Calvin and Cheney

My friend Rick from Endued sent me an article from Christianity Today that addressed the unitary executive theory advanced by Dick Cheney and others in the Bush Administration, and tried to put it in the perspective of Calvin’s political theory.  Here’s how the author, David Neff, defined the unitary theory:

But one young staffer in the Nixon administration, future Vice President Dick Cheney, became a champion of expansive executive power. Serving in Congress and in subsequent administrations, Cheney helped promote the theory of the “Unitary Executive,” the idea that, in [author Charlie] Savage’s words, the White House should exercise complete control over everything in the executive branch, which could be conceived of as a unitary being with the President as its brain. Attorney General Ed Meese, then-Representative Dick Cheney, and others pushed that notion in order to reclaim the de facto presidential powers that were squandered by Nixon’s overreach.

But after 9/11, the push to consolidate presidential power over national security issues took on new momentum. Sometimes Cheney’s rhetoric has gone to extremes. For example, he told Fox News’s Chris Wallace that because the President always has at his side a military aide carrying the nuclear “football,” and because the President therefore has the ability to launch a nuclear attack at any time without checking with Congress, he is free of any responsibility to check with Congress in exercising his national security duties.

Neff argues that Calvin saw the law, not a government, as supreme.  In fact, he believed that tyrants sacrificed their legitimacy.  It’s no surprise, I suppose, that Calvinists often resisted governments in France, Austria, England, and Scotland.

The first thing that struck me as I read the article is how much more I need to know about Calvin’s time in Geneva, in which he attempted to set up a godly government during the Reformation period.  I’ve heard it alternately characterized as a proto-Taliban state and as a “woman’s paradise” for the strict laws against men who beat their wives.  Neff writes that Calvin saw a balance between responsibility and liberty:

Calvin used the Reformation idea of church and state as separate and distinct spheres to foster liberty. For every duty God imposes, whether spiritual or temporal, there is a corresponding freedom that is required. If we are commanded to give our families material support, for example, economic freedom and the right to private property are essential. If we are to rest on the Sabbath, we must have the liberty to stop working and not be perpetually at the beck of employers. Each duty implies a corresponding liberty, and it is the duty of rulers to protect those liberties.

Because these duties come from God, religious liberty is a fundamental aspect of political liberty. Witte continues: “Political liberty and political authority ‘are constituted together,’ said Calvin. … When political officials respect the duties and limits of their office, believers enjoy ample political liberty to give ‘public manifestation of their faith.’?”

But what about the unfaithful political leader? Calvin wrote that “dictatorships and unjust authorities are not governments ordained by God.” They are no longer “God’s ministers” if they “practice blasphemous tyranny.”

In this part of the article, I wondered if there was some Americanization of Calvin.  It’s my impression that there wasn’t “religious liberty” in Geneva.  You wouldn’t necessarily expect to find religious liberty there, as the scorned and persecuted Anabaptists were the only ones really talking about it much in Calvin’s day (to my knowledge).  The church in Geneva, in my understanding, was to govern the moral aspects of people’s lives while the state maintained order.  One of the most famous cases in Geneva’s history was the buring of Michael Servetus at the stake for denying the Trinity.  There’s a tendency to think of the Reformers as the pioneers of our liberties when they seemed to be in a very different situation and time period from our  founders.

But as for Neff’s main point, I agree that law must above its enforcers.  He does well in painting a brief historical picture of the development of a powerful executive so that people know that it didn’t start with Nixon or Bush.  Part of the problem is that it’s unlikely that a president would give back power.  Some of the powers that the Bush Administration claimed are being claimed by the Obama administration, and certainly the recession has provided the justfication for further economic power for the president.

One of the troubling things about this is how results-oriented the political process has become.  Many people seem to be all right with expanded executive, legislative, and/or judicial power as long as policies that they like are enacted.  There don’t seem to be strong voices calling for the principles and limits found in the Constitution to be followed.  Sometimes I think our Constitution is almost worn-out from years of being asked to do things it was never meant to do.  In a free society, we have to be willing to tolerate things that we don’t like.

