Defiant Joy: The Remarkable Life and Impact of G.K. Chesterton by Kevin Belmonte, A Review

A jovial mound of renown—that phrase or something similar kept coming to my mind as I read this biography of the “real G.K. Chesterton”. And I think the title aptly describes the contents.

The joy of Chesterton certainly comes through not only in his writing but in his interactions with others. His heroes bring smiles of surprise. The country priest Father Brown and the Napoleon of Notting Hill, Auberon Quin, are not our typical heroes but have taken that form in the playful mind of Chesterton. (G.K. himself did not have the looks of a hero either with his massive girth and unruly head of hair.)

However, this joy was not obtained without pain. In a chapter entitled A Perfect Storm the writer describes the crisis of faith Chesterton experienced in school. G.K. later said of that time, “I held on to religion by one thin thread of thanks”. He also knew the pain of death having lost a sister. Her death brought a grief that hung over the Chesterton home and could have shaped G.K. into a melancholic soul but when he found faith he also found joy.

What I especially appreciated in the book was the relationship G.K. had with those who did not share his views. He maintained an ongoing friendship with George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells and his passing was mourned by those who did not share his faith. I couldn’t help but ask if the same would be true of many people of faith today. Will we be mourned by our opponents or will our passing bring a sigh of relief?

Apart from a few biographical notes I had not read anything before about the life of one of the most influential authors of the last century. Kevin Belmonte’s book was a good place to start.

Why are fire engines red?

Fire engines are red and newspapers are read so that makes 2.

2+ 2 is 4

4 x 3 is 12

12 inches is a ruler.

Queen Elizabeth is a ruler.

The Queen Elizabeth is also a ship.

Ships sail in the sea.

Fish swim in the sea.

Fish have fins.

The Finns fought the Russians.

Russians are red.

Fire engines are always rushin’.

So therefore fire engines are red.

About 15 miles from my house a highway sign is counting down the days until Judgment Day with this stamp of authority “The Bible guarantees it”. Yes, judgment day is less than 2 months away on May 21, 2011 according to this sign. Where did this date come from?

In case you haven’t read the supporting material permit me to summarize it. The coming judgment of God upon the world is 7000 years from another judgment, the Flood, and that would be May 21 of this year.

To arrive at this conclusion the promulgator of this idea has come up with a date for the flood (after having researched this with Bible scholars) that becomes the basis for calculating the final Day of Judgment.

God was patient with the people who lived on the earth in the time of the flood and gave them seven days to get on the ark. However, the seven days of Noah become 7000 years by misreading 2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day".

In 2 Peter 3:8, which is quoted above, Holy God reminds us that one day is as 1,000 years. Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day. Because Holy Infinite God is all-knowing, He knows the end from the beginning. He knew how sinful the world would become. (Quote from the website of Family Radio)

What the writer conveniently forgets is that if 1000 years are as a day so also one day is as 1000 years. So the calculations may be off by 6999 years and 359 days. If this is the case the judgment is past.

Now I admit God may come in judgment on May 21, 2011 (however, that would contradict my theological view of the rapture) but it won’t be because of the calculations. The calculations don’t prove a thing except the arrogance of Mr. Camping.

As with the argument for red fire engines we can prove almost anything if we assume a lot and pick the verses we want to use.

A Weapon of Mass Destruction

A recent exchange on Facebook got me to thinking about how we use the Bible in our arguments. The issue raised on Facebook was one of those hot button issues that move beyond debate to insult and accusation. I admit I made my own accusation when I brought up the legalist trump card.

In this case, the issue was homeschooling. I support, in principle,the right for parents to homeschool, meaning I think some of them are doing a good job. However, some parents home school only to promote an isolationist point of view and neither educate the whole child or prepare him or her to be a full citizen of the Kingdom of God.

So I am like the teacher who yelled at the kids playing in her freshly poured sidewalk. She loved kids in the abstract not in the concrete. I support homeschools in the abstract but not in the concrete, not categorically.

That being said one of the FB friends in the debate apparently believes every parent should home-school or risk being in league with the forces of darkness. He is entitled to that opinion but in my opinion he is making a statement that is too broad. .

What stirred my thinking though was this FB friend’s use of Scripture in such a way that those who took a different view were labeled fools and then this use of Scripture was justified by saying “Hey, I am not the author. I am only quoting Scripture”.

Let’s put the argument in context.

I think parents should home-school for the Bible says “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

Maybe I am wrong (it wouldn’t be unusual) but using Scripture this way implies that parents who home-school are following the way of wisdom but those who don’t are fools This turns the Bible into a weapon of mass destruction.

