Another Hitchens' Absurdity

Life!

Having extra time on my hands I pulled out Christopher Hitchens's book God Is Not Great. For a re-browsing.

I came upon this absurdity. It's hard for me to read this book, not because it is so intellectually challenging to me, but because it has so many things so very wrong. Hitchens wrote:

"There is a central paradox at the core of religion. The three great monotheisms teach people to think abjectly of themselves, as miserable and guilty sinners prostrate before an angry and jealous god who, according to discrepant accounts, fashioned them either out of dust and clay or a clot of blood. The positions for prayer are usually emulations of the supplicant serf before an ill-tempered monarch. The message is one of continual submission, gratitude, and fear. Life itself is a poor thing: an interval in which to prepare for the hereafter or the coming—or second coming—of the Messiah." (Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Kindle Locations 1200-1204)

Not really.

As regards actual Christianity, not at all.

Yes, I believe that God made humanity. That life could come from non-life requires, to me, too much faith. (BTW, this remains unproven.) Evolution does not explain the existence of life, since (by definition) evolution works only on biotic material; i.e., cells are needed. "We often hear the question how evolution explains the origins of life. The short answer: it doesn't. That is the subject of abiogenesis theory (also referred to as origin(s) of life science)." (Jelle Kastelein, "Abiogenesis Explained")

So, God fashioned us.

Then, God redeemed us. Out of his love. As one who is a Christian and has studied Christianity for 40+ years, I have never viewed myself as a "supplicant serf before an ill-tempered monarch." Hitchens severely misunderstands someone like me at this point, and my faith. In two weeks, for example, I'll preach on Colossians 1:13-14, which reads:  For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, ¹⁴ in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Have I viewed myself as a "sinner?" Of course. I saw myself this way long before coming to Christ. I will never forget playing in a band, in a concert somewhere in the Chicago area, and having the thought "I am screwed up." That thought was true. Even atheists should be able to agree here and see themselves as "abject sinners." For what the lives of some famous atheists were really about, see Paul Johnson's Intellectuals. Read, for example, of the perverted behavior of the great atheist, misogynist, and serial adulterer Bertrand Russell.
Hitchens seems not to like the word "submission" (Russell had a hard time with it too, even though he got women to submit to his own sexual desires). But I think "submission," in this context, is a very good word. Everyone submits to something ("You've got to serve somebody" - Bob Dylan). Hitchens himself has succumbed to false teaching when it comes to Christianity. One this see, e.g., Hitchens's brother Peter's book The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith, for a refutation of Christopher's twisted religious misunderstandings.

So Hitchens'-type atheism, in his quote, fails to satisfy me on the matter of abiogenesis, and fails to force me into kneeling before a falsehood on the matter of my redemptive history. It also fails to get right the matter of "life." Life, on Christianity, is not a "poor thing," an "interval," some kind of holding station as we simply await the glory train. Here Hitchens is simply, and woefully, ignorant of Christianity, and Jesus' teachings on the kingdom of God. I await a new heaven and a new earth, not some Platonic, ethereal heaven. This is Jewishness, not Greek philosophy. Following Jesus, I see the inbreaking of "heaven" on earth, and pray for it. Now. Today.

Life, for me, is a wonderful thing, and feels so almost entirely. Upon my conversion from practical atheism and weak agnosticism to Christianity I moved from death to life, not theoretically, but experientially. So life is not, for me, some "poor thing." Christ has become, and is, my life, the source of life.

"Church" As a Rigorous Biblical and Moral Training Ground

Carleton, MI

I'm preaching this coming Sunday (8/19/12) from Colossians 1:11, as situated in vv. 9-14. I'm studying NT theologian David Garland's Colossians commentary and read this:

"For Christians to grow in the knowledge of God [see Col. 1:9], the church needs to be a rigorous biblical and moral training ground. The need for moral discernment derived from biblical Christianity could not be greater."

I agree. And am confirmed in my and Redeemer's emphasis on the biblical text. And we are rigorous and intentional and scholarly and experiential and crazy about this!

Preach the text. Explain it. Saturate in it. Be connected to Jesus, by the Spirit. There, receive your orders. Obey.

Redeemer's New Website

Our staff has been working on our new website this morning. It's up!

redeemerfellowshipchurch.com

A Sunday Evening in Mozambique with Kellie Robinson

A Sunday Evening in Mozambique

Kellie Robinson visited Heidi and Rolland Baker’s Iris Ministries, in Pemba, Mozambique for 21 days in July. This base is a home for children who have none and a slice of heaven on earth.

