I'm confused Vic; they seem to think they're Christian

The title of this entry relates to something I've said regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses and the fact that I said I didn't think they were Christian, I received this challenging (and most excellent) comment:

'I'm confused Vic; they seem to think they are?'

Indeed they do, or at least they want others to think that they are, but using the name Jesus in a different context to that which is considered to be orthodox doesn't make you Christian and more than using Man U as a focus for ridicule makes you their supporter. But the 'Christian' claim adds, or at least attempts to add, some integrity and implicit value to a bunch of (albeit nice) people who are not, as I understand it actually Christian.

I used to have a number of friends who talked of the bloke who started the thing off some 150 years hence and was quite impressed by some of their stuff, it all started to go wrong when I read about him flooding 'miracle wheat' what wasn't- in fact it was a bit of a scam and, if I recall correctly, he was found guilty of being just a bit dodgy!

But let's no dwell in ad hominem but look at what they believe - and here it might help if we had a look at the Creed, for this is surely a benchmark document. Here we find that the Witnesses focus entirely on Jehovah (the name sort of gives it away) - just one God (without the other two persons of the Trinity) and I have a recollection somewhere that Jesus and the archangel Michael are viewed as being one and he same. I also recall a quite interesting conversation with a friend over the lack of a cross with Jesus (my witness friend called it a 'torture stake') because they deny it was the way Jesus died (so no crosses either).

Mind you, Christian bits aside, there is a great belief that the first 144,000 faithful Witnesses make it into heaven with Jesus (useful to include Him, helps to confirm the 'Christian' label) and after that, the rest end up on Earth doing the gardening (so that's a religion that would work for my Wife's Dad - Tony's Grandad)!

They tend to use The New World Translation (NWT) because it's a version that they translated from all the original texts; and yet oddly it is apparently at odd with the versions I have on my shelf in a number of places. I have always been most taken up with John 1 which tells me: 'In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word.' But I find the NWT leads me to think that 'the Word was a god' and that's a big difference that supports the non-Trinitarian stance.

There's much that others point to regarding them (the Witnesses) but this (on both sides, the claims and the ridicule), stuff that is subsidiary and resides in the shadows behind the major errors - mind you they do think Jesus returned some hundred years back and this is why it's all gone Pete Tong since (was told that by a lovely bloke peddling magazines in Lichfield just after Easter - good to have no dogcollar some days!).

I guess I'll leave this short explanation as to the reasons I don't see Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian with a 'word from my sponsor' - remaining in John, this time in chapter 14:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
Jesus said to him,  “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?
Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.  How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves."

I hope this provides some explanation to your question.

Maintenance of true religion

Many years back, in a lecture on what it was to be 'Church', those of us who were assembled were told how we were training to, "Become a modern day shaman for those in the community in which we were to serve."

The lecturer told us how we were to discharge our duties by baptising all, and any, babies brought to us, bury their dead, marriage their love struck and be, "Guardians of the faith of the community."

What we weren't told was that it was also, by our believing, we would ensure that others could comfortably disbelieve. It is an 'odd but true' situation that when the pastor/priest/leader comes to a place of disbelief or uncertainty the whole structure and stability of the community becomes oddly unstable. It is as if by introducing an element of disbelief that the disbelief felt by others is made less real - and that's a real odd un, innit?

That we might suspect something does not exist or function as we thought is something that we all, at times, have in our own realities. But tell us that we might be right and rather than celebrate and engage in this unbelief the result is rather a confusion with parallels in the unresolved grief such as we saw with Princess Diana. It's great for us to have doubts but when those who are supposed to not have doubts on our behalf do so, then we don't have the wherewithal to withstand it! Worse still, we have to believe what is being unbelieved to compensate for the unbelief of the professional believer.

To compound the situation the belief of others brings the freedom to disbelieve or doubt and as long at they (the priest/pastor/leader) keep up the role then we are free to harbour disbelief. When meaningless is delivered to our door we have to 'man up' and make sense of the emptiness that is a reality for some who profess a Christian faith.

This poses a real challenge for us in ministry because merely 'doing our job' and faithfully believing in a community means that we are there for the delivery and maintenance of folk religion - baptise my baby so it will be lucky (a real quote) - and by maintaining a place of faith endorse a people of no faith! This means, if we are to make faith real, that we must be taking the faith out and be engaging with the people around us.

