With Due Respect: Christianity is like atheism, just one God less!

It is often touted that Christians are actually atheists. The author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins has said that Christians are actually atheists with respect to Greek gods (such as Zeus) and the Norse gods (such as Thor and Odin).

But it makes no sense!

However, what defines an atheist is the lack of belief in ALL gods, not just simply one god. To make the statement that "Christianity is like atheism, just one god less" is like saying "marriage is like singlehood, just one relationship less".

If you allow me to extend the analogy, suppose Gentleman A is married to Lady B. Would it be right to say that Gentleman A is single with respect to unmarried Lady C? Of course not! Gentleman A would still be married to Lady B with (or without) respect to Lady C.

Similarly, a Christian is still as Christian in the light of Zeus or Odin.

Isn't the atheism the default state?

I'm not too sure about this assumption either. Recent research (Barrett, 2004; Foster, 2010*) has revealed that if anything, children are born religious. They seem to start a belief that some supernatural agent is responsible for the workings of the world. In other words, atheism was seen to be something to be learnt, rather than a default state to maintain.

While this observation certainity does not prove Christianity or atheism true, one must not be to hasty to conclude atheism is the default state.

Conclusion

While it may sound cool, sweeping statements like "Christianity is atheism with one less god" does not hold water. The Christian must be wary in engaging in such word games-- while it may be fun, Christians are dealing with people's eternal destinies.


References

Barrett, J. (2004) Why Would Anyone Believe in God?

Foster, C.A. (2010) Wired for God?

* Foster is not a scientist, but rather a lawyer. However, he wrote a review about the biology of religion in Wired for God? which is interesting to read.

Update: My new job

A collection of beetles (Coleoptera)

 My new career

I have some great news! I just started my term at NIE (National Institute of Education)! For those not in the know, I am now a student at an institute that trains teachers.

This grants me my long, sought-after relief from academia. I will now be spending one year learning how to teach.

 

 My timetable appears rather hectic, so as a result, expect the freuqncy of posts to drop. Not to worry, I will still be keeping this blog updated, at least bimonthly.

So take care, and remember, God loves you.

God bless,

defensedefumer

Alternative Culture: Singapore's train problems and the limits of man

 

City Airport Train, Vienna, Austria 2011

Triple train trouble!
In December 2011, Singapore (my country) suffered three major train (a.k.a. MRT [Mass Rapid Transit]) disruptions. As these incidents were consider the worst malfunctions in the 24-year history of the MRT, many have called the CEO to step down.

Having studied in London for the past 4 years, I was initially quite surprised by such demands. If the CEO had to step down everytime there was a line malfunction, then the CEO of the London Underground (London's train services) must have stepped down many times. However one of my friends pointed out that the MRT have often touted itself as being the best, so such incidents was considered a slap to the face to its reputation. Furthermore as many as 125,000 people were affected by one of the disruptions, making it a major accident.

So should the CEO stepped down?

If you're looking for a political analysis of the situation, you're viewing the wrong blog. I'm just humbly here to give a theological view of the event, and that will be the purpose of this post.

I'm here not to criticise the MRT management or the engineers. In fact Singaporean engineers are one of the best in the world. During my time at Imperial College, the students who topped every engineering course I could think of (Electrical, Mechanical, Material, Chemical and Aeronautical) were Singaporeans. In additional to that, I would go on record to say that travelling on the Singapore train/subway/metropolitan is very reliable.

The limits of man
But it's a strange situation isn't it? Despite possessing some of the best engineers in the world, the MRT was shown to be prone to breakdowns. But this isn't the first time man's pride was shamed, isn't it? We were once told somethings were unsinkable, and others would last for a thousand years. And this (series of MRT malfunctions) is in the field of engineering, one of the most highly disciplined fields in academia.

And it's not just in the issue of engineering that man struggles with. We struggle with health, self-worth, justice, poverty, morality, artistic expression and so many other things. And often we tend to elate man's ability to solve everything. If we even struggle to solve for these issues, then what about the issue of salvation, our eternal destinies?

[I am not saying we shouldn't work on these fields, but I'm merely highlighting man's limitation in these areas.]

The ultimate struggle
And here's the ultimate struggle for Christians--we either tend to be religious, or irreligious (Keller, 2007). To be religious, is to look within ourselves-- our acts, achievements, behaviours and morality for justification before God. Then the religious would look to the others and condemned the others for not following the traditions they do.

