Jesus Goes to Church

I know I should just post a link to an article that I like but this one I liked so much I decided to copy the whole thing here. This comes via a link from the post I did on "My Imaginary Friend" and the "atheist" posts about "Jim and Casper Go to Church" and the Drew Marshall church visits. This is a spoof of the Jim and Casper book and I thought it was hilarious. It is found on the Jesus Manifesto blog. Enjoy!


Book Review: Tim & Jesus Go to Church
Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : March 25, 2008

The book would make for a great sitcom: a pastor roadtrip across the United States, critiquing several churches along the way. Henderson believes that evangelism requires listening to “the good, the bad and the ugly about Christianity in order to be a better minister.” So he invited Jesus, the Son of God and supposed “founder” of Christianity, to observe how modern American Christians are doing with the movement he started. Their travels took them to an urban outreach church, an Emergent church, a new monastic community, a liberal mainline church, and to an evangelical megachurch.

In the book, Tim and Jesus discuss everything from preaching to music to location. Every step of the way, Jesus asks, “Why do these churches have such different ideas on what it means to follow me?” As a reader, I was drawn into the dialog and experiences. In a way, the book offers very few easy answers. But it does show that while each of the churches has an honest approach to following the way of Jesus (except maybe one Church), each community can learn much more from the way of the master. Because the book revolves around the five communities that Tim and Jesus visit, I thought it to be appropriate to share the highlights of their experiences of each. In particular, Jesus has a lot to say:

City Light International Street Mission
Tim and Jesus fist visit City Light International Street Mission, a small urban Pentecostal community in Nashville. The book is generous in their description. You could tell that both Jesus and Tim were weirded-out by the raw emotionalism and “pentecostal bells and whistles” of the worship service. But they were soft in their criticisms.
At one point in this section of the book, Tim states: “You could tell that the Mission doesn’t have the funding to reach out to these folks…but they do it anyways…that is commendable.” (22)
Jesus affirmed their heart for the poor: “When they serve these friends of mine, it is like they are serving me.” (22)
But their experience wasn’t entirely positive. At one point during the very loud and frenzied worship service, the pastor started prophesying that a “new move of the Spirit” would visit the church and spark a new revival for the healing of the nations. At the end of the prophecy, Jesus stood up and said: “I have already told you. The Kingdom of God is among you. Stop looking for signs and wonders, and follow the gentle leading of my Spirit.” Afterwards, Jesus got rebuked…and one elder attempted to “deliver” Jesus from a “spirit of rebellion.” (45-47)

The Livingroom
Next, Tim and Jesus visited The Livingroom, an Emergent-style church in Chicago. Tim thoroughly enjoyed himself, but Jesus fell asleep during the music portion of the gathering. He said: “It was so atmospheric. What is it with urban hipsters and their mellow music? At least the music at City Light was joyous…and City Light even had a song of lament.” (68)
During their visit, the pastor gave a sermon about social justice…and how the Gospel was more about what you do than what you say…and that what you say isn’t really that important if you show love. Afterwards, Tim and Jesus got into a deep conversation about whether or not they agreed. Tim tended to agree with the statement, but Jesus disagreed: “I was sitting there listening to this pastor tell his flock how I wasn’t very interested in preaching and proclaiming the Gospel. That upset me. Can’t he read? Doesn’t he notice how much RED there is in the Gospels?”

Humility House
Humility House is one of a growing number of “new monastic” communities. Located in a poor part of Denver, Humility House practices hospitality, care for the poor, and engages in the occasional protest. There community is made up of about 12 members–8 of them living in the house.
Tim felt that the community was warm and inviting, but didn’t “get” what it was they were hoping to accomplish: “I affirm their community and that they help a few people out from time to time, but this isn’t the sort of model that most Christians can follow. And it could put off a lot of seekers.”
Jesus disagreed: “These are my kind of hippies. These sorts of radicals really connect with an important part of my message. But they never seem to stick around for very long. How many of my brothers and sister hippies are still going strong from the movement they named after me in the 70s and 80s?” Later on, Jesus writes: “I wish they wouldn’t always be so dang serious. There is a time for simplicity. But there is also a time for drink and song.”