It is clear from the Bible itself that Scripture is a weapon—and an offensive weapon at that. Paul says in Ephesians that we are to put on the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. We could debate the meaning of this passage since the word rhema and not logos is used but let’s assume for sake of argument that the Bible is a sword and therefore a weapon. How does that impact my use of Scripture?

Do I use the Bible to behead people, even other Christians with whom I disagree? Or do I present the Word and let the Spirit do His work?

Quite often we use the Bible as a hammer. I have done that myself, sometimes on purpose to make a point, and on one occasion I used the Bible as a hammer to save myself from a beating but that is another story.

Is there another way to promote home-schooling (and once again I note there are those who shouldn't)? How about Paul’s words in Philippians?

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

I think the Holy Spirit is capable of applying the word He inspired to reach me and others. I don’t need to use Scripture in such a way that it becomes a weapon of destruction.

The issue raised on FB was homeschooling but the principle I am raising is how we use the Bible. Are we using it as a weapon to beat people who disagree or to end an argument or do we allow the Spirit to reprove, rebuke and correct.

And to get almost everything on the table I think you should know that I have taught in 3 Christian schools (One of these I, with several other pastors, got jump started) I also worked under contract to the state of Pennsylvania working in adult literacy—teaching reading to adults who did not learn how to read in public school. Now I work for the Federal Government but I am not writing this as a Federal employee nor are my views representative of the views of the Federal government. These views are my own and I believe them to be true or I would change them.

A Calvinist Prayer

Prayer must be boring for a Calvinist.

Let me explain how I arrived at this opinion, and it is only my opinion but it began to be formed by reading Arthur Pink.

Years ago I was his book The Sovereignty of God. I came to his chapter on the sovereignty of God and prayer. I re-read that chapter last week in preparation for a message on prayer. It seems to boil down to this, “The Calvinist prays because God has commanded him to pray”.

Now I don’t doubt the passion or sincerity of a praying (and obedient) Calvinist but it seems that for the Calvinist prayer really effects no change. Everything has already been decided. In fact another writer puts it this way “The first thing is this: that the God who set His plan in stone before the earth was created included prayer in His plan to accomplish His will. The same God who decreed this plan even before creation, included prayer in His plan to accomplish His will.”

So prayer has already been assumed in the divine providence of God and things only happen through predetermined prayer. So when God hears that prayer that was predetermined he can push the next button since prayer was already built into the plan.

All this sounds rather sterile to me. Or am I missing something?

In the 1800’s Charles Spurgeon preached a message entitled “The Arminian Prayer” which contained the prayer of an Arminian..

"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them."

With that background I am taking the liberty of writing A Calvinist Prayer.

Sovereign Lord, the One who has already predetermined all things, even this prayer at this time on behalf of these people. I come in obedience to pray believing that these words were already heard before the foundation of the world and have been already taken into consideration as you set worked out your plans. Your will be done, and it will be. Amen

I really doubt that any Calvinist prays this way but why not? Isn’t this a prayer consistent with the teaching of Calvinism?

For the record I am neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist (That part is obvious.) But I am a person interested in the power of prayer and I can’t see that in Calvinism.

I actually resist the attempt to categorize one’s beliefs on the basis of systems that have only been around for 500 years—Calvinism or Arminianism. Could it be that when it comes to such a thing as prayer there is still some mystery that neither system has been able to discover?

Poor Old Ebenezer Scrooge

“Scrooge”. Isn’t that what we call people who don’t seem to have the Christmas spirit? Of course with all the activities this time of year it is difficult to be cheerful all the time but why “Scrooge”? Why do we call people “Scrooge” when they don’t enjoy Christmas?

I am not asking where the name originated. I am familiar with Ebenezer Scrooge. He was the Dickens’s character who wanted to make as much money as he could while spending as little as he could. He didn’t even want to let his workers off on Christmas Day. At Christmas season he wandered around his shop mumbling “Bah, Humbug.”

However, the story doesn’t end there. Do you remember what happened? After being visited by the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future he became a changed man. He got up early on Christmas Day to buy turkeys and gifts. He became a gracious old man. Charles Dickens wrote “He knew how to keep Christmas well”.

So why do we call people “Scrooge” when they don’t have the Christmas spirit? Why don’t we use that name for people who enjoy Christmas?

