by | May 19, 2016 · 10:03 am

The “Real” of John Hick

My Longest Post!

Folks, this will be my longest blog post EVER (5085 words)! I wrote it 3 years ago, but NOT for the internet; it was a research paper.

The following was submitted in candidacy for the degree of Master of Ministry. The class was Theology Proper and the Trinity: Theology 6323R. My professor was Dr. John Owen.

The subject was the “Real” of John Hick, the late philosopher whose religious theories still carry weight on many of the most elite campi of the world. If you’ve never heard of John Hick or his pluralistic view of God, it might do you good to read this post.

(FYI, I didn’t include the title page, content page, or page numbers.)

So, grab a cup of coffee or tea and enjoy some seminarian ponderings 😉

THE “REAL” OF JOHN HICK

Introduction

John Hick (1922-2012)

John Hick (1922-2012)

John Hick (1922–2012) was considered by some to be “one of the most significant philosophers of religion of the last 50 years.”[1] What made him so significant? Well, for one thing he was a man who asked, “Are Adonai and God, Allah and Param Atma, Rama and Krishna different Gods, or are these different names for the same ultimate divine Reality?”[2]  He was also a man who challenged the traditional Christian view of God and selectively defined Him in the way he wanted “without the control of any authoritative revelation.”[3]

But most importantly, he was a man who developed a pluralistic theory that all religions, despite their seeming contradictions, actually worshiped the same transcendent Ultimate Reality, or as he called it, “the Real.” He impacted the teaching of theology around the world, leaving a pluralistic stain on Christianity. Therefore, this paper will examine Hick’s “the Real”,  attempt to give reasons for the rise of such a concept, and present criticisms by several of Hick’s contemporaries in an attempt to show that the God of orthodox Christianity is not equal to the gods of this world.

John Hick

Background

John Hick was not always the champion of pluralistic thought. As a matter of fact, Hick was at one point considered to be a fundamentalist Christian. According to his autobiography, it was in 1940, while he was a law student at the University of Hull (England), that he experienced something of a conversion to Christianity. He said that for several days he was in a state of “intense emotional turmoil,” during which he became increasingly aware of a “higher truth and greater reality” demanding a response. He went on to say, “The reality that was pressing in upon me was not only awesomely demanding…but also irresistibly attractive,  and I entered with great joy and excitement in to the world of Christian faith.”[4] It was only later in life, sometime around the 1960’s, that it is generally believed Hick made a break from what was considered orthodox Christianity and sought after a more inclusive view of religion. Theologian John Cobb, emeritus professor at Claremont Graduate University in California (one of the places where Hick taught), said of Hick: “He was a Christian believer who cared about Christian truth, but he later moved from positions he thought were too narrow to more liberal ones.”[5] Eventually, Hick came “to accept the need to re-understand our own faith, not as the one and only, but as one of several.”[6]

People that knew John Hick thought of him as kind and caring toward everyone, even toward those who disagreed with him. One of his former students, Gavin D’Costa, who later became one his harshest critics, said, “He cared deeply about the issues he taught, and he taught with a care and conviction that helped set students like myself on fire.”[7] The problem, however, is that even though Hick may have cared about people and faith, his caring may have led to the demise of his own orthodoxy.  He exchanged the God of the Bible for a pluralistic world view and a non-exclusive deity of his own making.

In the following pages we will explore various attributes of the Real in an attempt to explain Hick’s theory and differentiate the Real from the God of Scripture. But before we examine Hick’s version of God, is would be very beneficial to look at some possible reasons such a theory even came about. What influenced the Real?

Influences

Christianity

            The first real influence on Hick’s theology was Christianity. As noted above, he admitted to what amounted to a “conversion” early in life. It must be understood, however, that Hick’s definition of Christianity was not orthodox. In one article Hick said, “I feel irrevocably challenged and claimed by the impact of the life and teaching of Jesus; and to be thus decisively influenced by him is, I suppose, the basic definition of a Christian.”[8] But being “influenced” does not equate with confessing Jesus Christ as Lord (Rom 10:9). As a matter of fact, it will be presented later that Hick did not even believe Jesus to be divine.

Theodicy

Secondly, Hick was influenced by theodicy.[9] When Hick looked at all the pain and suffering in the world, he could not sit by idly and not try to defend the existence of God. When atheists complained that suffering was proof that God didn’t exist, Hick responded with an Irenaean view that “God will eventually succeed in His purpose of winning all men to Himself in faith and love”[10] (which could make one wonder if Rob Bell was influenced by Hick). He came up with the idea that God was “soul-making,” so suffering was really a good thing.[11] He said that humans have been created as immature creatures who are gradually being brought unto perfection through their own freedom within a challenging world.[12]

Observation of Others

A third major influence behind Hick’s understanding of God was brought about by his observation of religious experiences and worship. Even though he considered himself a Christian at one point, Hick quickly came around to believing that Christianity could not be the only true religion nor Jesus Christ the only way to heaven. What made him decide this was his observation that people from other religions also had life-changing experiences resulting in positive changes of behavior and worship which transformed. Hick said: “When you visit the various non-Christian places of worship in one or our big cities you discover – possibly with a shock of surprise – that phenomenologically (or in other words, to human observation) the same kind of thing is taking place in them as in a Christian church.”[13] He believe that when we “extend our data base” and take all the world religions into account, we will see that other religious people also experience transformed lives and have limitless value.[14]

Hick compared different hymns, noted the similarities, and concluded that, in the light of the phenomenological similarity of worship, “[w]e have to ask whether people in church, synagogue, mosque, gurudwara and temple are worshipping different Gods or are worshipping the same God?”[15] One among many that Hick suggests is an example of a religion worshipping the same god as another, specifically the God of Christianity, is the following Sikh prayer:

There is but one God. He is all that is.

He is the Creator of all things and He is all-Pervasive.

He is without fear and without enmity.

He is timeless, unborn and self-existent.

He is the Enlightener

And can be realized by grace of Himself alone.

He was in the beginning; He was in all ages.

The True One is, was, [O Nanak,] and shall forever be.[16]

Hick believed that if there is just one God who is maker and Lord of all, then these people “must all be worshipping the same God.” Another way to look at this is that Hick wanted to “allow for religion as a whole to be true,” not just human projections or wishful thinking.[17]

Non-Exclusive Loving God

There are surely more, but for this paper a final suggested influence behind Hick’s theology would be the fact that he could not accept the idea that a loving God would be exclusive. Hick had to come up with a vision of God that would conform to his belief that “the God to whom the Christian Gospel bears witness is not the God of this or that bounded human group, but is the Creator and Father of the human race as a whole and in all the continents of the earth.”[18] Hick often referred to orthodox Christianity as the “older theological tradition” that had at its center the conviction that Jesus – the Second Person of the Trinity – was God in flesh and come to be the only way to salvation.[19] He believed that if God had really sent Jesus to be the only way that would obviously mean that others would not have hope, so therefore a teaching like this could not be true. Because of the knowledge now available about other religions (such as mentioned above with regards to worship), the idea of Jesus being the only way was “unacceptable.”[20] According to Hick, the idea that God would limit salvation to only those who would believe in Jesus “conflicts with our concept of God.”[21] Speaking of a loving God, Gavin D’Costa described Hick in the following way: “[He] argued to Christians that the God of love revealed by Jesus could not consign most of humankind to hellfire for something they experienced through no fault of their own. If we can only be saved by Christ and most people in human history have never even heard of him, a perverse God is at work in the world.”[22] Hick said that in the course of all of his study and life, it has become “abundantly clear” that each of the world’s faiths constitutes a perception of and a response to the ultimate divine reality which they all in their different ways affirm; and also that within each there are to be found true saints through whom the Transcendent shines within the fabric of our human life.”[23]

So, now that we have a better understanding of where John Hick may have come up with his ideas for the Real, let us examine some specific attributes of the Real.

