Update on Monique Davis
Illinois Representative Monique Davis, whose Christian witness has been forever tainted by misplaced remarks about atheists and atheism, has done what a Christian should do in her shoes–she apologized. Instead of a public apology, Representative Davis apologized directly to the one she offended.
Personally, I think that this shows great humility on Davis’s part. It shows that she knows that she was in the wrong.
But the apology isn’t enough for the atheists. VJack, bitter proprietor of Atheist Revolution, led the charge in the blogosphere:
Initially, I thought I could join Rob Sherman in agreeing to forgive Rep. Davis. I have certainly said things I later regretted when under periods of great stress. Then again, I would expect to face consequences for public expressions of bigotry, regardless of how much stress I was experiencing at the time. Like others, I am able to control my impulses and exercise reasonable judgment, even in periods of distress. Rep. Davis can believe what she wants, but even if her expression was a stress-related lapse in judgment, I’m not sure how this excuses it.
The American Humanist Association says:
“As far as we know, the only source for this alleged April 9 apology is the Web site of the immediate victim. It hasn’t been corroborated or confirmed,” declared Mel Lipman, president of the American Humanist Association. “Moreover, even if confirmed, the apology was only private. That just isn’t good enough.” (source)
So, let me get this straight: even though Representative Davis has done what no atheist thought she would do and apologized for her tirade, this isn’t good enough for them? I have to wonder what they really want here.
I’m forced to think that Davis’s resignation is the only thing that would really please the atheist crowd. Even so, I have to wonder if they still wouldn’t find some fault with even her resignation.
Fear
The recent comments made by Illinois State Representative Monique Davis reveal an unfortunate deep-seated fear that many Christians have regarding atheists. Representative Davis berated an atheist and told him that he had no right to testify due to his lack of belief in God. She even called the philosophy of atheism “dangerous” and said that it was dangerous for children to even know that the philosophy exists.
The fear revealed by Representative Davis is unnecessary, and her actions only serve the cause of atheism in ways she probably can’t imagine. There is no need to fear atheism, or atheists. I have personally interacted with many avowed atheists, and have found them to be the same as anyone–they are people first and foremost. They do not recognize their creator, nor do they feel that their rights as humans were first derived from God.
Because there is no derivation of rights first from God in the mind of an atheist, it is therefore society–majority rules–that decides objective morality. This makes said morality subjective rather than objective. No objective morality can exist with such a system. But that is a different subject for another time. Atheists still believe in the objective morality outlined in the Bible, and many of them follow it much more closely than even the most deeply religious that I know.
Atheists are not the immoral hate-mongers that Representative Davis fears. Her comments are absolutely appalling. I’m very glad that she apologized for her comments, and I’m glad that it was done directly to the person whom she offended.
Her Christian witness will be tainted by her comments, but in apologizing she did the right thing. I’m appalled by her comments, but I applaud her humility in apologizing for her unwarranted outburst.
The truth is that we, as Christians, have nothing to fear from the atheist philosophy. It is unfortunate that atheists are viewed in the light that Representative Davis has now personified. I pray that she takes the time to learn more about atheists before she tries to speak out against them again.
Why be Moral?
Why be moral if there is no punishment in the afterlife? Daren Jaques, of Just Atheists, answers the question like this:
Well, there are lots of reasons. 1) I will not be as successful in life if others cannot trust me, and if all I ever do is look after myself, then people will not trust me. This applies to lying, stealing, and harming others generally. 2) I do not believe that I can be “absolved” of my wrongdoing through either a shaman’s magic (confession) nor through the ritual drinking of human/god blood (communion). That means I need to try and be as good and kind as possible every time I act because there are no do-overs. (source)
Daren is right that he will not be as successful in life as he could be since no one around him will have any reason to trust him if he is very self-serving. But he is also correct in saying that confession and ritual drinking of blood will not absolve him of his sins. There are no do-overs–you get a choice one time in life, and it is best to do the moral thing then and there. You will never get another chance.