Trinity United Methodist Church
Tim and Jesus connected with the mainline church the least. This was the shortest section of the book. They visited Trinity United Methodist Church in Phoenix, Arizona. Tim felt bored the whole time. Jesus tried to mingle with folks in the foyer after the service, but no one seemed to be interested in him…just the idea of him.

Lakewater Community Church
Finally, Jesus and Tim visited Lakewater Community Church in Dallas, Texas. Lakewater has 30,000 members and proclaims a soft-message of prosperity and hope. Tim had lots to stay about the techniques this church used to draw in lots of seekers. But Jesus didn’t like his visit much. He writes that “the leaders of this church reminded me of the folks who crucified me.”
After the service, Jesus was able to make an appointment with the pastor. But the meeting was cut short. The pastor didn’t believe that Jesus was the REAL Jesus. After all, this Jesus was much too shabbily dressed to be the REAL Jesus. On his way out, Jesus shook out his sandals on the step as he and Tim made their way back to California.

Closing Thoughts
The book was pretty well written, though I could tell from Jesus’ sections that he hadn’t written a book before. His insights were the most insightful, but I found I could relate with Tim’s perspective more easily. Clearly, the two men had their favorite communities, and a couple that they didn’t like. But there are so many communities out there that you can’t really get a sense of what sort of church either would say is the “ideal church.” But I suppose that is the point. We’re not supposed to be discontent with out communities as we strive for the ideal. Instead, we are called to be as faithful to Jesus as we can in the sorts of communities that we find ourselves in.
This was a work of satire. No such book exists. And while Jesus doesn’t take road-trips to visit churches, I would like to assume that he is present, in some way, at all sorts of Churches. Are we listening to what he has to say?

Maintaining Focus

We had a great discussion at our last men’s breakfast. Someone presented the scenario of wanting to be a passionate follower of God, having devotions and prayer in the morning but then falling short in so many ways by the evening. It seems we are stuck in Romans 7 where Paul talks about wanting to do the right thing but not being able to get there.
We want to do well but often the day drags us down;
- or we get frustrated
- or someone rubs us the wrong way
- or temptation has its way with us
- or our prayers are ineffective
Life is just so “daily” sometimes. But why does that happen if we have been praying, and committing our day to God?

We came up with five responses.

1. Vision and Desire
2. Faith
3. Know who I am in Christ
4. Don’t lose heart
5. Walk in community

I'll look at the first one in this post.

1. Vision and Desire
We need to focus on God’s vision for us rather than a legalistic or moralistic approach to our Christian life. Ethics and morals are hard to maintain if they are only being done as a list of correct things to do – especially since morals have become so relativistic in our culture. In the workplace morals are being compromised at the very highest level. In movies, and in almost every sitcom the “conflict” is almost always about selfishness and dishonesty. Someone gets in trouble, lies about it and then needs to face the relational consequences. In the end the lie is justified and life goes on.

It is extremely tough to be honest merely for honesty’s sake (even though sometimes it is the only motivation we can muster). To act with consistently high moral standards we need a vision and a goal – something that gives us (or will give us) joy. We cannot maintain a lifestyle that is moral or obedient or ethical out of blind obligation. It must be motivated by a higher vision and desire. We need to have a reason for our behaviour. The writer of the book of Hebrews says it this way:

Hebrews 12
1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. 2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

The three higher motivations expressed here are:
i. witnesses.
There are people who will watch us doing good - cheering us on to do good. We are accountable. This is external motivation and is very powerful if the people cheering you on are those you respect and want to please.
ii. joy.
This is internal motivation. This is “doing it for me.” There is a joy that needs to be envisioned to carry out a difficult task. It may be the joy of accomplishment. It may be the joy of a reward. It may be the joy of knowing that what you believe was right actually worked the way is was supposed to.
iii. Jesus.
We need to focus on the author and perfecter of our faith. We need to consider Him who endured much more opposition. The goal is to follow Him and become like Him.