Attributes of the Real

Beyond Comprehension and Inspection

In No One Like Him John S. Feinberg discussed various theories regarding “God as a Being.”[24] Some people see God as an immaterial being, while others see God as material. Some see God as both an immaterial and material being. John Hick’s explanation of God falls under the category of immaterial, but with a twist. God, according to Hick, is at one time “independent of our minds”[25] and any ability to describe him, but at the same time immanent in the perceptions God allows us to experience. God is “beyond comprehension and inspection” because the God that we experience is only the thing that we perceive, not the “thing-in-itself.”[26] Hick describes the Real as “transcategorial,” which means that God is “beyond our humans systems of concepts or mental categories.”[27] To put this another way, the Real is ultimate reality – it is what it is – but what it is in its true nature is beyond the ability of men to understand, talk about, or discover. The what is it we are talking about if we can’t talk about and understand God? Evidently, all we can know about the Real is what we gather from experiencing it. In other words, it is sort of like the wind – we cannot really see or touch or know the wind, but we can be keenly aware of how we each experience the wind. For one person the wind may be experienced as a cool breeze, but by another it can be a hot wind or a tornado. None of these experiences are the wind, per se, but the effects of the wind.

Hick proposes that there be a Kantian distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal understandings of God. When one talks about something that is noumenal, that is something that is outside of experience. Phenomenal things, however, are the things we can experience. The Godhead (the Ultimate Reality) is unknowable, so that is the noumenal aspect of God. The phenomenal perceptions of God (the masks) are the experiences we have of the noumenal. Hick describes this as the “divine phenomena in distinction from the divine noumenon of which they are its appearances to humanity.”[28] This is very similar to the idea of personae and impersonae, which is the distinction between the personal pictures of deity, such as Shiva, Allah, or Vishnu, and that of impersonal realities, such as Brahman, Nirvana, or Sunyata.[29] The Real is totally transcendent. All of the gods that religions worship, according to Hick, are simply “masks” that give a face to what “is” while not really showing us what the “is” really is. Hick believed that “the heavenly Father of Christian faith, known through the distinctively Christian response to Jesus of Nazareth; the Allah of Islamic faith, known as self-revealed in the Qur’an through the prophet Muhammad; and Shiva known and intensely experienced within the Shaivite cults of India,”[30] all pointed to the same reality. All the “masks” have been created by man in a response to the true reality of the Real’s “presence” and “reality.”[31] Gerald Loughlin, however, has a real problem with this description of the Real. He believes that by saying anything about a noumenal reality based on phenomenal experience totally defeats the idea that the Real is unknowable. In other words, what are we even talking about if we cannot speak literally of the “presence” or “manifestation” of the Real?[32] Aimee Upjohn Light called Hick’s attempt to synthesize all the world’s religions as a “meta-position” which in claiming to represent the world religions actually contradicts them.[33] She said, “…any position claiming to collapse all religions into one common group enterprise misunderstands and misrepresent each of them…Meta-perspectives, by definition, contradict religions’ claims to uniqueness.”[34]

Can be Distorted but True

According to Hick, one can indeed describe God in conflicting ways, yet still tell the truth about the Ultimate Reality. This has to do with the fact that so many religions have truth claims that contradict each other. For instance, in John 14:6 Jesus says that he is “the way, the truth, and the life,” and that “no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” That would surely exclude any other god from coming along and saying the same thing and both are true. Yet, the way Hick puts it, one can’t get truth without distorting it. Does that sound crazy? Well according to Hick, concerning the different, and indeed often conflicting, belief systems of the religions: our earth is a three-dimensional globe, but when you map it on a two dimensional surface, such a piece of paper, you have to distort it.[35] Just like the big wall maps that take a global view and spread it out, you have to cut it and make it flat. Hick notes that there are a lot of cartographers out there that know that the world is round, yet take different approaches to making detailed maps of the world. Some even have bumps and ridges, while others don’t. Yet, just because one make a map flat, while the other is round, this does not mean that the maps are wrong when one seems to contradict the other. Hick says, “If they are properly made they will all be correct, and yet they all distort.”[36] What Hick is trying to convey, here, is that different religions may have different maps, but all are useful in helping us make our journey in life. The reality, however, is that if a map is incorrect one will wind up in a ditch. And what’s more, God is not a map, so saying He is no different than a distorted piece of paper is really a stretch.

Is Agape, and Agape is God

The Bible is clear about one truth: God is love (1 John 4:8). But nowhere in the Bible does it say that “love is God.” There is a big difference. On the other hand, John Hick tried to make the point that the very act of showing agape love was a manifestation of the Real. “Wherever men or women have lived in self-giving Love,” so says Hick, “there Agape has been incarnated in the human life.”[37] Hick is literally saying, then, that we are all not only like Christ when we show agape love, but we literally are incarnations of Christ. Hick said: “Incarnation in this sense is self-evident metaphor. It means that some value or truth is lived three-dimensionally in a human life or lives within the flow of human history. Now in this sense divine Agape, love, was incarnated in Jesus. Agape became flesh and blood in Jesus’ life of healing and teaching.”[38] So, if Jesus was incarnate Agape, then we can be just like Jesus if we show agape love (according to this interpretation).

Is not Jesus

John Hick said he was a Christian, but he was anything but a Christian in the traditional sense. The reason is because traditional Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Second member of the Trinity, God’s Son, Incarnate God, Divine God-Man, and the Savior of mankind. The Bible is very clear that the only way to the Father is Jesus (John 14:6). In Acts 4:12 we read, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Colossians 2:9 even says, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” meaning that Jesus was not just a man filled with the presence of God, or Agape, but that He was God in the flesh. But John Hick could not accept the teaching of the Bible “as is.” He had to distort the Truth of the gospel in order to deliver his own version of the “good news” to those who chose to believe there were other ways to God. Hick said that whatever we say about God’s action in Jesus Christ…must cohere with what we say about God’s action in relation [to the world].”[39]

When it simply came to the book of John, Hick was skeptical. That shouldn’t amaze anyone, however, for if the book of John was truly inspired, then that would mean the words of Jesus were not put in there by a man who wanted to distort Jesus’ words for his own gain, but that the words of Jesus were actually what he said. But when it comes to John, especially the verses found in chapter fourteen, fault has to be found somewhere, so why not in the text itself? Instead of taking the Bible at face value and then looking at the rest of the world through the lens of divine revelation, Hick has to try to discredit what would seem completely obvious and contradictory to every other truth claim in the world. Regarding John 14:6 Hick said, “Here, unfortunately, we have to enter the realm of NT criticism: and I say ‘unfortunately’ because of the notorious uncertainties of this realm.”[40] He said that “it must be taken as all but certain that the pre-Easter Jesus neither designated himself as Messiah (or Son of God) nor accepted such confession from others.”[41]  But it should be noted that not all scholars agree with Hick about the book of John. Craig S. Keener argued:

