JESUS AND MORALITY

The moral law does it exist?

Is there such a thing as “right” and “wrong”? Something that is always wrong in all all situations, at all times? To use the example of Christian apologist, Frank Turik,

“Is it always wrong to torture babies for fun?”

Certainly, we all have a keen sense of right and wrong when we are the ones being wronged. People who say, “ There’s no such thing as right and wrong”, or “Nobody, not even God, can tell me what to do”, are usually the very ones who object the loudest when they are offended. Take their seat on the bus, be rude to them, steal something from them or upset them in anyway, and they are the first to object, “That’s wrong” or “That’s unfair”.

If a universal moral law does not exist, then there is no difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler. Some may want to excuse Hitler as one who just did what he thought was right and therefore not that evil. Others may accuse Mother Teresa of being motivated by selfish desires to appear good, holy or saintly, and therefore the good that she did was not really that good. So Hitler was not wrong and Mother Teresa was not right?

But there are good reasons to accept that universal moral values do exist. We sometimes call this the moral law, natural law, or an inner knowing of right and wrong. We can also call this “conscience”.

Conscience exists, it’s a real thing. Our conscience may be influenced by culture, social identity, personal preferences, circumstances, or our mental state, as in the legal plea of diminished responsibility. But though fallible and inconsistent, conscience does exist and it points to the existence of a universal moral law. And if there is a universal moral law, then there must be a universal moral Law Giver.

C.S. Lewis the famous literature professor and Christian apologist, authored many books including, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe  and The Narnia Chronicles. He also wrote Mere Christianity which has helped many people, especially intellectuals, see the relevance of Christianity. In his book on basic Christianity he tells the story of his ‘reluctant’ journey to faith.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

C.S. Lewis saw that our concept of justice demands an external standard of right and wrong. And, therefore, an external Law Giver and Justice-upholder. Certainly, if morality exists, we need to ask…

Where does morality come from?

There have been many philosophical, psychological and sociological attempts to explain the existence of morality. According to biological evolutionists, the answer is, we are only “dancing to the tune of our genes”. There is no morality at all, not in any kind of real sense. But how can anyone be held to account if they are just dancing to the tune of their genes?

You have think more deeply than that. Where does the concepts of justice, right and wrong come from? Has they evolved in order to propagate and preserve our species? If so, morality as we know it, is only a natural mechanism. And if that is so, it is not really morality as such. Only survival, a form of self-preservation, one might even say instinctive selfishness. How is that morality at all?

Perhaps we can accept that, somehow, morality is in the nature of things. But where you go from there will depend on your understanding of ultimate reality, the ultimate nature of things.

If you believe that the material world is all that is, then you must believe that morality is only a description of human behaviour and, ultimately, not meaningful. Only a matter of what is, and not what it really ought to be. There is no real moral imperative. Certainly no foundation for it in this world view, as honest atheists do admit.

Richard Dawkins one of the most famous ‘new atheists”, says on page 155 of  his book, River Out of Eden:

In a universe of blind forces and physical replication, some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it,

‘For Nature, heartless, witless nature
Will neither care nor know.’

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its tune.

But does that really ring true to you? Many atheists are honest enough to admit, that while they theoretically believe in an amoral universe, they find they cannot live like that in practice. And anyway, do you really believe that there is no difference between what is truly right and what is truly wrong?

Hitler was in a sense messing with genes when he tried to exterminate the Jews thinking he was promoting the Arian race. In terms of the evolutionary theory of morality what he did was correct, justifiable, even good or’ at the very least, not wrong. If there are no absolute rules, what did Hitler do wrong in making up his own rules in the belief he was advancing humanity?

But compare him with Jesus who was willing to suffer for, not kill the Jews, but die for them, and for every other race. He taught and lived love, sacrifice, and kindness to friends, strangers and enemies.

This is all very different from “blind pitiless indifference”.

What did Jesus say about morality?

Christian moral teaching is both the reason why many are attracted to the faith, and also why many others are repelled by it. The attractive part is the generalised teaching of being kind, loving, respecting others, loving your neighbour as yourself, and, so on. But what repels some people is the Christian ethical teaching regarding human relationships, sexual immorality, gender issues and many other matters of contemporary cultural interest.

