Former Christian turned atheist DaGoodS (DGS) has compiled a list of eleven questions that he doesn’t think Christians can answer. I’ve decided to take him on, since I’m a sucker for questions that Christians supposedly can’t answer. Hopefully, DGS and I can learn something from each other.
If you believe your God has phenomenal cosmic power, and is able to sustain the universe, why do you have savings accounts, pension plans, insurance, college funds, stock portfolios and locks? Just in case?
DGS links to his previous article on that topic, which I will now specifically address. The post talks about how a church had armed guards in place, and one managed to halt a tragedy in progress (see this news item).
DGS says that when churches put things like this place, they are not acting as if God exists. Kind of like the sarcastic picture on the right. More to the point:
Stores and business put locks on doors. We would say that is wise of them to do so. But is a Christian demonstrating a lack of faith by doing the same thing the world does?
I don’t think that the Christian is. I think that the Christian is displaying good stewardship. More on that in a minute; first, let’s take a look at the so-called biblical support that DGS feels refutes some possible counterarguments.
Christians might say we aren’t called to be stupid. To that, DGS says:
Every church I have ever attended had locks on the door. Every church I attended in the past two decades also has an alarm system.
If God was in control—why would there need to be locks? Oh, we can claim God doesn’t want us to be stupid, and we should use common sense and wisdom, yet this flies in the face of 1 Cor. 1:20-21 which says the wisdom of the world is foolishness.
First Corinthians 1:20-21 is part of a larger argument (1:18-2:16) and isn’t a call to reject all wisdom of the world. It is an argument for accepting Jesus as Messiah despite the fact that he died the most shameful and disgraceful death that a person could die. In the ANE, a crucifixion all but guaranteed a type of public humiliation that we have no equivalent for in the modern world: everything the crucifixion victim did and everyone he was related to suffered disgrace, humiliation, and was ostracized from society. Paul was arguing that God often uses foolishness to shame the wise and worldly. Therefore, I don’t find that this verse particularly supports DGS’s argument that churches shouldn’t need door locks if the faithful who worshiped there truly trusted God.
Just what is God’s wisdom on protecting earthly things, then? Jesus very often told parables where a rich landowner trusts possessions to a steward (usually a servant of some sort). The rich landowner represents God, and the servants (stewards) represented humans. Using this imagery, Jesus is teaching us to be good stewards. Ultimately, everything belongs to God, and he will ask for it back some day. Better to return in better condition than we found it, for God won’t accept it in the same condition (and that probably means he will be outraged if it is worse condition!).
The Parable of the Talents (Mt 25:14-30) is a good illustration. Here, a landowner goes on a journey and entrusts talents to three different servants (v. 15). The first two invest the money wisely and return the original talents with dividends to the landowner (vv. 20-23). The third, however, buried his and thus was only able to return the original talent (vv. 24-25). This enraged the landowner. He told the servant he should have at least put the talent in the bank, that way at least it would have accumulated interest (v. 27).
The point is that God expects us to be good stewards of what he has given us–and it all comes from him, the spiritual (Eph 1:3-4) and the material (Jms 1:17) blessings. In order to fulfill that calling, we must take measures to protect what God has given us; not burying it like the slothful servant in the Parable of the Talents, but locking the door and alarming the building.
Accidents do happen, and therefore the church should take an insurance policy out for fire, theft, or other contingencies. Could the God of the universe stop a fire from hitting a church? Of course he could! But trials come (Jms 1:2-4), and it is through those trials that our faith is made stronger (Jms 1:12). We are just fools if we don’t think it could happen to us.
This isn’t showing a lack of faith in God’s ability to protect us, but is showing our obedience to him in safeguarding what he gave rightfully to us to use. We are the servants who are investing our talents and paying God back the original plus dividends.
Ever attend a church which has a building project? Perhaps needs a new roof? The same thing—a chart is put up in the lobby in the form of a thermometer, with each “goal” of contribution being a mark, and as the money comes in from the members, it is slowly filled in with red. Does the church say, “We need a new roof—don’t worry—God will provide”? Nope. The church says, “We need a new roof. Let us pray, and pass the plate.”