Although pseudonymous works existed in antiquity, they stated their purported author rather than implied him; unless we want to argue for John’s implicit pseudonymity, the internal evidence supporting an eyewitness author should be allowed to stand. For this reason, I believe the Fourth Gospel’s claim to authorship by John is stronger than the claims for the other Gospels, which are ultimately dependent only on Christian tradition external to the text itself.[42]

John Hick specifically stated: “The older theological tradition of Christianity does not readily permit religious pluralism. For at its center is the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth was God – the Second Person of a Divine Trinity living a human life.”[43] He also says that this dogma, that Jesus was God in flesh, was generated in order to convince people that they needed to convert from other religions to faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior. But, “That nerve is cut,” said Hick, “when we acknowledge the other great world religions as being also areas of divine salvation.”[44] Hick believed that the story of the incarnation of God in Jesus was simply metaphor, and nothing else. The incarnation, as Hick put it, “can be seen as a poetic expression of his disciples’ relationship to Jesus as one through whom they have found salvation, liberation, newness of life in the presence of God.”[45]

Why is it, then, that Jesus could not be God? It is because the Real cannot be considered to be exclusive. The Real is the Ultimate Reality, the God behind the gods, the God that all religions worship, even though they may worship different “masks” that have been overlaid on top of the Real in order to have something to relate to in an anthropomorphic sense. To say that Jesus actually was who traditional Christianity implied would be to say that other religions are wrong. This, according to Hick, just cannot be. He said: “We can revere Christ as the one through whom we have found salvation, without having to deny other points of experienced saving contact between God and man. We can commend the way of Christian faith without having to discommend other ways of faith. We can say that there is salvation in Christ without having to say that there is no salvation other than in Christ.”[46]

Accepts Prayer

As strange as it may sound after all that has been said so far, the Real can hear and answer prayer. In Who or What is God? Hick does admit his belief that the Real does answer prayers for protection and guidance and health and deliverance. He says that he essentially agrees with the common understanding of God that He (or She) is an infinite personal Being who has created the universe, is prayed to, and has the power to intervene in human affairs in response to human requests.[47] But Hick also says that our view of God is “anthropomorphic,” which means we project onto God human qualities and characteristics which we feel are the highest qualities a person should have. This does not mean, however, that God does not answer prayers, though. The only problem goes back to the theodicy question of why does God answer some prayers and not others?

Biblical Rebuttal

One of the reasons John Hick questions Christianity as the only true faith is because he doubts the words of Jesus as recorded in the fourth gospel, the book of John. As shown above, not all modern scholars agree with Hicks assumption that the book of John is flawed. Hick said that we “cannot rest anything on the assumption that the great Christological sayings of the Fourth Gospel…were ever spoken…”[48] However, if John cannot be trusted, then why would Hick want to have anything to do with the Jesus of the Bible? But there are other scriptures which tell the same story as that of John. Even if the book of John was suspect, then what is John Hick supposed to say in response to these verses?

“Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matt. 1:22-23).

“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:31-32).

“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11).

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).

It would seem that these verses alone bear witness to the words of Jesus in John. But if not these, then what about the other verses in the Old Testament? What about Deuteronomy 6:4 that says, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”? Jesus quoted this in Mark 12:29-30, “And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.” Are these words of Jesus also questionable? Or are they clearly saying that there is only one God, and all the others are false? If language means anything, it would seem that other gods were forbidden.

Conclusion

It seems that John Hick had to come up with something like his concept of the Real to keep from saying any religion was wrong. He had to come up with the Real in order to make sense of his personal experiences, along with the experiences of others. It also seems that Hick wanted to keep a foothold in Christianity, but without exclusivity, which is why he said in a response to Gerald Loughlin that he had “a commitment to try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as one who has revealed to many the possibilities of human existence in response to the ultimately Real.”[49] He called himself a Christian, but in the sense the he tried to live out the example of “agape” love shown by the actions of Jesus, but he could never accept that Jesus was/is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He did all this and influenced others with his way of thinking, and that is a big problem.

There are many who attend universities and seminaries with the intention of learning more about the nature of God. Unfortunately, many are being taught a pluralistic view of Christianity that says all religions are equally true and that none have a better way. John Hick’s theories have come to be widely accepted and taught in many universities because Hick’s view of God is one that allows for anyone to believe what they want, just as long as they don’t say Jesus is the only way (John 14:6). But no matter how tempting it may be to follow along with the teaching of “the Real,” it must be avoided at all cost. There is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved except Jesus Christ. There is only one God, and that is the Trinitarian God of the only revealed Word of God, the Bible. Unfortunately, many pastors are coming out of seminaries with the ability to play the Christian game, but in reality believe a lie. They are dangerous and need to be exposed for what they are. That is why it is important that we learn what the “Real” of John Hick is and stand against it as a false god, not the Ultimate Reality.

 

Footnotes

 

[1] Alan Race. “Hick, John, 1922-2012.” Modern Believing 53, no. 3 (July 1, 2012): 243-253.

[2] John Hick, “Whatever Path Men Choose Is Mine.” Modern Churchman 18, no. 1-2 (December 1, 1974): 8-17.

[3] Gavin Decosta. “The New Missionary: John Hick and Religious Plurality.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15, no. 2 (April 1 1991), 68.

[4] Race, 245.

[5] John Dart, “Hick, John, 1922-2012.” Christian Century 129, no. 6 (March 21, 2012): 15.

[6] John Hick, God Has Many Names. Philidelphia: The Westminster Press. 1982, 7.

[7] Gavin D”Costa. “Hick, John, 1922-2012.” First Things no. 223 (January 1, 2012): 21.

[8] John Hick, “Pluralism and the Reality of the Transcendent: How My Mind Has Changed; 15th In a Series,” Christian Century 98, no. 2 (January 21, 1981): 47.

[9] “…[Part] of natural theology which is concerned to defend the goodness and omnipotence of God against objections arising from the existence of evil in the world.” F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1609.

[10] Race, 247.

[11] John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 781.

[12] A response to Gerad Loughlin, 62.

[13] Whatever Path Men Choose Is Mine, 9

[14] Who or what is god, 3

[15] Whatever path men choose, 11

[16] Whatever path men choose, 10

[17] Loughlin, prefacing 40

[18] General introduction, 4

[19] Plurality and the reality of the transcendent 48

[20] Ibid., 48

[21] Ibid., 48.

[22] Remembering John Hick, 21

[23] Pluralism and the transcendent, 46.

[24] Feinberg, 45-55

[25] Feinberg, 49.

[26] Feinberg147

[27] Who or what is God, 4

[28] Who or what is god, 9.

[29] John hick and the master of religion, 39

[30] Badham: John hick and the human response 47

[31] Feinberg, 147.

[32] John hick and the mastery of religion, 41

[33] Aimee Upjohn Light, 468.

[34] Ibid, 468.

[35] Who or what is god, 9

[36] Who or what is god, 10

[37] General introduction, john hick, 4

[38] Ibid., 9.

[39] General introduction, 5.

[40] Whatever path men choose, 14

[41] Whatever path men may choose, 14.