Also, there’s this Christian insistence on the deep moral failure that lies at the heart of our broken human nature. Most people like to think of themselves as basically good, and resent being told otherwise.

A story in the Gospels makes this point clearly (see Mark’s Gospel Chapter 10 Verses 17-22). Jesus was speaking to a rich young ruler who came to him for spiritual advice,

“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Jesus’ answer was abrupt and startling,

“Why do you call me good? Only God is truly good.”

Why did Jesus answer that way? What point was he was making?

First, to show we don’t get to God by being good

At the heart of the Christian gospel is this assertion: we have all failed and, therefore, don’t get to God by being good.

I know many people dismiss this idea as, a ‘religious guilt trip’. We have all heard the expression, ‘Catholic guilt’. But you don’t have to be Catholic to feel guilt. I am sure most people will be honest enough to say that they have, at least at one point in their lives, probably more than once or, more accurately, frequently disappointed themselves by their behaviour. We all fall short of the higher morality that we instinctively set for ourselves. I doubt that no one on this planet, or anyone who has ever existed, who has not been disappointed, deeply disappointed by others, by the way others have treated them.

So we do have a problem. We are imperfect people, living in an imperfect world, conducting ourselves however much we try, imperfectly relationally, socially, economically, ecologically, and morally. Much good exists in us and others. But we’ve got to face up to the fact, that both this world and the people in are it, are flawed in many different ways.

Second, to point to Jesus’ true identity

Jesus wanted this young man to reconsider who he thought he was. Jesus was not merely a good moral teacher, but also Saviour, our Redeemer.

There is a big question many try to avoid. How do you deal with moral failure? How do you deal with injustice? I don’t just mean on a day-to-day or interpersonal basis, or even at a societal and historical level. All these are important questions. What I am getting at here is the question of ultimate justice based on external, objective justice.

If morality exists, then justice exists and if justice exists there is going to have to be a pay day, a day of justice. The only way that day is going to arrive, is if there is a God who must act and will act to bring justice. But when he does, where will we stand? We have all failed and need redemption. To my mind, the only worldview that makes sense is the biblical, Judaeo-Christian world view that proclaims an all-powerful God of justice, love and redemption. All this comes together in the cross, where Jesus took upon himself the moral failures of us all so that we could be set free to live the life for which we were designed.

The Golden Rule

The so-called ‘Golden Rule’, “Do to others what you would have them do to you”, is famous. It is related to the moral imperative of love. The two greatest commandments of the Hebrew Scriptures are also carried also into the New Testament, “Love God and love your neighbour as yourself”. In popular thinking, this is usually reduced to, “love you neighbour as yourself”.

But love and what flows from must be rooted in a certain form of transcendence as I move beyond myself to think of others. The Christian inspiration and standard for this is God himself who sets the supreme example of love, his self-giving on the cross.

If you think deeply about what is good, sooner or later you’re going to have to think about God. At the end of the day, no one is truly or completely good, but God. Our inspiration to be good comes from him, and the standard of what is good also comes from God himself.

Without God, there is no foundation for right and wrong, no way of knowing what it is, and no real reason for it to exist in the first place.

Without God, the Golden Rule actually makes no sense. Treat others the way you would like to be treated may sound like a simple rule to follow. But why should we do it? To live in a better world so that we all get what we want? We can support the utilitarian view of morality, and live to benefit ourselves and the maximum number of other people as well. But ultimately, this boils down to what benefits me.

There are other, one might say better, ways of getting what you want. We can do so by force, control, manipulation. Furthermore, what happens when your kindness to others isn’t reciprocated? If I won’t eat the shark, does that mean he won’t eat me? Injustice exists. Evil exists. It’s the ‘bad people’ who often win and get what they want. The ‘good people’ tend to get left behind. If this Rule doesn’t really work, why follow it? Why not, take advantage of others before they can take advantage of you?

A line from one of the characters in Amazon’s adaptation of Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan novels says: “Harry does what’s best for Harry”. That’s all we are left with if we take God out of the equation.