While the thermometer picture is overused, that’s not really the point here. The tithe is frequently brought up as a lack of faith in God. In reality, the tithe is a test. It is often said that God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor 9:7). This is true, and we (as Christians) aren’t giving 10% compulsively, under duress or penalty of hell. Rather, we are giving as an act of worship some of which God has given us so that the wealth can be spread. And we don’t have to give 10%; we may give what our hearts (and budgets) allow, proportionate to the wealth God has given us. We could give less, or (better) we could give more.
I’m not Pat Robertson or Paula White. I am not suggesting that giving more than 10% will give you yet more wealth in return. That isn’t promised anywhere in the Bible. Instead, I want to unequivocally say that I believe that the tithe isn’t limited to 10%, nor is it a 10% minimum. Giving what we can afford is the mark of responsible stewardship. This isn’t to reap a material reward, but to reap a spiritual one.
Churches do more than just build buildings: they fund missionaries and assist needy families in the area. All of that is made possible by the tithing of the faithful.
Yes, churches also pay bills and staff members’ salaries out of that tithe, but those are necessary and worthy expenses. The bills enable the building to have heat, running water, and other amenities that a person would expect from a quasi-public building. Which could work to bring in people, and in some cases (as is egregiously demonstrated in a TV spot for a church local to me) keep people coming. (My wife and I were both struck by this TV ad, which asks members of that church why they come to services. Only one of the half-dozen or so interviewees mentioned Jesus. One touted the fact that the church has a rock-climbing wall!)
As for staff salaries, the staff members are domestic missionaries, charged by God with spreading the gospel. Even Paul agrees that paying a church minister is a worthy use of the tithe (1 Cor 9:1-14; yet he himself does not by choice vv. 15-18).
While DGS sees health insurance and requests for tithe money as faltering on the part of the faithful, I believe that both are examples of the faithful’s obedience to God. We give tithes not out of compulsion or fear of hellfire and damnation, but out of love for God–to see the work of the gospel, spread by faithful ministers, continue to touch lives in our local community and abroad. Insurance of all sorts protect what we have, showing that we are good stewards in preparing for the inevitable destruction of earthly goods.
Much more could be said about stewardship. It is a lifestyle, not a formula for managing money. Time, talents (like singing, not the money in the above parable)–everything that is a gift from God should be used for his glory, proportionate with what the Christian can give. This is true obedience, not cowering in fear and lack of faith.
A new believer named Ronni needed some relationship advice, so she did the only logical thing and turned to Pat Robertson.
Robertson is giving a biblical answer for a change. He’s referring to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18:
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
It’s not a blanket prohibition on “hanging out” with unbelievers. How are we supposed to evangelize if we’re not permitted to hang out with unbelievers? The idea of a “yoke” is a rabbinical term referring to various interpretations of the Hebrew bible. A rabbi was said to teach and follow a specific “yoke.” It’s similar in terms to a Christian denomination of today, but not exactly. For example, a rabbi who came up with a new yoke (rather than teaching an existing one) had to have his new yoke blessed by the laying on of hands by two other rabbis.
What “unevenly yoked” means is that a person shouldn’t have a very different set of beliefs than their spouse.
My wife is an Arminian, and I’m a Calvinist. I’ve heard that that doesn’t work very well. But that hasn’t been my experience so far. Calvinists and Arminians agree on the basic premise that faith in Christ alone is what is necessary for salvation, and that is exactly what my wife and I plan on teaching our kids. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is in how the person arrives at saving faith–through God’s action alone (Calvinism) or by God’s response to a free will decision (Armininism).
The real problem for Ronni in the video is that her fiancee is an atheist. It probably isn’t impossible for such a marriage to work, but my concern would be for any future children that the couple would have. How does one decide what religion the children will be raised to believe?
Ronni’s fiancee, as an atheist, probably believes that the Bible is a collection of myths rather than historical facts. He also likely denies the Resurrection (perhaps even the historical person of Jesus). Ronni, as a Christian, is going to want to teach her children about the existence of God and Jesus, that the Bible is a reliable history book, and that Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day to defeat sin and death.
I don’t know many atheists who would want their children to be taught such “nonsense.” In that scenario, mom teaches one thing, then dad undermines it behind mom’s back. The kids are going to be confused.
An additional problem presents itself. The church, as a whole, fails in apologetic instruction. I doubt much that Ronni has any way to counter the arguments that her fiancee will expose the kids to: contradictions in the Bible, Jesus never existed, there is no evidence for God, evolution removes the need for God, and other atheist talking points. The kids, in this scenario, are far more likely to be atheists since the atheist is able to present and defend his reasons for being so, while the Christian is left with “You just have to have faith.”
