the poison of Christians

Richard Dawkins is right…well partially

I have been looking a little bit into what he has to say about Christianity, and although I may not agree on every point, he does have some good conclusions to make. Albeit, I don’t agree with the things that he probably wants me to agree with him on, but that is alright

I mean, as far as the lack of existence of God, he is considerably missing a lot of things. And, to be honest, despite his polite sounding demeanor, he is very ungracious to the other side of the argument. But when it comes down to the problems that religion has caused, he is spot on.

In the name of religion many awful things have been done. And as a dedicated Christian, I can never apologize enough for either the cruel things my fellow Christians have done, or for the things that some people who claim to be Christians have done.

There is no excuse for Westboro Baptist “Church.”

There is no excuse for the bombing of abortion clinics, the beatings of homosexuals, and the constant snobbery that comes from Christians.

Don’t even get me started on the crusades.

the only thing I can say in response to this is that this is a flaw of people, but not of God. Our failings to properly live out the example Christ set for us is not the fault of Christ but of us. We have done a terrible job of feeding the poor and helping the oppressed.

I am really really sorry.

But what that means is not that God does not exist, or that Christianity is false. It means that the church has some shaping up to do. We have some serious work ahead of us. Frankly, the gospel is an offensive enough message before we get to it. It does not need any help to cut to the core of people.

I apologize also that some parts of the church have told the world that God loves you just as you are AND that He does not desire change for you. I think we can all agree that people at least all have flaws, and at most are inherently evil and sinful because of the fall of Adam. What kind of God would love you and not want you to be the very best you can be? What sort of God would allow us to wallow in our error, without even giving us the opportunity to better ourselves and become more and more like Him?

And I am not even getting into the issue that a holy God requires us to strive to rid our lives of evil.

So, in short, the church has made two vital errors: one of which is attacking the world and hating it instead of loving it, the other is loving it falsely and pretending as if God did not possess any power or will to make people better than they are able to do on their own.

Schaeffer and the antithesis

I am reading Francis Schaeffer’s “The God Who is There,” and I am intrigued by his emphasis on the antithesis. Essentially, according to Schaeffer, the problem for the church in this new age stems from the world’s abandonment of the antithesis, or the belief that if something is true, then it’s opposite must be untrue.

The question that I am now asking myself is this: do I have to dedicate to such a strong position on truth? I will be the first to claim that things in direct opposition to truth can’t be true (and in that manner deny relativism in any form) but I feel hesitant in rejecting the idea that the opinions opposed to mine are without strong points. Maybe this is not what Schaeffer is suggesting, but I do not want to suppose that those who are outside of the church in no way display the image of God that all of mankind is created with.

I, like so many more Christians dedicated to truth, do not want to compromise the truth that Christianity is the one and only true way to live life, and others do not have a full understanding of God. At the same time, I do not want to ignore that other people’s beliefs do have things in common with mine, and so to say that they are opposite and completely lacking in truth would be a mistake.

So how do we reconcile the problem? I agree with Schaeffer that presuppositional apologetics are the only way to approach discussion with those outside of the faith – that no one can think outside of their context and biases and therefore we have to listen and understand the box in which people are living. I also agree that Christianity is the only true rational way to think about the world because, frankly, God is the basis for reason and logic. Without Him there is nothing ultimate reality we can base anything on.

At the same time I see that many outside of the church are speaking and proposing good things: helping those in need, the recognition of evil in the world, the need to treat all humanity with respect and dignity. These are things that I can agree with.

Ultimately, I think that there is a value in recognizing the antithesis, in that those who do not believe in the truths that I hold dear do not hold truth in its purest form. A true premise based on faulty reasons is still flawed. We can still realize that the efforts for social justice in the world are good things, but continue to dialogue with those who are not in Christ, encouraging them to understand that it is only in light of God’s love that we can truly love others, and that without Him there is no basis for reason at all.

I suppose Schaeffer might write about this later, but I am impatient….and a slow reader.