[42] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Jn.

[43] Pluralism and the reality of the transcendent, 48

[44] Ibid., 48.

[45] General introduction, 9

[46] Whatever path, 15.

[47] Who or what is god, 1

[48] Whatever path men choose, 14

[49] A response to Gerard, 66.

 

Bibliography

Badham, Paul. “John Hick and the Human Response to Transcendent Reality.” Dialogue & Alliance 5, no. 2 (June 1, 1991): 43-51.

Cross, F. L. and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dart, John. “Hick, John, 1922-2012.” Christian Century 129, no. 6 (March 21, 2012): 15-318.

D’Costa, Gavin. “Hick, John, 1922-2012.” First Things no. 223 (January 1, 2012): 21-22.

D’Costa, Gavin. “The New Missionary : John Hick and Religious Plurality.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15, no. 2 (April 1, 1991): 66-69.

Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him. Wheaton: Crossway, 2001.

Grant, Colin. “The Threat and Prospect in Religious Pluralism.” Ecumenical Review 41, no. 1 (January 1, 1989): 50-63.

Hick, John. “A Response to Gerard Loughlin.” Modern Theology 7, no. 1 (October 1, 1990): 57-66.

Hick, John. “Christology In an Age of Religious Pluralism.” Journal Of Theology For Southern Africa no. 35 (June 1, 1981): 4-9.

Hick, John. “Pluralism and the Rreality of the Transcendent : How My Mind Has Changed; 15th in a series.” Christian Century 98, no. 2 (January 21, 1981): 45-48.

Hick, John. “Whatever Path Men Choose Is Mine.” Modern Churchman 18, no. 1-2 (December 1, 1974): 8-17.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

 Light, Aimee Upjohn. “Harris, Hick, and the demise of the pluralist hypothesis.” Journal Of Ecumenical Studies 44, no. 3 (June 1, 2009): 467-470.

Loughlin, Gerard. “Prefacing pluralism : John Hick and the mastery of religion.” Modern Theology 7, no. 1 (October 1, 1990): 29-55.

Lyden, John. “Why Only “One” Divine Reality? A Critique of Religious “Pluralism.” Dialogue & Alliance 8, no. 1 (March 1, 1994): 60-74.

Netland, Harold. “Religious Pluralism and Truth.” Trinity Journal 6, no. 1 (March 1, 1985): 74-87.

Race, Alan. “Hick, John, 1922-2012.” Modern Believing 53, no. 3 (July 1, 2012): 243-253.

4 Comments

Filed under God, Theology

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | May 17, 2016 · 11:24 pm

I Lost a Friend, and It Hurts

It Happens

If you live long enough, you’ll start losing friends. As a matter of fact, the older you get the more often it happens. That’s the problem with people – we die.

It’s not pleasant to think about, but we need to. So often we get caught up in day-to-day life and all its demands, and we rarely stop to consider that every passing moment is one less we have to live, that our clock is winding down. And what’s more, no one knows how much time is left.

I’m not one who will concede that death is just a natural part of life, for it was an intruder that came along after sin crept in and ruined creation. Yet, since the fall death is the constant we can all count on.

You can get out of paying taxes, but you can’t escape death. That’s an appointment we all must keep.

It Happened to a Friend

david bookhardt 2Yesterday (Monday), a little after 5 p.m., a friend of mine, David Bookhardt, died in a head-on collision, along with the young father driving the other vehicle. It’s hard to put into words how much of a shock it was to hear the news, and it’s still difficult to believe.

I didn’t know David Bookhardt for that long, only a few years. We weren’t very close friends, but he was a man with whom I could share my heart. You see, David had a big enough heart that when I unloaded mine, he could keep a smile. That made him a friend like few others.

I know  a whole lot of people – maybe too many. But David Bookhardt was the type of friend that you couldn’t have too many of. He was kind, uncritical, positive, and an ever-willing mentor. As a businessman, few could compare with his disarming personality, one that made you genuinely comfortable, trusting his expertise. And on those long drives across state lines, or on those long days prospecting for new clients, he was all about bringing you up to his level.

david bookhardt about

The “About” from one of David Bookhardt’s blogs.

My Condolences

Like I mentioned, I was not as close to David as many others, and I was only able to meet a couple of his family members in the short time I knew him. On the other hand, I met many, many who called David a friend.

Therefore, to the family and friends of David Bookhardt, I offer my most heartfelt condolences. If the loss I feel is so weighty, I can only imagine the burden you bear.

But we “do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, concerning those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve like the rest, who have no hope. Since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, in the same way God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. … For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the archangel’s voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are still alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.” – 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14, 16-18 HCSB

David Bookhardt - The Best Credit Card Guy

David Bookhardt – The “Best Credit Card Guy”

 

1 Comment

Filed under Life/Death

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | May 16, 2016 · 12:19 pm

A Battle Worth Fighting

Many times, especially as a parent, I’ve had to determine which battles to fight and which ones to just walk away from.

Then came Friday the 13th, 2016. 

Well, because our family has been directly affected by predatory sexual abuse, this is a battle I will fight.

Please watch the attached video from ADF. Then, be bold and fight along with me – for our daughters.

8 Comments

Filed under abuse, Culture Wars, current events, Parenting, politics

Tagged as , , ,

by | May 14, 2016 · 10:10 am

Just Mow

“Just Mow”

I have so much to write

But it was to0 long a night.

The stress of it all, all the phone calls

I slept till I saw the light.

 

Yeah, I “saw the light”

I don’t have to write!

This is my blog, I’m not on the clock

There’s nowhere a paycheck to write.

 

So, it’s a beautiful day

The weather is great

I’ll crank the John Deere, put buds in my ear

And just mow all my stresses away.

– Anthony Baker

just mow

 

9 Comments

Filed under poetry

Tagged as , , ,

by | May 13, 2016 · 11:16 pm

The Bathroom Controversy: It’s Not that Simple

My Two Cents

I have to drop my two cents into the toilet (dropping them into the urinal would mean I might have to take them back).

Seriously, I feel compelled to share my thoughts regarding the current debate over allowing transgender and transexual individuals into the bathroom of their choice, and not necessarily the one which corresponds with their anatomy.

It might even turn into 3 cents.

What You’re Not Hearing

People are giving North Carolina all kinds of grief over HB2, the law that requires one who uses restrooms in public buildings and rest stops to choose the one which corresponds to the individual’s sex at birth (or what’s on the birth certificate). Bruce Springsteen cancelled a concert; Paypal cancelled plans for a facility; and a whole bunch of politicians in other cities banned public employees from going there on public money.

I’m sure you’ve all heard about it by now, especially since President Obama has now sent a prime directive to all public schools and universities.

But what you’ve probably missed is that it’s not just about a guy who’s had a sex-change operation going into a woman’s restroom, or a young person who is totally convinced he is a she and looks and dresses the part to perfection.

It’s not just about the teenage girl who’s won the legal right to be called a boy because she’s always lived as one, dressed as one, and thought she was one.

It’s not even about the psychological term Gender Dysphoria (a mental disorder) which describes most of the above.

No, it’s about the fact that a small percentage of society are doing their best to render any traditional classification of gender and sexuality irrelevant. It’s about eroding any taboos regarding erotic behavior and forcing morality to conform to the image of immorality. This is a generation that is pure in its own eyes, and yet is not washed from its filthiness (Proverbs 30:12).