The marriage of Christianity and republican political theory in America

Noll’s fifth chapter analyzes the American combination of Christianity and republican political ideas, which was a rare combination in the 18th and 19th centuries.  You can see my notes on his previous chapter, where he explained more about this, here.

Noll argues that the most powerful influence in combining Christian beliefs and republican political principles was the period of conflict with France in the 1740s-1760s, the two wars known in America as King George’s War (1744-1748) and the French and Indian War (1754-1763).  French political and religious (i.e. Catholic) tyranny were contrasted with English liberty.  After the wars with France, religious Americans calling for religious freedom (as opposed to established churches) and the end of slavery used the republican language of rights and liberty.

Noll argues that during the time of resistance and open rebellion against British taxes and laws republican and Christian language were intermingled, so that Christianity was a “disinfectant” that sanitized the republican ideas that were so often connected with heretical ideas.  He gives the great example of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which presented biblical examples in support of a republican form of government and against monarchy.  Paine had probably personally rejected Christianity at the time, but presented a very persuasive case that Christianity and republican ideas went hand in hand.  Noll calls this “Christian republicanism.”

Noll gives a plausible account of how “Christian republicanism” emerged.  He states early on in the book that he intends to do a history of theology that pays attention to high culture rather than a social history that looks at popular culture, while recognizing the necessity of histories that do the latter.  So the question remaining is how this worked at a popular level.  He contends that Americans in general tended to accept the synthesis hammered out in the theology that he explores, and I’m inclined to agree with him.

Noll closes with a great account from the always quotable de Tocqueville:

The character of the country that de Tocqueville visited in the 1830s seemed compounded of what he called “two perfectly distinct elements that elsewhere have often made war with each other, but which, in America, … they have succeeded in incorporating somehow into another and combining marvelously.  I mean to speak of the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom.” (92)

The Roots of American Theology

I’ve finally gotten a chance to begin, for at least the second time, Mark Noll’s America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln.  He’s set out an interesting task for himself: answering the question of how theological ideas in America became so thoroughly integrated with American cultural ideas.  Specifically, he is exploring how evangelical religious beliefs, “republican” political ideas (arguing for a representative government without a king), and commonsense moral ideas (the idea that all people, not just Christians, possessed a strong sense of and ability to discover true morality) became so connected in American culture.  Noll draws an interesting contrast in his first chapter to illustrate this mixing of religious and political ideas in American thought:

Why did [Abraham] Lincoln, though never a church member, use the Bible more frequently in [his Second Inaugural Address] and also address questions of theological significance more directly than his near-peers as heads of state in other Protestant lands who were dedicated members of Christian churches like William Gladstone in Britain or Abraham Kuyper in the Netherlands? (6)

In Chapter 2, Noll argues that none of this fusion was evident in the writings of the theologians of the first half of the 1700s.  American church groups like the Congregationalists (Puritans), Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Quakers were very traditional, affirming the historic doctrines of their various traditions even more than some of their European counterparts (beginning to be influenced by rationalism) were.  Puritans and Presbyterians articulated the doctrines of Calvinism, arguing that man could do nothing to save himself and that human nature was damaged by the fall and therefore did not have a strong moral sense.  Therefore, only God could convert sinners and impart a true sense of morality to those he chose to regenerate.  Even Jonathan Edwards, conversant with the Enlightenment ideas of the day, concentrated on defending the traditional Puritan doctrines while stating them in contemporary terms.

As he notes at the end of Chapter 2, even the very disruptive Great Awakening showed “the continuing power of a religion with scant room for the intensely this-worldly preoccupations of republicanism or the optimistic universalism of moral-sense philosophy” (29).  The main figures of the Great Awakening were traditional Calvinists, and the strongest theological tradition when it was all said and done was still Puritan Calvinism, which had just received Edwards’ forceful defense.  Yet Noll hints that Puritan theology would break up soon.