Let’s try that this year. When you see someone who is really enjoying this wonderful time of year walk up and say, “Hello, Scrooge.” Try it with your spouse or your boss. (If they get angry blame it on me.)

Even though I think that name is appropriate I don’t think it will go over too well. You will be misunderstood. Take a few minutes to explain. Remind your boss or spouse of the happy ending and how Scrooge turned out to be a wonderful old man. It probably won’t help. Why?

For one thing traditions die slowly. For over 165 years the name Scrooge has suggested a miserable person. It would be difficult to change the meaning now. Although according to the OED the first use of the word Scrooge as a miserable person appeared in the 1940's it is still firmly planted in our minds and will not be quickly changed to a positive concept.

More significantly though we tend to judge a person by the way he lives most of his life rather than on the basis of one act of kindness. A person can’t be a grinch 364 days of the year and expect to change all that on Christmas Day with a few gifts.

And aren’t most of us skeptical about the possibility of change? “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” “Once a Scrooge always a Scrooge.”

But the true message of Christmas is that change is possible. That baby born in a manger 2000 years ago came to change the world and he does— one Scrooge at a time.

If you walk up to a friend and call him or her a Scrooge it probably won’t be appreciated. Maybe you shouldn’t try it this year. Or you can practice on me. I will know what you mean.

Not only do I enjoy Christmas but I believe people can change. I have seen it. I have seen drunks become deacons. I have seen losers become leaders. I have seen grinches become givers. That is what Christmas is all about.

For the Son of man came to find and restore the lost.

Luke 19:10 The Message

Organ Donation
I was visiting with a veteran who had lost a leg in Vietnam and I asked if there anything I could help him with? He said “Yes, you can answer a question. Will I have another leg in heaven?”

My answer provides some rationale for my support of organ donation. Without hesitation I replied, “Yes, you will have another leg.” Neither amputation not organ donation has any effect on the resurrected body because in the resurrection all things are made new.
Those who worry about organ donation somehow affecting them in the afterlife do not understand the biblical view of resurrection. The teaching of Scripture is that those who know Christ will have a new body, not only will we be healed but whole.

In light of the resurrection the Christian should not hesitate to sign up as an organ donor. The mortal will put on immortality. The Christian should not take to the grave that which can give life to those who remain behind.

Nearly 100,000 people across the US are currently waiting for organ transplants. At least 18 will die today without one. Perhaps if some clear biblical principles were presented in support or organ donation more Christians would give so more would live.

Five years ago I signed a donor card without hesitation because it seemed the right thing to do. Recently though I was asked to present the Protestant view of organ donation at a seminar at Nason Hospital. I was not comfortable with the grocery list of verses proposed in other papers. I wanted to present something of substance. These thoughts were proposed as a protestant view.

I began by taking a trip back to the Garden of Eden. Although God had created man and women, Adam was alone for some period of time. Then God caused a deep sleep to come on Adam and taking a rib God brought Eve to life

This is certainly not an illustration of organ donation but it does show that Eve was given life by a gift from Adam. Life came from his life.

Secondly, Jesus told his followers to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. We should ask ourselves if we would accept an organ if we were dying? Sadly, many people who have reservations about donating organs have no such reservation about receiving. If the Golden Rule applies in this situation shouldn’t we be willing give what we want to receive?

I believe, however, that the best foundation for organ donation is found in the New Testament emphasis on love. The Greek word agapao implies a concern for others over oneself. I appreciate the definition given by Van Harvey “the selfless commitment of the lover to the one loved, to the enrichment and enhancement of the beloved’s being.”

In light of these consideration I support and promote the donation of organs for the enrichment and enhancement” of the other’s being.