Why do something good, unless it is the right thing to do, no matter what you get out of it, or however others respond back to you.

And why do it unless you knew that in the end, justice will prevail, good will triumph over evil? But how can you know that, or be confident enough to live that way, unless there is an external element to it all? Unless there is a Moral Law and a Moral Law Giver and a Moral Law Governor who will ultimately bring justice. Most important of all, how can we prepare ourselves for that Day? Who will save us from ourselves?

All honest talk about morality points us in one direction. Good and evil do exist, we have all failed and we need redemption.

The post JESUS & RELIGION (Part Four) appeared first on Colin Dye.

JESUS & POLITICS

This one of the most controversial of all topics. There are those who think that the Christian faith only involves private spiritual matters and should have nothing to do with politics. There are others who think that Christianity is purely a matter of politics and social justice and it should control everything in society.

Should religion be kept out of politics?

Many people in the minority, Western World would say, “Yes”. They are usually influenced by a certain understanding of individualism, secularism and democratic freedom.

Some time ago I was interviewing some young people in Brazil for a TV discussion programme. When I posed the question, “Do you think religion has a place in politics?”, most replied with an emphatic, “No!” Doubtless they were thinking about the powerful Catholic and Evangelical lobbies at work in Brazilian politics and resisting such unwelcome interference. But my follow up questions were, “Do you think politicians in power should, love and care for the people they represent? Should they be honest, truthful and not look for personal gain? Would you like to see corruption rooted out of politics?” The answer to those questions was nearly always, “Yes!”

I pointed out that these values are not merely political. They are human questions and, in a real sense, they are also spiritual. It seems then that politics could benefit from many values traditionally associated with religion and spirituality.

The Modern, Secular State is a fairly recent phenomenon. Two main ideas lie behind this concept:

• Freedom of belief

The state should not attach itself any one religion and should not promote one religion above another. The government must not dictate the religious beliefs of the people. They should be free to believe, to disbelieve and to change what they believe. There should be no coercion, no forcing people to believe this religion or that religion.

• Religion is a matter of private opinion not public fact

This thinking is philosophically biased. It adopts an idea called, ‘materialism’. All that exists, all that we can know or be sure about, is the physical world. The existence of the spiritual realm or non-material forces is only a matter of opinion and therefore such ideas can have no real place in the public realm, and certainly not in how we organise ourselves politically.

The first idea, to my mind, is a good one. We should be free to choose our religious beliefs, or choose to have none. But the second idea, that religion or faith is entirely a private not a public matter, seems to me to be going too far. It means that religious faith or religious values should have no place in public life at all. One of the roles of religion in society is to inform people’s conscience, to remind society of moral duties and the higher values of life and living.

Religion should not dictate, but it can inform peoples’ conscience. For example, many people in British political history achieved remarkably enlightened goals because they had faith in God and a spiritual conscience. Their  Christian faith gave them a deep sense of responsibility to their fellow members of the human family. We see this with the great Evangelical social reformers of 19th Century Britain. William Wilberforce (1759-1833) helped end transatlantic slavery. The 7th Earl of Shaftesbury (1801-1885) was involved in the abolition of the slave trade, as well as improving conditions for the mentally ill, child labourers, factory workers, boy chimney sweepers, and the suppression of the opium trade.

The State cannot do everything. It certainly should not determine what its citizens believe in matters of conscience. In extreme forms of secularism, the State has become all powerful, and tends towards totalitarianism, a strange form of religious-type control. Perhaps there should be an understanding between these two bodies. One which is based on collaboration, not antagonism and a mutual calling to account.

When we ask the question, “Should religion be kept out of politics?” We could answer, in some respects, “Yes”, but in other ways “No”. Religion can have a part to play, provided it does not control people’s consciences or dictate their beliefs. But, there is another important question.

Should politics be kept out of religion?

For much of world history, religion and government or politics, were virtually one and the same thing. There was a union of religion and state or, at least, religion was given a prominent role in the state. This is still a dominant idea in many nations around the world today.

Politics itself is often driven by ideologies, many of which are not objectively proven and have totally failed to deliver. The problem really has to do with freedom. Freedom to think, freedom to discover, freedom to choose, freedom not to be dictated to by the state.