If you’re confused by idea of the “commonsense” moral ideas, I still am too, but I believe that he will be explaining it further.  I hope that I’ve summarized his point accurately so far.  I’m going to blog my reaction to each chapter as I go to help me remember what he writes.

And finally, if you’ve never read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address that Noll referred to in the quote above, it’s really short and at the same time packed with profound ideas.  Do yourself a favor and check it out.

The everlasting Christmas celebration…

Every year the holidays come and go.  I, for one, don’t let go so fast.  I have always loved Christmas and all it represents, though as a child, I didn’t know all it represented but I knew I was missing something.   When I became a christian, it became all the more clearer why I loved Christmas…Christ.  The love and grace that exudes from God and the sacrifice of Christ can never be contained.  In our bedtime devotion with the kids tonight, the kids are trying to grasp why God made them…which is to glorify Himself.  He made us to love Him.

So, here it is, January 21st, and half of our Christmas decorations are still up.   Our articfial tree (which I hesitatingly agreed to buy before Christmas) is still up with all it’s beautiful decorations and lights.  It keeps our front room nicely lit.  It makes a nice night light too.  I still have a few strings of lighted garland up too.  They create a great ambience.  I delay in bringing them all down.  I kinda get the bummed that the “spirit of Christmas” lasts but a month.  Maybe 2 (thanksgiving preparations usually extend the holiday spirit a little more).  But why?  Even if you’re not a believer, surely the “spirit of giving” and the “goodwill toward men” and the “joy to the world” does not end December 26th?  But surely, as a Christian, this certainly isn’t true.  Now, don’t be a wise guy, I don’t mean we should give gifts and celebrate everyday with gift-giving like we do at Christmas b/c that’s not what Christmas is about.  For most, it’s about “love, family, friends”, being with those you care for, fun, etc…  and all those things are good.  But the ultimate gift, isn’t it, the gift of life from our Creator, and the gift that will keep on giving… the gift of salvation through the blood of Christ, in whom we can live for all eternity?!!  Like, whoa.  I, too, need to grasp that reality more and more each Christmas.  As much as I enjoy the decorating, the meals with friends, creating family memories, singing carols, etc, I hope to echo the gospel that gives us the REAL hope and REAL change that we can Really all believe in, that Christ came to save sinners like us and through Him, there will one day be a day where the celebration will be everlasting…Praise God. Hallelujah and Amen.

My Sanctity of Life Sermon Notes from 1/18/09 “Rescuing Lives by Exposing Darkness and Loving Jesus”

These notes were intended for me to preach off of and may not be formatted all that well for your reading, but I am posting them nonetheless. Included are segments from MLK’s Letter from Birmingham and several other articles.

“Rescuing Lives by Exposing Darkness and Loving Jesus”

Proverbs 24:10-12 (ESV)
¹⁰ If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small. ¹¹ Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. ¹² If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?

Ephesians 5:5-12 (ESV)
⁵ For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. ⁶ Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. ⁷ Therefore do not become partners with them; ⁸ for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light ⁹ (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), ¹⁰ and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. ¹¹ Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. ¹² For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.

 Planned Parenthood needs to be exposed for their darkness and I want to warn you all not to be deceived by their false lies, which are “empty words”. Take no part in them, don’t believe that they are for “human rights”, and it is indeed shameful what they say and do in secret…and in public.

Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood and an inspiring figure for those in the movement and women’s lib movement. Here is a sampling of some things that Sanger stood for:

 “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race 

-          Yes there are financial challenges to maintaining a large family, but Sanger proposes that the family’s collective killing is the most merciful thing that can be done. R u serious? This sentiment is foolish…sounds like wisdom to some who say that quality of life is more important than life itself. If quality of life defines ones viability, then we might as well kill off ¾ of the world’s population as an act of “mercy”.

-          It is arrogant to suppose that the poor are unworthy of life and better of dead than poor.