To be irreligious is also another great temptation-- it is to deny there is a problem with the world and us, and therefore do not see a need for accounting before God.

Both the religious and irreligious can be dangerous forms of self-centredness. Chesterton (1908) used the analogy of images of Buddhist saints to illustrate this well-- that we close our eyes to the world and look within ourselves for satisfaction.

What about Jesus?
Just as a Roman centurion looked to Jesus for his servant's healing and a father looked to Jesus for his son's exorcism, we must look to Jesus (and not ourselves) as our source of justification. As the Reformer Luther (1520) wrote that it was by "impiety and incredulity of heart" that mankind became deserving of "condemnation". In being religious or irreligious, a man makes himself "as an idol in his own heart".

So how do we save ourselves?
You can't!-- that's the point! That's why we can be grateful for Christmas. If we could do everything on our own, God didn't have to come down. So take heart, my Christian friends. There's grace! The salvation issue is not about what we can do for God (being religious), or how we redefine God (being irreligious). It's not about how much faith we have in Jesus either. It's about whether we trust Him in the first place.

And we can. That's why I can joyfully and truthfully declare "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

Reference

Chesterton, G.K. (1908) Orthodoxy

Keller, T.J. (2007) The Reason For God

Luther, M. (1520) Freedom of a Christian

Theology 1.0: The Reformation in England and Scotland-- a tale of two Reformations

[Author's note: The following post is dedicated to Dishon, who is interested in what happened to England during the Reformation]

Leeds Castle, UK, September 2011

Pre-Reformation Britain
Robert Grosseteste
England and Scotland, although not the most powerful countries at those times has a unique relationship with the Reformation. For instance, long before Luther came up with his understanding of justification, there was Robert Grosseteste. Grosseteste was appointed the Bishop of Lincoln in 1235. He believed that clergy should place more importance in preaching than giving Mass, and that preaching should be done in English (so that the commoners would understand), rather than Latin (as all Roman Catholics priests would). He was also famous for speaking against the pope on several issues, including the appointments of non-English speaking clergy in England, and the paying of the crusades.

The exhumation and burning of Wycliffe's bones.

John Wycliffe
Then there was also John Wycliffe, who was a preacher in Oxford. During his time, the Roman Catholic church appointed two popes (see my Reformation post for details). He then began to identify the Bible as the source of spiritual authority (rather than the pope). Having ideas which were contrary to orthodox Roman Catholic beliefs (such as rejecting papal authority), he soon irked the English authorities enough to force him to retire. After retiring, he started a secret project to translate the Latin Bible into English. He passed away in 1384, thankfully before the Roman Catholic Council of Constance deemed him a heretic. They exhumed his body, burned his bones and scattered his ashes.

Yet his legacy lived-- his works would inspire the Czech Jan Hus, and later the Reformer Martin Luther.

Patrick Hamilton
Born in Glasgow, Patrick Hamilton was appointed an abbot and received his education at the University of Paris. Paris was where Hamilton would encounter the works of the Reformer Martin Luther. Returning to Scotland, he began to preach, and soon was tried as a heretic and burned in 1528. Despite his high connections, Hamilton was willing to die for his beliefs (he agreed to be tried knowing the likely consequence). This raised the profile of Protestantism in Scotland, as many commoners wondered why this new theology was that one was so ready to be killed for it.

Thomas Bliney
Educated in Cambridge,  Thomas Bliney had a personal struggle with sin, but came  an understanding of salvation via faith in Jesus Christ with the passage of 1 Timothy 1:15 of the Erasmus's translation of the New Testament. Just as Erasmus's work inspired the Reformation in Germany with Martin Luther and Switzerland with Ulrich Zwingli, Bliney began to preach against saints and relics veneration, and against pilgrimages to holy places. However, Bliney was no Lutheran-- he upheld the authority of the pope and the sacrifice of Mass. Nevertheless, he was still burned for his views in 1531.

William Tyndale
As Luther's works began to flood into England (despite a ban), a linguist named William Tyndale started translating the Bible into English. Inspired by Erasmus's translation of the New Testament, Tyndale decided to sail for the German town of Worms (where Martin Luther had been tried years ago) to read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek. His translation of the New Testament, together with his work, Parable of the Wicked Mammon (which argued for salvation by faith alone) was smuggled back to England. Followers of the late Wycliffe treated the works as a godsend; the English bishops on the other hand were not so keen.

