This chapter is lengthy, so I split my posting into two parts:
Richard
Dawkins begins chapter 7 of his book mocking the stories of the Bible. From the perspective of a non-believer I
have no doubt that doing so is easy.
Creation, the fall of mankind, Noah and the ark, the tower of Babel and
many, many others are passages in Scripture that (as Dawkins points out), even some
Christians try to play down. It seems
embarrassing to them because modern science and the culture around us raise so
many questions about the flat out feasibility of such events.
Take the
story of Jonah for instance. Like the
story of the flood in Genesis 6-9, the story of Jonah is one those that
non-believers love to mock. They will
look at you as you talk about a man being swallowed by a great fish, living in
the belly of the fish for 3 days and 3 nights before being vomited up on dry
land and say, “Really?” But I love this
story, and I hope you do too. What they
perceive as a strain on credibility is nothing more than the revealing of
faith. The book of Jonah opens with, “The Word of the Lord…” The book closes with God speaking. And so it is.
You can choose to believe it or you can choose to chuck it, but everyone
can absolutely know that God is speaking though it. The presence of faith is strengthened by
hearing His voice in the text. The
absence of faith is confused by hearing only a fishy story (pun fully intended). That same principle is at work every time you
read a story in the Bible.
Did Jesus
really heal? Did He really rise from the
grave? If you have faith, the answer is
obviously yes. If you do not have faith,
the answer is “I doubt it” or some version thereof.
Did Noah really build an
ark? Yes. Yes he did.
The Scripture says so, and I choose to believe God at His Word. Does that mean that some people (like
Richard Dawkins) will mock me - and all those who likewise believe God at His
Word? Yes, yes it very well might. So be it.
Better to know God Most High and follow Him than to try to appease all
of mankind, and I rather value God’s opinion much higher than
Richards. But enough about personal
viewpoints, let’s get down to why Dawkins
takes such offence at belief in Biblical stories to begin with;
Dawkins
states that his purpose in all his mocking is to prove that we (Christians) don’t get our morals from Scripture. He then jumps to the conclusion that if we
did, we would religiously follow all the Old Testament laws to the great detriment
of women and innocents. He then cites a slew of OT Jewish laws as a
case study in immoral behavior.
I find it
tragic how Richard takes Scripture out of context. Doing so always leads to misunderstanding, to
confusion and to a lack of faith (instead of growing faith). Many times in the Scripture we read difficult
things, and the key to understanding things that don’t seem to make sense is always the context of the
writing. Let me give you two examples:
If I talk
to a murderer and listen to them rant about how unfair it is that he (or she)
is only allowed one hour of daylight a day, I might conclude that the law of
Canada is totally unfair. Until I know
the whole picture (the context) and realize that I am speaking to someone who
violated the greater law in a profound way – then I say that the law is
completely fair! Likewise, normally you
wouldn’t think it a big deal if
someone points out that they’ve learned the multiplication
table. But if they are only 5 you would
think it a great accomplishment. Now if context is key to understanding our day
to day interactions, then ought we not also realize that it is key to
understanding God’s law?
A second
example, this time from the Scripture Dawkins mocks so freely. Psalm 137 says in part, “O Daughter of
Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have
done to us— he who seizes
your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” Now without
context this is highly offensive – not only to the unbeliever,
but the believer also – for who could condone the
violent destruction of innocent babies?
But that
is not what the whole Psalm says. If you
read the context you will see that it is a verse of a song the Israelites sang
when their tormentors forced them to sing while in captivity. As such, we ought to read it with the system of interpretation we give to songs.
But we cannot leave it at that because
this is not just any song, but a part of Scripture. So we ought to look at it even
more closely. When you do, you see that it
specifically calls for the destruction of the children of the “Daughter of Babylon”. So who is the Daughter of Babylon? Well, to know that you’d have to search the Scripture, and you’d come up with Isaiah 47:1, Jeremiah 50:42, 51:33 and Zech
2:7. All of those passages are speaking
against the system that opposes God, and the Jeremiah 51 and Zech 2 passages are
looking forward to the rescue of people out of those systems.
That God
desires to simultaneously punish that which stands against Him and also rescue
people from that which holds them captive is a concept that is throughout the
Old and New Testaments. Now if the system that opposes God gives rise
to daughter systems (also opposing God), ought not both to be destroyed? If the system that opposes God is a way of
thinking, then that way of thinking is destroyed when God arrives (in that
person’s experience). Likewise, if the system that opposes God is a
physical nation, then that nation is destroyed when God’s Kingdom arrives.