Out of the mouth of children

A while ago my son looked up in the sky and said “Look, Dad, a bald eagle.”
From where I was standing it could have been a crow but I thought it was a good teaching opportunity. I said “You can’t call it a bald eagle, Son.”
“Why can’t I call it a bald eagle, Dad.”
“The word bald is offensive. You have to say it is follically challenged. You don’t want to offend an eagle.”
“Well, Dad,” he replied, “He looks bald to me.”
I have to agree. Bald is bald.
Children have a different, perhaps more honest view, of reality than we do. We can learn a lot from them if we listen.
As we get older we seem to be shaped by our culture rather than reality.
Wasn’t it a child who told the emperor he wasn’t wearing any clothes?
I am learning to listen to my son to see if I can learn something or remember something I have forgotten. Now that he is learning to read I am remembering some of the difficulties of the English language.
“Dad, why is there a b in climb?”
“Why is there a k in knife?”
When was the last time you thought about those letters?
Word origins keep me on the ball too. We go to Hoss’s and he wants to know what chick peas are and how they got their name.
Do we have a curious son or does your child want to know where Easter lilies got their name? We were able to explain the Easter part right away but we are still working on the lilies. I hope he never finds out about rump roast.
Every time we leave the house we may have a learning opportunity—even a simple shopping trip. If Walmart is named for Mr. Walton and Weis Market is named after Mr. Weis who is Dairy Queen named after?
Having a child around the house can be good for my mental health. Children can keep us on our toes. They can make us think about things we have taken for granted.
Last week Micah was disappointed because he wanted to surprise his class with something. One of his classmates gave away his secret. Micah was upset that his friend took his lightning.
Of course what he meant was that someone stole his thunder but isn’t it just as painful when someone takes your lightning?
Maybe children can be good for our physical health too. The other day my son tells me I look like a sumo wrestler. I guess I better reach for the dictionary instead of a donut.

Playground politics

Mass. grade school bans tag, other chase games
Updated: 10:38 a.m. ET Oct. 18, 2006
ATTLEBORO, Mass. - Tag, you're out!
Officials at an elementary school south of Boston have banned kids from playing tag, touch football and any other unsupervised chase game during recess for fear they'll get hurt and hold the school liable.
Recess is "a time when accidents can happen," said Willett Elementary School Principal Gaylene Heppe, who approved the ban.
While there is no district wide ban on contact sports during recess, local rules have been cropping up. Several school administrators around Attleboro, a city of about 45,000 residents, took aim at dodge ball a few years ago, saying it was exclusionary and dangerous. Modified versions now include softer balls and ways for children to re-enter the action.

Do you remember playing Dodge Ball when you were in school? Are you a better person for it? Did it mess up your life? Or is it just one of those things we do and then move on to something else?
I would put myself in the last category. When I was in Elementary School I played Dodge Ball. When I got to Junior High I moved on to something else and never looked back.
I never would have thought of Dodge Ball again if I hadn’t read several articles condemning it. Dodge Ball has been nominated for the Playground Game Hall of Shame because it promotes violence and encourages elitism.
There are children just entering school that may have their lives ruined by this terrible game. Perhaps we should investigate this game before it claims more innocent victims.
In Dodge Ball the aggressors on the outside of the circle hurl a projectile (the ball) at innocent victims in the middle. If the projectile hits a victim the victim is out. Those who are slow are picked off first. Those who are faster may be able to survive.
So not only are we promoting violence but we are promoting a society with class distinctions. There are those who are slow. (I don’t want him on my team he is too slow.) Then there are those who are fast. (Pick Billy he’s fast.)
And what happens? These children grow up with a poor self-image and a tendency to violence. So we need to do away with Dodge Ball. Wouldn’t it be better to roll puffballs and have kids try to avoid them?
That is one of the solutions that has been proposed. However, I have a different opinion. Instead of banning Dodge Ball we should add classes that instruct children in the deeper meaning of Dodge Ball. (Can we say the Zen of dodge ball?)
Imagine a group of children coming back to class after recess. Perhaps the teacher could engage them in a discussion.
Teacher “Welcome back class. What did you do today during recess?”
Students “We played Dodge Ball.”
T “Did you have fun?”
S “No, we hate Dodge Ball. We stood in the middle of the circle and the other class threw a ball at us. If we got hit we were out. “
T “Did it hurt when you got hit?”
S “It stung a bit but we’re all right now.”
T “If no one got hurt why do you hate it?”
S “We lost.”
T “Do you think you will ever lose again?”
S “Probably.”
T “You don’t really think you will always win do you?”
S “ Naw, we won’t always win.”
T “Do you think Dodge Ball can help you learn that you don’t always win.”
S “Maybe.”
T “What else can we learn from Dodge Ball?”
S “Not everybody is on our side.”
T “Very good class. There are always going to be people who are not on your side. Anything else?”
S “The other team throws things at you.”
T “You kids are really smart. Yes, sometimes the other team does throw things at you. What can you learn from that?”
S “We can learn to duck.”
Dodge Ball is life. Puffballs are politics.

Jumping to Conclusions

Did you read about the scientist who was doing research on frogs? He was trying to figure out what made them jump.

He began by putting a frog on the floor and clapping his hands behind the frog. The frog jumped. Next he cut off the frog’s left front leg and clapped. Once again the frog jumped.