Tyndale had translated 'do penance' in the Latin Bible as 'repent' in the English, 'charity' as 'love' and 'priest' as 'senior'. What was once viewed as an external sacrament, was now a call for the inward change of the heart. Tyndale had translated a good portion of the Old Testament before the wrath of the Roman Catholics caught up with him. About 16,000 copies of his translations had been smuggled into England. Executed in 1535, his famous last words were "Lord, open the King of England's eyes!".

The Reformation in England-- the monarchs
Henry VIII
The king that Tyndale was talking about was Henry VIII. Ironically, he was the one who kick start the Reformation in England.

King Henry VIII

King Henry VIII was a deeply religious king-- he would serve Mass to his priests and attend Mass thrice a day. Passionately Roman Catholic, he opposed the Reformer Martin Luther's view with his work, A Defense of the Seven Sacraments (written by several ghost writers). For his zeal, the pope award him with the title, Defender of the Faith. It was highly unlikely that this king would be favourable to the Reformation.

The most potent problem that King Henry VIII was being without a son. He had just went through a war of succession (War of the Roses), and having a son was essential for political stability. His wife, Catherine of Aragon underwent a series of miscarriages, only one baby (Mary I) survived passed infanthood. Interpreting this as punishment for marrying his brother's widow(Leviticus 20:21), Henry VIII sought to annul his marriage and find a new wife. He sough papal favour (with Pope Clement VII) to do so.

But there were two problems-- firstly, Catherine of Aragon insisited that her marriage with Henry VIII's brother was never consummated, so her marriage with Henry VIII was legitimate. Secondly, Catherine of Aragon's nephew was Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire. Charles V had sacked Rome once and imprisoned Pope Clement VII. There was no way the pope was going to irk the wrath of Charles V again.

But the king was determined. He assembled an army of scholars to prove that his case was right, and that the pope had no authority over him. They did one better-- they showed that the church in England was planted earlier than the church of Rome, and thus the church of England was independent of the church of Rome.

Armed with this reasoning, King Henry VIII made laws to favour to reflect the increasing independence of the church of England, annulled his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, appointed Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the church of England) and married Anne Boleyn. The separation between the churches of England and Rome was complete in 1534, where the English Act of Supremacy declared the King of England, the supreme head of the church of England.

However, his marriage with Anne Boleyn failed to produce a male heir, and rumors that she was having an affair spread. So she was executed and King Henry VIII married Jane Seymour. She was his favourite wife as she bore him his only son (Edward VI). However, she died from complications in childbirth.

Although Henry VIII had a son, he wanted more to secure his succession. With the suggestion of his chief minister Thomas Cromwell (not to be mistaken for Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell; who ruled England a century later), he married Anne of Cleves, but was so repulsed by her that he never consummated the marriage. Cromwell paid with his head, and the marriage was soon annulled.

He then married Catherine Howard, but she was caught being unfaithful, so she was executed. He finally married Catherine Parr, but it was a childless marriage. King Henry VIII died, leaving Edward VI to succeed him.

Summary of Henry VIII's marriages

One thing to be noted is that King Henry was no Protestant (despite his break with the Roman Catholic Church). Although he had appointed a Protestant Archbishop (Thomas Cranmer), a Protestant Chief Minister (Thomas Cromwell), and married Protestant wifes (only Catherine of Aragon and Catherine Howard were Roman Catholic), all King Henry VIII was interested in was to deny the pope's supremacy in England. In other words, he did not want a Roman Catholic England or a Protestant England, he wanted an English Catholic England (the difficulty is deciding what was Roman to be rid of, and what was Catholic to be retained).  For instance, in a single day he burned three Protestants for heresy and hanged three Roman Catholics for treason.

Nevertheless, he appointed Protestants in key positions (who pushed their Protestant agendas). Egged on by Thomas Cromwell, he stripped the Roman Catholics monasteries of their land (which he sold for funds).

Furthermore, having used the Bible for his case for his first annulment, it was hard for the king to limit the authority of Scripture. He decreed that every church should have at least one Bible. Soon private Bible-reading became a popular hobby (even the illiterate started to learn how to read, to be in touch with the Word of God), and common folk started challenging priests on their theological ideas. Although King Henry VIII was not really Protestant, he had unleashed the Reformation in England.