The apostle Paul puts it this way:

Philippians 3
10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

I will continue the rest of the five points on another post.

My Imaginary Friend - the Problem with "True for You"

I was over at the Off the Map site (and their Church Rater site) the other day where they are having ongoing conversations stimulated by the book Jim and Casper Go To Church. It is interesting and in some ways a beneficial conversation. As Christians we need to always be open to evaluation and correction because it is easy to get off track in our world. The view from an atheist has been helpful in correcting some of the things we take for granted in our sometimes cloistered church world. I made a comment on their blog (some of which is repeated below) which got me thinking a lot about this whole conversation.

A guy in Canada (Drew Marshall) also “copied” the project and attended half a dozen churches in the Toronto area with two “atheists.” Some good comments there as well. I reviewed the book here and also responded to the Canadian version here. Each of those has links to the original works.

My main “critical” comment directed to atheists reviewing church life is one that they have probably heard before and probably have responded to somewhere, sometime. It’s simply this - that as atheists they don’t really “get” the God piece. Maybe it goes without saying and maybe that’s part of the point of the book. But I’m not sure that they really get that deep real experience of those who simply connect to God.

The "certainty" about God that Christians have that drives atheists nuts is the certainty of a real experience and a real conversation with God/Jesus. So spending time interacting with that God in worship and adoration is never wasted or pointless or irrelevant to life. Deep personal interactive worship of God (alone or with a group) is always worth the time and the effort - even if at times it produces no tangible "result." God always deserves to be worshipped and it is the chief end of humans to worship God. However, I do agree with Matt Casper that it certainly doesn’t need all the bells and whistles that some of the churches he visited attach to it.

I mean I stumble in the dark as much as the next guy. I wish I could control or explain more articulately how I interact with God or he with me. But what keeps me coming back to God is this certainty for me of this knowledge that I’ve interacted with the creator of the universe. The fundamental reality of the experience of connecting with God is what makes sense of the world.

The argument about "certainty" can definitely lean towards being quite condescending to those who are firm in their faith. Really, skepticism can be quite "certain" as well. Matt Casper asks us to affirm that faith is empirically unprovable and so by nature uncertain. He says this on their blog:

That’s the nature of belief and faith! It cannot be empirically proven, that’s why it can never be wrong. Faith is, in essence, your personally held belief. Like an opinion, it requires no proof to be true for you.

My goal is to get people of faith to be people of faith. Because when you start calling your faith “right,” then others’ faith must be “wrong.” And that leads to statements like “We’re good, they’re evil.” And that leads to conflict. And conflict leads to an ongoing horrorshow of people of different faiths killing each other (and millions of innocents, too), which simply has to stop.

While I agree that the church has a history of forcible conversions that often resulted in wars and the death of innocents, I take exception to some of the comments he makes because of the unspoken implications. Yes, there are stupid people out there who take wrong actions because of their faith. It doesn't mean their faith is wrong or untrue. Nor does it necessarily make someone else's faith more right or true. He also makes a logic leap from being "right" and "wrong" to being "good" and "evil" (which is a whole other post).

The implication he makes is that what I know to be true is considered only personal truth - which then is not really truth at all - and I really shouldn't take it so seriously. After all I can't risk offending someone else who might actually be wrong. Is there an empirical truth outside of myself? Yes. Can I prove it? No, not with a "scientific" empirical means because it is not necessarily scientific.

When we speak this way, faith then only becomes what I imagine to be true in my head. The implication is that I am out of touch with reality and only imagining it. It becomes "true for me." This is a polite (or perhaps politically correct) way of saying I'm crazy.