It’s not about the less than 1% of society having a safe place to relieve themselves; it’s about the rape of morality and common sense: “We’re going in, no matter what.” And when there’s no more fight left, they’ll just grin and move on to another ideological victim.

The Camel In the Tent

Do you remember the story about the camel (or it could have been a horse) that wanted to come inside the tent? He was cold, so he asked his owner to allow him to come into the tent where it was warm. The owner refused, but that’s when the camel said, “Oh, please! What about just my nose? How bad could that be?” Long story short, once the camel’s owner allowed the camel to stick its nose inside the tent, the head came next, followed by the neck, then the front legs, and then the whole body.

All we hear in the news is that transgender and transexual students are being denied their civil rights. They say it is wrong that these pitiful folk should be harassed by being made to go into the bathroom or shower which corresponds to their anatomy.

But it’s FAR more complicated and convoluted than that! Do you seriously think that once you’ve let the transgender/transexual nose into the bathroom the rest of the gender-confused will be denied? Of course not!

If you think it’s just as simple as male/female/trans, think again!

The following are a consolidation of the 56 (yes, 56!) gender options offered by Facebook. You can read the whole article at Slate.com.

1. Agender/Neutrois — These terms are used by people who don’t identify with any gender at all—they tend to either feel they have no gender or a neutral gender. Some use surgery and/or hormones to make their bodies conform to this gender neutrality.

2. Androgyne/Androgynous — Androgynes have both male and female gender characteristics and identify as a separate, third gender.

3. Bigender — Someone who is bigender identifies as male and female at different times. Whereas an androgyne has a single gender blending male and female, a bigender switches between the two.

4. Cis/Cisgender — Cisgender is essentially the opposite of transgender (cis– being Latin for “on this side of” versus trans-, “on the other side”). People who identify as cisgender are males or females whose gender aligns with their birth sex.

5. Female to Male/FTM — Someone who is transitioning from female to male, either physically (transsexual) or in terms of gender identity.

6. Gender Fluid — Like bigender people, the gender-fluid feel free to express both masculine and feminine characteristics at different times.

7. Gender Nonconforming/Variant — This is a broad category for people who don’t act or behave according to the societal expectation for their sex. It includes cross-dressers and tomboys as well as the transgender.

8. Gender Questioning — This category is for people who are still trying to figure out where they fit on the axes of sex and gender.

9. Genderqueer — This is an umbrella term for all nonconforming gender identities. Most of the other identities in this list fall into the genderqueer category.

10. Intersex — This term refers to a person who was born with sexual anatomy, organs, or chromosomes that aren’t entirely male or female. Intersex has largely replaced the term “hermaphrodite” for humans.

11. Male to Female/MTF — Someone who is transitioning from male to female, either physically (transsexual) or in terms of gender identity.

12. Neither — You understand this one: “I don’t feel like I’m fully male or fully female. ‘Nuff said.”

13. Non-binary — People who identify as non-binary disregard the idea of a male and female dichotomy, or even a male-to-female continuum with androgyny in the middle. For them, gender is a complex idea that might fit better on a three-dimensional chart, or a multidimensional web.

14. Other — Like “neither,” this is pretty self-explanatory. It can cover everything from “I’d prefer not to specify how I don’t fit in the gender dichotomy” to “My gender is none of your damn business, Facebook.”

15. Pangender — Pangender is similar to androgyny, in that the person identifies as a third gender with some combination of both male and female aspects, but it’s a little more fluid. It can also be used as an inclusive term to signify “all genders.”

16. Trans/Transgender — Transgender is a broad category that encompasses people who feel their gender is different than their birth sex—sometimes known as gender dysphoria. They may or may not choose to physically transition from their birth sex to their experienced gender.

17. Transsexual — Transsexual refers to transgender people who outwardly identify as their experienced gender rather than their birth sex. Many, but not all, transsexuals are transitioning (or have transitioned) from male to female or female to male through hormone therapy and/or gender reassignment surgery.

18. Two-spirit — This term refers to gender-variant Native Americans. In more than 150 Native American tribes, people with “two spirits”—a term coined in the 1990s to replace the term “berdache”—were part of a widely accepted, often respected, category of gender-ambiguous men and women.

Summary

Let me summarize this nonsense. If I, a grown man with children, decided I felt like I had a few female feelings, then I could literally walk unabated into a women’s locker room, disrobe, and stroll into the open showers, genitalia showing, and have the full force of Obama’s Justice Department backing me up (more like spooning).

“But that’s crazy!” you say. “Someone would stop you.” Oh, really? And whom would that brave soul be? Should you stop me, then I would sue you for violating my civil rights. Who are you to judge me by my looks? Technically, I’m a Native-American (really, I am), so how could you say I’m not Two-spirited? Even more, it’s all about how I self-identify, right? So if I claim to be Gender-fluid, how can you tell by the way I look naked? What would that matter, anyway?

Have you ever seen the movie Starship Troopers? Remember the shower scene? That’s where we are headed if this lunacy is not stopped. The only difference is that this isn’t science fiction; it’s reality.

Here’s the naked truth: When nothing’s sacred, NOTHING will be sacred. That much is simple.

15 Comments

Filed under America, community, Culture Wars, current events, World View

Tagged as , , , ,

by | May 12, 2016 · 10:14 am

Guest Posts Needed (and wanted!)

Hey, fellow bloggers!

Listen up!

Would you like to write an original guest post for this blog? Then you need to let me know.

I am going to be taking some time away from the blog towards the end of the month (May 25 – June 2). It would be great to have you guys keep things humming along with some interesting, inspiring, motivating, mesmerizing, and downright awesome posts – you know, like what I write all the time 😉

If you are interested – and I hope you are – you can comment here, but you’ll also have to email me (that’s just how it works). Send a response to PastorACBaker@Yahoo.com. That should get the ball rolling.

Time is of the essence. 

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Anthony

2 Comments

Filed under blogging, Guest Posts

Tagged as ,

by | May 12, 2016 · 6:03 am

Bug Spray Warning!

A Reasonable Idea

There is a suggestion floating around the internet on places like Facebook, Twitter, etc. The suggestion is to get yourself a big can of wasp & hornet spray (a pesticide) for protection – not from bug, but from criminals.

wasp sprayYou see, it is getting more and more difficult for honest, law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms. On the other hand, criminals are becoming anything but more friendly. Therefore, some are suggesting that using a can of wasp spray is a good alternative to a gun. Here’s an example from a post on Facebook…

[Wasp spray] can shoot up to twenty feet away and is a lot more accurate [than pepper spray], while with the pepper spray, they have to get too close to you and could overpower you. The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote. [A church secretary] keeps a can on her desk in the office and it doesn’t attract attention from people like a can of pepper spray would. She also keeps one nearby at home for home protection.

A Legal Problem

Having an inexpensive form of self-defense sounds all fine and dandy, especially if you are the type who either cannot or won’t own a firearm. The only problem with using a can of bug spray is that it would be illegal. Yes, illegal.

Now, you may be asking yourself, “Why would I worry about using a can of bug spray on an attacker trying to harm me or take my life?” In a normal universe, it would seem perfectly acceptable to use anything at your disposal to defend your life, correct? Well, we don’t live in a world ruled by common sense, but by lawyers.