Edward VI
In 1547, Edward VI was nine, and succeeded his father as king. Due to his youth, his uncle, Edward Seymour ruled in his stead as Lord Protector. Seymour and the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer worked to acclimatised England to the Reformation. Only preaching in English was allowed, images of saints were removed from churches and chantries were dissolved (as they encouraged praying for people in purgatory).

King Edward VI

The Reformists in the English government were adamant is ensuring that the move from Roman Catholic theology was a slow reform, rather than rapid revolution. For instance, the 1549 English Book of Common Prayer procedure for Mass included the words "The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given to thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life". Both Reformists and Catholics could attend Mass with clear conscience.

However, Edward VI died at the age of 15 in 1553. John Dudley, who had succeeded Edward Seymour as Lord Protector panicked-- he knew the person in line was the strongly Catholic Mary (Edward VI's half-sister). He appointed Lady Jane Grey (Mary's cousin) to be the next queen, but to no avail. The people were more interested in the monarchy than religion. Mary gained support and dispatched Lady Grey to be executed. The Protestants supported Mary, unaware of how harshly she would treat them.

Mary I
Daughter of Catherine of Aragon (Henry VIII's first wife), Mary had been declared illegitimate when her father broke with the church of Rome. To Queen Mary, the Reformation was not only promoting a heresy, but the source of all her troubles.

Swiftly, Queen Mary instilled Roman Catholic policies. Cardinal Pole replaced Thomas Crammer as Archbishop of Cantebury. Married clegry were separated from their wives. Bibles were removed from churches. At first, the English people generally happy to accomodate.

To wipe out twenty years of history was going to difficult. For one, forcing landowners to return their land to the monastrieswas unpopular. Secondly, the people had already read the Bible, so they had doubts about Roman Catholic teachings. Thirdly, her choice of potential spouse was the future King Phillip II of Spain, a traditional enemy of the English.

Mary's policies soon became brutal-- she burnt popular Protestant preachers and figures like Hugh Latimer (Bishop of Worcester), Nicholas Ridley (Bishop of London) and Thomas Cranmer  (ex-Archbishop of Cantebury). Watching the brave martyrs die had the undesired effect for Mary-- the populace were moved by the courage of the martyrs (although Cranmer renounced Protestantism initially under torture, he took back back renouncement before his execution). Hundreds of Protestants were killed during Bloody Mary's reign.

Mary passed away from stomach cancer in 1558, without an heir, allowing her sister, Elizabeth to take the throne.

Elizabeth I
The famed Queen Elizabeth I regarded her reign as God's work-- after all, she survived Bloody Mary's policies. And Elizabeth I had to be Protestant-- her mother was the reason why the England broke from Rome, and Rome did not recognise Elizabeth I's reign as legitimate.

Knowing there were many different Protestant factions in England, as the head of the Church of England, she kept to a very English Protestantism. She wanted England to be a united, moderate Protestant nation. Everyone had to go church, whether they agreed with the theology behind it or not. Catholics did not need to take Communion if they did not want to, but just had to attend church. Elizabeth was concerned that foreign Catholic nations might invade if she was too Protestant.

Not that it helped-- in 1570, the Pope encouraged English Roman Catholics to rise up against their Queen. Now being a Catholic was dangerous-- Elizabeth I had tolerated them, now they were seen as traitors. The Catholics of Europe saw England as a sole Protestant nation to be brought down-- if England fell, the spirit of the Reformation would die.

The Catholic's hope was in Elizabeth I's Catholic cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots. If Elizabeth was assassinated, she would be the next queen. But this Mary was neither popular in Scotland, nor with Elizabeth I. Under arrest in England, Mary was soon suspected of treason and executed. Mary's son, James was being brought up by Protestants. The English Protestant line seemed secured, even if Elizabeth remained virgin (and hence childless).

In 1588, the Catholics had enough. Under the pretext of making England Catholic, King Philip II lauched the Spanish Armada against England. With the help of bad weather, the English navy defeated Spain. Elizabeth I saw this as God's blessing on a Protestant nation. She continued her Protestant moderation.

The old Roman Catholic ways slowly died out in England-- the only Bible the people knew was English, the only church they attended was Protestant and the only Protestant theology was taught. This secured Protestantism in England.


The Reformation in Scotland-- the people
 John Knox
While King Henry VIII of England was having marriage problems with the Roman Catholic Church, King James V of Scotland had no problems with Rome. He was already the head of the Church of Scotland, and there was no benefit for James V to break with Rome.

