God has spoken ... so what?

It is good to have confidence that the Bible is God's Word to us. But Dale Ralph Davis reminds us that so often, that is simply not good enough.

Commenting on the account of Abner, the late King Saul's command-in-chief, in 2 Samuel 2:12-3:39, Davis highlights the irony that Abner, though knowing full well that God had promised the kingdom to David, persisted to establish an alternate kingdom under Saul's son Ishbosheth and waged ongoing military campaigns against David and his people (though as the story unfolds, he was actually labouring to solidify his own power!).

Abner knew clearly what God had spoken ... but so what?

Davis' comments are very insightful:

Since Abner clearly knew that Yahweh had promised David the kingship 93:9-10, 17-18), his armed resistance seems baffling. But for anyone who looks at humanity and history through the doctrine of original sin, it is not baffling at all. Only perverse.

Davis goes on to relate an incident in Germany during World War II as related in Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich:

Abner's resistance reminds me of an anecdote about Hermann Goering, head of German's Luftwaffe in World War II. Sometime in 1942-43 Goering was upset with General Galland, commander of his fighter planes, for reporting to Hitler that several American fighter planes had been shot down over Aachen. Galland told Goering it was a true report. Goering was obstinate: That is simply not true. It's impossible. Galland challenged Goering to go to Aachen and see for himself - the downed planes were there. Goering then tried a more diplomatic approach, urging Galland to admit he had made a mistake. But Galland wouldn't budge, so Goering ended the debate: 'I officially assert that the American fighter planes did not reach Aachen.' Galland entered one last eye-witness objection: 'But, sir, they were there!' Goering lost all self control as he pontificated, 'I herewith give you an official order that they weren't there! Do you understand? The American fighters were not there!' Off he stalked.

Davis observes,

Never mind evidence. Never  mind facts. Never mind testimony. Goering will believe what he wants to believe. Never mind Yahweh's promise to David. Never mind that Abner himself can quote the promise.! Never mind that Yahweh has already established David as king in Judah. Abner will try to impose his own authority. It is absurd; it is, in a word, sin.

Davis concludes with these sobering words:

Abner is not far from any one of us. We share an Abner-nature that harbors sin's stupidity, perversity, and twistedness. Let Abner preach to you. Let him tell you that it is possible to know the truth but not embrace the truth, to quote the truth but not submit to the truth, to hold the truth and yet assault the truth. And so Abner joins all the other anti-christs who strut around and say, 'I will be king' (1 Kings 1:5).

 We'd do well to take this to heart and cling on tightly to the mercies of our God through Christ Jesus our Saviour King.

On proving God through science

Came across this quote from C.S Lewis from a friend's seminar on "Has Science Disproved God" which I found very insightful (what else would you expect from Lewis?)

"Looking for God by exploring space is like reading Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters. Shakespeare is in one sense present at every moment in every play. But he is never present in the same way as Falstaff or Lady MacBeth ... My point is, if God does exist, He is related to the universe more as an author is related to play."

Though the analogy is not perfect (indeed, which analogy isn't?), for God did make a brief but by no means cameo appearance in his "play" - when the Word became flesh ...

We need true religious tolerance, not religious pluralism

Our PM Datuk Seri Najib Razak

Religious pluralism is once again in the limelight following our Prime Minister's well-publicised warning to Muslims against religious pluralism. Reaction to the PM's statement has been mixed - understandably, even from within Christian circles.

Some appear to link the fact of Malaysia being a pluralistic nation to a supposed necessary implication: embracing a truly Malaysia spirit therefore means embracing religious pluralism. However, such a leap appear to misunderstand what religious pluralism truly entails, as well as what it means to truly embrace people of other faiths with true neighbourly spirit.

Why religious pluralism cannot deliver

While addressing the challenge of pluralism, John Dickson helpfully points out some problems with the two forms of pluralism commonly advocated:

1. With popular pluralism, i.e. the idea that all religions are the same, Dickson points out a fundamental problem:

The basic problem with popular pluralism is that in trying to affirm all religions IT PAYS CLOSE ATTENTION TO NONE.

