New Atheism and its Challenge to Dis-Prove the Existence of God

New Atheist and physicist, Victor Stenger, laments that most atheists don’t challenge and ridicule religious belief. Therefore, he lays out several put-up-or-shut-up challenges for theists. (However, he seems to have Christians in mind.):

• Many of the attributes associated with the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God have specific consequences that can be tested empirically [scientifically]. Such a God is supposed to play a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. As a result, evidence for him should be readily detectable by scientific means. If a properly conducted experiment were to come up with an observation that cannot be explained by natural means, then science would have to take seriously the possibility of a world beyond matter. 

However, Stenger has already stacked-the-deck against the theist and has retained for himself the trump cards. For one thing, science is unable to directly detect or measure transcendent causation. Let’s just start with miraculous causation as opposed to “non-miraculous,” everyday, formulaic, transcendent causation.

Science is based on experimentation and replication. However, by their very nature, miracles are delivered upon demand into the laboratory. Instead of phenomena amenable to laws and replication, they are isolated one-time events. Therefore, while they are highly amenable to anecdotal attestation, they allude science.

Nevertheless, Stenger cites intercessory prayer studies, claiming that “they should have shown scientifically that some god exists.” As he lays down his trump card, he exults that “They did not.”

However, he never asked God if He is amenable to this form of testing. Of course the New Atheist confidently asserts that if god exists, surely, He would want to provide this kind of evidence to prove His existence. This assertion, however, refuses to acknowledge that He has already proved Himself in so many ways that humanity is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20) for denying His existence.

Revealingly, the more miracles Jesus performed, the more His enemies wanted to kill Him. Consequently, the Bible reveals that the problem of disbelief isn’t a lack of evidences but a lack of a willingness to acknowledge them.

Stenger then cites near-death-experiences (NDEs), claiming that they too haven’t proved anything. However, there is a wealth of NDE evidence where the subjects flat-lined and had extra-body experiences, through which they were later able to accurately relate what they had seen in the next room and even outside of the hospital.

However, Stenger retorts:

• Whether this is a real experience or a hallucination can be tested easily by placing a secret message on a high shelf out of sight of the patient and the hospital staff. This has been tried, and no one reporting on an NDE has yet to read the message.

Stenger’s trump card demands the incredible. Why should the NDE subjects even bother to try to find and read his secret message? Could we fault them for not sitting down in the hospital library and studying one of their medical texts? Perhaps they had other things to see and do.

Stenger sets the standard of proof ridiculously high. It’s like disqualifying God because no one has ever produced His business card. Perhaps instead, He has no interest in distributing business cards and networking.

To reiterate, Stenger challenged:

• If a properly conducted experiment were to come up with an observation that cannot be explained by natural means, then science would have to take seriously the possibility of a world beyond matter.

However, naturalists have always proved adept at providing explanations, no matter how fanciful. All recognize that the laws of physics are incredibly fine-tuned for life. Some have said that the likelihood of finding such a well-tuned universe is only 1 chance out of 10 followed by a hundred zeros – an utterly mind-boggling unlikelihood.

However, this ID monument was not able to silence the New Atheists, who retorted with the idea of a multiverse. According to them, if there is a near-infinite number of universes, the odds are that one of them would be just right and would somehow perpetuate itself.

Evidently, it doesn’t disturb them that there is not even one shred of scientific evidence of even a second universe. This demonstrates that there is no end to implausible explanations with no relationship whatsoever to the evidence. If the New Atheist is satisfied with the “multiverse,” then there is no reason to believe that any evidence would ever be persuasive enough to cause them to “take seriously the possibility of a world beyond matter,” as Stenger claims that such evidence would.

Stenger surprisingly concludes,

• After evaluating all the evidence, we can conclude that the universe and life look exactly as they would be expected to look if there were no God.

What evidence? While Stenger challenges the theist to provide scientific evidence for God, there is not even one shred of scientific evidence that anything happens naturally. Indeed, events occur formulaicly, according to the laws of nature. All scientists agree there. However, are these laws natural and unintelligent or do they have a transcendent origin and design?

Although science can’t directly answer this question of ultimate causation, there are many reasons to believe that our laws are transcendent, perhaps even arising from the mind of God:

1. They operate uniformly throughout the universe. Any force or power located within time and space cannot operate uniformly. The further we travel from a radio station or volcano, the less influence its force will have.

2. The laws are omnipresent. Forces within time and space are not.

3. The laws are immutable. Forces within time and space are not. Instead, they are subject to the same changes – molecules-in-motion – that affects everything within the universe.