John Knox

In 1542, James V passed away, and Mary, Queen of Scots was next in line. However, she was still an infant, and James Hamilton, the Earl of Arran was her regent. James Hamilton was famous for flipflopping between Protestantism and Catholicism.

In 1543, James Hamilton favoured the Protestants. Bibles were sold and Protestant preachers were appointed to church positions. He even had Cardinal David Beaton of St Andrews arrested.

In 1544, James Hamilton favoured the Catholics. Reading the Bible (in the vernacular) was illegal again, and the leading Protestant preacher, George Wishart was burned as a heretic. Upset, the Scottish Protestants marched up to St Andrews castle and murdered Cardinal Beaton in 1546. French troops (under Scottish permission) marched up to St Andrews castle and defeated the Protestants. Wishart's ex-bodyguard, John Knox was among the defenders.

Condemned to be slaves on board French ships, Knox and his defenders caused problems for his captors. Knox refused to respect the Catholic Mass and tossed an image of the Virgin Mary overboard. In 1549 he was released (under unclear circumstances).

Taking refuge in England, Knox tried to persuade Thomas Cranmer to speed up the Reformation in England. When Bloody Mary took over, he left for Geneva. Coming into the city that hosted the Reformist John Calvin, John Knox thought Geneva to be a paradise. In 1558, he penned The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. To Knox, the horrors unleashed on both England and Scotland were due to the reigns of both Blood Mary and Mary, Queen of Scots. It was poorly timed, as Mary I's reign was short. No way would Queen Elizabeth allow Knox to return after writing such a sexist book.

Nevertheless, Knox returned to Scotland in 1559. There, his sermons stroke up passions of Protestantism. Despite being declared an outlaw, Catholicism was beginning to be seen as something foreign. After all, Mary, Queen of Scots was living in France, married a French and was brought up in France. Soon Protestantism was fused with Scottish nationalism, and the French were driven out of Scotland (with the help of the English; Queen Elizabeth I would rather have a Protestant Scotland than a Catholic one).

In 1560, the Scotish Parliment declared that the pope no longer had any authority in Scotland, and a new confession of faith (the Scots Confession) was drawn up by John Knox. Mary, Queen of Scots, returned to Scotland the next year, but she had to accept a Protestant Scotland, whether she liked it or not.

Conclusion
What a turn of events! In 1558, both England and Scotland were Catholic, but both became Protestant in 1560. Yet the story of the Reformation in both these kingdoms were different. For one, the Reformation in England was monarchy-driven, while the Reformation in Scotland were people driven.

Now when comparing the stories of the Reformation in England, Scotland, Wittenburg (led by Luther), Geneva (led by Calvin) and Zurich (led by Zwingli), I am quite surprised by how different the events were. While it is possible to use the Reformation for political purposes (as in England), the Reformation can also occur without political support (as in Zurich and Geneva).

What this showed that the Reformation was not moral, social or political reform dressed up in theological clothing, but that a theological revolution laid underneath everything. As a project to keep living the gospel, we should not belittle the fact that theology may drive history.


For further reading

Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame

Ryle, J.C. (1960) Five English Reformers

Recommended websites

Theology Network

Alternative Culture: Matthew Parris-- As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

[Editor's note: In December 2008, the British newspaper The Times posted an interesting article on aid in Africa by atheist journalist, Matthew Parris. I have reposted it in this blog.]

Lake Victoria, Uganda, 2009

Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it's Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.

We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.

Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers - in some ways less so - but more open.

This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. "Privately" because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.

It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.

There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: "theirs" and therefore best for "them"; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.

I don't follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the "big man" and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.

Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.

How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds - at the very moment of passing into the new - that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? "Because it's there," he said.

To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It's... well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary's further explanation - that nobody else had climbed it - would stand as a second reason for passivity.

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.

Alternative Culture: Gutters-- the New Testament, a new reboot?

Recently, the webcomic Gutters portrayed the New Testament as a reboot of the Old Testament, parodying the 2011 DC comics reboot.

Wait... what is a reboot?
In the comic industry, a reboot is to discard all or much of previous continuity of the series to accomodate new ideas. An example of this in the film industry is the 2005 movie Batman Begins, which discards canon in the previous canon.

So is this portrayal of the New Testament accurate? Does it discard the canon of the Old Testament?