 (EMPHASIS mine)

Dickson goes on to cite examples of how Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism differ on the very fundamental issue of whether there is many or one or no God! Likewise, the central Christian belief of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus as the Christ is clearly disputed by Judaism and Islam. These are just the tip of the iceberg of the many many contradictions once closer attention is paid to each religious faith.

Truth of the matter is this:

... in reality you can only insist on the harmony of the great religions (popular pluralism) by ignoring some of their most important beliefs.

Popular pluralism crumbles upon closer scrutiny.

2. Dickson mentions a second and more sophisticated approach to pluralism, what he terms 'sophisticated pluralism', which operates on the following premise:

... while there are few explicit ideas common to world religions, there is an implicit BIG IDEA [i.e. spiritual reality] made apparent by them all ... Individual religions do not describe this reality; they merely express a longing to experience it. They are spiritual emblems.

(EMPHASIS his)

Dickson points out that, while at first glance, sophisticated pluralism may seem to offer what so many want - a way of thinking about all religions as equally valid - this brand of pluralism is actually assuming an intellectual higher ground that exceeds all of the world's religions.

although the world religions are entitled to their perceptions of Reality (believing in Christ, Buddha, etc.), the truth of the situation, understood only by the pluralist, is that this Reality defies their attempts to describe and embrace it.

Pluralism, in other words, claims to have discovered a bigger truth that none of the religions has observed before; it then suggests that the smaller truths the religions thought they could see (Jesus' death for sins, for example) are in fact mistaken ...

In other words, sophisticated pluralism essentially renders all world religions (except pluralism) as fundamentally wrong. At the end of the day, it is deeply arrogant, and hugely offensive.

The alternative to religious pluralism: true tolerance

Despite the flaws of religious pluralism, many continue to advocate for it out of fear of what they think is the alternative: religious intolerance. Examples are often cited from history on the horrible violence that resulted from those who held their religion to be the only truth - hence the attractiveness of the pluralist's response that there really is no absolute truth (except pluralism!).

But Dickson points out that there is a better path to true neighbourliness in our pluralistic age than religious pluralism: true tolerance.

Tolerance does not involve treating another person's opinion as valid; it involves treating with kindness and respect someone whose opinion you believe to be untrue and invalid.

True tolerance is the ability to treat with friendship and respect those with whom you disagree. 

 I am inclined to agree with him.

Why promote the gospel?

For many (if not most) of us, the reality of God's coming judgment is pretty good motivation to share or preach or promote the gospel to our friends and loved ones.

But in his book 'Promoting the Gospel', John Dickson, reflecting on Psalm 96, rightly points out that the Bible supplies us with a more basic motivation for mission: "Declare God's glory among the nations because he is the only true Lord."

Dickson explains:

Promoting the gospel to the world is more than a rescue mission; it is a reality mission. It is God's call to the people of the world to realise they are his sole and beloved possession. This is why the central confession of the first Christians, recorded throughout the New Testament, was not "Jesus is healer' or 'Jesus is friend'; it was 'Jesus is Lord'. These words declared Jesus to be the embodiment of the lordship of the one true God, the one to whom all people - Jews and Gentiles alike - owe their loyalty.

The implications are worth pondering over. Dickson continues:

WHY PROMOTE CHRIST to your atheist friend with a nice car and the self-confidence to match? Not simply because he would be happier or more fulfilled with Jesus, but because in reality your friend belongs to the one true Lord (revealed in the gospel). Why reach out to the super-student with the first class honours degree and wardrobe of designer clothes? Not simply because Christianity will make her more moral or productive in life, but because in reality she is the possession of her one and only King. Why send out (and support) missionaries to Mongolia or Burkina Faso? Not only because Asians and Africans need rescuing from God's judgment (as we all do) but because they are creatures of the one Creator, and he alone deserves their worship.

 As the psalmist puts it in Psalm 96:3-4:

Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples.

For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared above all gods.

Quoted from John Dickson, "The One and the many: why get involved in mission?", in Promoting the Gospel (Blue bottle books) [revised and republished under the title 'The Best Kept Secret of Mission']