Is that
unjust? Well – was it unjust when the Allies destroyed the Nazi war
machine? I mean, hey – millions died defending that war machine. Was that unjust of the Allies? Was it unjust
when the Allies marched against the ‘daughters’ of the Nazis – when they stood against Mussolini
and Imperialist Japan? Hey – millions died defending those nations against the Allied
war effort. Was that unjust? I would imagine that even Dawkins would say, “It was a just effort, a just cause and the necessary thing
to do.” It was ugly and resulted in incredible hurt,
suffering and loss of life. Sad as that
is (and it is truly sad, because those were real people - real bodies with real
families and real feelings), it was the sadly necessary and sadly just thing to
do.
Of
course, it wasn’t considered necessary or a
just act if you were Adolf Hitler of Germany, Saburo
Kurusu of Japan or Galeazzo
Ciano of Italy (the three signatories to the Tripartite Pact). Likewise, those who choose a path that
opposes God, or sympathize with those who oppose God, are upset when God
finally executes His judgment. I say
finally, because God never just shows up and destroys w/o care (like the
Babylonians did when they laid siege to Jerusalem). Rather, God always seeks and calls for
repentance (and if there is any, He forgives).
That is the message of the book of Joshua (the book Dawkins so
despises), BTW. That is why Rahab is not
only saved from Jericho, but becomes part of the lineage of Christ
Himself. That is why, even after
hundreds of years of idolatry, God was gracious to send word of the coming
Kingdom to those in the cities of idolatry (see Joshua 1:9) – that they might leave such a life behind and turn to Him
and be saved. The sad fact that the vast
majority choose instead to fight instead of repent is indicative of the fallen
human condition.
Dawkins
says that the New Testament is markedly different. I quote, “Jesus
is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of the Old Testament”. Now I must point
out that that is a sad misinterpretation of Scripture. Jesus and God the Father are one (Christ’s own words in John 10:30). This same Jesus, who Dawkins
thinks is so very different from the Father, does only what the Father
tells Him to do, says only what the Father tells Him to say and says it only
the way the Father tells Him to say it.
Read John 12 and 14. This same Jesus,
who Dawkins so admires for turning the other cheek, is the one who opens the
seals of Destruction in Rev 5 & 6.
According to the Scripture, Jesus and God the Father are one and the
same. That means that the compassion you
see in New Testament Jesus is the same as in the Old Testament Father, and the
judgment you see in the Old Testament Father is the same as in the New
Testament Jesus. And so it clearly is – if you study the Scriptures thoroughly. But not if you take things out of context.
The fact
that Dawkins rails against the Christian concept of sin is expected. The alcoholic, the drug addict and the
pornographer deny the addiction, and the addiction to sin is much worse than
the addiction to any other. For you can
take a drink and not be an alcoholic, and you can take a toke without being a
druggie, and you can look at inappropriate material without becoming a
pervert. But one sin and you are a
sinner. The whole world population is a
testimony to this truth. For the
majority are not alcoholics, drug addicts or perverts, but all are
sinners. That being the case, it is only
expected as right and fitting that those who have an answer to mankind’s greatest problem (sin) talk a great deal about that
problem and the answer they’ve found to it. To this Dawkins takes great offence.
But the
answer is not a denial, rather - a
solution. A solution that Dawkins says
is “vicious,
sado-masochistic and repellent”. Of course, Dawkins cannot reconcile himself
to the point that God demands punishment (even the shedding of blood) for the
crime of sin, because Dawkins does not believe in God and cannot accept that
God might have a higher standard than Richard Dawkins does. Nevertheless, God is and He does. That God Himself took that punishment because
He knew we could not bear it is the ultimate act of grace and mercy (and that
is an understatement). But it is not
hard to understand. We all need
forgiveness from each other for the myriad of petty ways we hurt each other. In a similar fashion we need forgiveness from
God for the evil of disobeying, dishonoring and disbelieving Him. I thank God that He is gracious and merciful
enough to give us our whole lives before demanding an accounting, and accepting
our plea for forgiveness at any point along the way as sufficient for our whole
lives. Dawkins would have you withhold
from asking God for forgiveness on the basis of denial of sin and denial of
God. Unfortunately denial of a problem
does not make the problem go away. If it
did, atheism would make sin go away just as surely as denial of a drug problem
would make that go away. Denial does
nothing to relieve your burden of sin, but at the cross you can find relief,
forgiveness and comfort. Precisely
because the man on that cross takes all your grief on Himself and gives you
instead all His peace. Such is the
divine transaction. As Randy
& Terry Butler wrote:
I know a
place, a wonderful place
Where
accused and condemned
Find
mercy and grace
Where the wrongs we have done
And the
wrongs done to us
Were
nailed there with Him,
There on
the cross.
No comments:
Post a Comment