If you were casually walking through your house one day, and a burglar broke in and chased you through the garage, and you picked up the first thing handy, a can of bug spray, and shot him in the face, you might be OK. On the other hand, if you have a can sitting on your desk, or beside your bed, or in your purse, then you could get in real trouble.

bug sprayTake a look at the highlighted portion of the picture. There you will read the following: “It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” As any trained pest control technician would tell you, “the label is the law.”

So, if you are ever forced to use your bug spray on an attacker, bear this in mind: a good defense attorney will have your skin for the premeditated illegal use of a potentially deadly substance. If your attacker is harmed in any way, don’t think for a moment that a sleazeball lawyer won’t take advantage of you “violating Federal law.” Your attacker may even get off without jail time, all because you hurt his feelings with anything but a double-barrel shotgun.

Law and Grace

When the law is all there is, legalists will seize any opportunity. There will always be someone willing to twist the law to his (or his client’s) own advantage.

Paul told Timothy, “we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully” (1 Timothy 1:8). Unfortunately, in this day and age, there are those who don’t always use the law for good, but for gain. Therefore, be careful.

Thank God for grace.

Related articles

My advice…get a Glock or shotgun.

7 Comments

Filed under America, General Observations, legalism

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | May 11, 2016 · 1:06 pm

Crossing the Line? Or, a Lesson In Legalism?

The Picture

Have you seen all the funny pictures people are creating with “face-swapping” apps on their smart phones? I’ve seen pics of dad’s with their babies, people with their pets, and even one with a person swapping her face with the nobs on her kitchen cabinets!

NOTE: If you haven’t yet seen a face-swapping picture, then you’re living a minute or two behind the times. Few people with smartphones (the owners of which make up the majority of the civilized world) have not seen a face-swapping picture.

Face-swapping with my daughter :-)

Face-swapping with my daughter 🙂

Therefore, when my daughter, Katie, wanted to try our her face-swapping app on her new Motorola smartphone, I thought it would be fun. And, I was correct! The result was hilarious!

Or, at least that’s what I thought.

The Critics Speak

Katie posted the picture she took of us to Snapchat. She also forwarded it to several friends and relatives. I, on the other hand, saved the picture on my cellphone and posted it to Facebook. I wanted to share a little humor.

One of the things that made this picture funny was how perfectly it swapped the faces – it almost looks natural. But the other thing that made it funny for me was the sad irony of if all – the current bathroom battles. My original, off-the-cuff tongue-in-cheek comment was that we were “either getting ready for the new bathroom laws, or my daughter had grown a beard in college.”

Evidently, my sense of humor and the picture (either one, or the other, or both) was a little too much for some. The critical comments began.

Facebook friend: “Not very becoming of a pastor.”

So, I responded.

Me: You do realize that is a face-swapping app on my daughter’s phone, don’t you? It swapped our faces; I wasn’t dressed like a woman for real. That’s why it’s funny.

And the friend replied.

Facebook friend: “As men of God, I believe there’s certain line we are not to cross. What if someone see this and decide to be in courage to take it a step further. We should shun the very appearance of evil. And yes I do know”

That’s when I decided to respond with a blog post.

Lines

Where are the lines a pastor should not cross? Who has drawn them? Who determines where they should be drawn, how far they should extend, and how bold the marking?

For most of my life I lived in fear of what others thought about my spirituality. My life was burdened by others who were drawing the lines for me. They were the ones I feared would see me if I went to a movie or a restaurant that sold alcohol. They were the ones who would call me “liberal” if I didn’t do exactly as they prescribed. And because of others, I drew lines for others, too.

I was a full-blown legalist afraid of what other legalists thought. And, I’m still recovering.

But where are the lines? Are there no universal lines which none should cross, especially pastors? Of course! There are the lines of lust, adultery, envy, and bitterness. There are the lines that separate us from unethical financial dealings; misuse of power; and most importantly, doctrinal error. But when it comes to personal choices, self-management, and my family – in my particular context – it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict me (draw lines), not my fellow brother or sister in Christ.

Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. – Romans 14:4

But What of the Weaker?

But as soon as I quote Romans 14:4, there are going to be those who quickly point out several other verses in the same chapter.

  • Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in [his] brother’s way. – Romans 14:13
  • But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. – Romans 14:15
  • Let not then your good be evil spoken of: – Romans 14:16
  • Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. – Romans 14:19

The context of Romans 14 is that of one taking his liberty too far, to the point of doing more harm than good. Because of grace, it really didn’t matter whether a believer celebrated a certain day or ate meat offered to a non-existent false god. However, it did matter if one did these things in the presence of someone struggling with theses issues, someone of little faith.

Paul said that he would rather us never eat meat again, to throw away all our liberties, if by enjoying our freedom it caused another one to sin (14:21). He said: “You may believe there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who don’t feel guilty for doing something they have decided is right” (Romans 14:22 NLT).

That being said, I believe there is great liberty in Grace, but many times I refrain from exercising my freedoms in order to avoid “offending” one of weaker faith. Why? Because if that person, not fully convinced that what I was doing was acceptable, decided to go against his own convictions and imitate me (the one he might possibly look up to and admire), then I’d be causing that person to sin (14:23).

But You Can’t Please Everybody!

Now, with all of the above in mind, we must also consider something else – you can’t please everybody! Don’t even try!

If I lived every moment in fear of those who might find fault in every little thing I do, I’d go crazy! As a matter of fact, that kind of life will KILL you – it killed my father!

Look, there are people who won’t attend our church because on Sunday mornings I still wear a tie when I preach, while others get offended when I don’t wear a tie on Sunday and Wednesday evenings. Some people think I’m too liberal because I will go to a movie, eat at a restaurant that sells beer, and play darts. Yet, others think I’m too much of a “fundamentalist” because I dislike high school proms and condemn sin from the pulpit.

If all I did was try to please people, I’d never succeed.

The One I want to please is my Heavenly Father. As I seek to please Him and bring glory and honor to His name, I take note of the things I say and do, because I want my life to be a reflection of my Father’s heart. The last thing I want to do is offend anyone, especially God.

But folks, you’ve seriously got to take into consideration one more thing…CONTEXT.

My Context

Food, drink, clothing, style of music, dancing, etc., … in all of these areas CONTEXT will make or break you. Regarding the picture of my daughter and me, the context is thus…

  • technology is changing faster than we can keep track
  • Smartphones are the #1 tools of communication in the world
  • Most people with smartphones have seen face-swapping apps
  • Fathers do crazy things with their daughters – if they are good fathers and not deadbeat dads
  • I try to be a good father, not a deadbeat lowlife who never has fun with his children, and most people who know me know that.
  • I have a sense of humor, which is one reason all elementary children want ME to be their school bus driver
  • I have thousands of followers and subscribers to three blogs and social media, not to mention church members, family, and friends who know I can be very serious at times, goofy at other times
  • Over the last several years I’ve written multiple-hundreds of thousands of words, published audio and video, and plastered Facebook and Twitter with my thoughts and commentary.

If all it would take is one picture, one made in fun by someone who is well-known as a conservative, “right-wing” evangelical Southern Baptist pastor, to push somebody into acting out their transgender/transexual desires, then that person was too far gone to begin with; he/she/undecided would have flipped the switch with or without my stupid picture.