While she was there, she witnessed some amazing things.

She’ll be sharing about her experience this coing Sunday, Aug. 19^th, at 5:00pm.

There will be:
-worship
-an overview of her trip
-pictures
-Q & A time

Absolutely everyone is welcome.

The hope is that God will show up big time and move in our hearts and lives that night.
Whether you’re able to come or not, please pray for our time together.

Redeemer Ministry School - Begins September 11, 2012

Redeemer Ministry School's 2012-2013 year begins Tuesday, September 11.

Want to join us? Want more information?

Redeemerministryschool.com

Or, send me an e-mail at: johnpiippo@msn.com

734-2425277

The Two Domains of "Ought" (Where "Is" Does Not Reign)

Detroit

I'm with the main point of Xavier philosophy professor Richard Polt's "Anything But Human," which presents an argument against reducing humanity to subhumanity, against reducing consciousness to pure material conditions, against reducing "mind" to physical brain. There is something "more" about human beings; persons are essentially unlike other animals and unlike any computer.

Consider ethics. While Polt has no problem with evolutionary theory, he refuses "to admit that they teach me much about ethics." Even if "the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense." In other words, even if humanity has evolved to prefer A over B, this tells us nothing about whether to choose A as "better than" B.

Now here it comes - pay close attention:

"In fact, the very idea of an “ought” is foreign to evolutionary theory. It makes no sense for a biologist to say that some particular animal should be more cooperative, much less to claim that an entire species ought to aim for some degree of altruism. If we decide that we should neither “dissolve society” through extreme selfishness, as Wilson puts it, nor become “angelic robots” like ants, we are making an ethical judgment, not a biological one. Likewise, from a biological perspective it has no significance to claim that Ishould be more generous than I usually am, or that a tyrant ought to be deposed and tried. In short, a purely evolutionary ethics makes ethical discourse meaningless."

Again, one can't derive "ought" from "is."

Consider, in the second place, the mind-brain problem. Are you and I essentially no different from the computer I am writing this on? The answer is: we are different. For my computer understands nothing of the first (or any) sentence of this paragraph. The temptation to reductionism has been around at least since Plato. Holt writes: "Without a brain or DNA, I couldn’t write an essay, drive my daughter to school or go to the movies with my wife. But that doesn’t mean that my genes and brain structure can explain why I choose to do these things — why I affirm them as meaningful and valuable." (Here one such as J.P. Moreland would disagree, arguing for a mind-body dualism that does not require there to be a brain for their to be a mind.)

Enter philosophy and religion, the two domains of "ought": philosophy and religion (remember, science cannot help us here). Polt writes:  "religion has survived the assaults of reductionism because religions address distinctively human concerns, concerns that ants and computers can’t have: Who am I? What is my place? What is the point of my life?"

Indeed, the very choice to write a paper to present a theory that human choices can be fully reduced and thereby explained and understood in terms of pure material causality cannot itself be understood and explained in terms of pure material causality. "The same scientist who claims that behavior is a function of genes can’t give a genetic explanation of why she chose to become a scientist in the first place. The same philosopher who denies freedom freely chooses to present conference papers defending this view."

Craig Keener's Commentary on Acts

My friend Craig Keener's Vol. I of his Acts commentary comes out Sept. 1. Here's what some are saying.

"Somewhat surprisingly, a socio-historical approach to Acts still needs to be defended and its value demonstrated. No one does this better--is more informed about ancient literature, parallels, and precedents, and more interactively and fruitfully engaged with contemporary literature and issues--than Craig Keener. In the introduction (a monograph in itself), his treatment of the genre of Acts, especially his judicious discussion of the genre 'novel,' of the character of ancient historiography, and of the historical integrity and value of Acts, is unbeatable in today's market. For anyone wanting to appreciate how Acts 'worked' in its original context and to get into the text at some depth, Keener will be indispensable and 'first off the shelf.'"
--James D. G. Dunn, University of Durham

"Keener takes very seriously the claim of the book of Acts to be historiography. His encyclopedic knowledge of ancient literature and his intelligent skill as an exegete make this a magisterial commentary."
--Richard Bauckham, University of St. Andrews; Ridley Hall, Cambridge

