"GOD IS NOT GREAT!"

Christopher Hitchens recently published a book by this title in which he attributes all of Humanity's ills to "religion" in one guise or another. The word 'religion' isn't one I entirely feel comfortable with because it is hardly a Biblical word at all and it is a word which often brings a lot of preconceived notions in tow which I don't believe are very helpful. I am a Christian but I do not consider myself "religious"! But for the sake of argument let's stick with the word Hitchens uses.

Hitchens is another shrill voice in a recent spate of attacks upon religion. There seems to be an element of panic within the intelligentsia which once confidently predicted the extinction of all religions and anticipated the inevitable dawn of a new rationalist era. The resurgence of religion as a force on the world stage has left these complacent opinion shapers non-plussed and fearful for the future of humanity. History is not following their script.

Hitchens appears to attribute all evil to religion and all good to the Humanist cause. To this end he conveniently redefines the secular ideologies of Hitler and Stalin as "religions" and dragoons Christians like Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer into the ranks of the Humanists! So much special pleading will cause even the most ardent Hitchens' fan some pause for thought surely! It seems to me a rather desperate expedient which causes him to twist the facts to fit his ideologically driven argument... and surely it is the ideologue's desire to rewrite history we all should beware! It is the natural default setting of humans to "otherise" evil - to attribute all that is wrong with the world to some outgroup and to make out that one's own tribe is on the side of the angels. And surely it is that condemnation of the innocent with the guilty for ideological reasons that is the real cause of evil.... Hitchens has fallen head first into that trap.... secularists are all good, religionists are all bad in a 'cowboys and indians' argument.

There is one aspect of Hitchens' argument which does bear some consideration. The means by which he redefines Nazism and Stalinism as "religions" is their "messianic" and utopian pretentions. And in that regard he is not wrong. But it is precisely those pretentions which caused thoughtful (as opposed to duped)Christians at the time to see these ideologies as anti-thetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.... in a very real sense these belief systems were "Anti-Christ" systems. The Bible already had a category for critiquing such movements when history shows that it took a good deal longer for the intelligentsia to realise these idols had feet of clay. As astonishing as it seems now there were many western secularists and humanists who defended Stalin and the Soviet system as a force for good. At the time the Stalinist and the Nazi would have argued that their beliefs were firmly founded on scientific rationalism - Marxist economics and Social Darwinism respectively, each claiming the imprimatur of scientific certainty. They certainly would never have regarded these as matters of 'faith'! And certainly not faith in God! Given that historical background, the question is how can you ever know whether your beliefs are truly rational? And if Hitchens' idea is correct how can you ever know if your beliefs are even truly secular?

Applying Hitchens' criteria Humanism is a "religion" because it has a utopian vision of mankind and even if it lacks a specific "messiah" figure it certainly exalts the human spirit so that each individual is their own saviour. Oh and it even has its own heresy hunters too!

In the final anaysis it is only the Gospel which accurately describes the world as it truly is. Quite why it is assumed that people like me make irrational "leaps of faith" rather than weigh up which viewpoint actually describes the world as it really is is a mystery to me, the truth is I never could make the credulous "leap of faith" required by humanist doctrine! When such dogma repeatedly misdiagnoses the human condition and Jesus gets it unerringly right everytime I don't consider that much of a 'leap' at all!

The solution to all anti-christ ideologies is not secularism (whatever that now means!) but Jesus - the real Christ.

"THE MILLENNIUM!"
= Jesus is Lord!

Considering the amount of theological
ink which has been used up over the
years to describe 'The Millennium'
of chapter 20 of the Book of
Revelation one would think that the
church would have reached some sort
of consensus about its significance.
My co-leader was preparing this study
when she phoned me to say it had her
stumped and could I help; I said to
her "I would absolutely love to lead
a study on Revelation 20!"

So before we leave our review of the
last book of the Bible, I'd like to
end with some comments on this
important topic culled from my
study prep.

The issue isn't as esoteric as it
sounds because upon this interpret-
ation turns ones understanding of
'The Kingdom of God' which Jesus
came to inaugurate: this in turn
colours what we understand to be
the future of God's people and even
determines who qualifies as "God's
people". Some camps even use one's
interpretation of the Millennium
as a test of one's orthodoxy. This
is sad because what I am about to
say will cause some of my brothers
and sisters in Christ to fall out
with me, though assuredly I have
not fallen out with them.

It seems clear to me that (as
with "The 144,000" we discussed
last month) "The Millennium"
(that is 1,000 years) is a
metaphor for The Kingdom of God
as a present reality. Now some
good hearted people will object
by replying "how can you claim
we are in The Millennium now,
the world is in such a state that
it is an insult to say that God
rules! And besides which doesn't
20 v3 state that Satan is bound
during the Millennium - how can
that be a present reality?"

The crucial thing to say in reply
is that the passage specifies
exactly in what way Satan is bound,
it does not say he cannot continue
to do evil - it does say that there
is one supreme evil he cannot do;
he cannot "deceive the nations any
longer". The Good News of Jesus
Christ is out and Satan can do
nothing to contain it!

Those who come to faith in Jesus
are described as enjoying "the first
resurrection" (that is why being
"Born Again" is such a powerful
metaphor); note that those who
merely have the second (physical)
resurrection only do not share in
the blessing of the "First
Resurrection... over such the second
death has no power" v6. Someone once
summarised this by saying, 'He who
is born twice dies once, he who is
born once dies twice!"

Isn't this exactly the same theology
Paul describes in Ephesians 2 v1-10?
For sure it is couched in different
language, in a different genre, by
a different human author - but the
divine authorship shines through both
because it is the one and the same
message! There is a wonderful
consistency about it.

Jesus is Lord!




ps Incidentally why do some
people take 'the Mark of the Beast'
to be literal, when they would
never dream of interpreting 'the
Mark of The Lamb' this way - the
lack of consistency in some so-called
"literal" readings of these Revelation
metaphors should give some pause for
thought.

06:06:06 & the coming of
the anti-christ!
Am I missing something?
But doesn't this date come
around every century?!