to do so then there will be a “message” that his dad meant for him. So the “hunt” goes on.

As we walk through this narrative with Oskar as our guide we will address the best and worst of the human condition, issues like belief (and disbelief), forgiveness, love, hatred, trust and the lack thereof), anger, abandonment and redemption. There are ways in which it is a very difficult story to watch and yet it is absolutely necessary that we do so.

This is a movie that you will reflect on long after leaving the theater. I would imagine that important discussions will ensue. There are scenes and moments that you will revisit. And in spite of the tears you may have shed you will be very, very glad you afforded yourself the opportunity.

The first of these two titles is Why Jesus?: Rediscovering His Truth in an Age of Mass Marketed Spirituality, by Ravi Zacharias. I will readily admit that Ravi is among my favorite teachers/preachers/apologists/authors which means that if he writes it I will read it. However, I am especially looking forward to reading this one. He has been talking about this book for some time on his weekly radio program “Let My People Think.” (http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/letmypeoplethink.aspx) In a bit of pointed humor he pointed out that his chosen title had been From Oprah to Chopra. It is my understanding that while the publisher changed the title (I liked the first one better) for the book, one of the chapters has retained that description. As is directly implied the author takes Deepak Chopra to task for his cleverness in presentation of Hinduism masked in terms that is more palatable to a western audience, but his disingenuousness for not calling it what it is. Throughout the book he will treat popular culture (the very first line of the book introduces the movie Inception) philosophy, and world religions, all the while pointing out that even though “spirituality” is quite in vogue, there is no other model that coherently answers the “big questions” as well as Christianity does.

The second title I am anticipating has a far more focused audience. Being released next Tuesday is a 40th Anniversary edition of the classic by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Preaching & Preachers. As I said, this will have a far more specific target (or at least specialized) than the former book I mentioned. I shamefully admit that I never read the original–it falls into the category of the “should have read.” But I will remedy that very soon. This new edition includes not only the original text but also a series of essays from some of the more well-known preachers of today. Men such as Bryan Chapell, Mark Dever, Kevin DeYoung, Ligon Duncan, Timothy Keller, and John Piper.

So much preaching today has become vapid almost to the point of meaningless, or little more than a self-help seminar. I would like to think that my own preaching does not descend to those levels, but I certainly am not the best judge of that. We all know that we may not always see ourselves as others see us, but it may also be true that we do not hear ourselves as others hear us. Nonetheless, such a reprint as this one could not be better timed. I especially like the telling endorsement given by John Piper–“Preachers need to hear this kind of preaching as a partial antidote to the relentless trivializing of preaching in our day.”

I hope to be reading both of these titles by the middle of next week and I am sure you will be hearing about them as I progress. I am sure you are waiting with bated breath.

By the way, I wanted to give a big thank you to those who read in this space. Sometime in the early morning hours I just passed 30,000 hits on the blog. I really appreciate you being part of this “rambling” conversation.

And I am especially not liking something I am seeing very regularly right now–and I think it is indicative of the man. Most of the candidates are airing commercials that are critical of one another and positions they hold or things they have said–this is to be expected. As far as I know they are ads that for the most part the candidates are willing to put their names and faces with. That is, with the exception of Mr. Romney. His mode of operation seems to be that his surrogates can put out as much negativity as they like and the presumptive nominee is helpless to do anything about it. He can then go on television and pretend to be “squeaky clean.” I guess what I am saying that if you want to denigrate someone then do it to their face–quit the hypocrisy! We’ve got enough of that coming out of the White House now.

So here is what I am wondering. We have all seen him attempt to stay above the fray in the debates by speaking in generalities, denying the obvious, and by all means staying away from the facts. In the political propaganda world he is doing the same thing–obfuscating. Is it then fair to infer from this behavior that this is the kind of president he would be? Would he run the same kind of “transparent” administration as the current one has? I am not convinced that this is the kind of president we need at this moment to “right the ship of state.”

I am sure many of you will disagree–feel free to let me know.

I mentioned that my wife is from South America. She entered this country legally. We will all the steps which immigration requires in this country (which is a very long process) and she has been a naturalized citizen for 15 years. She works legally, pays taxes, and speaks English very well. You get the idea. I also pastor a very ethnically diverse congregation–we have ten different countries represented in our church. My daughter’s boyfriend is black. So while some have attempted to charge my with racism (normally having to do with political views), it is a rather ludicrous charge.

Since today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day allow to share some of his very familiar words and make some comments about them:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

“I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves, and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood.”

I think these are tremendous statements about a wonderful and longed-for reality. Yet the racial scars of our history seem burned into our national psyche. When President Obama was elected it was allegedly a sign of how much progress had been made in the area of race relations and he was many times referred to as the “first post-racial president.” Yet it has not been possible to give legitimate criticism of this man because it has often been met with the charge of “racism.” I would suggest it was the one leveling the charge who was actually the “racist.” I have often asked the question: Which is more racist? Refusing to vote for a man because he is black, or voting for a man simply because he is black?

Then there is the church. I am afraid the charge is still true that Sunday morning may be the most segregated hour of the week. This is one of the reasons I love our church so much–because that charge could never stand. If there is any place that racism should have no place it is in the church. I like what Dr. tony Evans has often said: “We may have come over here on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.”

Paul addressed this question between two groups of people between there was an absolute divide during the period of the New Testament–Jews and Gentiles. In the second chapter of Ephesians Christ is described as “our peace” having torn down the dividing wall and bringing the two parties together and making them one. I think it is even safe to say that someone who has a problem being with someone of a different race is going to find heaven practically unbearable. In Revelation 5 we have a description of a scene around the throne of God: “a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation, and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne. . .”