I engage with many people who speak fondly of the central church building in our town, referring to it as 'their church' and recalling weddings and other occasional offices that confirm this as a reality. If we were to say it was going to close there would be uproar and yet try to get the people to come in to a service and you'd think they'd been asked to run naked through the town. Oddly, some would be more keen to do that than attend a service! All of which means that we need people to be educated as to what Church is all about.

We need to meet with and engage with people to help them see the difference, and the similarity, found in people when they take upon themselves the label 'Christian'.

We need to have a church populated by people who understand their faith and have the ability to share it - which means sound teaching and intelligent leadership - inside the building, outside in the parish and when (and wherever) they are asked to give an answer for the hope that they have in Jesus.

We need those in leadership to be continually engaged in developing their own faith and to dialogue and grow in it so that their personal Christian walk is vibrant and lively; the steadfast and engaged faith, coupled with a desire (and ability) to share is the key to growth and a mature (and lively) congregation.

Or we can remain faithful and within our own walls waiting for 'them to come in' and maintain the folk religion of the masses around us.

The Fallacies and Faith of the 'faithful AND faithless'

I have recently been amazed to find the often proclaimed 'arrogance of Christians' residing more aggressively and entrenched in those who claim to have no faith.

Time and time again I find people of faith reading books from those who oppose their belief on the grounds of reason, rational thinking and logic and yet rarely do I find the opposite taking place.

Time and time again I find those who claim that reason, research and evidence form the basis of their thinking and attitudes rarely exercise reason, never do research (unless this is the revised usage of what I call reading newspapers) and accept the flimsiest of evidence (anecdotal and unsubstantiated is always of course acceptable if it's not faith for some).

The reality is that there are those from both camps who dialogue, read, think and continue to engage in research. When I became a Christian I was challenged to collect a brain at the door rather than leave it as those of no faith often accuse. My faith demands that I continue to study and to challenge the Bible and the settings - I acknowledge consistencies and similarities with some of the Biblical narratives and other writings; I accept the psychological imperatives and definitions of faith and can agree that religion does indeed provide someone to thank when it goes well, plead with when it's going wrong and appease when 'under a curse'. That said I also acknowledge the empirical evidence before me and test it with eyes that seek explanation in both science and faith. I look at the stuff I can understand and seek to find answers to that which I cannot - acknowledging the intelligence of those 'ancients'  and trying to see what their cultures might have added to the mix too!
Would that those on the other side of the divide did the same.

Recently I encountered two sides of the same 'ignorance' coin on the same day in the one episode - I find myself returning to the people and their comments and, on each replay, find myself more frustrated and (to be honest) just a little angry with them each time - Let me explain:

The Christian
This person was firmly stuck in a position whereby their faith was something fixed and what they believe was totally dug in and fixed. They 'knew what they believed' and they were not going to be shaken from it. The problem was that what was on view was an immature faith in a long-term believer and this was all due to the place they worshipped in. You probably know the type of place - great sermons on a dozen passages, a Bible with about twelve books and a faith that move mountains and a reality that made its members walk around them!

They were rigid in their belief and vehement in their rejection of 'God haters' - the primacy of the Word they neither knew or understood was central - and yet they could neither defend it or show themselves to be able workers for it. 'In the name of the Lord' is a great way to travel - but the words need to be fleshed out and take upon themselves the incarnacy that God's Word did!

There was no willingness to debate - just to shout people down and assumed to work on the basis that by repeating trite little Christian mantras and closed statements that others would 'be saved'.

The Atheist
Were keen to tell me how open-minded they were and yet even had it been open (and believe me it wasn't) there was so little of it (a mind) that chewing gum and walking would have cause a core failure!

As the conversation progressed I realised that they kept using the word evidence and yet when prodded and probed it was obvious that their evidence was gleaned from the laboratory that is the pub, newspaper and that oft quoted source: The Friend. They (mis)quoted from their prophets and gurus and (in the name of balance I'm sure) also misquoted Bible and other 'religious' stuff too. They appealed to reason but there was little of it. Pointed to facts, but they were misquotes and error-filled utterances. They spoke of research and yet had never really even read the basic books of either faith (for theist and non-theist are but two opposing faiths - God or Science, free or under authority, self-pleasing or God-pleasing - divide it as you will).