An example of a modern secular state is frace France/ “La laicité” reigns supreme. France is governed by the people, the lay people, not the curates or the religious people.

At one time we were looking to get permission in Paris to have a church building. We found insurmountable resistance from the authorities. Finally, we suggested that it might be a matter of freedom of religion. The official replied, “No monsieur. Here in France we have freedom of thought, not freedom of religion!”

In seems to me that in this case, the State has become not just bureaucratic or autocratic but quasi-theocratic in nature, bordering on seeing itself as all-powerful. A theocracy is when the state and religion are one. The rules of the government are the same as the rules of the religion, supposedly on behalf of God.

This was the situation in ancient times and in much of mediaeval history. In the Hebrew kingdoms, the people lived under a theocracy. The nation was controlled by religious law. The Laws of God were also the laws of the land. Religion controlled the whole of life. It enveloped national life, civil life, military life, family life and jurisprudence. The Law of Moses dictated what you could or could not eat, what kind of clothing you should wear, religious rituals, national religious festivals, local worship, moral provisions and all civil matters.

This idea of the ‘union of religion and state’ was also the general view of many of the great world empires of history. The Persian empire, the Roman Empire, the Christian Byzantine Empire, and the Islamic Empire, all had more or less the same view – One God, one people, one empire, one government under the rule of One Religion that was said to represent him on the earth.

All this was long before the emergence of the modern democratic state that upheld individual rights, and freedom for all. This explains why in those days, and in some cases today:

• That people engaged in religious wars – they were not only defending or advancing their country, or their territory – 5 they were also defending or advancing the cause of their God, their religion. This is still the motive behind many acts of violence and efforts of the “holy wars” of today.
• That people were tried and condemned to death for blasphemy, adultery, sodomy as well as perjury or theft. This is still happening today in certain parts of the world.

As a Christian I am obviously interested to know what does Jesus think about all of this. What did he teach? When I look into it, I find myself more drawn to him than ever.

What did Jesus have to say about politics?

Jesus was revolutionary for his time in that he taught a separation of powers, a separation of religion and state. Whether church, mosque, synagogue or temple. We find this in the Gospel story of the denarius, “Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s and give to God what is God’s.” Jesus gives this rapid and astute response to a trick question about taxation, in Matthew’s Gospel Chapter 22 and Verses 15–22.

His response introduced a revolutionary change in attitude to the ‘one state, one religion’ approach of the Old Testament. When asked by a delegation of Pharisees and Herodians (who were usually arch enemies) whether the Jews should pay taxes to Caesar or not, Jesus’ reply was monumental and introduced the new principle of separating the church, or religion, from the state. He also dealt with the trap they had set for him.

If he had said ‘Yes’, he would have been sanctioning Caesar’s authority and, by implication, Caesar’s religion. If he had said ‘No’, he would have been obeying the Mosaic law which decreed, “You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother” (Deuteronomy Chapter 17 Verses 14–15). He would have been in serious difficulty with the Roman Government of his day.

The denarius Jesus used to illustrate his teaching was an idolatrous and blasphemous coin. Denarii from both the period of Augustus and Tiberius ascribed glory to the emperor. During the time of Emperor Tiberius, a denarius had on the obverse an image of the emperor with the inscription, ‘Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of the Divine Augustus’. And on the opposite side of the coin, the reverse, was inscribed the words ‘Pontifex Maximus’, which mean, ‘the highest priest’.

The denarius, therefore, claimed that the emperor had religious, even divine status. As ever, Jesus showed that his personal authority was greater than the Law of Moses, and perhaps for the first time in history, the claims of state and religion wdere separated, “Give to Caesar what is Ceasar’s and give to God what is God’s”.

In other words, Jesus was saying that his followers should give civil obedience and respect to the king, but the king had no right to prescribe religious beliefs to his subjects. Instead of speaking about ‘one state, one religion’, Jesus instructed people to abide by the distinctive authorities of Caesar and God in their parallel, but distinctive, realms. He was not asking us to carve our lives into two sections, one a ‘spiritual life’ and the other a ‘secular life’. Rather, he was telling us to live one godly life, and to learn to distinguish, and obey, two different but overlapping, areas of authority over our ‘one’ life.