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people.

-          Sanger supported a project to eliminate the African-American race.

-          Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion.

1,452 African-American children are killed each day by the heinous act of abortion.

3 out of 5 pregnant African-American women will abort their child.

Since 1973 there has been over 13 million Black children killed and their precious mothers victimized by the U.S. abortion industry.

-          It’s been said that the most dangerous place to live today is for a black child to live in his/her mother’s womb. That is indeed sad.

-          Blacks are abortioned at a greater rate than there percentage in society and it is taking place by mostly white doctors. Sanger would delight in this news!!!

-          Planned Parenthood gladly takes money earmarked for murdering black babies…no surprise…just making Sanger proud and continuing her legacy.

Academic Freedom Day Coming Feb. 12 2009

 Support Academic Freedom on Feb. 12 and all days!!! Click on picture for link.

You can protest, write a letter to your local newspaper editorial section, call in on talk radio, write the local school board, etc.

What happened to “Ask NOT what your country can do for you but what YOU can do for your country”?

What happened to American Patriotism and the gratitude of freedom, which is not really ‘free’ indeed.  This freedom we have come to know and feed on has been at a great cost, of American lives & much sacrifice, that is.

I’m not a native born American.  My family came here from Asia, legally.  We went through the necessary procedures to live here legally, of which I know were hard.  My father, like so many others, escaped to America because of it’s freedoms and the persecutions of foreign dictators.  I’m so sick of hearing the ungrates of this country; domestic bombers, protesters of war and military, etc.  Americans have become so spoiled they don’t even know how good they have, lest freedom should be stripped from them.   What happened to individual responsibility?  What happened to individual accountability?   The feeling around this country echoes a lot of selfishness, all about “what are you going to do for me… what are you going to give me… you owe me, Mr. Government”?  Is this world really all about me, me, me?

We are not rich.  We are probably considered lower-middle class.  Of course it would be nice to get a check.  Who doesn’t like to get free money?  But is it owed to us?  Did you work hard for it or are you wanting a handout?  If you want to look at it from a religious standpoint, biblical Proverbs tells us that if you’re too lazy to work, then you don’t eat.  But even still, we should desire to do good to those among us in need.  I stress need because not all that benefit from the charity of others are in need but rather greed and that is deceitful and wrong.  To be straightforward here, the reality of world peace is an impossibility, although it is something to constantly strive for.  The human race is not perfect, nor will ever be, until the day of Christ’s return, where and when He will usher His people home.  Considering the reality of imperfect human beings, we will never be able to fully satisfy the world and all it’s differences.   We can and still should, however strive to do our best to love our neighbor but stand for truth and justice.  It’s a difficult balance that requires much heart.

So I ask, “what can you do for your country”?

Apologies to the Obama’s “potential” grandchildren

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Obama,

I want to express to you that my child is NOT a “punishment” to me.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNzmly28Bmg