4. They are omnipotent and irrepressible. They act on everything, and nothing in the universe acts upon them.

5. They are simple, harmonious and elegant. They enable scientific inquiry. There is no reason whatsoever that such laws could have been the result of an explosion – the Big Bang.

The laws of physics therefore seem to exist beyond the pressures of this universe. The Bible describes them as “the fixed laws of heaven and earth” (Jer. 33:25).

This total lack of evidence, of course, should make us wonder if the New Atheists are just as religious as they claim us to be. They believe in the incredible and scientifically unsupportable notions of materialism and naturalism. Do they have any proof that nothing exists apart from the material?

I would suggest that it is Stenger who should run some scientific experiments to determine whether his god of materialism and naturalism exists – the naturalistic “god of the gaps.”

The atheist often challenges me to prove that God exists. I’ve learned that they can always invent a competing naturalistic explanation. Instead, I’ve learned to say, “Well, if you can prove you exist (and they can’t), then I’ll prove God exists.”

Stenger concludes that “Blind faith is no way to run a world,” and I agree.

Logic: A Needless Hindrance if you’re Trying to Influence

Buddhist and Hindu philosophers tend to quote from the New Testament, claiming its wisdom as their own, offering an interpretation that erroneously coincides with their own beliefs. Eckhart Tolle, Oprah’s guru, quotes liberally from the NT. Here’s one example:

• “The wisdom of this world is folly with God” [1 Cor. 3:19]. What is the wisdom of this world? The movement of thought, and meaning that is defined exclusively by thought. (A New Earth, 196)

What did Paul mean by “the wisdom of the world?” He was contrasting the “wisdom of world” with the “wisdom of the God.” He denigrates the “wisdom of the world,” claiming that this arrogant wisdom is blind and fails to acknowledge God (1 Cor. 1:20-21). However, Paul claimed that he was teaching a godly wisdom – a real wisdom - to the mature (1 Cor. 2:6).

The Bible is not opposed to wisdom, but rather an arrogant, human-based “wisdom.” Even the context, from which Tolle quotes, affirms this fact:

• Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. (1 Cor. 3:18-19)

Tolle wrongly extracts this verse from its context to argue that Paul writes against all wisdom. However, Paul writes only against an arrogant wisdom that thinks itself wise. Instead, such a man would have to humble himself so that he might really “become wise.” Consequently, it is not wisdom that is denigrated but an arrogant wisdom.

In light of the many biblical affirmations of wisdom, Tolle’s interpretation has to be rejected.

However, according to Tolle, there is absolutely no wisdom, because all “wisdom” relies on thought:

• Thinking isolates a situation or event and calls it good or bad, as if it had a separate existence. Through excessive reliance on thinking, reality becomes fragmented. This fragmentation is an illusion, but it seems very real while you are trapped in it. And yet the universe is an individualistic whole in which all things are interconnected, in which nothing exists in isolation. (196)

According to Tolle and many Eastern thinkers, reality is one, and therefore, one part can’t be separated from the rest. In essence, there are no parts but a single unity. It would be like trying to study the function of the heart by ripping it out of the body, of which it is part, to measure its functioning. Likewise, according to Tolle, our thinking is based upon studying parts in isolation – a distortion of reality.

Tolle then applies his concept of oneness to morality, claiming that we can’t make moral judgments about isolated events. We cannot say that one action is “good” and another one is “bad.”

• The deeper interconnectedness of all things and events implies that the mental labels of “good” and “bad” are ultimately illusory. They always imply a limited perspective and so are true only relatively and temporarily. (196)

In order to support his claim, he tells a story about a man who wisely refused to judge “bad” events. At the end, what had seemed to be bad turned out for good. While it is true that many things that seem to be bad really produce good, his conclusion that “good” and “bad” are “ultimately illusory” depends upon making a moral judgment – the very thing that he claims we can’t do!

Besides, if we can’t make moral judgments because of the “interconnectedness of all things,” then we also cannot make judgments about the physical world. Hence, we cannot do science!

Also, if wisdom and thought are ultimately illusory or even “true only relatively and temporarily,” then what can we make of the books he has written. They are laden with thoughts. If these thoughts are “true only relatively and temporarily,” then we shouldn’t take anything he has written seriously.

If his stance seems illogical, perhaps it is. Perhaps Tolle needs to go back to the drawing board. Meanwhile, some Eastern thinkers retort that logic is the “invention of little minds.” However, if this is so, how then can we assess any claim? I guess all that we can do is to eat, drink and be merry. But I fear that logic is required for even these elementary activities.