Final Point Long In Coming

Friends (including the one who left the above comment), give me a break. Lighten up a little. This world is most certainly going to hell in a handbasket, and the witch carrying Toto has gone from a bicycle to a crotch rocket (motorcycle). If we can’t find a moment or two to laugh at the insanity of it all we’ll all dehydrate from the tears of sorrow.

So, I’m sorry if the above picture offended you, but I’m not taking it back. My family is more important to me than the 0.00005% of individuals who might get their panties in a wad because they saw me look un-pastoral in a stupid picture with my little girl.

I’m choosing to live in grace; life’s too short to be legalistic.

13 Comments

Filed under legalism, Parenting

Tagged as , , , ,

by | May 10, 2016 · 6:17 am

The Real Problem with the Problem of Evil

One of the most common reasons for denying the existence of God is the problem of evil in the world. Just ask any group of atheists to give their top ten reasons for unbelief and surely one will claim as number one, “If there is a God, then why is there so much evil in the world?” For many, this is the pièce de résistance of rebuttals. How could a good God be real and allow all the suffering in the world to continue unabated – assuming He is even good? The eighteenth century philosopher, David Hume described the problem this way in Dialouges concerning Natural Religion, 1779:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?” (Stackhouse 1998, 11)

So, the “problem of evil,” and its source, has been an issue of philosophical debate for centuries.  The existence of evil in the world, along with unanswered questions, has even become evidence enough for some to even embrace atheism.  Therefore, because so many philosophers and theologians have tried for ages to reconcile the existence of God with the existence of evil, I dare say that nothing I write will be new.  But, if anyone were to challenge my belief in God, along with my faith in Jesus Christ, with the argument that the problem of evil constitutes proof God does not exist, then I would possibly respond with arguments based on the following thought: without the existence of God, there should be no evil to be a problem, and that’s the real problem with “the Problem of Evil’

What exactly is “evil?” Now, that may sound like an absurd kind of question to ask, but if the existence of evil is the evidence that is supposed to expose my faith as a fraud, at best, or even a lie, then what is it?  Is it something tangible? Is it metaphysical? Is ittheoretical? What is it, exactly? Does it have any particular form? How can it be distinguished from what is called good? On what do the atheists and agnostics base their definition of this thing called “evil?” Amazingly, the answers are not all the same, nor in some cases even grounded in reality. However, it is imperative to understand that we must define this God-killer, because its definition will determine our conclusions and help to clarify our assumptions. When C. S. Lewis was an atheist, for example, his “argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.” (Lewis 1989) There he had it, or so he thought. God could not exist because so much evil exists. But how did he arrive at “this idea of just and unjust?” Lewis said, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” (Lewis 1989) “Tell me,” I would say, “what is evil, and how do you recognize it when you see it?”

To start, evil must be understood to be an adjective. Evil is a description of something that is not good. Evil is not a thing. The word “evil” only describes the thing, the thought, and the action. Technically, “evil” does not exist, only what it describes. Some people say that they cannot believe in God because why or how could a good God, if He was perfect, create evil? They think of evil as something that must have not existed until God made it. But evil “isn’t a kind of molecule or a virus…infecting or affecting everything it encounters.  There was no time when God said, ‘Let there be evil,’ and there was evil.” (Stackhouse 1998)  As John G. Stackhouse put it, “evil becomes a noun only in the abstract.” Additionally, in his book Can God Be Trusted, Stackhouse says of evil:

“An action can be evil, or an event can be evil, or a quality can be evil, or a being can be evil. And we can lump all these particular evils together in our minds and come up with a category ‘evil.’ We can even go on to discuss it as if it were a particular thing, so long as we do not forget that we are always dealing with a category or group of particular evil things, not a thing itself.” (Stackhouse 1998, 31)

So then, if evil is a description, how is it that we come to use the adjective, or as Lewis put it, the “crooked line,” without first having some idea of what is a “straight” one?  Defining what is good is as important as defining evil. To know what is evil, we must first have some assumption as to what is not evil. The crazy thing is that if God does not exist, and man is nothing more than a collection of random matter, both good and evil are purely relative – their existence is based purely on one’s perspective.  So, in other words, the one who says that there is no God, based on the existence of evil, is literally basing his belief on pure opinion, not on anything objective; therefore, in order to bring an accusation against the goodness of God, one must have a base line. What is the standard by which we determine what is good and what is evil?

Some use Man as the baseline. They compare God to the standard set by what is thought to be good behavior in this world. They rationalize that if God is real, at least according to monotheistic dogma, He must be all-powerful, perfectly good, and the supreme example of love, kindness, and providential care. Because it is preached that God is a better Father than earthly fathers, Mark Twain took it upon himself to write:

The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he is morally bound to tenderly care for it…[yet], God’s treatment of his earthly children, every day and every night, is the exact opposite of that, yet those minds warmly justify those crimes…when he commits them.” (Tonie Doe Media 2007)

So then, according to Twain, God could not exist because if He did, He would act consistent with our understanding of what a good and loving earthly father would do.  In other words, if God cannot, in all His perfection, behave better toward His children than the most common man, His credentials are therefore revoked, and He must cease to exist.  However, this is so illogical. Who are we to say that God, if He is perfect, and we are imperfect, ever treats His children poorly? Do the protesting cries of a toddler who has had poison taken from his grasp carry more weight than the decision of the earthly father to take it away? How, then, are we to automatically assume that the infantile tendencies of finite man are wiser than the infinitely Mature?  Using Man as a baseline for what is good and evil is pure arrogance.

In reality, the problem of evil is really a problem for the atheist. He, who denies the existence of a Creator and accepts only the realities of evil in the world, essentially has nothing about which to complain.  Everything should be just fine and dandy, but it’s not.  The atheist knows that evil things happen to good people, as well as bad.  He sees the hurt, feels the pain, and begs for justice. The reality of evil in the world causes men to cry out for justice; for things to be made right. This is a problem, though, because knowing that a crooked line is not straight hints at the fact that a Line-drawer exists.

Of course, there are others who take a different approach. They claim that God does not exist except in the evil intentions of his followers to control others through guilt. They claim that God is just a fabrication of priests to keep mankind from behaving “naturally.” They say that nature is good, and if anything, God is evil for trying to get man to behave contrary to the very way he was created to behave. One guru said, “It seems that for those who worship God, the opposite to God is not that which is ‘evil,’ but that which is natural.” He said of animals, comparing them to men, “They don’t worship God, they don’t go to church, they don’t have any theology.  They don’t have any feeling of guilt, they are simply natural.” (Osho 2009)  In other words, if there is evil in the world, it is because our belief in God has inflicted it.

But for the majority of the hurting world, pain is real, loss is real, and evil is manifested daily.  Many see the things that happen to innocent people, especially children, and wonder, “If there is a loving God, why doesn’t he do anything about this?”  These people, many of which hold on to hope as long as they can, finally succumb to their doubts and conclude that the only way to explain away the pain is to admit that it is just part of life, part of the natural world, part of what makes us human; alone, in our quest to make life easier, free of pain, free from evil; alone, without God. These are the ones, I believe, that lure more away from the faith than any Darwinist.  They are the ones who have seen evil face-to-face and cannot fathom a God who would allow it to continue.  And because their experiences are so painful and tragic, the devout are left speechless and without explanation. Ellie Wiesel is a good example.