Let me give you a little background, if I may.  In my junior year in high school, I made a mistake.  The mistake was having premarital sex.  Well, as a result (or consequence of doing something I shouldn’t have been doing), I got pregnant.  But as a 16 yr old (non-christian at the time), abortion was NOT an option.  I fit the mold of most stats that say I would end up where I was, a non-married pregnant high school teen that was likely the result of my childhood voids-2 parents household, absent father, negligent mother, lived in the big city, growing up without a family role model.  But I would not say the baby that I then carried in my belly was a “punishment”.  The baby that was conceived had no say, no choice and according to your political stance, still has no value unless the women (in this case, me at the time) deems it worthy to live.  Though my action was irresponsible and immature at the time, pregnancy was a risk of my decision, like many risks we take in life.    The results of the many choices (some good, some bad) have an after effect (sometimes good, sometimes bad).  Each decision, usually causes a stream of after effects, situation that we face with then having to face another decision and yet anther decision, and on the circle goes.  Sometimes there are right decisions, sometimes there are wrong decisions, sometimes the decision is truly in the hand of the beholder (like whether I should buy fat free milk or whole).  In the case of abortion, there is no gray area.  The thing in the womb is still a life- a human, a baby, no matter what “scientists or doctors or professionals want to label it (ie. fetus, blob…)  When you look at the result of the procedure, how can you deny that life was taken away and justify it taking place in our society?  The day my family found out i was pregnant, they cried “abortion!”.  They said “it” would ruin my life.  They said I won’t be able to finish school…  I won’t be able to go to college.  I won’t be able to do this…do that…  The father of the baby and I initially decided to give the baby up for adoption but when labor day came, my mother’s love and instincts couldn’t let him go.  I eventually gave birth to a down syndrome baby boy in the beginning of my senior year and thankful for him.  I’m also a minority which also fits into the stats.  Well, I graduated high school early that year and worked for a few months at McD’s until my graduation ceremony.  Then I went off to college and continued through 4 yrs of college.   Although it was going to be a tough road ahead, it was just a matter of making the right choice of giving birth to the baby and doing what needed to be done.  I couldn’t even fathom murdering my baby b/c society says it’s ok if you’re not ready or that you can’t be responisble enough to take care of someone else.  Now, as an adult and a Christian, I truly understand the value of life, where and when it begins and ends.

I don’t claim to have done it all on my own.  It was a collective effort of friends, family (the same ones that wanted me to abort, but eventually became supportive after I deemed the child worthy of birth), the government and ultimately God.  Help is out there!  I’m sure both political parties have some claims in the governmental help I received and I can only express gratitude for it.  I think the government is plenty generous as it is.  As grateful as I am, I think there needs to boundaries and limit to how much help the government should extend as too much can only lead to complacency (a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.-www.Dictionary.com), laziness & an entitlement attitude.  I did not feel ‘entitled’ but so grateful that the help was there but also I also felt that it was only a temporary season until after college when I can begin a career and be self sufficient from government assistance.  In no way was it a permanent way of life for me, which unfortunately for some, it is.  It’s different if one is in need for physical or extremely mental incapabilities but not for those who just feed off govt. assistance b/c of laziness or deceitfulness.  For some the help is necessary, for too many, the help is taken advantage of and that’s the crime.  The RIGHT TO LIFE is really valuing the people you claim to value, because at the core of this issue is valuing the life of people at their earliest stages…in the womb!!  So what I hear you and the like minded, is that someone doesn’t have any inherent value, unless the women (who inevitably is already a mother whether her baby has been born or not) decides whether that life has value??  How does that make sense?  Either life is valuable, or it isn’t.  It’s not only valuable if someone else deems it valuable based on X, Y, Z…otherwise slavery should still be ok, which I believe it is not.

I believe in the many rights to choose…among these are the “RIGHT to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”  Does the baby’s right not count?  Apparently to many, it doesn’t.

So I pray, that when that day comes, when your daughters, of whom I you treasure dearly, make choices that could possibly affect their “reproduction”, whether in marriage or not, that you wouldn’t be deprived of the right, privilege and joy to meet your future unborn grandchildren because your girls had the right to choose whether a baby, possibly your future grand baby, has any value that is worthy of birth and whom, we hope someday, could then grow up and contribute to our country, and make the world a better place for all, including the “least among us”.

from a sincerely disheartened voice for the HOPE of future unborn generations and CHANGE that will change the way we value human life,

Mimi, proud mom of 3 and hoping, Idaho

I'm so glad I wasn't "punished" with children, but "gifted" and blessed with the joy of my 3 precious babies! Are they beautiful or what??!!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Stop_these_abortions_.html

Mr. Obama, “Why is reducing the number of abortions a good thing?”