Because the only options available to me are:
1. My experience really is true and real. I know God and speak to Him and He to me. My assumption must be that if God is God there should be some consistency in His behaviour and that my experience should be somewhat similar to yours. We should be able to compare notes and determine some common denominators about who God is and how He speaks and the nature of His character. This is what Christians affirm the world over in different cultures and times and places. Their experiences are similar and they line up with the general flow of Scripture.

2. This experience is actually not true or real. Therefore I am either ...
a. deluding myself (thinking that I am actually speaking and listening to something I think is a divine being who is actually not really there). This is the affirmation of most atheists and most of the "pluralists" in our world. The god I interact with is actually a god of my own making and a god of my own understanding (true for me). I have made him up and I have conversations with my imaginary friend as if he is real. Therefore I am basically insane or schizophrenic.

... or,

b. I am being deluded (which means that someone or something has deceived me). This may be as a result of my upbringing or my culture or the preacher/pastor/televangelist that I listen to. The implication is that I am simple, gullible, dependent, brainwashed, stupid, uneducated, naive, uninformed, not intellectual, etc., and the religious scam artists have got me believing their schtick.

So for Christians to line up with Matt Casper's thinking, we should say the thing we are experiencing (that we call God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit) is actually a product of our unscientific, unprovable faith and therefore it provides no real certainty. It is just my experience of God (which may be different than yours). However to say that my experience of god is fundamentally different than your experience of god means that god is not actually real and not consistent in his actions with people - which means he does not exist except in my (or your) delusion.

That is the whole point of the atheistic argument. If there is no God everyone can have their own idea of God or even be god. But if there really is a God, I can be certain about it because He is found by those who seek Him.

The Gospel According to National Geographic

Recently a new Gospel was discovered - the Gospel of Judas - which received much fanfare because it apparently overturned the traditional understanding of the relationship between Jesus and Judas, making Judas into a hero instead of a betrayer. Turns out the translation had a few errors. This New York Times article gives a bit more detail. The following is an excerpt from the article ...


It was a great story [i.e. the story describing that Judas didn’t betray Jesus. Instead, Jesus asked Judas, his most trusted and beloved disciple, to hand him over to be killed. Judas’s reward? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples.]

Unfortunately, after re-translating the society’s transcription of the Coptic text, April D. DeConick, a professor of Biblical studies at Rice University found that the actual meaning is vastly different. While National Geographic’s translation supported the provocative interpretation of Judas as a hero, a more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no hero, he is a demon.

Several of the translation choices made by the society’s scholars fall well outside the commonly accepted practices in the field. For example, in one instance the National Geographic transcription refers to Judas as a “daimon,” which the society’s experts have translated as “spirit.” Actually, the universally accepted word for “spirit” is “pneuma ” — in Gnostic literature “daimon” is always taken to mean “demon.”

Likewise, Judas is not set apart “for” the holy generation, as the National Geographic translation says, he is separated “from” it. He does not receive the mysteries of the kingdom because “it is possible for him to go there.” He receives them because Jesus tells him that he can’t go there, and Jesus doesn’t want Judas to betray him out of ignorance. Jesus wants him informed, so that the demonic Judas can suffer all that he deserves.

Perhaps the most egregious mistake found was a single alteration made to the original Coptic. According to the National Geographic translation, Judas’s ascent to the holy generation would be cursed. But it’s clear from the transcription that the scholars altered the Coptic original, which eliminated a negative from the original sentence. In fact, the original states that Judas will “not ascend to the holy generation.” To its credit, National Geographic has acknowledged this mistake, albeit far too late to change the public misconception.

So what does the Gospel of Judas really say? It says that Judas is a specific demon called the “Thirteenth.” Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas was a harsh critic of mainstream Christianity and its rituals and mocks mainstream Christians’ belief in the atoning value of Jesus’ death and in the effectiveness of the Eucharist.

How could these serious mistakes have been made? Were they genuine errors or was something more deliberate going on? This is the question of the hour, and I do not have a satisfactory answer.

