Don’t Confuse me with the Facts

I’ve just finished reading an extract of Christopher Hitchen’s ‘God is not Great’ which he concludes with the words, ‘As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.’ Before coming to this conclusion he runs through the usual ill-defined nonsense. He states there four core arguments against the existence of God. But before that he already tells us that he has decided the case on the basis not of argument but experience. Thus in his investigation of religion he has closed his mind before weighing the issues. But of course he is not like those religious fundamentalists with their closed minds. We know that because he tells us it is so!

Hitchens writes, ‘There still remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.’ If I may have the temerity to challenges Hitchens argument, without trying to poison the minds of any-

1. Religious faith does not inherently misrepresent the origins of man and the cosmos. Since not all faiths are agreed upon this. Indeed not all Christians are agreed on the interpretation of the the Bible’s teachings on origins. Some favour mainstream scientific theories being compatible with Christian teaching others do not. But Hitchens spirit of open inquiry is too lazy to actually consider this.

2. I assume in argument 2 we are the ones who are in servility and God maximises the solipsism. This assumes that those who worship God are servile. That is of course Hitchens’ spin rather than the result of inquiry. I like millions of others across the centuries find joy in knowing and serving God. Facts borne out by the hymnology of the Christian tradition.

3. A careful reading of the Bible would clearly show Hitchens that Jesus taught a message of liberation not sexual repression. For example in his teaching on divorce he taught that men could not simply get rid of a wife they no longer wanted by mere casuistry. But again that is a fact that would not fit with Hitchens tilting at windmills.

4. Hitchens explains religion on the old Feuerbach/Freud/Marx idea of wish fulfillment. Again their arguments like his were rooted in their own prejudices rather than any examination of facts. The wish fulfillment theory simply holds no water. e.g. if religion explains our longing for a father figure when then do so many religions not have a father figure?

Hitchens expressed desire to have free inquiry apart from prejudice is just what he says he is seeking to expose- poisonous myth-making.

How to be Happy – Though Married

My Dad who was happily married for over 40 years used to joke that he was going to write a book called, ‘How to be Happy though Married.’ He may have been closer to the mark than he knew.
A recent article in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy has suggested that married couples will be happier if they accept that their relationship will not be perfect. It says that it is a “myth that, with enough effort we can achieve a state without suffering.” And perhaps the most stunning observation of all- the Hollywood version of romance is a myth!

It is good to have this injection of reality into the modern mindset, where largely there is a myth of the perfect life perpetuated. And where people are the victims (often culpable ones at that) of unrealistic expectations in a culture where advice comes from magazines. Of course what the Bible seeks to present us with is a realistic vision of life where fallen people live in a fallen world. Where we cannot obtain perfection in this life. But we can know the grace of God through which we can still find purpose and help in this broken world. More than that we can also find redemption from this world in heaven where we will enter that realm where the defects of sin have been removed.

One suggested remedy for marital conflict is to practice mindfulness from Buddhism, but in a non-religious. A much more creative answer is to be in a right relationship the God who has created us for his glory and who has revealed Himself to us in His Son Jesus. And who has promised us His peace and His contentment amidst the realities of living in this fallen world.

When Heaven isn’t Heaven

In his writings John Flavel, the Puritan minister, repeats the idea that heaven cannot be heaven to those who do not love God. For heaven is that realm where God is loved supremely and where God is prized above heaven itself. Therefore it must follow that for those who do not love God heaven cannot be heavenly.

It is an important point he makes. For in my experience of having to conduct funerals of those who have little time for God the expectation is that the departed loved one will go to heaven. I’ve never met anyone who even countenanced the idea that a loved one could go to hell. (In much the same way as I have never had anyone convert to atheism on their deathbed!) But would heaven be heavenly for someone who did not love God? I agree with Flavel that it would not. If God is not the delight of our earthly existence, how could He possibly be the delight of our heavenly existence?

In the final analysis, as Romans 2 makes clear, God give us what we have lived for. If we have sought Him He is our reward. If we have not sought Him then God also gives us the desires of our hearts- an eternal future without Him.

The pursuit of heaven really is the serious business of this life. The essence of true Christianity is not fire insurance faith but delight in and a longing for God.