Senator Barack Obama stated at the Saddleback Forum that he would work to reduce the number of abortions. I was hoping that Pastor Rick Warren would follow up by asking a question I have long wanted interviewers to ask, “Why is reducing the number of abortions a good thing?”. I admit that it is a gotcha question of sorts. If they admit in any sense that reducing abortion is a ‘good’ thing, then one is inherently acknowledging that there is something about abortion that is wrong. I would then follow up by asking, “What’s wrong with abortion?”. This puts the “pro-choice” candidate in a difficult predicament…one in which makes it evidently clear that there is a huge moral inconsistency with taking the co-existent positions of: abortion is a women’s right to do with her body as she wishes AND limiting abortion is a good thing because abortion is a bad thing.

Being pro-life as I am and knowing that Roe V. Wade is fixed law, I do support a reduction in the number of abortions. That is why I have sent money to clinics that seek to encourage a prospective mother into keeping the baby. I do this because abortion is indeed wrong and I can state as much. I would also state that while Roe V. Wade is fixed law, I believe that the court was wrong and pray for its reversal. I believe that human rights begin with the issue protecting our young and most vulnerable among us. Human rights issues presume the existence of life and therefore I believe the abortion issue is a foundation for all other discussion.

Again, I ask Senator Obama, “Why is reducing the number of abortions a ‘good’ thing?”. The emphasis is on ‘good’. I would answer by stating that abortion is a “bad” thing. What is Obama’s answer? Hopefully we’ll find out at one of the debates. Stay tuned.

Review of Peter Hawkins’ Beecher Lecture on Dante’s Purgatory by Dan Meyer

by guest blogger Dan Meyer.

Just finished watching and listening to Peter Hawkins’ second Beecher lecture on Dante’s Purgatory, introduced, by the way, by Barbara Brown Taylor, a former Beecher lecturer herself. (The lectures can be seen on the Internet, as can several other series.) Hawkins acknowledged that some of the 18th and 19th century Connecticut saints buried in churchyards around the state would be spinning in their graves if they knew such a discussion was being entertained in Marquand Chapel! He then spent 20 minutes describing his own vision of purgatory, stimulated by a vision of his dead father, 20 minutes describing Dante’s description of it, and 20 minutes describing Henry Ward Beecher’s possible pilgrimage there as a result of his reputed dalliances with women.

He says that when Dante got to the top of purgatory, a re-creation of Eden, he was met by Beatrice, whom he had met and fallen in love with when she was eight. But Beatrice, far from showing him love, met him with cold fury because of his failures – failure to remain faithful in his love for her, and failure to employ opportunities to exercise his masterful gifts. In discussing Beecher, he then asks, “What figure will greet him when he arrives in that Eden?”

To me, purgatory represents works-righteousness, humans paying the penalty for their sins, It is human-centered. That’s indicated in his choice of words for love. He uses eros, which describes human love. The Bible speaks of agape to describe that love. Anders Nygren, in his book, “Agape and Eros”, shows that historically eros is man reaching up to God, while agape is God coming down to man (man, of course, in the generic sense).
What the Bible shows us is a God-given righteousness, a righteousness, as Luther said, that comes through faith. Earlier this morning I read a chapter from a little book by Walter Brueggemann in which he pointed out that even when God was so disgusted with Israel that he determined to break his covenant with them, he found that he couldn’t do it. He points out that when Ezekiel became convinced that repentance was beyond the realm of possibility for the people of his day because they had sunk so deep into sin, God said, “I will give them a new heart, a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone,” so that they would then obey him from the heart.

The answer to purgatory is grace; not cheap grace, but grace purchased at the expense of Christ’s death. As the psalmist says, God ’separates our sins from us as far as the east is from the west.’ And as Jeremiah said, he remembers our sins no more. So that what believers have to look forward to is not time in purgatory working off their sins, but a God who by his grace purges and makes them clean and fits them for eternity in his presence.

So, much as I enjoyed the lecture, I can’t buy the premise. Still, he said things that prompted introspection!