That said, I think the big problem is that National Geographic wanted an exclusive. So it required its scholars to sign nondisclosure statements, to not discuss the text with other experts before publication. The best scholarship is done when life-sized photos of each page of a new manuscript are published before a translation, allowing experts worldwide to share information as they independently work through the text.

Not the End of Christianity

Just to clarify, when I suggest that Christendom is at the point of expiring, I don't mean that Christianity is dead - not at all! Christianity is actually the one religion that is quite fluid and amazingly able to adapt to changing circumstances. When I reflect on some of the conversations I have with some of my Jewish friends or neighbours I realize that they are quite proud of the heritage of their religion that has not changed very much for three millennia. They look back to Moses or David or the Maccabees confident that the way they celebrated their religion was much the same as it is celebrated now. The clothing, the food, the scrolls, the layout of the buildings can all be traced back centuries if not millennia. It is a religion that resists culture and maintains its traditions in spite of cultural shifts.

I think that Christianity is for the most part very fastidious about maintaining its Scripture but has tended to adapt many other things that at various times seemed more or less important. The list of changes I mentioned in the last post is an illustration of how significantly the focus of Christianity has changed over the centuries. The changes at times are so significant that the true faith becomes almost unrecognizable at time - hence the need for renewal movements and reformations to bring the church back to the few core basic of the faith. A call back to the centrality of Scripture, to the Lordship and divinity of Jesus Christ, to simple and humble worship, and to an authentic love for one another.

There really are very few clear guidelines about what church should look like. However the people who make up the church should always look and act like Jesus. If we are not doing that then someone needs to call us to account. Do I hear a voice calling out in the wilderness?

3-5Thunder in the desert! "Prepare for God's arrival!
Make the road straight and smooth, a highway fit for our God.
Fill in the valleys, level off the hills,
Smooth out the ruts, clear out the rocks.
Then God's bright glory will shine and everyone will see it.
Yes. Just as God has said." Isaiah 40:3-5

That has always been a guideline for me. I really believe that pastors should be doing what Jesus did - walk around, gather disciples, feed the poor, heal the sick, tell stories and make pompous religious people mad. It may mean you get crucified for it but what a way to go.

Three Days and Three Nights

As my Jewish neighbours are breaking their fast as Yom Kippur ends I am thinking about another Jewish High Holy Day - Passover. Someone asked me a question about the High (or special) Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31. The subtext is a question about the resurrection of Jesus and the apparent inconsistencies of only two nights in the grave (if there was a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection) if Jesus said he would be in the earth for three days and three nights. I thought the answer was worthy of a post.

The question: "During the week of Christ's crucifixion there was a 'High Sabbath' mentioned in John. That basically this high Sabbath occurred earlier in the week. (A Wednesday?) And that is when Christ was actually crucified. That Jesus actually was in the tomb for a 'full' three days and rose on the Saturday Sabbath.
Could you explain the 'High Sabbath' and if it is possible to find out if the Jewish community would have 'two Sabbaths' in one week or simply would celebrate 'both' Sabbaths on Saturday?"

The answer:

As for the High Sabbath, John 19:31 says

Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.

It also says in Mark 15 that Jesus died on the Preparation Day.

42It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead.

and in 16:1

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

and Matthew 28:1

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

So the information that we have is that Jesus died on the Preparation day and rose again after the Sabbath on the first day of the week (Sunday). It also talks about being raised on the third day like in Luke 24

6He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' "

This is not really a problem because Sunday is the third day after Friday (including Friday and Sunday). However the problem comes with passages like Matthew 12:40

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

This is where this concept of the double Sabbath comes in. Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples on the night before Passover. However it is more likely that he ate it with them two nights before Passover because the trial never would have happened on a Sabbath and it says he died on the "Preparation Day." Not every Sabbath has a preparation day - only the feast Sabbath days. So Jesus had supper with his disciples on the eve (which was Wednesday evening - keep reading) of the Preparation Day before Passover. That evening he was arrested, tried and the next morning brought before Pilate, beaten, crucified. He was placed in the tomb on that evening before Passover (before Thursday sundown - the start of the special Sabbath) and then was in the the tomb Passover (a High Sabbath - Friday) then also on the Saturday Sabbath and then on the third day (Sunday) he rose from the dead. That gives you three days and three nights. Although Scripture does not specifically mention two Sabbaths in that week, I know of no Scriptures that specifically would eliminate that possibility.