Biblical Faith: Blindness or Based on Evidence?

What is Biblical faith? According to atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, faith is the rejection of evidence and rationality:

• Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

However, this isn’t the Bible’s idea of faith. It’s not a blind leap into the abyss of mindlessness, but a willingness to step forth into the light of evidence. This has been the consistent insistence of Scripture. When God asked Israel to love and obey Him, He never intended Israel to follow as a dumb beast. Instead, He asked them to recall the gracious miracles that they had all witnessed:

• Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes? You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other. (Deut. 4:34-35)

Faith doesn’t represent a mental lobotomy. In fact, this is forbidden. Everything had to be confirmed by witnesses (Deut. 19:15). Therefore, Jesus forbade His disciples from believing in Him if He couldn’t provide confirmatory evidence:

• “Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.” (John 10:37)

• "If I [alone] testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.” (John 5:31)

However, Jesus provided evidences for Himself and His teachings:

• “Even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38)

• "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He.” (John 13:19; 14:28-29)

• If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. (John 15:24).

According to Jesus, ignorance is a good excuse. However, His contemporaries weren’t ignorant of His miracles. Therefore, they were culpable.

The Christian faith depends upon reasons for that faith. Jesus’ disciples had abandoned Him after the crucifixion, convinced that their faith had been for naught, despite the many miracles they had witnessed. They were on the run until Jesus’ miraculous resurrection appearances turned them back:

• After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3; 2:22)

It was these “proofs” that had revived the faith. They provided a necessary foundation. Surprisingly, there are even Christians who claim that “the Bible is not about proof but proclamation.” Actually, the Bible is about both!

In light of the wealth of Biblical evidence that God provides proof, how can these Christians deny the Bible’s proof claims? Well, they can’t, but they erroneously cite two verses in support of their contention. After Jesus appeared to doubting Thomas, he then believed and worshipped Jesus. However, He rebuked Thomas:

• Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

Some Christians wrongly understand “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed," to mean “blessed are those who believe without any evidence for their belief.” Such a misunderstanding represents a failure to appreciate the context:

1. Everyone was aware of Jesus’ miracles, even His detractors. In many passages, the Jewish Talmud acknowledges that Jesus was a miracle worker, although they ascribe the miracles to Satan.

2. Thomas lived with Jesus two or three years and had seen many of His miracles – perhaps hundreds. He also had the testimonial evidence of his fellow disciples who had claimed that they had seen Jesus after His resurrection. Therefore, Thomas already had abundant evidence.

3. Thomas wasn’t simply seeking evidence of the resurrection. He was demanding to see it for himself:

• So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." (John 20:25)

The disciples had claimed that they had “seen” Jesus. However, Thomas refused to accept their testimonies! Instead, he obstinately demanded to also “see,” despite the fact that he already had adequate evidences.

In view of the above, when Jesus affirmed the blessedness of “those who have not seen and yet have believed," He was affirming their willingness to believe without making demands of seeing for themselves. Jesus was also chastening Thomas’ demand to see the resurrected Jesus and his refusal to believe without seeing.

The notion that Jesus would praise those who had faith without any solid reasons for faith contradicts all of Scripture, even His own say-so! It even contradicts the next verse:

• Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31)

John acknowledges that belief must be accompanied by reasons to believe. Although the great majority of John’s readers had not seen the resurrection, this shouldn’t prevent faith. According to John, there were other evidences for faith - namely the testimonial evidences that John and other eyewitnesses provided. It’s highly unlikely that John would have written against an evidence-based faith and then offer evidences so “that [they] may believe.”

Some Christians cite a second verse to prove that faith was intended as a mindless, evidence-less plunge into non-rationality:

• Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)

However, this verse says nothing against an evidence-based faith. Even if faith is our only assurance – and it’s not – faith is not devoid of the evidential reasons for faith, whether very personal or objective.

In support of this claim, many of the following examples of faith clearly depended upon evidence. For example:

• By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned. (Hebrews 11:29)

Although the Israelites couldn’t be certain that piled-up waters of the Red Sea wouldn’t engulf them as they passed through – so there had to trust God’s instructions - they were convinced that an incredible miracle had take place by the God who had led them out of Egypt. They had also been witnesses of the ten plagues that had devastated Egypt – plagues from which they had been divinely protected. Therefore, theirs wasn’t an evidence-less, blind faith. Instead, it had an evidential foundation. God had already proved Himself to them.