Then he cut off the frog’s right front leg and clapped. He moved to the left back leg. Each time he clapped his hands and each time the frog jumped. Finally he cut off the last remaining leg, placed the frog on the floor and clapped. This time the frog didn’t jump.

The scientist went over to his desk and wrote this note in his journal “When you cut off a frog’s legs it goes deaf”.

Having determined the cause of the frog’s inability to jump the scientist was now ready to suggest a cure—a hearing aid.

And so it is that in a small research lab someplace in the United States there are hundreds of legless frogs wearing hearing aids.

Does this sound hard to believe? Similar inferences are being made today in the United States regarding alcohol, drugs and sex. Researchers have correctly determined there is a problem but they have drawn the wrong conclusions.

Several surveys note that drug use among teens is rising. Twenty-four percent of eighth graders are using illicit drugs according to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Another recent survey found that 18% of eighth graders and 24% of ninth graders are regularly drinking alcohol.

Accompanying these statistics on drugs and alcohol are the statistics on adolescent sexual activity. Almost one million teenage girls will get pregnant this year. Forty percent of those pregnancies will end with abortion.

These same young people also run the risk of disease, dependency, and depression. And the situation worsens each year.

Survey after survey correctly determines there is a problem. Yet the cause of problems has been often misdiagnosed.

Some say the problems are caused by lack of education. So we begin to educate young people about drugs. Now we have well-educated drug users. They know exactly what drugs they are using.

Another researcher says the problems of young people are related to health. So we try to improve the health of our young people. We now have quite a few healthy delinquents. A lot of healthy young people are engaging in behavior which isn’t healthy.

Others say the cause of the problems is economic. What we need is better jobs and more money. Then why are so many rich kids doing drugs?

One of the greatest researchers who ever lived, and also one of the wisest, not only documented the same problems but also correctly determined the cause. He said the cause of these problems is values—not health, wealth or education.

Solomon Ben David, better known as King Solomon, found that a person could live without health, wealth or even a formal education but not without a solid moral foundation. He recommended worship. His solution has passed the test of time.

Before we begin to distribute hearing aids to frogs perhaps we ought to re-examine our conclusions. If we don’t know the cause of the problems we can’t provide the right solutions. Maybe it is time to heed the advice of Solomon—worship. See you in church?

Public Civility

Slurp, sluuurp, sluuuurp emanates from the other side of the table. “Micah, you are only allowed two slurps and that was three.”

“Who makes up these rules?” gurgles the mouth at the end of the straw.

“Emily Post.”

“Why?”

“So parents can enjoy a quiet meal.”

“We’ll I think it’s stupid.”

“Can you imagine how loud a meal would be if everybody slurped?”

“I still think it’s stupid. Why do I need to know this stuff?”

I don’t know if you have ever had a conversation like this at your house but similar conversations take place every week at our house and I am glad they do. It shows that we have yet not given up on manners.

I confess I didn’t appreciate some of my lessons when I was being instructed but I am now thankful for my parents’ instruction and for the free classes in etiquette given me by Miss Eaves. During the summer of 1963 I had a private tutor, former English teacher and dining room hostess, Miss Eaves.

I was working away from home as a lifeguard at a conference center. Of all the plans I had for the summer none included private instruction in table manners. However, I did plan to eat well that summer and that is how I came in contact with Miss Eaves. She was in charge of the dining room.

After a few practical jokes at the supper table I found myself seated next to guess who? She made it her goal that summer not only to keep me in line but also to show me how to sit at a table and eat like a gentleman.

I learned how to butter bread (there is a proper way to do this). I learned how to sit up straight. I learned that some behavior is not appropriate at a table.

Do I continue to practice all I learned that summer? No, but I can eat a meal without people at the next table hearing me chew. When I finish a drink no one in the next room knows I have reached the bottom of the glass.

To echo my son though, I can ask, “Is it really that important?”

My answer is, “Manners are one of the things that distinguish us from animals.”
As manners go so goes society.

When I visit new mothers I often remind them they have been given a great responsibility. They hold in their hands an uncivilized, illiterate, unspeaking creature and it is the job of mothers and fathers to teach that child to walk, talk, speak and adjust to society. We are never more than one generation away from barbarianism.

I can, at least, wonder would happen to society if one generation decided to skip the lessons on table manners. I, for one, would prefer to stay at home to eat. It would be much quieter there; at least that is what I am working on right now.

Priorities

Did you hear about one of the newest Reality shows on TV? Pet Plastic Surgery. This series, originating in Great Britain, features a family pet undergoing some form of plastic surgery.