Daren says that it is not the threat of eternal punishment that motivates him to do good deeds, it is the mutual benefit of all. There are two problems with this statement. First, Daren has admitted that an objective good and evil exist, which is part of the theist worldview, not the atheist. The atheist view does not allow for such things to exist–things can only be what they are.
Second, in his preceding statement, Daren lists success and winning trust as his primary motivation, not altruism. Daren wishes to be successful in this life and win the praise of others. Jesus points this out in Matthew 6:1-18 that this is the mark of a hypocrite. Daren isn’t being moral for the sake of being moral. He’s doing it for the sake of being noticed positively by other people.
Daren states that the theist is only moral to avoid eternal punishment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Only the Christian, committed to Christ, is truly free to will and do good for its own sake. Those not in Christ may do good, but it is always for their own ends. In his attempt to prove otherwise, Daren has proven the truth of that statement.
Atheist on Death
Brian J. Sabel from Just Atheists wrote a post that caught my attention. Since my grandma died, I’ve been thinking about death quite a bit for obvious reasons. Obviously, my view of death is that we who place faith in Christ go on to eternal reward, while the rest do not. “[I]t is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment . . .” (Heb 9:27).
I believe that my grandma has gone on to that eternal reward. Not because I want to believe that since it is a comforting thought for me, but because my grandma placed her faith in Christ. At the funeral, I could see the fruits of the Spirit in her lives through the stories people told of the lives she touched. I had no idea how much time she donated freely to good causes. Even though she was sick, she still donated time and crafts to other sick people. She was an Eucharistic Minister and traveled to the sick and infirm at homes and hospitals to share the Lord’s Supper with them, and to talk and pray with them.
I could easily get into the debate about faith vs. works here, but suffice it to say that I believe her actions proceeded from her faith and that faith is what saved her, not what she did in this life. That isn’t the point of my post. The point is that Brian from Just Atheists believes that this life is all that there is and that view of life elevates life on earth above the religious view.
Many faithful see this as a very bleak way to view our lives. Without the rewards of the afterlife, they say, our lives on earth have no value or meaning. They often view my rejection of a belief in an afterlife as a cynical and nihilistic view which robs humankind of our best qualities. They could not be more wrong. And, in fact, I feel that my view elevates the value of human life beyond the capacity of a religious view.
The finite nature of our lives compels me to believe that each life is unique, valuable, and irreplaceable. When a person dies she is gone and we will never get her back. The consequence of this belief is that I love the people around me very deeply because I recognize how precious they are and how fortunate I am to experience their lives – they could be gone from me so quickly. (source)
Brian actually has a point. His view elevates the view of this life above how religious often view it. But the Bible doesn’t teach us to view this life as one of much importance. The Bible calls this life a “mist” (Jms 4:14). Like Brian’s astute observation, the Bible affirms that this life can be taken from us at any moment. Unlike Brian, the Bible states we must build our treasure in heaven (Mt 6:19-20).
Does this mean that the religious should place no importance on this life whatsoever? Of course not! There is certainly wisdom in the expression “We don’t inherit this planet from our parents, we borrow it from our children.” With all of the comparisons to God as the landowner and humans as His stewards in Jesus’ parables, can anyone ever really conclude that we aren’t called to be stewards of this planet? God commanded us to “be fruitful and multiply,” and in order to do that effectively, we must be good stewards of the resources on this planet.
So there is some importance in this life. But, unlike the atheist viewpoint, this life is not all that there is. There is more out there, there is eternal life to be spent in perfect communion with our Creator, and with those that have gone before us in Christ.
Meanwhile, let’s be good stewards of this planet. When God returns to earth, we’ll have to give an account for it.
Update: Madeline Neumann’s Siblings Wisely Removed from Parental Custody
The three siblings of Madeline Neumann, the young lady who died tragically as a result of her parents praying instead of seeking medical attention, have been removed from their parents’ custody.