While it is true that the Bible commands us to have faith, never once does it command us to have faith in the absence of evidence. Although we are taught to walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7), this presupposes that we have already learned to “walk” based upon the work of the Spirit in our lives (2 Cor. 5:5-6).

Faith is only irrational to those who are looking in from the outside, like Martians observing swaying and clapping at a concert. They may hear the musical notes, but they fail to come together in any meaningful manner to Martian ears.

However, the Martian analogy may be too charitable. Often, the judgment against Christian faith as mindless is not evidential but willful. Dawkins merely prefers his own religion.

On the ‘Religious Right,’ We Too Have a ‘Blind Side’

By Robert Peters

President of Morality in Media

New York, NY, December 29, 2009

Over the Christmas weekend, my wife and I went to see “The Blind Side,” a film about an affluent white family in Memphis who took  Michael Oher, a homeless African American youth, into their home and made him part of their family.   As a result of the Tuohy family’s out-of-the-ordinary Christian kindness, Oher turned his life around and became a success on the football field and in the classroom.

For those who aren’t football fans, the film is entitled “The Blind Side” because Michael Oher became one the nation’s top left offensive tackles while playing at the University of Mississippi.  It is the job of the left offensive tackle to protect the quarterback’s “blind side” from defensive players whose job it is to get to the quarterback when he drops back to pass.    In a day when quarterbacks drop back to pass frequently, the left offensive tackle position is considered one of the most important; and talented, motivated players are highly prized.

I must say that I was tempted to see the film weeks ago when my wife was out of town on a business trip.   After all, she has never been a football fan!  But we enjoy going to a theater together, and these days we seldom hear about a film we would like to see.  That’s because Hollywood rarely makes a film for adults which has a morally uplifting message and that respects standards of decency.   Furthermore, even though this film is about football, it is told from the perspective of the woman who opened her home to Michael Oher.  It’s a film both guys and gals can enjoy.

If I may brag just a little, at one point in the film Michael Oher’s character lines up against another player during a football practice, while college coaches interested in recruiting Oher watch in anticipation.  My wife asked, “What’s that?”  I said, “It’s a one-on-one drill.”  She then asked, “What’s going to happen?”   I then said, “Watch.”  At which point, Oher’s character fires out of his stance and knocks the defensive player back like he is a standup blocking dummy!

I can relate to that since I played left offensive tackle in high school and college and was better at it than most.  In the interests of full disclosure I must also say that in my day (1963-1970) a good left offensive tackle wasn’t prized as he is today, and Michael Oher is a much better football player than I ever hoped to be!

I didn’t decide to write this brief missive, however, to extol the importance of a great left offensive tackle like Michael Oher.  I am writing because I think there is a message in this film that those of us on the “religious right” need to hear. 

The movement that became known as the “religious right” was launched in the late 1970s in response to the sexual revolution and growing attacks on religious freedom.   In my opinion, the threat to children, to family life, and to religious freedom was real and merited a strong response, both then and now. 

But as I look back, I think that those of us who joined the movement, whether as earnest volunteers or as reluctant draftees, had a “blind spot.”  We saw the evil flooding in from the “right side” of the line (e.g., abortion, amoral sex education in the public schools, “gay rights,” pornography, the decline of standards in the mainstream media, hostility to religion in the courts, etc.), but for one reason or another didn’t see the evil coming at us from the “left side.”

Part of the “evil” on the left side was the result of the devastation that slavery, segregation, discrimination, the sexual revolution and the loss of our nation’s industrial base was having and would have on the Black community.

Part of this “blindness” may have been the result of racism; but from my experience with the “religious right” in New York City, that wasn’t the case.  We welcomed participation from Blacks and Latinos.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think the “blindness” was primarily the result of two factors.  First, most whites had little day-to-day contact with Blacks, apart from places where people work.  We didn’t know much about the needs of the Black community in general or Black families in particular and apparently didn’t think we had any responsibility to find out.  Second, many were deluded into thinking that the federal government’s “Great Society” initiative, which was launched with fanfare in the 1960s, had solved (or would solve) the “race problem.”  It didn’t.  

Whatever the explanation, in the 1970s and 1980s many “morally conservative” Christians stepped into the political arena to defend moral and family values against growing attacks from the courts, media, schools and “gay activists.”  In my opinion, we were right to do so, but we missed the mark when we failed to see other matters that needed our attention, like chronic unemployment, family breakdown, failing public schools, and crime in Black communities.

What I find particularly disturbing about our failure to “see” the dire needs in many Black communities is that so many African Americans are Christians.  While Christians are called to do good to “all men,” we are called “especially” to do good to those who are of the household of faith.  We are also called to lay down our lives for “the brethren” and to love not just in word but also “in deed.” 

Over the Thanksgiving holiday my wife and I visited a large church in California.  In literature handed out by ushers and during the service, much was made of an effort to assist a small village in a foreign country.   This, of course, was well and good, but why wasn’t the church also partnering with one or more nearby Black or Hispanic churches serving in needy communities?

Towards the end of “The Blind Side” Sandra Bullock’s character talks about young African American males in Memphis whose lives were tragically snuffed out as a result of violent crime.  Similar stories appear in the New York City newspapers, where I live, as they do in many other newspapers across the country. 

As I was thinking about what I might write in this missive, I was reminded of a passage in the Book of Proverbs (24:11-12), which reads in part: “If thou forbear to deliver those who are drawn to death, and those that are ready to be slain.  If thou say, ‘We didn’t know it,’ does not he that ponders the heart consider it?  And he that keeps your soul, does he not know it?”   Of course He does! 

In response to my comment that Christians in the white community need to reach out to Christians in the African American community, a Christian friend responded by saying that Christians avoid doing so because problems in the Black community seem hopeless.   He might have added, “And it can be dangerous too.”

In some cases, perhaps little if anything can be done.  But with God all things are possible, and I think it is better to do whatever good we can than do nothing at all. 

In closing, I would add that “moral and family” issues (the focus of the “religious right”) and “justice” issues (the focus of the “religious left”) are often interrelated.  For example, I first learned about the “vicious cycle of poverty” (a justice issue) when I was in college in the late 1960s.  That cycle is still with us, and one reason it is still with us is the breakdown of morality and family life, which in turn is linked to the corrupting influences of pornography and popular culture.     

Darwin, Yoga, Mysticism and the Power of Ideas

Ideas are powerful. Some ideas are so coercive that they can transform our entire worldview. The Galatians had been “running well” (Gal. 5:7). However, they fell under the influence of a powerful, coercive idea. Along with trusting Christ, the Galatians succumbed to the belief that they had to also become Jews and follow the law in order to be saved.

Rather than contributing to salvation, Paul argued that this one belief would undermine salvation (Gal. 5:2-4). It had the power of undermining their entire standing before their Savior. So Paul termed the belief “leaven” or “yeast”:

• "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." (Galatians 5:9)

A pinch of yeast can transform the entire loaf. This pinch can even take us “captive”:

• See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. (Col. 2:8)

A thought or philosophy can potentially take us captive, away from Christ. Even though our salvation is a done-deal, we are continually warned to be vigilant against false ideas. Consequently, we have to remain in “warfare” mode:

• The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor. 10:4-5

The battle consists of taking “captive every thought” so that each will coincide with our faith and not oppose it. If we don’t take these aggressive thoughts captive, they will take us captive. There is no neutral ground.

If we surf the web, we need protection – an anti-virus program. This program scans every piece of information that attempts to enter our computers. Some bits of information are so lethal – that’s why they’re called “viruses” – that they can destroy our computer. If the incoming information represents a threat, the program will not grant it entry.

We have to be equally vigilant about what we believe. Some beliefs are so lethal, they will consume or transform all of the other beliefs. Karl Giberson had been the co-administrator of the Biologos Foundation, a blog devoted to promoting theistic evolution. Giberson had written Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, to encourage Christians to believe in evolution. However, he conceded that evolution was such a powerful idea - an acid - that it had corroded some of his Christian beliefs:

• Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science….[Darwin’s] acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to the stories—the fall, “Christ as the second Adam,” the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred. (9-10)

However, he assured his readers that the acid would dissolve no more of his Christian beliefs. However, some years later, he wrote that the God of the Old Testament was a “genocidal” tyrant.

Once we open the door to certain viruses, they will not stop at the entrance. I think that he took his fatal step when he concluded that the modern theories of science were more authoritative than the Bible.

“Christian evolutionist,” Ron Choong, the founder of the Academy for Christian Thought, is even more explicit about this virus:

• Darwinism exposes Christianities weakness in keeping up with the growing scientific knowledge. We use the fruits of scientific technology and blissfully ignore its implications for a contemporary and comprehensive biblical worldview.

Instead of allowing the Bible to critique our lives and thoughts, he is convinced that the modern scientific consensus must stand in judgment over the Bible and dictate our theology. As a result of this idea, Choong recommends that the church:

• Construct a biblically faithful comprehensive worldview which accounts for the growth of scientific knowledge

This single step places every teaching of the Bible up-for-grabs. Unsurprisingly, he no longer believes in a historical Adam and Eve, and his understanding of the Fall, creation and all subsequent theology must be re-configured according to the dictates of the virus – evolution.

There are many other kinds of viruses invading the church. The late mystic and Catholic Priest, Henry Nouwen, has become very popular in many churches and seminaries. He wrote:

• The quiet repetition of a single word can help us to descend with the mind into the heart…This way of simple prayer…opens us to Gods active presence.

You might not think that this idea is a virus that can re-shape our faith. It seems very innocuous. If you know Scripture, you might even recognize that it is unbiblical. Against this kind of practice, Jesus had taught:

• And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. (Matthew 6:7)

Certainly, Nouwen’s mystical teaching involves repeating “many [meaningless] words” in the manner of pagans, but you might think, “big deal!”

Well, it is a big deal! Nouwen claimed that this ritual would open “us to God’s active presence.” This claim insists that we are missing something – something vitally important! Consequently, it is in violation of many other verses:

• All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

While Nouwen’s teaching claims that we are missing something, Scripture instead assures us that we are “thoroughly equipped.” We are also complete in Christ (Col. 2:9-10). These assurances give us the confidence that, in Christ, we have everything that we need. This is important to know, especially when we are going through trials and are tempted to think that we are missing something. If this doubt is not Scripturally addressed, we will become susceptible to every wind of doctrine and every promise to harness God’s grace by a new technique.

This teaching also causes us to doubt God’s omnipotence – perhaps He isn’t able to provide without Nouwen’s formula - and suspect that we are lacking “God’s active presence.”

Quaker mystic, Richard Foster, informs us that we are actually missing God’s boat if we don’t have our prayers met in a timely manner:

• Often we assume we are in contact when we are not…Often people will pray and pray with all the faith in the world, but nothing happens. Naturally, they are not contacting the channel. We begin praying for others by first centering down and listening to the quiet thunder of the Lord of hosts. Attuning ourselves to divine breathings is spiritual work, but without it our praying is vain repetition. Listening to the Lord is the first thing…(Celebration of Disciplines, 34)

In essence, Foster claims that our prayers and faith aren’t adequate without his particular prayer techniques. If we are not receiving, we are not “contacting the channel” of God. We’re missing the spiritual boat. How destructive of faith! According to Foster, it is no longer about believing through adversity; it’s about receiving! If we adopt this belief, our entire orientation towards faith and God will be radically corrupted.

Foster and Nouwen convey wrong ideas about God. They suggest that blessing is a matter of learning certain rituals or techniques rather than those truths that Scripture reaffirms – faith, repentance, and obedience.

If we are blessed as we grow in an understanding of God (Jer. 9:23-24; 2 Peter 1:2-3; Psalm 1), then this false teaching undermines this. Nouwen has taken us beyond the safety of Scripture against the counsel of Scripture (Isaiah 8:20; 1 Cor. 4:6-7). If his techniques are so essential to experiencing “God’s active presence,” why does not Scripture ever give us a hint of the “quiet repetition of a single word?”

Nouwen is certainly not alone in teaching non-Scriptural mystical techniques – rituals - in place of solid Scriptural nourishment. Yoga is also beating against the walls of the church. Yoga instructor Brooke Boon claims that, as yoga connects mind and body,

• “…we become more authentic people, able to hear God and experience Him in previously impossible ways.” (quoted by CRJ Vol.3, #4, 2008)

If yoga is so essential to the Christian life, why doesn’t Scripture at least mention it? No one seeking God was ever instructed to do some physical exercises in order to “hear” Him. This suggests that God cannot make His will know apart from yoga. Evidently, our God depends on us first learning certain stretches before He can truly reveal Himself to us.

Instead of placing trust in Christ and His teachings, Boon requires us to trust her techniques in order to “hear God and experience Him in previously impossible ways.” In short, fully following Christ is not truly possible apart from yoga. If we believe this, we are left questioning the various Scriptures assuring us that we are complete in Christ and the Word. We are also left wondering how many other spiritual practices we might need to be truly complete. Our faith thereby becomes self-centered and not God-centered.

I don’t think that there is anything wrong with doing yoga exercises. However, believing that yoga can make us “more authentic people, able to hear God and experience Him in previously impossible ways,” is entirely another matter. If we believe this, then we have to modify everything else that we believe. It reduces the Christian life to a set of non-Scriptural exercises, thereby demeaning the milk and meat of Scripture. However, Scripture doesn’t not equate doing exercises with honoring God:

• For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. (1 Tim. 4:8)

Physical training cannot accomplish what Boon claims it can. However, this is only a minor problem. Boon’s claim conveys wrong ideas about our Savior. It suggests that He cares more about bodily training than righteousness and holiness; that He is more pleased with stretches than with confession and repentance. It also suggests that He is pleased when we borrow ideas from other religions.

Some ideas are so powerful that they commandeer our lives. If I believe that my neighbor is trying to kill me, this belief will take control of my thoughts, feelings, and plans.

Although the relationship between thinking and acting (and experiencing) should be obvious, it has been denigrated by our postmodern society. Consequently, religious beliefs and doctrines are often disdained as dead and inconsequential. Therefore, in place of truth, we seek experiences, feelings and relationships, failing to see that these important commodities rest upon the foundation of our ideas and thinking.

In contrast to this thinking, Christian doctrine is utterly essential to our lives. For example, if we believe, as the Bible instructs us, that once we confess our sins, God forgives and cleanses us (1 John 1:9), this truth will alter our entire relationship with others, God and even with ourselves. We will consequently be charitable with ourselves and others, convinced that God fully accepts us. Convinced that God loves and accepts us, we can begin to love and accept others. We will also adore our Savior for releasing us from the bonds of sin and its guilt.

If we understand this, our first question should be, “What is the truth?” and not “How can I obtain this experience?” A little belief-leaven leavens the entire worldview-loaf. This pertains both to truths and lies. When we are nurtured by right thinking, we can expect it to lead into right doing and right feeling.

Viewpoint Discrimination, Homosexuality and the Growth of a Secular Monopolistic Religion

With the growing intolerance within the university community, viewpoint diversity will soon become no more than a mere legend. LifeSiteNews.com reports that:

• The national agency which grants accreditation to social work courses is questioning Franciscan University of Steubenville over a course which lists homosexuality as a deviant behavior.  Attention was drawn to the course by a group of Franciscan University alumni, identifying themselves as “Franciscan Gay Alumni & Allies”, who are demanding publicly that the university “revise its course descriptions and to stop contributing the culture of hate and ignorance.”

• The course is called ‘Deviant Behavior’ and the part of the course description in question states, “The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use.”

• In the press release issued by “Franciscan Gay Alumni & Allies” [FGAA] and published by the Daily Kos, further accusations and demands are made, based solely on the ‘Deviant Behavior’ course description.  Among them are the group’s accusation that students are “being taught ideological falsehoods in the classroom,” and that the classification of homosexuality as a deviant behavior “feed(s) cultural biases and promote hatred for lesbian and gay individuals.”

Interestingly, FGAA hasn’t accused the university of “hate” regarding its designation of “murder, rape, robbery, prostitution…mental illness, and drug use” as deviant. According to FGAA’s logic, the murderer and rapist should also protest their designation as “deviant.” After all, wouldn’t this designation also promote hate against them as well as against the mentally and the drug user? Indeed, according to this logic, no one should be considered deviant, and all behaviors should be equally acceptable – robbing, killing…

Of course, this logic represents the height of absurdity. It wouldn’t even be worth mentioning had it not already co-opted the very institutions that are supposed to be our watch-dogs against this madness.

• [FGAA] goes on to make a broad demand that the university “revise its course descriptions,” “stop contributing the culture of hate and ignorance,” and “conduct an audit of its entire curriculum and remove any information being taught on this subject that is outdated and not substantiated by sound scientific fact.” 

Who is actually “contributing [to] the culture of hate and ignorance?” It is the FGAA and many other groups like it that have used threats and intimidation to silence any other viewpoint.

Who are the real agents of “ignorance?” Sadly, our secular gate-keepers have fallen in line behind this agenda, silencing any voices that fail to goose-step behind this militaristic agenda. Although they tout the idea of diversity, viewpoint discrimination is broadly enforced. Although our secular authorities have committed themselves to anti-bullying programs, this only pertains to certain protected groups. Others are consistently bullied into submission by a monolithic, suppressive secular agenda.

While FGAA glibly claims “sound scientific fact” as their ally, the thrust of their agenda stifles research and silences any open exchange of scientific findings. This agenda caused University of Texas researcher, Dr. Mark Regnerus, to become the object of an intimidating ethics investigation, because of his politically incorrect findings:

• Dr. Mark Regnerus leads a team of researchers on another peer-reviewed homosexual “parenting” study labeled: “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.”

• The study was published in the journal Social Science Research. Its website FAQ page summarizes the findings: “[T]he data show rather clearly that children raised by gay or lesbian parents on average are at a significant disadvantage when compared to children raised by the intact family of their married, biological mother and father.”

• Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink distills the research: “According to [Regnerus’] findings, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.”

Fortunately, Regnerus was cleared of any wrongdoing. However, the prospect of this threat has kept other fair-minded researchers away from politically sensitive research.

Diversity requires thick skin. It demands a willingness to tolerate contrary opinions, even when we feel offended by them. It values free speech and freedom of belief as the foundations of a free and open society, which benefits all. It recognizes that, in order for us all to live together under one roof, we cannot impose our beliefs upon others, especially not by intimidation. It also means that we have to love one another – the murderer, the rapist, and even those whose practices we might regard as deviant.

Our Bible teaches us to speak the truth in love, and so we must lead the way. And a little prayer wouldn’t hurt.

Self-Acceptance and why it’s so Difficult to Attain

Self-acceptance represents peace among our inner warring factions, but it requires ruthless honesty. While one part is determined to convince us of our goodness or worthiness, the other part vehemently protests against this fabrication. How can we then make peace? We have to acknowledge all of our failings.

After a long struggle, the King and Psalmist David confessed that:

• Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place. (Psalm 51:6)

Indeed, God did teach David truth and wisdom, but this was only after enduring a long period of suffering. Looking back upon his travail, David reflected:

• When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. (Psalm 32:3)

David had committed adultery, murder, and even implicated others in his wrongdoing. He then tried to bury the entire matter, even as he was “groaning all day long.”

How was David able to come to terms with his sin?  Truly, there can be no self-acceptance until we do this. Without the confession of sin, denial - the internal struggle to suppress sin - reigns. However, what is suppressed always threatens to resurface in the form of guilt and shame.

David was aware of his “groaning,” but he might have suppressed awareness of his warring factions. How then can we acknowledge what is unseen? Often, it is just too painful to acknowledge. It contradicts our carefully manicured self-image as a “good person.” This acknowledgement is simply too destabilizing. We have become addicted to the darkness and delusions of image-making (John 3:19-21).

In order to break this addiction, our Lord must lovingly take us by the hand and confront us with what we have long denied. He sent a prophet to David to expose his suppressed sin. He does this also with us, but He replaces our addiction to the lie with another – one that we are designed to imbibe. He assures us that our worth, identity and self-definition have now been transferred to Him – the source of all glory and goodness:

• I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

• Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. (1 Cor. 6:19-20)

Knowing that it’s no longer about us but about our Savior – and He is covering us in every way – is entirely liberating. It’s no longer about me, my performance and my righteousness, but about His! This means that I no never have to bear the weight of my failings. What I am and what I do is entirely in His hands. He owns me, and I no longer have to prove myself. The hammer needs not worry if it is driving in the nails correctly. This responsibility lies with the one wielding the hammer.

This may sound like a renunciation of our responsibility, but not according to Paul:

• But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (1 Cor. 15:10).

God takes responsibility for our lives and gets all the credit! Does this mean that I can shirk my responsibilities? No! However, I now understand that as I move forward to do the right thing, I know that I can only do so with His guidance and enablement.

As we grow in the understanding that it’s all about my Savior, we can be transparent and joke about our failings. After all, they are now peripheral to our essential identity. Similarly, it is easy to joke about peeing on our babysitter when we were one. That one-year-old is so distant from who we are today, that it is now laughable. However, peeing down your pants as you deliver a lecture is harder to joke about.

Christ has separated us from our sins and all of those things about which we are ashamed. It is only because He accepts us entirely that we can begin to accept ourselves. This divine acceptance has enabled us to confront our sins and even mourn over them for a season (Matthew 5:4), knowing that, in due time, we shall be comforted. As we humble ourselves in confession of sin, He exalts us.

Self-acceptance is the freedom to face ourselves; it is the freedom from the compulsion to hide and deny. Self-acceptance takes full responsibility. David learned this lesson:

• For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was sapped as in the heat of summer. Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord"-- and you forgave the guilt of my sin. (Psalm 32:4-5)

Self-acceptance basks in the light of truth. It has nothing to hide, because nothing can threaten it.