What was sad in these encounters was that both adversaries worked from a position of entrenched ignorance. There was no research into what they or those with whom they disagreed believed (or didn't) and thought. There was no ability (or apparently willingness) to engage in dialogue and find out what the other side believed - just a reliance on the belief that merely opposing, and writing off, the other side was enough.

What was really sad was that neither of the people had even the basic tools to be able to defend their own beliefs and this, in my book (and God's too) is probably the most sad part of the whole.

The way forward (for theists and non-theists):
Please remember that faith engaged in without involving your brain is useless and hollow religion - it is the stuff that ignorance grows in to choke everything that God (or not god) would have us celebrate and renders us an impotent and limited, superstitious and empty people.

So read the books that form the basis of your belief (And where this is the real Bible - read ALL of it, there's 66 books you know!)

Read books about the things you think challenge our faith and find out for yourself.

Read books by people you might think oppose your faith (and people) and dialogue with them, then

Dialogue with people who believe what you believe and check your understanding (and theirs) and, that done, engage in dialogue with people you think you don't disagree with.

Remember that no one group has the monopoly on being good, acting wrongly, being stupid, having closed minds, bias, ignorance, stupidity, blind faith, selfishness, exclusivity and best of all - being just plain ugly people!

How can we say we love God when we hate the image of Him made visible in the person before us?


I scribbled this over a period of weeks - revisiting and rethinking about how what I'd encountered informed and challenged my own position and attitudes. I think that this might be the right time, as we reach the end of 2013, to post it.

Atheists with nothing to say?

Perfick!

One of those amazingly funny cartoons that make you chuckle!

Just had to share it:

If only life were to imitate art :-)

A Sceptic's View - a guest writes:

An interesting contribution to the discussion from someone I dialogue with regarding the issue of faith, belief, atheism and reason. An account of their position as a self-confessed Sceptic:

"Firstly, nearly all atheists are sceptics, and their atheism comes from their scepticism.
Secondly most sceptics are frightened of ghosts and of alien abduction. Sceptics never get haunted and they are never abducted, and hence it keeps us safe.

Atheists are sceptics that focus on belief in God, other sceptics (such as Carl Sagan) focus on aliens, others on alternative medicine (my friend at work asked someone that believed in homoeopathy “what do you call alternative medicine that works?” His answer – medicine), others on astrology, others on ghosts, others on creationism, others on history revision, others on moon landing conspiracies (we didn’t land on the moon – it was all filmed in a warehouse on Mars), others on…

You get the idea.
What is most interesting is that, from a sceptics point of view, all of these are the same. We say the same things to each of the groups and get the same response back.
We ask for evidence of X.

Believers of X say The evidence is there if you look at it in the right way.

We say that evidence should be objective and amenable to science.

Some say that X is perfectly scientific and there is evidence but the scientific community refuse to listen. Others say that there are reasons why, despite making claims that seem testable, science will never be able to investigate the claims (I think this is called special pleading).

Then we go round in circles.

What is actually more interesting to me is that some of these believers follow this in debating other believers but don’t apply the same process to their own belief. A sceptic is basically somebody that applies this to all their own views. What is often overlooked by people is that sceptics are nearly always tougher on their own views than they are on other peoples.

Many years ago, before I was calling myself a sceptic, My wife came up to me to tell me that she had heard a news report that showed I was right about something (I can’t remember what it was now).

The next thing I said was “what was the sample size?” and she knew, she had remembered because she knew I would ask.

Even when being shown I was right I tested the evidence.

How to become a believer
In our garden there is a group of three pots. One of these keeps on falling over.
I can imagine someone coming to our house and saying that fairies are doing this. Being a Sagan believing sceptic, I say show me the evidence. They say all you need to do is take the step of belief and then you will see.

Having been worn down by many people saying just take the first step and it will all be clear, I decide to take that step this time. I decide to believe.

Now I believe in fairies.

Now I have evidence for fairies every time that the pot falls over.

If a sceptic now comes to me I will point out that it is their lack of belief that is preventing them from seeing the evidence right in front of their eyes. I can say this because I used to be a sceptic and then saw the truth. They go to the trouble of checking the pot and see that it is a little top heavy and, with our dogs running round it will be the one most likely to fall. I point out that I can remember a time when it was upright and later on its side and I am sure that the dogs were not in the garden at that time. Can they explain that?

As they can’t provide a scientific explanation of this particular time, this proves that their science cannot explain everything and the only rational thing to do is continue with my belief."