Jesus was also asking people to remember the One who is above all earthly rulers and authorities, the One to whom all kings and governors must give account, the God who created us all in his image. Just as that coin bore the image of Cesar, so your life bears the image of God. So, give to God what belongs to God.

This is the real challenge of the Christian faith. It’s not about what political party you favour, or which system of government you prefer. It’s about the claims of God over your whole life. The God who created you is the God who loves you, and wants to draw you to himself into a way of living that is not only a good life, but also brings glory to him.

The government of God

When we talk about Jesus and politics, sooner or later we have to consider what Jesus said about the ‘Government of God’. What is the government of God?

A record of Jesus’ trial before the Roman Governor, Ponitius Pilate is found in John’s Gospel Chapter 18 verses 28-37. Verses 33-37 read,

Then Pilate went back into his headquarters and called for Jesus to be brought to him. “Are you the king of the Jews?” he asked him. 36 Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.” 37 Pilate said, “So you are a king?” Jesus responded, “You say I am a king. Actually, I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”

New Living Translation ®

The key part in what Jesus says here, is that his kingdom is not of this world. It means God’s government, his rule over our lives, does not come through earthly, human-based initiatives or governmental control. It is supernatural. It comes from above, from God. The conversation between Jesus and Pilate reveals a total confusion of issues on the part of the Jewish and Roman leaders.

The religious leaders were envious of Jesus’ popularity. They contrived to have him executed for insurrection because he claimed to be ‘king of the Jews’, a political title. This was the cynical use of politics by religious people. But Jesus’ kingdom is not political one, in the usual sense of the word. I has to do with the rule of God welcomed into people’s hearts. Pilate’s decision to condemn Jesus to death was to appease the religious people. No wonder people say religion and politics do not mix!

Religion and politics are different. They should never become one and the same. Politics is responsible for civil matters and religion has to do with spiritual matters. Political governors should uphold freedom of religion and freedom of belief for all. Religious leaders should be prepared to challenge the moral conscience and the policies of any government on spiritual grounds. And civil leaders should also call religious people to account as citizens.

The post JESUS & RELIGION (Part Three) appeared first on Colin Dye.

JESUS AND SPIRITUALITY

I am not sure this was his original intention, but Jesus has come to be known as the founder of a great world religion. Today 31% of the world’s population identify as ‘Christian’. They have some link, some historical, cultural or personal connection to Christianity.

One the other hand, there is a growing number of people who don’t wish to identify with any “organised” religion, certainly not Christianity. This is particularly true in the minority Western world, and it is also increasingly present in the Majority world where secularism is increasing as well as disillusion with many political expressions of different religions in religiously dominated societies.

Spirituality, in the broader sense, is becoming more popular, widely sought after.

I understand that USA book publishers are fond of the word, ‘soul’. Apparently any book with the word ‘soul’ in the title sells 10-15% more copies than usual. We see this popularity in such titles as, Chicken Soup for the Soul, Soulful Baker, The Soul of a Woman, and Soul Fuel, to name but a few. So ‘soul’ sells. Why? Is it because despite people’s problems with organised religion, the desire for spirituality persists? It seems that a “thirst for spirit” is embedded in our human nature as we long for more than mere materialism.

These two things, the rise in interest in spirituality and Western society’s drift traditional religions including Christianity, mean there is a notable rise in the West of alternative spiritualties. Why is this? The search for meaning, the values of a higher power and the vacuum created by a rejection of mainstream traditional Christianity are all possible answers. But why the drift away from Christianity?

Part of the answer may be a reaction against religious abuses. Christian institutions have lost credibility due to recurring examples of abuse of power and authority, physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Then there is the broader cultural shift.

Popular spiritualities can be seen in part as a reaction against dogmatism. Western people are now more culturally inclined towards a more open, flexible approach. There is a reaction against most forms of organised religion. People wish to be more individualistic, holding to private belief systems, not wanting to be part of the artificial edifices that have come to be built around religions in general and the Christian religion in particular. This too may be a reaction against rigid belief systems in favour, personal intuition and cultural preferences. This is particularly true of Christian moral teaching on marriage, gender and sexuality.