Wiesel was a teenager when he saw his family murdered in the Nazi death camps.  But it was only after witnessing one particular act of horror – the slow, hanging death of a young boy – that he turned away from his faith in God. In the book Night, his Nobel prize-winning autobiography, Wiesel said he heard a man behind him ask, “Where is God now?” As he stood there, being forced to stare into a pitiful, wide-eyed, swollen face of a dying child, a voice within replied, “Where is He? Here He is – He is hanging here on the gallows…” (Wiesel 1982) Because there was no justification, even in the big scheme of things, Ellie Wiesel’s God died with the executed boy.  But as sad as it is, without God, who can say what happened to that boy was any worst than the slaughter of an animal?  Are we not all just animals – some more evolved than others?

To me, the problem of evil is not a problem for the believer, but for the non-believer.  Aside from the theological arguments about the character of God, without God, to turn Hume’s question around, “whence then is evil?” Without God, evil is relative to one’s desires and personal pleasure.  Does it really even matter whether or not God could do anything about evil in the world when the whole question is moot if He didn’t exist?  With God, evil is defined as that which is against His law, that which stands opposed to His standards, and that which describes all who take pleasure in such rebellion. Without God, evil is just a matter of opinion. That is the real problem of evil.


Works Cited

Lewis, C. S. “Atheism.” In The Quotable Lewis, by C. S. Lewis, 59. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1989.

Osho. The God Conspiracy: the path from superstition to superconsciousness. New York: Osho Media International, 2009.

Stackhouse, John G. Can God Be Trusted. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Tonie Doe Media. In The Atheist’s Bible, 129. New York: Harper Collins, 2007.

Wiesel, Ellie. Night. New York: Bantam Books, 1982.

41 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Culture Wars, Faith, General Observations, Life/Death, Struggles and Trials

Tagged as , , , ,

by | May 9, 2016 · 6:00 am

The Humble God Brings Revival

On June 15, 2011, I preached a short message from Isaiah 57:15 entitled, “Three R’s and Revival.”

Later, I read through the chapter again on my iPhone, this time in the NET version:

“For this is what the high and exalted one says, the one who rules forever, whose name is holy: “I dwell in an exalted and holy place, but also with the discouraged and humiliated, in order to cheer up the humiliated and to encourage the discouraged.” – Isaiah 57:15 NET

My eyes filled up with tears! The Holy One is not too good to sit down with the humiliated and discouraged! Hallelujah!

News Flash! God is humble!

Of course He is! Just look at what He did! Jesus became flesh (John 1:14) and walked in our shoes. He allowed Himself to be humiliated and beaten, even crucified, although He had every reason to look down on us, being God (Phil. 2:6-7). The “High and Lofty One” became the “meek and lowly” (Matt. 11:29).

There is no pride in God!

The Three R’s

“For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” – Isaiah 57:15 KJV

There are three “R’s” that I see in Isaiah 57:15… Reign, Realm, and Residence.

  1. I see the first one in the words “high and lofty.”
  2. The second one I see is found in the words “inhabiteth eternity.”
  3. The third “R” is located in the words “I dwell,”and “with him also.”

1. Reign

Earlier, in chapter 6, Isaiah said he “saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up…” The “high and lofty” One is none other than a King. And not just any king, this is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ. The same description is found in Revelation 4. In verse 2, John saw a throne “set in heaven, and [one] sat on the throne.” Who was the One that sat on the the throne? Evidently the same Person who was seen by Isaiah, because in both accounts the angels were crying out “Holy, holy, holy...”

God is not a man-made idol or idea formed in the human mind – He is “high and lofty.” He is “exalted” above every other creature, whether in heaven or in earth. “Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all” (1 Chronicles 29:11 KJV).

Because He is king, there remains only two options with regards to His reign: you are either His subject, or you are His enemy. God does not operate like earthly kings and nations. We have allies; but not God. His kingdom demands total loyalty (every knee shall bow). Serving another king is not a good thing at all, for it will only result in His judgment. No king is greater than He. To serve another is to live in rebellion.

2. Realm

God is the One that “inhabiteth (inhabits) eternity.” This is His realm. His influence reaches not only across all known and unknown areas of the universe, but across time immortal!

It was said that at one time the sun never set on the British realm. All over the world there were colonies under the control of the throne of England. But even more impressive than that, God’s realm isn’t limited to the present rising and setting of the sun, it is in ETERNITY.

It is important to note something here. I am not opposed to reading different translations, but a good example of when a new translation misses the mark is changing the word “inhabiteth” to “rules/lives forever.” Of course it is true that God lives and rules forever; however, there is more to it than that. The word “inhabit” touches upon His eternally sovereign omnipresence. God/Jesus is not just king over the here and now, or the future, but over the past, present, and future at the same time! He inhabits eternity! There is nothing in the realm of time, no matter where it is, that is out of His scope of authority.

Stop and think about this, folks. Think about the practical application of the above statement. Let’s just say you need $100 tomorrow to pay a bill. Or, it could be $1 million, a billion – doesn’t matter. You could go to an earthly king and ask for help, but the king would be limited to the time frame in which you needed the money, the amount that he had, and the limitations of his realm. Not God.

I have seen money come in for a need that was desperate. God provided what was needed. But, when you look at the sequence of events, God started answering that prayer long before it was ever prayed – decades before! God is not limited by time, space, or anything. His realm covers it all. When George Mueller prayed for milk (for his orphanage), do you not think that God had already put in place the neccessary sequence of events to make that milk wagon drop a wheel? It is not even out of line to think that He went back to when the tree was planted that provided the wood for the wagon.

3. Residence

God not only lives in the “holy place,” but He dwells with lowly man. His name is Emmanuel – God with us. But notice this, He only dwells with the humble, the contrite, the broken-hearted, the cast down, the weary, the needy (“God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” – James 4:6). Even though He could choose to stay in His high and holy place, far above the heavens (as most men would do, given the opportunity), He makes His bed right on the floor with the lowliest, shivering beggar.

Of all people, God should be the one who looks down His nose at us. He is the “lofty” One upon the throne. We are the helpless sinners. How ironic is it that the only ones who will not open the door of their hearts are the prideful? Pride closes the door to the King.

and Revival

He said “I dwell” in order “to revive.” It is the presence of the God who cares; the God who understands where we are; the God who makes His home with the “discouraged” and the “humiliated” that brings revival. Oh, to live without hope, without compassion, without a tender touch from a caring hand, brings death. But to have a King step down from His lofty position in the heavenlies, from the eternal, to a lowly place in time – that revives the heart.

The gulf that separated me from Christ, my Lord 
It was so vast, the crossing I could never ford 
From where I was to His domain, it seemed so far 
I cried “Dear Lord, I cannot come to where You are” 

CHORUS 
He came to me, He came to me 
When I could not come to where He was, He came to me 
That’s why He died on Calvary 
When I could not come to where He was, He came to me 

He Came to Me – by Squire Parsons

Don’t let pride shut the door to your heart when the King of Kings seeks to dwell with you.

Leave a comment

Filed under God, Preaching, salvation, translations, worship

Tagged as , , , ,