In one episode a bunny gets a tummy tuck and in another a dog gets a face lift. (If it featured a bassett hound it would probably take two episodes.) Other procedures include liposuction and wrinkle removal but the most intriging to me is the testicular implant.

Apparently a dog without testicles is having a problem with low self esteem. Now my question is, "How do we know if a dog has low self-esteem?" Has Fido (or Phido) stopped attending family reunions? Is it acting like a cat--sleeping all day?

I think before a dog has testicular implants it should be required to undergo counseling. Maybe the problem isn't sexual dysfunction. Maybe the real problem is that he lives with people who think a dog can have low self esteem.

I will issue a disclaimer in the event I have offended the owner of a pet with low self esteem. I like pets. I grew up with rabbits, fish, dogs and now am the proud caretaker of two cats. If a pet has a medical problem I will take it to the vet, but cosmetic surgery?

What does it say about our society when we are willing to spend thousands of dollars to put a smile on a dog when a thousand children will die because they have no food.

The Da Vinci Code or Da Vinci Con

According to Dan Brown , author of The DaVinci Code, a great con has been perpetrated on the people of the world, notably Catholics. I agree a con has been perpetrated but I think Dan Brown is the con man.

Although he has written a piece of fiction he claims the documents he mentions are true. Also that the art work mentioned is authentic. So he is claiming truth is on his side. Therefore an examination of his historical fiction is in order. Who is conning who?

Has the Church been hiding documents that show Jesus was not God but just another man, a man who married and had a child? Have we been decieved by church leaders intent on promoting a new religion built on edited texts?

Is Dan Brown speaking through his character, Leigh Teabing, when he says everything we were taught about Jesus is wrong? If so, what can we see to the Leigh Teabings we meet?

First, my impression is that many people really hope Leigh Teabing is right. If everything we know about Jesus is wrong then the movement claiming him as its leader can be discredited. If Jesus was turned into God by his followers then Christianity is just another movement, another attempt to gain power, etc. And Christians can be dismissed as fools.

I think many people hope Leigh Teabing is right because Christians have not been the most gracious, loving people on the planet. Christians, in fact, have been mean spirited and judgmental--Damn them all. They are deluded and can be dismissed.

But what if, in spite of themselves, they are right? What if Jesus is God in the flesh, come to walk the earth with us. What if that is the claim Jesus himself made?

The fact of the matter is that since the beginning of the church (about 33AD) Jesus was presented as God. His deity was not approved by simple majority. The words of Jesus recorded in what are called the Canonical Gospels clearly announce his self perception as God.

Dan Brown writes that divinity was a concoction of the Council of Nicea in 325AD but there are manuscripts of the Gospels that date from 125AD and the record of the Gospels is clear. Jesus claimed to be God. In the Gospel of John (written by the Apostle who apparently missed the Last Supper) Jesus announces seven times I AM.... an expression not lost on the Jewish listeners who knew that I AM was a formula for God.

Was Jesus wrong? That is a another question. But if he was wrong can we continue to call him a great teacher and leader? What if he came to your house today and said he was God? Would you show him the door or follow him?

I for one believe Jesus was right and Dan Brown is wrong. And by the way, no where in the Bible is Mary Magadelene called a prostitute. That is another DaVinci Con.

Religion in Public Schools?

The evolution/ID controversy is still in the news. The last two issues of Science and Theology News have featured the story with updates. There is still some press coverage, although the accidental shooting by Dick Cheney has pushed many major stories to other pages. But I think most coverage is still wrong.

When the topic of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design comes up it is usually framed as "Science vs. Religion". That is wrong on two counts. First, ID is only religious if God didn't create the world. Promoting something that isn't true is the stock in trade of many religions. However, if God created the world then that is not a religious issue it is the foundation for true science.

Secondly, based on the comments of several proponents of evolution I wonder who is really teaching religion in public schools.

Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker says, "Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory...we should still be justified in preferring it over rival theories.''

A telling admission I think but this underlies the comments Michael Ruse made in a presentaion to American Association for the Advancement of Science. He admitted that there are certain metaphysical assumptions in his way of doing science. He continued by adding that evolution has functioned as a kind of religion. (His entire presentation can be found online.)

An article written after this presentation was called "Did Michael Ruse give away the store?"

These comments, and others, suggest that religion is already being taught in public schools. It is scary to think that if there were definitive proof of God creating the world--say a photo, video or several eyewitness accounts--this story would never make it to a science class.
vieuxloup