There is a danger in mere reaction. Following something because you are reacting against something else, does not guarantee that you are on the right path. Could it be that people are throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater?

It is possible that a form of ‘adolescent’ rebellion at work. Western parents know all to well that part of adolescent development is the need to establish oneself as a separate entity, a person in one’s own right. The typical identity crisis in adolescence often leads to a rejection of parental values and sometimes going the opposite extreme in belief and behaviours. Maybe this settles down in later years, and rebellion can have positive effects, if the true motivation is ‘search for truth and validation is genuine.

There is no doubt people have abused Christianity, using it for their own ends. But simple logic will tell you the abuse of a good thing does not invalidate the thing itself.

Fine wine, food and sex, are all good in their proper place, but they can all be abused. Taken to extreme and without self-control, the love of food can lead to obesity, alcohol can become and addiction and sex can become abusive. But the fact of abuse does not invalidate these things in and of themselves, and do not negate their potential benefits to personal well-being and enjoyment, and to society as a whole.

Perhaps that’s the same with Christianity?

I find that most people who hold to various forms of spirituality, have also bought into other forms of dogmatism or, at least, some fundamental framework of belief, that in the end is quite inflexible, in what it excludes as well as includes. Some have adopted worldviews that permission them to explore alternative spiritualties which are defined by their antagonism to the more historic forms of Christianity.

Since the 1960’s generations of young Western people have been inspired first by the Beatles and then by many celebrity endorsements of Eastern-style religions. For decades people in West are fascinated with these forms of philosophical religion. Popular culture has been influenced by the idea that God/god is not some personal being ‘out there’ but that he/she/it lives in us all as the ‘divine spark’ in all of us. Often the divine is described in negative terms:

• not a God ‘out there’
• not the one who created us and has a design or rules for us to follow
• not a God to whom we are morally or personally accountable but a god of love without justice
• not a God who judges and throws people into hell
• not a God who, in Christ, sacrificed himself for our salvation.

The ‘new spiritualities’ may not be dogmatic when describing what God is, but they are very dogmatic when insisting on what he is not.

Being clear about anything, even in your own mind, always involves definite ideas. That in itself is not the problem. What really matters is making sure that what you believe is based on sound thinking and good reason. The conclusions you hold and the judgments you make must be the result of having checked out, as far as you can, the facts of the case.

I had a background in a form of Christianity and church-going. But when I was 16 years old I moved away from that. I arrived in Britain, enrolled in the Royal Ballet School and was ready for new things. I began to think that God was as I had been brought up to believe. He had to be more like nature, some force, or something like that. I don’t know exactly why I thought like this. I certainly hadn’t checked it all out. Perhaps it was because I had not really understood or had not yet truly deeply or personally experienced the purported claims of the Christian faith for myself. Perhaps I was wanting to leave behind a set of doctrines that seemed to be so limiting for my personal, preferred life-style choices. Or maybe it was just a reaction against my upbringing.

Whatever the reason, I was making a choice, a personal choice and a worldview choice. With all worldviews, you need to have ways of checking it all out. Is there is any proof or any sound reasoning to support your the world view you have adopted?

I find people always ask me to prove what I believe, but often never think about examining the basis of their own beliefs, or even defining or describing what they believe. Of course there are many people who do not subscribe to the major world religions and their clearly-defined doctrines who, nevertheless, can give an eloquent presentation of what they believe and why. But generally, people do not often go that deep, unless they are committed to some religious or philosophical system of thought. For example Monism (the absolute oneness of all existence), polytheism (paganism), new age, mysticism, TM etc. All these are systems of thought, philosophies, which are either reflect a true view of ultimate reality, of things as they really are, or they do not.

But how can we know? I think we can go back to look at, to reconsider Jesus. He is highly respected by nearly all religions. He is almost universally seen as a moral, a spiritual and a religious leader. So perhaps it’s wise to take a fresh look at Jesus.