Unless the fiancee is going to agree to not interfere with the religious upbringing of the children, and if he is going to agree to be supportive of Ronni’s Christian faith, then this might be fine. But I don’t know many atheists who are willing to do such a thing. At least, the impression I get from the commenters on this site.
So, what say you, atheists? Am I wrong? Could you be supportive of your spouse if your spouse was religious and wanted to bring the kids up in that religion?
The lunacy of the twin websites Why Won’t God Heal Amputees and God is Imaginary never seems to end. In drafting my answers to their issues regarding God’s plan (there’s a video, a chapter of WWGHA, and a proof on GII), I discovered an unpublicized page of WWGHA. It reads:
Therefore, here is an open challenge to James Dobson, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, George W. Bush, Antonin Scalia and other prominent leaders in the Christian community:
Appear with me on national TV to read the Bible.
It is that simple. This will be a tremendous opportunity for you to spread the power of God’s word directly to the nation. The Bible is the book that contains the Ten Commandments, the revelation that Jesus is our resurrected savior and the story of our creation. This is God’s holy word to his children. You will simply read aloud from this sacred text. I ask only one thing: Allow me to choose the verses that you will read.
I will not interrupt you or provide any commentary during your reading, nor will you. We will simply allow God to speak for himself through his holy scriptures.
Interesting. It becomes clear what our anonymous friend is up to when he states that he is going to pick the verses. And, in case the naive reader still hasn’t figured out what he’s up to, this should make his agenda very clear:
The problem with the Bible is simple. What God says in the Bible is, in many places, quite offensive to us. As soon as we read the offensive parts of the Bible in public, we all realize that the Bible has serious problems and should have no place in our society.
This is a seriously flawed argument. The problems that would result if this argument were applied consistently throughout society should be obvious. Free speech would be out the window, because we would no longer be allowed to offend anyone. No one who offends people should have a place in society according to the author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees!
The second problem is defining offensive. My mother-in-law hates the Harry Potter series. She once flew into a rage at the mere mention of J.K. Rowling, and confirmed hating Rowling as the “logical” extension of hating Harry Potter.
I’m a Christian, and I love Christ as much as she does. Harry Potter doesn’t offend me. I’ve read and enjoyed the series, and I like the majority of the movies (#3 and #6, despite being the cream of the crop for the books, were the worst movies). So, my mother-in-law is offended by the Harry Potter series, while I am not. Which one of us is right?
What about Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series? I was hooked on that series from page one of The Golden Compass, and quickly purchased the remaining two before I was halfway through that book so that there would be no interruption in reading the series. It is perhaps my favorite trilogy of all time, and I’m sorely upset that the proposed movie series was a dud.
The books declare that the universe winked into existence from nothing-nothing (H/T to Francis Schaeffer for that term); that “God” was really just the first angel (perhaps a corruption of Col 1:15?), claiming to the inhabitants of the randomly-formed universe that he created them; that “God” is evil and Satan is good, since Satan is fighting for freedom from divine subjugation; and The Amber Spyglass features the death of “God” and the success of Lord Asriel’s rebellion, the purpose of which was to destroy God and set up a new heaven. Should I be offended by this, given that it is the complete antithesis of what I believe?
Many Christians are offended by those books. But I happen to love the series and plan to reread it someday–and I never reread books. I hate rereading and never do it unless the book is beyond awesome. The only other book I have ever deemed worthy of rereading is The Hound of the Baskervilles, which I have read three times already and likely will read again someday.
Who’s going to decide if I’m right to love His Dark Materials? Who’s going to decide if my mother-in-law is right in deriding Harry Potter?
Who decides what is offensive and therefore has no place in civilized society?
The critic may retort that we just know without the need to rely on an outside judge. Really? Well, under an atheistic worldview, there is no ought; only what is. Admitting that we will just know that the Bible (or anything else, for that matter) is offensive presupposes an objective moral standard which binds us all to certain sensibilities. Such a thing is a natural consequence of the theistic viewpoint, but is a serious obstacle to pure naturalism–which the atheist often argues. To argue that society will just know that the Bible is offensive presupposes theism and works against atheism.
Without presupposing an objective moral standard, it is impossible to appropriately define offensive. Therefore, this challenge is based on seriously faulty grounds, and should be dismissed.