Arrogance or informed: New Atheists Vs Christians

One of the biggest issues I find when engaging with atheists is that of the fact that one side is often willing to dialogue and the other is resolutely fixed and rigidly unwilling to move from their tenets, dogma, doctrine and beliefs (regardless of how irrational they are).

Of course what makes it even stranger is that the latter group are the 'Atheists' who cling to their beliefs (or should that be lack of beliefs?) and quote their prophets (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and others) and argue in a most illogical and emotive manner. In fact, truth be told, there are times when I struggle to see who the 'irrational people of faith' are.

That said, there are a number of quite flawed and fallible Christian sources; those who take extrapolation of things scientific and portray them as if they were fact. Those who argue for a 'young earth' and rail against evolution and seek to find the God of the gaps solutions that bring about an 'Intelligent Designer' for use by an ignorant (scientifically and theologically speaking) people.

I am about to embark upon a journey of exploration the goal of which is to dialogue and to enable others to dialogue with those who would contend that there is no God (and I'm happy for them to prove this - for the assumption for so many years having been that there is, the task is surely theirs to deny any such belief. I am content to remain with the status quo that there is) and to defend my own position (in a balanced manner - start shouting and all you will hear is your voice!).

I look forward to rejoinders (and will issue in return, of course, my own surrejoinders), correction and the impartation of facts (and opinions - for these too are helpful, perhaps even when not valid). I relish the challenge of being made to think and to look at how I might be able to gibe and answer for the hope that I have in Jesus, the Christ, to all (and any) that might ask; and I do so realising my limitations and trembling in trepidation at the paucity of my wit.

There are those who tell me that religious belief lies at the root of all the atrocities; that belief (they call it 'religion') is to be found at the root of all wars and conflicts. Of course the deaths, oppression and conflict founded in, and enacted by, non-faith groups (remember Russia, Marxism and so many other non-faith group like Nazism for instance) are glossed over.

Christianity is seen as an agent of conquest during the time of Empire and obviously wrong acts and response throughout the middle ages taken as a constant to be kept and used as a talisman to provide some form of absolute proof. The Acts of the Jewish nation throughout the Ancient Near East (and especially the actions of their God, the God also of the Christians) show how wicked God is.

The comparison of 'like for something different' whilst claiming congruence and equality uses both flawed science and logic and the lack of integrity (often unintentional) on both sides makes this a most difficult path to tread - but tread it I will.

Pray for me - educate me (facts is possible) - tolerate me

ps. I'm happy to defend my position but not in isolation - for many merely pepper me with cries of 'defend, defend . . . ' and I'd like to have those 'prove by logic, reason and the like . .'

Living the life scientific

I'm enjoying engaging with someone who considers themselves to be an atheist at the moment. What makes it more fun is that they appear to have bought into the whole 'anti God - anti faith - anti religion' thing with a vengeance and assume that all the world's evils come from having a belief in something. Fun? Yes indeedy folks because their belief in things scientific!

It's quite amusing in that they consistently mock those who believe as the source of death, destruction and fundamentalism and put forward the idea that science is all about 'fact' and 'logic' and is the only rational way for mankind to be. In fact, science will eventually lead to the demise of religion as people come to see that it is only in science that mankind can be both saved and directed.

Now that sounds like a religion to me!

'Of course,' they tell me, 'science never killed anyone; it was religious people who did the killing. Science may have provided the means for the killing but it is pure and above the religious fanaticism that actually did the deed!'

Now this keeping one's hands clean is understandable and yet I find many cases where logic and rational thinking, separated from any idea of a religious influence or use, has brought about the death of many.

The other side of the coin is that whilst those who embrace a purely rational scientific faith have their outcomes and advances, it is more often than not the faith groups who are out their being altruistic in the many relief works and agencies. Thus we find the reality that religion is, like the Curate's egg, something in which 'not all of it is bad' and we can also see that not all of those things scientific are good either.

I'm going to have an attempt to dialogue with the new atheist issue - not because I want a fight but because I want to understand where they have a point (and some points are indeed valid) and where they have merely left their brains at the doorpost and believed blindly the modern prophets and purveyors of flawed logic and bitter misrepresentation.

So, let us reason together (for that is what Christian do - reason). Blind faith is as the name implies 'blind' and of little use to anyone!'

Pax