The Jewish community would never move the celebration of Passover to the Saturday so as to only have one Sabbath. Also the women would not have come with the spices on a Sabbath (ie they would not have been allowed to do the work of carrying them and preparing the body - also touching a body and defiling themselves on a Sabbath). So Jesus must have risen on the Sunday - and the Scriptures also say it was the first day of the week (the Sabbath is the seventh - the day God rested) that he rose.

What is an Evangelical Anyway?

I came across Christianity Today’s subsidiary website “Books and Culture: a Christian Review” – a great (I mean really superb) collection of book reviews and articles about Christian books, articles and authors. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., is a fairly well known Canadian theologian, author and Christian apologist. He is Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada. In a review of Ron Sider’s Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, he gives a helpful (although lengthy) description/definition of an Evangelical. He goes on to describe in the rest of the review that we (along with Ron Sider) are often scandalously fuzzy about what an Evangelical really is and what a Christian really is. This little description should help – well at least a little.

Evangelicals maintain Protestant orthodoxy: they believe what their various denominations have historically taught about Christian doctrine, with special emphasis on Christology and soteriology;

Evangelicals experience conversion: they might enjoy a particular dramatic moment, or they might undergo a long process punctuated by one or more crises, but they all personally commit themselves to Christ and then seek to be fully converted in the process of sanctification;

Evangelicals believe the Bible: they not only maintain classic Christian beliefs about it, but their piety is structured around it: in individual, family, group, and congregation study, in the centrality of preaching in public worship, and in the Bible's epistemological supremacy in all areas of life;

Evangelicals engage in mission: they view themselves as called by God to perform his will in every activity of life, and particularly in sharing the message of salvation with others and caring for their needs; and

Evangelicals recognize each other across denominational lines as kin: thus evangelicals cooperate in a wide range of organizations and activities to further the work of God beyond the reach of their respective congregation and denomination.

God is not Great? Deluded Evangelistic Atheists

There have been a number of very popular books written recently that have questioned a great many things about Christianity - and religion in general. The blockbuster that seemed to open the gates was The Da Vinci Code (first the error-riddled book and then the pitifully awful movie). The book recycled (according to some, plagiarized) some discredited theories about Mary Magdelene, Da Vinci and of course Jesus. Despite being a work of fiction, the author presents these claims as historical fact: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." In fact, almost nothing Brown claims about art, history, Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Bible, secret documents or the Catholic Church is either true or accurate. Many web sites and books point out the factual errors.

However, The Da Vinci Code as well as a renewed interest in Intelligent Design has released a flood of books about the Gnostic Gospels (like The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels) and a great deal of anti-God books written primarily by atheists, like:
"God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by Christopher Hitchens, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" by Sam Harris, and "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Some of these books have been on the New York Times bestsellers list for months.

At the same time, these books have received some scathing reviews - and not just by those sympathetic to a religious worldview. Stephen Prothero in the Washington Post, points out something I have observed about atheists before. They fundamentally refuse to understand their own faith (atheism is after all a faith position) or the faith of anyone else. A quote from the review ...
"What Hitchens gets wrong is religion itself. Hitchens claims that some of his best friends are believers. If so, he doesn't know much about his best friends. He writes about religious people the way northern racists used to talk about "Negroes" -- with feigned knowing and a sneer. God Is Not Great assumes a childish definition of religion and then criticizes religious people for believing such foolery." Prothero finishes off his review with ...
"Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant man, and there is no living journalist I more enjoy reading. But I have never encountered a book whose author is so fundamentally unacquainted with its subject. In the end, this maddeningly dogmatic book does little more than illustrate one of Hitchens's pet themes -- the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep."