In the original article, the authorities had not made that decision yet since there were no signs of abuse or neglect. I’m very glad that those kids were removed.
While I agree with the principle that all healing comes from God, as Leilani Neumann told the press, I don’t believe that prayer is the sole vehicle by which God works. I believe that He works through the competent doctors and nurses, all of whom He calls to do that work. No legitimate church would see seeking medical attention as a sign of unbelief or as having a lack of faith.
Been Blogging Lite for too Long
I haven’t been blogging much lately because I’ve been going through a lot in my personal life. My grandmother, Virginia Tucholski, passed away last week. She went quickly and painlessly, which is an answer to prayer. It isn’t like I’m never going to see her again; we will meet again in the resurrection, but that is still no consolation for the present. Between the showing, the funeral, and just plain dealing with this tragedy, I haven’t had much time to blog.
Fortunately, now all is over and done with, and I will be able to return to my regular blogging schedule. So stay with me and more updates will come soon. I’m still looking to answer Rook Hawkins’s reply to me, but I still need to do some more research. Look for that reply sometime next week.
Faith Healing
God is not a gumball machine–you can’t just pop in a prayer, turn a cosmic crank, and expect God to answer the prayer in exactly the way that you expected Him to.
God promises to listen to prayer, and listen only. Despite the dramatic hyperbolic language (such as Mark 11:24 and others) used by Jesus, each and every prayer is not going to be answered affirmatively. It will be answered in God’s way and in His time.
So, if you’re sick, seek help from a doctor. Don’t shy away from praying for health or gathering the elders of your church to anoint the sick (Jms 5:14). But don’t expect that God will automatically reach down and heal the sick person. A prayer is only a request, not a demand and it will not always be answered affirmatively.
That means that I think Dale and Leilani Neumann of Weston, WI are guilty of negligent homicide, a statement which will undoubtedly surprise many people generally acquainted with my position that prayer is a very powerful thing. It is. But I believe that prayer is a way to offer yourself to God, not a way to get anything you want from Him.
According to a March 25th article in the Wausau Daily Herald, the Neumanns prayed for their daughter Madeline to get well, but never sought appropriate medical attention. This is just plain stupid. God doesn’t call only ministers into service, God calls people of every profession into their respective services, which includes doctors. He uses doctors as instruments of His healing. How did they expect their daughter to get better if they gave her no help whatsoever?
God’s preferred method of operation is to work through people. So don’t stop going to doctors when you’re sick, Christians! And as for the rest of the children in the Neumann household, GET THEM OUT OF THAT SITUATION FAST!
Reader Comment
In a comment posted here, a reader named Daniel F. writes:
I grew up in a devout very loving Christian family. I love my family, but the Christanity stuff fortunately did not stick. As I grew up, I noticed a lot of Christians were definite in their conviction, but confused on the details. I appreciate your courage in being open to sharing your thoughts. In today’s world, that definitely takes a lot of courage. And so… help me understand this.
How would we think of someone who decided to slaughter a larger portion of a class of preschoolers? That is, take a gun out and shoot execution style a portion of them? We would consider this person good? Should we praise this person and seek his approval?
Well, I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t. I would consider that outright evil. How would you feel if that story broke on the news? I hope really upset because it went against your moral fabric.
The problem with Christianity and other religions like Islam is that they very much promote moral corruption. You said, “God has chosen the elect and will draw them to Himself.” For what reason does God not choose everyone to draw to himself? Why would God create people only to torture them? By the way, who invented evil? If God is all powerful and created the universe, then He did. My dad says hell is the absence of God. Why define an absence? Why define evil?
In this context, is he no different than the murderous, evil human who slaughters the preschoolers?
