Alistair McGrath and Carrying the Torch of Bad Theology…

Lately I have been watching and listening to a number of interviews and debates with Alistair McGrath, former atheist and now Christian apologist.  During a couple, namely his appearance on a talk show (The Hour) and a debate with Richard Dawkins that was cut from Dawkins documentary, McGrath comes off looking bad at best.  In a great deal of circles, McGrath is considered a top authority on apologetics and debates on a very public and very constant level.  Part of this appeal comes from, I’m sure, what Dawkins calls McGrath’s “street cred” of being a former atheist.  Regardless, his arguments fail greatly in light of his hype.

The biggest problem is the constant inconsitancy in McGrath’s theology as a whole.  At times he appears close to being a Deist, and at others he gives answers that are almost fanciful and void of reason all together.  For starters, he readily presents himself as a theistic evolutionist, which does not bring complete inconsistancy in itself (although comes pretty close), but he never completely reconciles how he can believe in a uncreatable Creator and an evolutionary mindset.  Also, and more notalby, Dawkins poses a question about God’s provision for a child in the midst of a tragic earthquake that killed thousands, in which the parents thanked God for saving her.  Dawkins could not understand why God would save the girl and kill the masses, and McGrath could not help him gain any headway.  While there are strong theological answers that would have been quite sufficient (which I will not go into for the sake of time), McGrath gave an answer that was actually less convincing than the overused “faith” card.  On one hand He said that God set into motion the world and allows it to run without intervention, thus by that argument the child just got lucky.  Then, however, he claimed that he believed that God really did intervene and save the child, but gave no reconciliation between the two. 

Perhaps the most startling of his inconsistant argument dealt with the atonement of Christ and penal substitution.  Dawkins stated that he could not understand why the all powerful God had to die in order to forgive sins and could not merely absolve sins with a word.  McGrath the procedes to dive down into a C.S. Lewis-esq proposal about how the crucifixion’s main purpose was to be an example of Christ’s love and a symbolic gesture at best, thus eliminating a great portion of the Biblical concept of atonement. 

Ultimately throughout the entire interview and debate, nothing was said…on either part.  Even a man who claims that Christianity can be backed by evidence was able to give none in the face of ”tough” questions.  I have to believe that there is a switch in our brains that turns off when presented with debates that challenge our faith.  In reality, Christianity is a completely rational and reasonable faith and it is painful that the vast percentage of those who debate and defend our faith happen to be unrational and disconnected.  God works through history and science and upon careful study it can clearly be noted that both are rationalized in and through one another.  Atheists are scared of God and Christians are scared of reason, but the fact is that God is quite reasonable and presented His creation with ample evidence by which He and His work of Creation and redemption can to a greater extent than we believe, be explained and understood. 

Pick Up The Sword or Put Down The Signs…

The idea of non-violent protest is ridiculous.  Throughout history, especially in this country, nonviolent protest has been the medium of choice for those who wish to change what they believe to be injustice.  Activists of all sorts; be it environmentalists, gay rights activists, pro life advocates, civil rights activists, hippies, Christians, etc, have all desperately sought to seek changes in their favor in a nonviolent, passively insubordinate way.  But to what avail? 

I would venture to say that nonviolent protest, without violent intervention has been all but useless.  Dr. King needed X and the Panthers.  The only protests we remember ended in a massacre or explosion.  It seems very clear to me that, if you want to get something accomplished through protest, the quickest and most effective way is to take up arms and take what you want.  A whisper in the ear will not get nearly the attention as a shot to the head…right?  If you ask me, nonviolent protest is a cop out, the weapon of choice for people who want change things but not willing to get their hands dirty and are more than willing to end with a good try and we’ll get em next time.  And for the record, I’m not calling Dr. King a quitter by any means, but there were also very few of his demonstrations that remained nonviolent. 

So what to do?  Violent protest (in almost all cases) is absolutely unBiblical and nonviolent is absolutely stupid.  The answer is…quit protesting.  For Christians, it seems that so much of our time is wrapped up in reacting.  We hear about a new bill or politician, or abortion clinic and we get all in a tizzy; when in reality if we had been doing our job of living as a counter culture and preaching the unadulterated Gospel the problems may not have gotten to the point they are at.  We waste so much time defending that we don’t have any time to do what we were made for, to love God and love people and make disciples in the process.  We need to start living the lives we proclaim and protest for and stop wasting time thinking up clever ways to tell homosexuals and abortion doctors we hate them as we pass them on the interstate.  Christ lived on earth in a way that was radical and different and people took notice.  He needed no signs or bracelets to let people know that change was coming…He was just different…amazingly different…and change occurred around Him.  It’s time for us to put down the signs and pick up our swords, the Word of God, and live it in a way that is unmistakable and impossible to look past.  Action speaks louder than billboards.  I might get a bumper sticker that says ::End Protesting::…what a waste.

This one might get me in trouble…

Let me begin by saying that I am Southern Baptist (and in turn Georgia Baptist), have been all my life and enjoy it thoroughly. I know that no denomination or person is perfect, so I do not expect the GBC to be any different. I do, however, have a problem that when I dwell on it is almost more than I can handle. The Georgia Baptist Convention has recently built a nice new building. Note: I am not now nor have I ever been against nice buildings. Now that we have that out of the way…there is a point where nice gives way to unnecessary and possibly even sinful. The number I have been quoted regarding the cost of the building is somewhere around $60,000,000. For the numerically impaired that is one six with six zeroes following it…six million dollars. It has a theater, marble floors, statues, gorgeous ceilings and the list goes on. Seriously? Most of the people that work there are traveling so much they are not even in the building the great majority of the time. There are churches struggling and people in need and there are much better ways to spend that money. I’ll quit while I still have a job…