Jesus’ approach to spirituality

This a good place to start if you are ready to think through how you should approach faith and spirituality. Surely, if nothing else he was a spiritual man. He subscribed to the teaching of the Jewish Scriptures and stood in the Hebrew prophetic tradition and believed in Jewish doctrines.

His teaching on spirituality is summarised in his statement found in John’s Gospel Chapter 4, verse 24. It contains a wealth of information on Jesus’ view of spirituality.

“God is spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth.”

What we can understand about God from Jesus:

• God is spirit – he is and he is spirit, non-physical spiritual being
• God is personal – Jesus uses personal pronouns of God. He may be more than personal, but not less than a fully personal being, a ‘he’ not an ‘it’
• God is eternal and uncreated – the source of everything that exists; There is no eternal being apart from him. He is both transcendent (out there) but also immanent (close by)
• God is Father – he is above gender but revealed as ‘Father’ in order to show us what it means to be loved as part of his family. Human marriage and family are earthly comparisons, pointing to something far greater.
• God is worthy to be worshipped – but must be worshipped for who he is, not who we think he is, or want him to be. In other words he must be worshipped in sincerity and accuracy. It matters how you think about him and how you approach him.
• We are created by God for relationship – with God and with others.
• We can only be fully satisfied by God  – we will never be fully satisfied, or at rest within ourselves, until we come to know the One True God.

Anyone who is seeking spirituality and believes that Jesus has something to say about it can check all this out.

A good place to start is by John’s Gospel. It is very spiritual and reflective Gospel. Or you might prefer the Gospel of Mark. It is shorter, practical and fast moving. It’s up to you.

Want to dive right in? Check out John 4:7-30. Find the verse I quoted (verse 24). Look at it in context and reflect on it for a while.

The post JESUS & RELIGION (Part Two) appeared first on Colin Dye.

Religion worldwide is growing. 84% of the world is religious. Even in secular societies various forms of religion are thriving. But isn’t this harmful? Isn’t religion basically a toxic force for evil? Surprisingly you might get that idea from Jesus himself who spoke passionately against the corrupt religion of his day. He taught another way – a clearly non-religious way of approaching God.

JESUS AND RELIGION

A Religious World and a World of Religions

Our contemporary world is undeniably religious. According to a 2018 article in the British Newspaper The Guardian, 84% of people in the world identify with a religious faith. And the world is getting more religious as we speak. High birth rates and high conversion rates in the majority world mean that religious belief is growing at a daily rate of hundreds of thousands.

From a historical point of view, the world has always been religious. As far as we can tell, every society in history has had some form of religious belief in the supernatural world, belief in a God or gods.

The secularism of the modern Western world is an exception. This is virtually the only time in history when a society is led to believe that we are merely the product of material forces, there is no divine plan, no purpose and no life-after-death destiny. But even in the West, the Judaeo-Christian influence is still strong. We rely on this sacred tradition to inform our consciences on such matters as moral and social justice, dignity of human life, the value of the individual, and much more. Note: birth rate is low, but some religions are growing even in the West

Most people recognise that religion has been a force for good and a force for evil.

The “New Atheists” of our day, the so-called ‘Four Horsemen’ (Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett & Sam Harris) have only one thing to say, “Religion is evil!” It’s all about hegemonic power and control. The ideas of religion, all religions, are toxic, harmful and must be eradicated.

Released in 1971, the song, Imagine became an iconic statement of the 1960’s revolution of freedom. Religion is perceived as the problem. It’s the cause of fear, conflict and division. John Lennon imagined an utopian world without religion.

Lennon and Lennox

Imagine by John Lennon

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard 971to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one

John Lennon, got the symptoms right, but was he right about the cause?

Let me introduce to you another John. This time John Lennox, the Christian apologist, philosopher and mathematician. In his book, Gunning for God he wrote in response to Lennon’s Imagine:

“I am not John Lennon. I happen to be John Lennox, and I would like you to imagine a world with no atheism. No Stalin, no Mao, no Pol Pot, just to name the heads of the three officially atheistic states that were responsible for some of the worst mass crimes of the 20^th Century. Just imagine a world with no Gulag, no Cultural Revolution, no Killing Fields, no removal of children from their parents because the parents were teaching them about their beliefs, no refusal of higher education to believers in God, no discrimination against believers in the workplace, no pillaging, destruction, and burning of places of worship. Would not that be a world worth imagining too?