I’ve e-mailed my response to Daniel, but I thought that I would make my response public since I think that it will help many of my readers who might not have had the courage to write in with the same problems or concerns. Read the rest of this entry
Rook Hawkins is Right: I Write for a Specific Audience
Rook Hawkins makes this claim right off the bat:
Cory has written a very interesting blog article in response to my positions. He has written to his reader’s satisfaction, and although he makes grandiose claims, he should be applauded by known apologists such as Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel for the erudite quality of his response. But did he really answer the problems or represent my position accurately? I do not think he did, but that can only be shown after examining the article he has written. (source, emphasis added)
It is the boldfaced portion that I will address first. Before I do that, I would like to publicly thank Rook for his compliments and critique on my work. I consider my writing my craft first, and take it very seriously. He has also put me in company with men that I admire and thinks that they would appreciate my work.
I would also like to point out that Rook does the old manager’s trick of softening the blow with a compliment before the criticism.
Rook has taken some criticism as a writer from my fellow apologists (such as Frank Walton). Rook, however, is the best of the RRS writers. He sticks to his subject matter and he knows his history inside and out. I can usually tell when people are faking it–a skill everyone who has been in management learns lest they receive an ugly demotion. I don’t get the faking-it vibe when I read Rook’s writings. He is someone as passionate about his beliefs as I am about mine.
As for the boldfaced portion of Rook’s opening paragraph, he is absolutely correct. I will explain why.
When I first started doing apologetics, I had a “save the world” complex. I believed with all of my heart that I would succeed where others had miserably failed–I would convert people like Rook Hawkins to Christianity with the power of my unflappable argumentation and my passion for the Lord. Rook would see that and have no choice but to convert, even despite his doubts.
I could only ever see myself winning arguments with atheists, since I had truth and the Lord on my side.
Well, after a while that “save the world” complex faded and I realized a few important things. First, mankind is truly dead in sin and wants nothing to do with God. God has chosen the elect and will draw them to Himself–I can only pray that He will see my ministry fit to use for that purpose. The point isn’t fatalism; the point is that, like the Bible clearly states, God will have mercy and whom He will and harden whom He will, and I can’t change that. But I can be a part of His plan to draw the elect through this ministry and prayer.
What does any of this have to do with Rook Hawkins? Well, the reason I write for my audience is that I’m probably not going to convert a hardened skeptic like Rook. However,Rook’s writings may have planted a seed of doubt in an honest Christian or in someone considering the conversion to Christianity. It is those hypothetical people that I plan to reach by dialog with Rook, not Rook himself.
Mind you, it isn’t that I don’t want to see Rook pledge his life to Christ. I think that would be an amazing testament to the drawing power of God the Father, and we could use someone like Rook on the winning team. It’s just that I think Rook is too firmly entrenched in his beliefs to ever convert. At best, converting Rook is my “C” priority here. It’s on the map, but I won’t be disappointed if it doesn’t happen.
I think that both Rook and I are guilty of writing only for our respective audiences, and I think that we have similar motivations–to sway the honest seeker who is still on the fence. Rook and I both believe that one of our essays may just swing that person onto our side for good. We’re not really writing for each other–which is unfortunately why we have, so far, talked past each other.
I admit to being out of my element with the historical aspects of the early church and with Hellenistic Greece. I could use a Christian writer with Rook’s knowledge to help me out here. But I’ve got a few online articles bookmarked on Hellenistic literature from Christian Think-Tank, and a book by a scholar that I believe Rook will respect (but not agree with) that I’m working through. A full reply is forthcoming but will take a while.
Two Down, One to Go
As of today, I have been mentioned on two of the three core Rational Response Squad member blogs. I was mentioned by Sapient in glowing terms for my series of articles dealing with the unchristian behavior of Frank Walton. Now, I have the dubious honor of being “refuted” by Rook Hawkins, the historian of the group.
I will read this piece and prepare my response as quickly as time allows.
Now all I need is a mention on Kelly’s blog and I will have been mentioned on the blog of all three core RRS members. Do I get a medal for that? Or a call from the President? Probably not, but I should at least get a cookie!
Back Rome Again 