Guest Blogger Dan Meyer Writes on Antony Flew and Problem of Evil

Antony Flew

There are two articles in the NY Times this morning that make me sick. They are both about Antony Flew (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), the famous British philosopher who seems to have moved from atheism (he wrote a very influential book on the subject many years ago) to a belief in the Aristotelian god, a prime mover, a being who is itself unmoved, but which moves everything else. Flew is quite old now, and possibly suffering from Alzheimer’s, but Christians and atheists are fighting over him, each side trying to manipulate him for its own advantage. So one moment Flew says this, another moment he says that. Both sides bully him intellectually and then come away with what appears to them convincing proof for their side. It’s disgraceful.
Clearly, Flew is not the intellectual giant he used to be. He is unable to keep up with current trends, and he seems to be easily persuaded – or misled.

I’m so tired of evangelical Christians doing immoral things, and being so arrogant and stupid. The Christian faith does not depend upon airtight proofs for the existence of God. Jesus didn’t commission his disciples to go into all the world and devise scientific arguments re: the origin of the universe. He told them to go and preach the gospel – and also to embody
the gospel in their lives. The gospel doesn’t need sophisticated philosophical or scientific arguments; Billy Graham has proved that for over half a century. He doesn’t argue; he proclaims. He tells the story, tells people that God loves them, that Christ died for them, that they can be forgiven and empowered to live a new life and face the challenges and crises of living with courage and strength and hope.

One of the articles is by Stanley Fish (http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/suffering-evil-and-the-existence-of-god/index.html), dealing with the problem of evil. He reviews a new book by Bart Ehrman, of Princeton, who gave a couple of lectures at Yale Divinity School a couple of years ago, is the son of a minister who went to Wheaton College and became a minister, but is now a convinced atheist. He looks at all the evil, the suffering and pain in the world and concludes that God could not possibly exist.

It’s a strong argument, one that any minister, myself included, has to face. Ministers, of all people, are constantly confronted by suffering and tragedy, not only in the lives of parishioners, but in their own lives as well. I’ve left hospital rooms seething with anger at what I’ve seen, saying to God through clenched teeth, “I wouldn’t do this to my worst enemy, but you say you love these people!” There’s no use denying that there is a massive amount of evil and pain in the world. The question is, “Can it be explained?”

I don’t think it can, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t help. The help comes from the cross. The Christian faith has always believed that Jesus was God incarnate, the Word who, as John says, was in the beginning with God and was God. In Jesus God stooped to share our human condition, with all its pain and suffering. And at the cross he endured the worst that ugly men could hurl at him; more than that, the Christian faith insists that he died for our sins, that in his death he triumphed over the power of evil, as his resurrection on the third day demonstrated.

In other words, God knows the power of evil and the agony of suffering because in Jesus he experienced it firsthand. He knows what men and women go through, so the author of Hebrews can say, “Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” And again,”We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet without sin.” So suffering men and women are now able to “approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive
mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”

This, of course, does not solve the problem of evil and suffering. Karl Barth called it ‘the impossible possibility.’ But it assures us that we are not alone. God knows – not just intellectually, but experientially; and he cares.

Part of the problem is that we are continually underestimating the power of evil. The Christian faith says that in order to overcome it, it was necessary for God himself, in the person of his Son, to become human and suffer the indignities and agonies of the cross. Shouldn’t that be a clue as to the strength of evil? Jesus himself prayed in the Garden, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” But there was no other way; that was the only solution available. My suspicion is that when we see God, we will know that he has been in the fight of his life. He could not overcome evil with his left hand while doing something more important with his right. He had to muster all his strength to overcome it. This is why Jesus taught us to pray, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” A more accurate rendering might be, “Do not bring us to the test (we are far too weak for that), but deliver us from the Evil One.”

Instead of fighting intellectual battles that can never be won, shouldn’t we be pointing to Christ and to the cross as the key to understanding our world and our lives? Then we wouldn’t be tempted to manipulate tired, confused old men to prove the existence of God, and who knows? We ourselves might be led to abandon our arrogance and kneel before the cross, “lost in wonder, love and praise.”