"This first volume promises to be the inaugural component of the most comprehensive commentary on Acts to date. Keener presents a socio-historical reading of the text with meticulous precision, and his knowledge of scholarly research is impressive. The documentation from ancient Jewish literature is exceptionally rich. From now on, any exegesis of Acts will need to take into account this major work."
--Daniel Marguerat, University of Lausanne, Switzerland

"Early Christianity developed in a complex and multifaceted context, one that Craig Keener masterfully presents in this socially and historically oriented commentary on Acts. As one has come to expect from Keener, there is thorough knowledge and use of the best and most important secondary literature and abundant utilization of a wide range of ancient sources. This is a commentary that will continue to serve as a detailed resource for both scholars and students."
--Stanley E. Porter, McMaster Divinity College

"A monumental exegetical commentary. . . . Scholars and readers of the Acts of the Apostles will find it a precious source for consultation. In addition, Keener's attention to the work of Luke-Acts and the comparison he draws with Paul's letters will greatly profit those who are interested in the Third Gospel and the person of Paul."
--Fr. G. Claudio Bottini, Faculty of Biblical Sciences and Archaeology (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum), Jerusalem

"With a monograph-level introduction and solid, detailed use of background sources, Craig Keener has provided us with a rich gem of a commentary on Acts."
--Darrell L. Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary

"Keener shows convincingly how broadly and deeply Acts participates in ancient Hellenistic and Jewish thinking. This meticulous reconstruction fits well with his deep insights on Lukan theology in Acts. I expect this to be a marvelous, impressive, and inspiring commentary!"
--Manfred Lang, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg

Hitchens's "Invisible Convictions" as Non-Empirical

Atheist Christopher Hitchens wrote, in God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything: "All my moral and intellectual being is penetrated by an invincible conviction that whatever falls under the dominion of our senses must be in nature and, however exceptional, cannot differ in its essence from all the other effects of the visible and tangible world of which we are a self-conscious part." (Kindle Locations 1191-1193)

That is a nicely worded sentence that is very hard to make any real sense out of. For Hitchens's "moral being" does not, and cannot, be discovered via sense perception, nor can it be understood via empirical, scientific study. Hitchens's "invincible [moral, or any, for that matter] conviction" is, if it is anything at all, non-empirical. Famously, one can't get "ought-convictions" from "is-empiricisms." One might (at least, in principle) explicate just what, physically, is going on when one self-describes the sense of moral conviction. But that explanation does not reduce "invincible convictions" to the domain of the senses, since that explanation is itself non-physical. One does not find "explanations" in nature.

So it seems rational to believe that there are things, events, feelings, explanations, that differ in essence from the stuff of the "visible and tangible world." And, "of which we are a self-conscious part," which very self-consciousness brings us to the "hard problem of consciousness" that might be, in principle, unsolvable.

Real Jesus-Followers Love "Church"

Carleton, MI

I've heard some Jesus-followers say, "I love Jesus, but not the church." So they don't "go" to "church."

But that is impossible, like saying "X is round, and X is at the same time square." There's some fundamental misunderstanding of "church" going on here. A follower of Jesus is the church. "Church" is neither something a J-follower "goes to," or something a J-follower "dislikes," unless by "dislike" is meant a form of self-hatred.

Ben Witherington explains:

"The church is the corporate people of God assembled for worship, fellowship, and service. It is not a building, it is not an institution, it is not an organization. Any church that is even moderately successful certainly needs a regular place to meet, needs some organization, needs some structure, but the ekklesia as defined in the NT is not these things. I would stress the church needs structure, needs buildings, needs organization, but it should not be identified with them. It is precisely when the buildings, structures, and organizations or institutions of the church become overly-sacralized that they become difficult if not impossible to change. That’s what I call Christians developing an ‘edifice’ complex.
The word ekklesia, often translated ‘church’ actual means ‘assembly’. One person is not the church. A group of unassembled Christian friends is not the church. No, there is an element of assembling for worship, fellowship, service that makes a group of people a church. You need to be having church to be a church."

MLK's Idea of Prayer

One of my prayer places (Lake Erie, Monroe, MI)

Prayer, for Martin Luther King, Jr., was:

• a gift from God
• something that had infinite dimensions for exploration
• a spiritual quality that must be consistently cultivated
• facilitating an intimate relationship with God
• being-led into the presence of God
• Sacred time
• Self-purification time
• responding in a spirit of humility to the activity of God's grace in daily life

(From Lewis V. Baldwin, Never to Leave Us Alone: The Prayer Life of Martin Luther King Jr., x-xi)