What did Jesus say?
When we look at Christainity, we first have to look at Christ, and in this case on how he treated the Old Testament. Jesus treated the Old Testament as something he came to fulfil (Matthew 5:17-21). Jesus also had a high regard for Scripture (John 10:35), and referred to events that happened in the Old Testament (eg: Mark 12:26).

What did his followers say?
The followers of Jesus also made frequent reference. It would make little sense if the disciples intended to discard the Old Testament and yet frequently referred to it (eg: Romans 2:24; 1 Peter 1:16).

So did Jesus disregard anything from the Old Testament?
If he made anything new, Jesus gave a new convenant- one of his blood (Luke 22:20-23). The writer of Hebrews makes this even clearer, especially in Hebrews 8 (and at the same time, alluding to events in the Old Testament.

Wait, but reboots do make references to the past too, right?
That is true. For instance, the Iron Man comic book series received a reboot, which updated his origin from Vietnam to Afghanistan. However, that reboot did not dicard any of his previous stories. However, the New Testament cannot be loosely compared like that as the Old Testament does alludes to events in the New Testament (specifically the life of Jesus), while older story lines in the Iron Man stories do not intentionally allude to the future retcons.

Allusions to the New Testament went as far back as Genesis (eg: Genesis 3:14-15) and found in many of the prophets (eg: Isaiah 53, Isaiah 9:1-2, Micah 5:2). In fact Micah 5:2 was the verse that the wisemen quoted in finding Jesus (which frightened Herod) (Matthew 2: 1-12).

Conclusion
Hence, we see that the New Testament is not a reboot (in the literature sense) because
a) Frequent reference to Old Testament from the New Testament (including Jesus)
b) Future allusions from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

If the New Testament brings anything new, it is the fact that God came down in Jesus, so that we can look at Him for our righteousness and forgiveness.

For further reading

Alpha-- do prophecies about Jesus Matter?
Bethinking-- how did Jesus view the Old Testament?


PS: Gutters is a great parody site for comic book fans!

With Due Respect: Martin Luther is Anti-Semite!

Holocaust memorial in Berlin, 2008

One of the greatest atrocities commited in the history of mankind was the attempted mass extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany. This event, known as the Holocaust, killed about 6 million Jews in Europe (about two-thirds of European Jews), and millions of others whom the Nazis deemed "weak" such as the Slaves, the Gypsies and the infirmed.

In order to sway public opinion against the Jews, the Nazis used On Jews and their Lies (one of Martin Luther's tracts) and advocated it as the epitome of German virtues. Undoubtly, the tract contains slanderous material against the Jews, such as descibring than as being full of "devil's feces" and that their synagouge (place of worship) as a "whore" and "slut". Hence, Lutherean churchs have distanced and denounced the tract.

Often it is easy to conclude that the Reformer Martin Luther was anti-Jew and thus dismiss his theology in one swoop. But not only is this view a lazy representation of his theology, it is also a caricature of it.

Getting a few things straight....
Luther's style
One must understand that Luther's writing style is deliberately provoking. For instance, in his work Table Talk, he argued against the philosophy of Aristole, stating Aristole's reasoning is the "enemy" of Christian faith. While I am not condoning Luther's choice of words, one must understand how he wrote before assessing him hastily (Reeves, 2009).

Supporting the Jews
In fact, in 1523 Luther wrote That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, arguing against the mistreatment of Jews by Christian. He dedicated his work to a converted Jew  (whom he later would support financially and whose son he would house).

So why did Luther have a change of heart?

Anti-Semite?
After years of attemtping to convert Jews to Christianity, he described them as having a certain "hardness of heart" that prevented them from seeing how their own Scriptures led to Jesus. He wrote on Jews and their Lies as a response against attacks by Jewish apologists on Christianity.

Although painful to read (due to Luther's choice of harsh language), he argued that being children of Abraham was a matter of adoption, rather than family line. He went on to show how Jesus is the promised Christ from the Old Testament.

After that he went on to make a list of recommendations of how then standard anti-blasphemy laws show be applied to Jews. To be fair to Luther, he also argued against acts of personal vengenace against the Jews.

Conclusion
So was Luther racist? Not really. He was more against their spirtual beliefs than their genetic makeup. He argued against them, not because of their race (as the Nazis were against), but rather against Judasim (their religion). The harshness of the punishments recommended against them were standard against heretics of that time.

Nevertheless, his harsh tone towards the Jews (or more accurately, Judaism) had made his legacy a tough pill to swallow.

For more, read:

Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame