What the Church can learn from Donald Trump

Donald Trump has got the world talking. He's even got me blogging about him. He'd probably be happy with that.

He's the Republican front runner in the primaries leading up to the American Presidential Election. He's stirring up all sides of politics.

While Hillary Clinton battles it out with 74 year old left-wing candidate Bernie Sanders for the Democratic candidacy, the rest of us are scratching our heads. What if Donald Trump becomes the Republican candidate? Without making your head bleed, you could scratch further and contemplate what life would be like if Donald Trump became President. Is the United States of America ready for such a President?

I've been bemused by what I have been hearing. Granted, the snippets I hear from the media are mere sound bites in the overall presidential race. Though you could make it into a new t.v. show. Finally we have found a replacement for The Days of our Lives. The 2016 Presidential Election.

So this has got me thinking. I was always taught that you can learn from anyone. Furthermore, if you ever got to the point where you no longer were teachable, then you had to change and humble yourself. Donald Trump challenges this premise.

With this in mind, I ask the question: What can the church learn from Donald Trump?

Donald Trump would build a wall between Mexico and the U.S.A. Jesus would establish reconciliation. 

There's a fundamental difference between reconciling two parties and building a wall of division. I know Nehemiah built a wall (along with scores of helpers), but I am not sure that strengthens the argument for wall-building. See the ministry of Jesus was about reconciling the world to God, but also about breaking down religious and political structures that fundamentally hurt and excluded people. Jesus implored his disciples many times, that people will know that you are my disciples if you built walls; I mean if you showed love for one another. Donald Trump helps us remember the stark difference of the ministry of Jesus.

Donald Trump has ignited the discontent among American voters. He says what he thinks, and some conservatives value the fact that he speaks his mind irrespective of what that mind is speaking.

Let me help you understand what I'm saying. Some Americans respect Donald Trump for being a sharp shooter. For saying what he thinks. Though the fascinating thing is, some Americans care more that he is speaking his mind, than what he is actually saying! And what can the church learn from this?

I think people the world over want transparency within the church. We know some of the abuse and corruption of years gone by. We know some of the misuse of power and exclusion of the vulnerable in church denominations. People don't want leaders of churches to cover these things up. The public expects truth and openness about the failures. There is more respect when this happens. That's what Donald Trump shows us - leaders do garner credibility when they speak from the heart and with conviction.

Now, I disagree with much of what Donald Trump says. I also think it's naïve to simply admire Donald Trump for speaking passionately, when damage can be caused when what is passionately spoken about is disrespectful, demeaning and verging on immoral. Though I will say this: Donald Trump shows us the power of a leader that speaks with conviction; yet we cannot compromise ethics and compassion with mere conviction alone.

Donald Trump shows the church, that some Christians JUST DON'T GET IT.

How do I say this without being extradited to a foreign country? Now, you are welcome to respectfully disagree with me here. How can a Spirit-filled, compassionate follower of Jesus reconcile support of Donald Trump with their Christian faith? I am genuinely interested. Donald Trump has ridiculed others, he has contradicted himself more than any other candidate, he has wielded power to canvass votes (though one may argue that's the same with the Democrats), he has been racist, rude, divisive and the list goes on...

I think Donald Trump shows us, that some Christians have some very passionate political views, and will hold fast to them come hell or high-water. For some that even means compromising good ethics, morality, compassion and the teachings of Jesus.

Donald Trump shows the church that how you lead is important.

We could contrast the leadership of Donald Trump with Jesus. One may argue on why we would bother, but we can learn some things in the process. I could not imagine Trump, nor many of the leaders in the current political scene doing the following:

• Choosing twelve leaders to help them, from a mixed bag of uneducated, simple workers and call them on a three year journey. Not only that, but after three years, give them the authority to run with the mission
• Calling the establishment of the day to reform their practices in order to show greater compassion to a wider diversity of people
• Call on people to live out moral values of love and compassion
• Show leadership skills and lead people on a mission, without vying for position and power

Leadership shown by Jesus is categorically different to the Donald Trumps of this world. I know which one I want to replicate.

There are two things I was always told not to talk about: religion and politics. I have failed on both accounts today. Please forgive me.

You no doubt have some comments to make. Comment below.  

Please enter your email above to subscribe to my blog. Thanks.

What wing are you? Left? Right?

Someone is labelled a left-wing liberal. Someone is ridiculed for being a right-wing fundamentalist. Is there anybody who is simply, in the middle?

When it comes to faith, I want to be in the middle. In the middle of what God wants me to do. In the middle of a proper outlook on life. In the middle of my understanding of the Scriptures.

I don't want to be left-wing or right-wing. I just want to be in the middle.

Though, who is ever in the middle? No one is ever labelled as being, 'in the middle'. Maybe the middle is too hard to handle, like a slippery eel. A place that is reserved for no one. A place too difficult to navigate towards.

Reading through the political reflections of Bob Hawke in his autobiography, 'The Hawke Memoirs' (1994), he speaks of keeping the radical left-wingers of his own party united, and keeping the right-wingers at bay. Creating unity within the seemingly volatile political landscape was no easy feat. Bob Hawke had to lead a country with right-wing opposition and left-wing political maneuvering to remove him from office.

I don't intend to be right-wing or left-wing, politically or religiously. I intend to do my best, even if you call it naive, to be in the middle of God's plans and purposes.

The challenge? Define the middle ground.  

You'll be Amazed at What the Australian Labor Party and Christianity Have in Common

"We are investing in an education revolution."

"The good news of Jesus can transform your life."

"Disability Care will be a welcome addition to disability reform."

"God loves you and has a plan for your life"

*****

Do any of these statements have anything in common? Well not at first glance.

But it's not the comments themselves that I want to concentrate on. It is not even the validity or otherwise of the statements being made.

Let us take a step back from passionate, and even somewhat aggressive discussion on politics and religion for a moment so I can say one thing. Not everything the Labor Party communicates with the general public is nonsensical and not every bit of rhetoric communicated is laden with 'smear and fear'. The same with Christianity: Not everything a Christian says in mainstream media is off-the-wall conservative and worthy of harsh critique.

Though, any Australian knows that the ALP are heading for demolition in the upcoming 2013 Federal Election. Any Australian also knows, that the popularity of the 'Christian Church' is not quite up there with Bruno Mars and Master Chef.

So what am I saying?

I am wanting to come to a significant point in what I believe the Australian Labor Party and Christianity have in common; a common thread that I believe is paramount in distinguishing why there is bad public perception of these two groups within the Australian people...

People are not listening.

They have tuned out. They have changed the channel. They are not interested. They are over it.

The question that begs asking then is, 'Why have people stopped listening?'

They've failed to deliver on what was promised. They've misrepresented their organisation. They've honed in on issues that people didn't care about, at the expense of issues they did. They've spoken consistently negatively of the 'other party' and those on the 'other side'. They've struggled to find a leader or leaders who would be able to cast a vision and lead the organisation to fulfil its original mission. They've put people in upper-leadership levels that have undermined the effectiveness of the overall organisation. They've had people who have broken the moral code.

So people have stopped listening.

Do you hear what I'm saying?

Maybe the great challenge the Australian Labor Party and the Christian Church have to contend, is to convince people that still have something worth communicating; a message still worth following.

I have heard it said, that one thing people of the Christian faith must do, before they even expect anyone to be close to believing their message, is to build credibility. That may well be true for both Labor and the Christian Church.

Not all politics is laden with smear and incompetent politicians. Not all Christianity is run by bureaucrats and people who badly misrepresent the faith they profess.

The problem is, how do you regain the listening ear of a people who have tuned out?


*****

Receive Pete's Blog Posts via email (below):

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

10 Reasons Why People Don't Go To Church

Join my facebook page at: PeteBrookshaw

10 Reasons Why People Don't Go To Church

Times have changed. Back in the early 1900s a majority of people in western world countries went to church. Sunday morning would arrive, and the 'Sunday best' clothes would be donned, and off the family would trot to church.

This post makes some assertions. Firstly, this post is predominantly relevant only to first world countries. For some African countries the post might rather be, '10 reasons why people flock to church!' Secondly, while obviously a number of people still go to church, the numbers continue to decline in the U.S.A., Australia, European Countries, and more; thus this post.

Let me explain some things before I go further. Let's firstly define the meaning of the word church. The word church is used three times in the New Testament (Grk: ecclesia), and is not referring to a building in which people frequent once a week, typically on a Sunday. The church is a group of individuals who gather together (where ever, and when ever), to worship God, grow in their faith in Christ and partner with God in mission. When I refer to why people don't go to church, I think most people might think of why people don't enter a church building on a Sunday morning, but I don't think the following points are limited to just that. With a correct view of what the 'church' is, this post should possibly be, '10 reasons why people are not part of a church community'.

___________________

See also: 10 Reasons Why People Don't Believe in God
8 Reasons Why Churches Don't Grow
___________________

One further point is that I think the church is important. The church is God's primary vehicle for transforming the world. God chooses to allow us to partner with the Creator in life transforming mission. The believers gather together regularly to be empowered by God, and through their faith in Christ, others are drawn to discover God themselves, because of the inner working of God in that believer's life.

That being said, let's explore the reasons why less people are attending church today and whether there is validility in such reasons. Also, see Pete's Beginner's Guide to Attending Church.

Subscribe to Pete's Blog - Enter your email address here:


Delivered by FeedBurner

10 Reasons Why People Don't Go to Church

Reason 1 - Why people don't go to church - The perception of Christians is one of judgmentalism and negativity.

One young lady said once, I don't like working in the cafe on a Sunday, because that's the day the Christians come in. What was the issue? The issue was, the Christians constantly complained, weren't happy with the food, and we're generally tough customers to deal with. Is this is a valid observation of all Christians? Well, no, not of all Christians, but this young ladies' observation of the Christians she saw in her cafe was valid! They were judgmental and negative.

Reason 2 - Why people don't go to church - Church is boring.

For many church communities, the assertion is probably correct. Though, you could argue, since when was the church meant to be entertaining? The church has changed dramatically over the years, and there are many great churches, with relevant music, relevant preaching, welcoming people and the like. The issue is probably again the perception that people have of the church. Trying to convince people in my part of the world, that the church is an exciting, welcoming place, where lives are transformed, is hard for people to grasp. Their built up negative perceptions of the church is difficult to unravel.

Reason 3 - Why people don't go to church - The church is exclusive.

I always say, the church has an exclusive message, which is available to anyone. There is undoubtedly a tension between a message that is for everyone (inclusive), but the message itself being exclusive. This will never change. Jesus offers salvation for the world. What must change is the Christian's communication of such an exclusive message. Bible bashing simply gives people headaches.

Reason 4 - Why people don't go to church - Christians are homophobic.

Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. Nonetheless this is one factor on why people don't go to church. I believe that Christians, while taking a conservative approach to homosexuality, have quite often failed to show grace in expressing their differing views to those around about them. The disturbing pictures of fundamentalist Christians holding up their placards does not do the message of hope found in Christ any favours. 

Reason 5 - Why people don't go to church - 'I don't like organized religion'.

People are not advocating that the church not be 'organized', that is, that the filing cabinet not be sorted out, the money not banked properly. The issue here is that those who don't go to church hate to see an abuse of power. I write about five sources of power here, one of which is coercive power. The abuse of power has been too prevalent at times, especially when you consider church history, but I must say, how much of this coercive abuse of power was under the guise of Christianity, but was not real Christianity? Nonetheless, organized religion turns people away. 

There is much to be said. It is a difficult one. You have an organizational system that cannot help but develop, for example, when The Salvation Army began it did not seek to have a bureaucratic system, but then someone came along and said, 'We want The Salvation Army to do our wedding'. So The Salvation Army applies to the Government for approval. Then, there is money flowing in from donations. The Salvation Army open a bank account, employ an accountant, etc, etc. I think you get the point. The 'organizing' of the organisation was important. I don't think this is why people don't go to church. I think the organized religion part is more so related to the abuse of power by a small minority of individuals, rather than the mere organizing of a faith community.

I think the other challenge, is the church holding people accountable for their actions. This will never be popular. The church must balance carefully truth and grace. There are consequences for some actions, but how we handle them and communicate about them is very important. 

_____________________________

Also: 10 Reasons why people don't believe in God
8 Reasons Why Churches Don't Grow
Why Australians Don't Go To Church
_____________________________

Reason 6 - Why people don't go to church - Churches are full of hypocrites

Yes. The church is full of hypocrites. I am a hypocrite. But with all do respect, you are a hypocrite too. We all say one thing and do another at times. The great thing about the gospel message is that a whole bunch of hypocrites can gather together and find purpose, hope and forgiveness from Jesus! 

Reason 7 - Why people don't go to church - The church just want your money.

When you go to a church that talks more about its offering, than the sermon, then the point is no doubt very valid. I think the church at times finds itself concerned about its financial situation and thus challenges people (maybe too much?) about giving. Leaders in the church would do well to pray more and trust God will provide. I am not saying, Christians should not be challenged to give generously to the local church, but what I am saying is that as we pray God will provide the finances we need. 

I heard recently about the financial situation in the U.S.A., that more people are on lower incomes and even unemployed than before, and this has affected the income of churches across the States. A new outlook of faith and trust in God's provision is needed and a greater focus on volunteerism rather than employment of 'professionals' is needed. 

Also, are some that say they don't go to church because the church just wants its money, are feeling a level of conviction about the importance they place on their own finances?

Reason 8 - Why people don't go to church - Life is better without religion.

The perception is that life will be worse with religion than without it. I don't care much about religion, per se, but rather a relationship with God. Now, let me restate the reason - Life is better without a relationship with God. If this be the case, I will only accept those who have been followers of Jesus, who hold to that assertion. If you have never had a deeply committed relationship with God and hold to that assertion, then, you are like my three year old daughter who says she hates spinach and yet has never tasted it. There are millions of people on the planet who would try to convince you to 'give God a shot', but we know, that this is completely up to you. By the sheer numbers of followers of Jesus around the globe, there must be some merit to their beliefs right?

Reason 9 - Why people don't go to church - Christians live on another planet and wear brown sweaters.

The Simpsons have done well to characterise Christians, haven't they? It depends what church you are a part of. Some churches are like the modern day Amish, but other churches are just normal, everyday people who love God. No doubt if you look to the education system, for example, you will see some schools who are behind the times, and others who are pushing new ground, and are forging ahead. The church is no different. Don't let one brown sweater put you off. 

By the way, mine is still in the wash...

Reason 10 - Why people don't go to church - Don't have time.

This is really a priority issue but a valid reason nonetheless. People are flat-out today, trying to tie off lose ends, and get the house clean and take their kids to sport. Why bother with going to church?

All I can say here, is that if you had a different perception of the amazing nature of the God who created you, you would very quickly find ways to reorganize your priorities around such a wonderful God.

This post has now been updated - see the July 2017 version of 10 Reasons Why People Don't Go To Church.

*****

Keep Reading - 10 Reasons Why People Don't Believe in God
8 Reasons Why Churches Don't Grow

Add your voice below. Why do people not go to church?

Submit your Email Address to Get Free latest Articles Directly to your Inbox

Letter of Sincere Apology to those Scarred by Organised Religion

Dear Friend,

I am deeply saddened by the stories of pain and hurt I have been hearing lately. Stories of broken relationships and examples of religious abuse that have caused a falling away from 'organized religion'. I am deeply saddened  because of the long lasting, personal effects this has had on many reading this letter.

As an officer in The Salvation Army I have heard the pain. I am just as privy as others to the throw away lines; you know, the comments people say, that when the layers are peeled back, reveals a complex story of abuse, neglect, pain and fear. The cause of the pain and the reason for the feelings of resentment are varied, but for some, they are reasons that are rarely spoken of; atleast not overtly. For others, that's all that they can speak about, because the pain is still so raw.

I want to say sorry.

Not because I have much ecclesiastical authority. Not because I intend to sell my latest book. Not because I need you to sign a dotted line.

I am sorry.

I don't even hold much influence. I don't have a large church, and 97% of those following me on twitter would not notice if I stopped posting.

I am simply offering an apology.

All I can pray right now, is that God may cause the pain to subside. Maybe there could be reconciliation. Maybe there could be forgiveness. I don't know.

The Word offers us encouragement when it says: Colossians 3:12-13 - "Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you."

Forgiveness will set the heart free. It will clear the mind. It will pressure spray the dirt away from the clogged up mess of broken relationships.

I can't say I know your story and I can't even say that I understand your story, nor the effects it has had on your outlook on faith, religion, leadership or relationships. Though I can say I pray God will be close to you, and heal the pain that has simmered away for some time.

I hope some may forward this on to those it may be applicable to...

God bless,

Pete.

Religion is Irrelevant

Religion is irrelevant.

There you go. I said it.

Actually, I'm not claiming that this is my opinion. Nonetheless, it is the opinion of millions around the world.

Maybe it's their understanding of the dark hours of Church History. Maybe it's the rules and regulations of most religious institutions that give them this opinion. Could it be the people that represent the message of the religion today have represented it badly? Or is it the strict moral code that Christianity aspires to? Whatever the case may be, the consensus among many is that religion is irrelevant. Based on its history and its actions, it is quickly dismissed among many. They claim it to be irrelevant. Though IS religion irrelevant?

When I consider what religion is, I think of an institutional body. A church building. An ordained priest in weird looking garbs. I think of a man-made construct that gained political power in the 4th Century and began 1700 years of what we call Christendom. Religion in this sense may well be irrelevant. But let me pose something for you.

God sent Jesus into the world (John 1:14). He was radically subversive and controversial. He did not go with the status quo. He in fact quite often infuriated the religious leaders of the day. Jesus began a movement (Acts 1:8). A movement of followers. I am not sure that Jesus even intended that an institutional construct would develop in the years to come, that we would label 'Religion'.

I am urging us to not confuse 'man-made' religion, with the breath-taking, intriguing nature of Jesus, who claims to offer salvation to the lost, and who offers opportunity for people to follow him and embrace all that he teaches.

Religion or Jesus? Are they mutually exclusive? It is not that simple to simply separate the two, but lets not confuse what really matters: A relationship with Jesus that in turn affects the way we live our lives.

A Contagious Boil on the Face of Religion: Book Review - The God Delusion (2006) - Richard Dawkins

Book Review - Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. London: Transworld Publishers.

Dawkins is the contagious boil on the face of religion. Religion tries to squeeze him out to get rid of him, but he spreads his ideas and influence all the more. He holds back no punches as he releases, what seems to be, his apologetic against religion. While controversial religious ideas and practices are at the forefront, interestingly, some of the book seems to be an advertisement for natural selection and scientific endeavor, rather than what the title exclaims.While you expect a book all about faith and theology; at times you find yourself delving into the intricate insides of evolutionary biology and are left wondering whether he forgot the title of his own book.

Ebbs and flows exist between the highlighting of why Christians (not to mention Muslims and Buddhists), are naïve in their belief systems, to that of scientific progress. The issue then is really whether this is a book about science or religion? If it is the former, then the book should be called something like The Origins of Life and Natural Selection, but if it is really The God Delusion, then the author should not wander off into justifying scientific process (unless it is closely relevant to the argument).

________________________________

For more, check out another of Pete's Blogs - Richard Dawkins & Alister McGrath - "The Delusions!"
________________________________


Some argue that a scientist should avoid attempting an exposition on religion; that the two do not mix, and they should not cross paths. This is really Stephen Jay Gould’s brainchild regarding, what he calls, NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria). The thesis is that science and religion exist in two different planes, one that is about empiricism and one about ultimate meaning and morality (: 77-85). Science still has much to say within the realms of religion, for example, the scientific progress in cosmology, or the debates about evolution/creation and the origins of life and even in the scientific rationality behind miracles and seemingly ‘super-human’ feats (like rising from the grave). While Gould may be right in saying that science says little about how we are to live, and eternal life and such, science still offers much to inform and sharpen theological thinking. McGrath highlights the idea of POMA (partially overlapping magesteria) which is helpful in understanding that there is a ‘crossfertilization of science and religion (McGrath, 2007: 19). The point being, Dawkins has just as much freedom to speak out and discuss religion as does a professor of protestant theology. While his ideas are forthright and at times offensive to people of faith, he is nonetheless entitled to an opinion, and for those opinions to be challenged. Admittedly, when he is discussing scientific progress and ideas though, it is more refreshing than having to stomach the continual mockery of religious fundamentalism.

The question begs asking - is Dawkins too offensive towards religious followers? He mentions he is ‘tame’ compared with other literature (: 16), and that religious followers are just overly cautious about religious material. Unquestionably, to the person of faith, he is, at times, rude and offensive. Take the following statements:

• ‘A popular deity on the Internet at present – and as undisprovable as Yahweh or any other – is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who, many claim, has touched them with his noodly appendage’ (: 76).


• ‘…visionary religious experiences are related to temporal lobe epilepsy’ (:196).

While arguments regarding the existence of God are appreciated, the occasional sarcasm and humour detracts from any intellectual pursuit. Epistemologically speaking, what matters, is whether there is any substance underneath the rhetoric of ‘religious naivety and stupidity’ which is worthy of his readership?

Amongst the pages of The God Delusion, Dawkins occasionally provides some rigorous apologetics against religion that are difficult for even the most intelligent theologians. In relation to morality he questions the Christian who asks, ‘If there is no God, then why be good?’ He fires back at the questioner, arguing that this question presupposes that the only reason the Christian is good is because they believe in their God. Then if the Christian says, ‘No, wait a minute, I am not good just because of God in my life,’ the response is that there is no need for a God then.

Dawkins though, falls short earlier on when he describes the idea that every human has a sense of morality. He falls short, not because of the interesting, abbreviated monologue and reasoning from biologist Marc Hauser (: 254-258), but because he simply makes the assumption that because of this universal sense of morality, there is no need for a God (: 258). He says this sense comes from our evolutionary heritage. The counter argument is clear:What if God placed in human hearts a sense of morality?What if this sense of good and evil did not merely evolve from natural selection but was conveniently designed that way from a deity?

Another persuasive apologetic Dawkins offers is his scathing attack on Scripture (: 117-123). It is not so much that he is right in his assertions, but that his comments are hard to respond to in affirmation of the importance of Scripture. Take for example, the comments that the Scriptures about Jesus were recorded well after Jesus’ death and thus are erroneous (: 118). One must enter into detailed analysis of the effectiveness of oral communication in the first and second centuries to refute the argument. This apologetic about the validity of the Scriptures can disturb any Christian who is not well versed with oral tradition, exegesis and the Synoptic Gospels. Dawkins mentions that Luke ‘screws up’ his dating of events, that the Christmas story is recorded incorrectly and that the recorders of the gospels were fallible and had hidden agendas (:118-119). His presuppositions about Scripture begin to become weak though, when he says, ‘The four gospels that made it into the official canon were chosen, more or less arbitrarily, out of a larger sample of at least a dozen…’ (: 121). The canon was never ‘arbitrarily’ chosen, like some lucky dip competition. The canon was divinely orchestrated by the self-revelation of God, through the use of fallible human beings. The canon (Scriptures) will undoubtedly and continually be debated by scientists and the like, in relation to providing evidence to substantiate the claims of its authenticity.

One of the techniques Dawkins uses in The God Delusion is the discrediting of religion, predominantly Christianity, through the use of stories, analogies and witty comments. While the stories he tells are no doubt empirically true, most stories he uses are so far beyond what any Christian would call orthodox faith. His arguments are thus diminished, because what he is parading around as orthodox responses to faith and reason are in fact emanating from people not upheld and respected by orthodox religion. He quotes angry letters written to him from so called Christians (: 242-243), as if this is the common letter writing technique from Christians. He tells of the agonizing sexual abuse of a seven year old by a Catholic Priest, as if this action is common practice amongst believers (: 357). He speak of the murders caused by religious fanatics, like 9/11, or suicide bombers, or the persecution of the Jews inWorld War II (: 23-24), as if that is the common way that religion is expressed within society today. His stories may be entertaining for some, but they fail terribly at offering readers a clear, balanced picture of religion today.

There are some comments Dawkins makes, that could apply to either side of the science/religion debate. Take for instance, ‘…perhaps you need to be steeped in natural selection, immersed in it, swim about in it, before you can truly appreciate its power’ (: 143). A theist would argue that perhaps Dawkins needs to swim about in the pool of theological ideas before he can truly appreciate God and faith. He also says, ‘It is utterly illogical to demand complete documentation of every step of any narrative…’ (: 153), which of course is only meant to refer to science, but surely it could also refer to the realms of spirituality? Is it not just as illogical to demand theologians to explain every step of their theological presuppositions? As McGrath says, Dawkins makes the transition, ‘from a scientist with a passionate concern for truth to a crude anti-religious propagandist who shows a disregard for evidence’ (2007: 27).

McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion is a helpful rebuttal to the work of Dawkins. While questioning your own belief system at times, havingMcGrath touch on the exact aspect of Dawkins ‘theology’ and then show you why it is skewed from the truth is pleasing. Take for example the role of science and religion. When reading Dawkins, the thought rises about whether everything should be scientifically proven. Then McGrath writes, ‘Scientific theories cannot be said to ‘explain the world’ – only to explain the phenomena which are observed within the world’ (2007: 16). McGrath shows you how to bring stability and intellectual dialogue to a heated debate, and how to engage the ideas of Dawkins in ways that are not written for entertainment sake, but for the sake of discovering the truth.

If the aim of The God Delusion was to sell numerous copies while increasing the financial coffers of scientific research there is success. If the aim was to write a persuasive, rationalistic, intellectual exposition about why following God was delusional, he missed the mark. He nonetheless produced a provocative account of religion melded with science that raises the eyebrows of people of religion and provides entertainment to the religious cynics and the atheists. It seems Dawkins never intended to write an apologetic against religion, but rather to offer readers a frank, passionate bleat about religion and a convicting plea for the embracing of evolutionary biology. All in all, it seems that the contagious boil on the face of the religious community is not going into hiding anytime soon.

• For more, check out another of Pete's Blogs - Richard Dawkins & Alister McGrath - "The Delusions!"

- Book Review of The God Delusion by Pete Brookshaw (Aug 2011).

Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath - The Delusions!

A couple of books I have been reading parts of recently are both the popular atheist Richard Dawkins' book, 'The God Delusion' and theologian Alister McGrath's book, 'The Dawkins Delusion', which is really a rebuttal to the atheistic, anti-religious rants of Dawkins.
Dawkins goes off track often from the title and purpose of his book. The book seeks to show/prove to people that the belief in a God is a delusion - an intellectual absurdity that has no scientific evidential proof. What frustrates me about this book, is not so much the intent on presenting intellectual arguments regarding the nonexistence of God, but rather the tactics/strategies that Dawkins uses to present his material. I'm left with the feeling that Dawkins is deep-down more concerned with selling books than presenting logical, rational atheistic arguments. He often relays stories of religious people who have either abused people, or made damning comments to others, or about others, etc. Now, if the book is really about showing people that there is no such thing as a 'God' who is supernatural, the stories are seemingly irrelevant. I mean, is the purpose of the book merely to denegrade religion? Or is it actually about having an intellectual discussion about theism and antitheism? If it is the latter, then why all the stories about the abuse of religion? If we are presenting balanced arguments, then why not present some stories about groups that are atheists that have murdered and abused others? The proving or disproving a deities existence is mutually exclusive to the way people have or have not represented that religion's belief. The truth of a religion is not necessarily based on how people have represented it. Of course, in a simplistic world, if Christianity believes that God is a God of love, and people should love their neighbour as they love themselves, then every believer of that religion would express this in their life. Though, we don't live in this simplistic world, so to use dramatic, emotionally laden rhetoric of people hurting others in the name of 'religion' neithers disproves or proves the existence of God, and so falls short of what seems to be the purpose of Richard Dawkins, 'The God Delusion'.
Alister McGrath's book, 'The Dawkins Delusion' seeks to present his arguments in a more concise manner, and remove himself from unnecessary emotional language, that takes away from his primary objective of discussing and critically working through Dawkin's writings.

There's so much more to write. But, all the best as you critically engage with the search for truth.

For a Book Review on Dawkin's, The God Delusion, 'A contagious boil on the face of Religion' click here.

To continue the discussion on facebook, go to: www.facebook.com/peter.brookshaw

Why should people be a Christian and not a buddhist, hindu, or scientologist? Are all faiths the same?

Thanks for the question.

I'll start with the second question - Are all faiths the same?

When we compare the belief systems of different religions we see some of the following things:

Christianity says that Jesus (Jesus Christ of Nazareth - born about 4-5BCE) is God, that he is the son of God.

Islam says that Jesus is a prophet, amongst others like Mohammed, Moses, Abramham.

Buddhism teaches that there is 'karma', which is related to good, skillful deeds and bad, unskillful deeds which produce 'seeds' in the mind that can lead to changes in life, that may lead to rebirth (reincarnation). Buddhists don't believe that there is a soul (Christianity teaches that there is), and Buddhists say that there can be no salvation or forgiveness based on one's karma, because it is an impersonal process that is simply part of the make up of the Universe. Christianity has always taught that there is a supreme being who orchestrated every aspect of the Universe and that salvation and forgiveness come through God's one and only son, Jesus, that through him you might have eternal life. See the difference? When people follow Jesus, their life should spring out with positive, good things, as an overflow of the new life they have found in their saviour, Jesus. Christians call this holiness - living the way God asks of his people through the Bible and through the guiding of the Holy Spirit. I am not saying Buddhists don't do good things for humanity, (Gandhi - being a prime example of someone who does), I am merely pointing out the difference from how these good deeds come about.

Christians are mono-theists - that is there is only one God who created the heavens and the earth. Hindus are poly-theists and believe there are many gods, the god of the sun, the god of the moon, etc. So, without delving any deeper, Christianity and Hinduism, just based on those facts/teachings are already different.

I don't know much about scientology. Within most realms outside the Church of Scientology, many people view this group as a cult, that have high demands upon the followers of its organisation and sometimes to the detriment of the wellbeing of people within that group.

The first question was: Why should people be a Christian and not a buddhist, hindu, or scientologist?

I believe that being a Christian means you are a follower of Jesus Christ ('Christ'-ian). God sent Jesus into the world, not to condemn it, but to save the world through him. Simply put - though a conscious, intentional faith/belief in Jesus I have eternal life with God, and I have the greatest opportunity for fullness of life on earth. I have the indwelling presence of God's Holy Spirit to guide and lead me, to be my conscience when I'm making decisions and to empower me through the journey. Becoming a Christian doesn't mean the worries of life subside, but through all the experiences of life, God gives us purpose and meaning in life and ultimately a place with God in heaven after we die.

Thanks for the question. Feel free to comment below.


Follow Pete on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/petebrookshaw  

Throw another snag on the barbie - Connecting with Aussies

Well, grab the snags out and chuck 'em on the barbie, it's time to have a look at Aussie culture. Let's check it out guys.


Imagine - I'm an Australian:

I'm content with the ordinary life - don't worry too much about this great Australian dream. I just want a house that's paid for, a couple of kids and the chance to go on a holiday every now and then. 

We're not big on people being in the spotlight 'too' much, but if there's a battler who has hit the limelight - that's ok with us. But Eddie McGuire - too much success - we don't like it. We're ordinary Aussies.

An average day - making breaky for the kids, bringing the bin in, taking the kids to work, checking facebook before we get into the priorities for the day. By 4:30pm there's an itching to get to the local pub, or get home and throw the spaghetti in the pot and watch a bit of MasterChef. We don't mind seeing a current affair show that nabs the dodgy carsalesman red-handed. We kiss the kids goodnight, update our twitter or Excel budget sheet, and find a quiet five minutes to relax with the missus before bed. We're content with life; while wishing it was a little less hectic, we appreciate selfishly that we don't live in Ethiopia. We head off to bed, wondering what life might be like in a different time, and a different place...

We Aussies don't think of religion much. We're frustrated when religion is thrust upon us, and we conjure up memories of what organised religion did to us in the past. We're happy to live each day as it comes, and hey, when the end comes, as long as I've enjoyed the ride. Just keep that religion out of everyday life... Don't, for goodness sake, let it affect my family and my time of rest. And what's with religion and politics always wanting to be so closely connected? That annoys the heck out of me. They can keep their organised religion.
___________________________________

What does the life of Jesus say to an Aussie culture? What about - how does the life of Jesus, and the culture of Australia impact how Christians should live (How do we do evangelism is an effective way)? Would Jesus say to the Australian Church, hey, why not drop your nets into the other side of the boat? Try to connect around the barbie instead of putting up barbed wire. Try socialising over a drink (even if its Lemon Squash) instead of merely sipping 'the' drink. Live out your Christianity among your mates. Stop compartmentalising your Sunday Church from your Tuesday movie. Be in the world, and connect with the people and the culture. Sure - don't be of the world, but don't have some conjured up fear about connecting with everyday Aussies. We all need Jesus. We all need the saving, powerful work of Jesus in our lives, and by golly gee wizz, Aussies need Jesus!

C'mon, turn the snags over, and flip the onions. It's time to have a chat about this Jesus bloke... "So you say he rose from the grave or something...?"


Follow PeteBrookshaw on twitter:
www.twitter.com/petebrookshaw  

Should Australia vote for an Atheistic Prime Minister?

Should Australia vote for a Atheistic Prime Minister? This is the big question around the Christian community in Australia. Two sides of the argument exist:
1. Some would argue that we need to separate Church and State, and so whether a Prime Minister is a Christian, Buddhist, Humanist or Secularist is irrelevant, as they make policies that are not affected by personally held belief systems.
2. Others would argue that any Prime Minister or politician makes policy decisions that, deep down, are affected by the belief system of that politician. Therefore, a Christian is desirable within the political arena in Australia, because that leader would make policy decisions that would not contradict the foundational beliefs of Judeo-Christian religion.

Well, this is a blog, so I will give my personal opinion. You can of course, make your own constructive comments below. If I had the choice to vote between someone who holds to my belief system, and someone who doesn't then I would choose someone who does. If there is someone who I believe will make good policy decisions, that will not contradict my Christian beliefs then that is the person I would vote for. If the policy thrusted upon the Australian government, was Religious Freedom of Speech, or Abortion Laws, or Same-sex Marriages, or even Immigration policies and rights of International Students, then someone who upholds the values of the Kingdom of God I would prefer.

Now, does this mean, this is necessarily Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott? Well, that's up for debate. I don't know where he sits with many policies, because he just spends his time 'bagging out' the Australian Labor Party. Would he uphold Christian values and ideals?

So what about the Australian Labor Party. I will say it bluntly. I am not keen on voting for Julia Gillard who is a professed Atheist. This relates obviously to believing in point 2 mentioned earlier. If you profess to hold to point 1, then you have a wider choice.

So in the next Federal Election, should Australia vote for a Atheistic Prime Minister?

Some links worth reading:
* http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201007/s2941974.htm
* http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/julia-gillard-risks-christian-vote-with-doubts-on-god/story-e6frg6nf-1225885897505
* http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=22182



Follow me on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/petebrookshaw