(Gunning for God p 83).

The evil of totalitarian religion and ideology

It seems to me that any totalitarian belief, whether religious or non-religious, tends towards evil. These systems have a number of things in common:

1. They all believe that their understanding of truth is absolute and must be accepted without question
2. These systems are inexorably tied to power. Through domination or coercion, their beliefs are to be imposed on society. They are ready to use whatever means they can – political power, military force or ideological indoctrination. We see this crop up in many different forms The Christian crusades, the Jesuit inquisition, the Islamic Jihadists, Daesh or ISIS, Hitler’s concentration camps and Communist crimes against humanity
3. These ideologies take the dangerous moral high ground. Because they are right, absolutely right, the end justifies the means. After all, so they believe, they are acting for the good of humanity.

Not all religion is bad

Research from the USA Heritage Foundation, shows that:

1. Religious practice appears to have enormous potential for addressing our social problems
2. Religious practice can improve:
   1. Health
   1. Learning
   1. Economic well-being
   1. Self-control
   1. Self-esteem
   1. Empathy

Jesus’ attitude to religion

While Jesus must described as a religious man, a man of faith, his attitude to the religious leaders and the corrupt institutional religious system of his day, is startling. Matthew’s Gospel, Chapter 23 and verses 1-36 records Jesus’ confrontation of the religious authorities:

They [the religious leaders] crush people with impossible religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden. “Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear robes with extra-long tassels. And they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the seats of honour in the synagogues. They love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Teacher’.

(verses 4-7)

Don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher’, for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters.

(verse 8)

What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either.

(verse 13)

What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves are!

(verse 15)

What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things. Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel! What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy—full of greed and self-indulgence! You blind Pharisee! First wash the inside of the cup and the dish, and then the outside will become clean, too. What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity. Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.

(verses 23-28)

Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?

(verse 33)

Holy Bible, New Living Translation ®, copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers. All rights reserved.

The context of Jesus’ condemnation of religious leaders is important.

Jesus was confronting the corrupt religious institutions of his day. This is not an anti-semitic interpretation of the gospel after the time of Jesus. Matthew’s Gospel is the most semitic of all the 4 Gospels. Matthew shows that the was himself Jewish and faithful to the Jewish laws and traditions of his day. He was against the corruption of the Jewish religion, not authentic faith and practice.

Jesus’ world view is entirely Jewish. He believed in the God of the Jewish Scriptures. He had a supernatural world view.

Jesus was fearless and outspoken. This is rooted in his own sense of authority and consciousness of his unique relationship with God. So unique that Christians feel justified in referring to him as “the son of God.”

I believe we are justified in applying what Jesus says to all corrupt religious institutions. At least in principle. Corrupt, merciless, inhumane, controlling and self-serving religious teaching and practice are wrong in any context.

But there is something even deeper than this to grasp about Jesus’ attitude to religion.

Jesus’ way versus the religious way

Religion as commonly understood and practiced is a way of qualifying yourself in the eyes of God. What you have to do to get God to accept you. Every religion I know teaches that except the religion of Jesus. This includes the corruption of the ‘Christian religion’ which teaches that our relationship with God is based on a quasi-legal interpretation of what God requires of us.

But Jesus’ way, is not the regular religious way. Jesus does not teach that we have to reach up to God, and do things to impress him so that he will accept us. Rather, he teaches that God has down in his own Person, the Person of Christ, becoming human, just like us, demonstrating who God is, and accomplishing on our behalf everything that God requires of us. Central to this, is giving his own life as a sacrifice for our sin. He teaches us that through trusting him alone, trusting what he has done for us, we can have a personal relationship with God. Through Christ we can know God as our ever-present, all-loving and totally affirming, heavenly Father.

Simply put – it’s not so much a matter of religion but having a personal and intimate relationship with God, through Jesus.

The post JESUS & RELIGION (Part One) appeared first on Colin Dye.