For a more point by point critique of Hitchens' book by a pastor and a New Testament scholar, Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts creates at least eight posts on his blog. This is lengthy and fairly focused on the Christian critiques sections in Hitchens' book.

The more popular book has been "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and has written a number of books on that topic - some of them countering the Intelligent Design school of thought. Andrew Brown reviews the book in a British Publication called the Prospect Magazine. The title and sub-title speak volumes. "Dawkins the Dogmatist: Incurious and rambling, Richard Dawkins's diatribe against religion doesn't come close to explaining how faith has survived the assault of Darwinism."

However the most enjoyable review I read (including the comments and responses) was by H. Allen Orr in the New York Book Review. I quoted a couple of sections that I really enjoyed (this is also a very long and detailed review).

"The God Delusion certainly establishes that Dawkins has little new to offer. Its arguments are those of any bright student who has thumbed through Bertrand Russell's more popular books.
One reason for the lack of extended argument in The God Delusion is clear: Dawkins doesn't seem very good at it.
But as I made clear, I have no problem with where Dawkins arrived but with how he got there. It's one thing to think carefully about religion and conclude it's dubious. It's another to string together anecdotes and exercises in bad philosophy and conclude that one has resolved subtle problems. I wasn't disappointed in The God Delusion because I was shocked by Dawkins's atheism. I was disappointed because it wasn't very good."

And now my favorite quote: "Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur."

I have not read any of the books I mentioned above (except for the Da Vinci Code - which really wasn't worth the time invested - but that was before I started the DMin) - nor do I plan to - unless there is a relational component to it (ie I meet someone who is so impressed with it and wants to get my feedback). At any rate, atheism or belief in God is really not countered or overcome with one book or one debate. Actually I think we (both Christians and atheists) suffer from a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of each other. As one reviewer (I think it was Mark Roberts) said: "We inhabit different universes." I think that is so true. As a Christian I can't even begin to think that this world makes any sense without the existence of God. It seems so self evident to me. To believe otherwise is irrational to me. To disagree about the nature of that God and how he is revealed to us is understandable - but to deny the evidence of something much greater than us seems the height of folly. As the writer of the Proverbs says: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding" Proverbs 9:10.

Proving God

Robert Linthicum shares part of his testimony in his book “Building a People of Power: Equipping Churches to Transform their Communities.” I will share a few more items from his book as I continue reading, but his encounter with a missionary at an Episcopal church in 1950 when he was a thirteen year old atheist, is worth sharing.

The missionary spoke. His topic was “How You Can Know There is a God.” I expected a philosophical argument. What I got was something entirely different.

The missionary held up a chair and said, “I could present you with an esoteric argument for the existence of God and it might convince you that an object named ‘God’ exists in the universe – just as this chair exists. But what would I have accomplished by such an argument? I would have simply convinced you that there is an object in this universe we call ‘God’ just as there is an object in the universe we call ‘chair.’”

‘But,” he continued, “God is not an object like this chair to be proved. God is a person to be known, loved and experienced, and he is experienced in the man Christ Jesus. Think of a person whom you know and who loves you. Think of the person sitting next to you. You know him or her. Bu how do you know that person? Do you have to have that person’s existence proven to you? Of course not! And why not? Simply because you experience that person everyday in your life, and that person is already very real to you.”

Then he brought it home. ‘Well, just as this person is one you experience and love, so God in Christ is a person you can experience in your everyday life. And once you have experienced him and come to know him, you no longer need to have his existence proven to you. And why? Because you already know him.”

That did it! This missionary had presented an argument for the existence of God I couldn’t deny. To meet and experience God is to know God. But to refuse to experience him would mean that to have his existence proven to me would be meaningless – because even though I might know about him, I wouldn’t know him.