HOMEWORK CLUB-ENGLISH FOR ADULTS - CanadaDelusion, have reinvigorated the Atheist vs. Religion debate in the Western World. In addition to his books, he is a well-known spokesperson

H O M E W O R K C L U B - E N G L I S H F O R A D U L T S

In 2006 the Winnipeg congregation held a round-table discussion where we discussed how wecould make use of our gifts in outreach to the community. My wife Kerry suggested we start aLibrary Resource Centre with a Homework Club for the children who live around our church.Pastor Alan Redmond also suggested we add a component called "English for Adults".

In October of that year, we opened the doors of our building and hoped for the best. We weretargeting elementary students and new Canadians. We found that Mathematics and LanguageArts were the primary need. Some people attended regularly while others came whenever theyneeded help. We have helped a total of 39 children from that beginning to May 2009. We havealso helped some High School students with Algebra, Trigonometry, Pre-Calculus, Physics andChemistry. It has been a great benefit that some of our volunteers happen to be university grad-uates in those areas.

Our adult students have come from Africa, China, Korea, El Salvador, Ukraine, Iran, India,Holland, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Guatemala and Russia. Some have only been in Canada for afew months while others have been here longer. Some of the female students also bring theirchildren for Homework Club. We cover basic grammar and conversation, and are continuing toconcentrate on these areas this year. To date we have helped 66 adults.

Classes are held every Wednesday evening from 7-9 PM. We try to stick to one hour shifts butmost of our students like to stay for the full evening. The program runs from September to Mayand on an average night we have 15 to 20 people (including volunteers) attending.

It is our philosophy that we don’t do any direct evangelizing of students. We want them to beable to attend without feeling pressured in any way. As a result Buddhists, Muslims, as well asChristians from other denominations attend our classes. Still a few of our students have startedto attend our church services.

Nestor Guspodarchuk

C O N T E N T S

imagine that a number of our readers had to do a double takewhen they saw the cover photo for this issue. If a picture is trulyworth a thousand words, then for me, this photo is probably worthtwo thousand.

This issue is all about the new champions of atheism. While manyof the “old school” proponents of atheism treated those who would dis-agree with them with respect, the new atheists seem to take an “in yourface” approach.

One famous proponent of Atheism is Richard Dawkins, the CharlesSimonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at OxfordUniversity. His books such as The Blind Watchmaker and The GodDelusion, have reinvigorated the Atheist vs. Religion debate in theWestern World.

In addition to his books, he is a well-known spokesperson for Atheismon many television programs, lectures, and print articles on the subject.He was a supporter in Britain of the “Atheist bus campaign” which ranads on the sides of buses reading, “There is probably no God, now stopworrying and enjoy life.” According to the wikipedia article on the buscampaign, he is quoted as saying he would have prefer red the slogan: "There is almost certainly no God..." (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign).

In this issue, we look at what the new atheists are saying and howChristians are addressing their challenge.

I can’t help but wonder if we have been here before, especially afterreading Paul’s words: ”But the basic reality of God is plain enough.Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look atwhat God has created, people have always been able to see what theireyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery ofhis divine being. So nobody has a good excuse. What happened wasthis: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn't treat him likeGod, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into sillinessand confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in theirlives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life.They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in his handsfor cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand” (Romans 1:19-23, The Message).

From Denial To Reality – Darkness ToLightDenial of reality is a fairly common human condition.Sometimes there is a fear of facing the truth, and some-times there is so much pain involved people simply shutthings out. There may be a number of other factorsinvolved in living in such denial.

10

FRONT COVER: Is there anything ” new” in the belief in Atheism?Cover Photo: © iStockphoto-Stefanie TimmermannBack Cover: © DesignpicsAdditional photos and illustrations: © Designpics unless otherwisenoted.

1

From Christian Odyssey 2Director’s Desk 10Theme Articles 12Director’s Annual Letter 17Faith Profiles 24Bible Study 27The Last Word 31

Création et évolution : Comment Dieu a-t-ilprovoqué la riche diversité des espèces sur terre?Il y a près de 150 ans, Charles Darwin a publié son livreL’origine des espèces. Depuis lors, un vif débat entre lascience et la religion fait rage.

6

Creation And Evolution: How Did GodBring About The Rich Variety Of SpeciesOn Earth?Almost 150 years ago Charles Darwin published TheOrigin of Species. The debate between science and reli-gion has been fast and furious ever since.

2

Northern Light magazine is the official magazine of theWorldwide Church of God, Canada. It exists to share thestories of our members and congregations on theirChristian journey. Northern Light does this by featuringarticles that encourage, nurture and inform.

Le magazine Northern Light est le magazine officiel del’Église universelle de Dieu, au Canada. Il sert à raconterles histoires de nos membres et de nos assemblées toutle long de leur voyage chrétien, au moyen d’articles quiencouragent, nourrissent et informent.

Bill HallNL

T H I S M O N T H ’ S T H E M E

The New AtheismA MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR

II

N O R T H E R N L I G H T

and now accept evolution by naturalselection as a valid explanation of thedevelopment of life.

It’s true that many major denominationshave come to terms with CharlesDarwin’s theory, in one way or another.The Church of England has officiallyapologized to him for the decades ofmisrepresentation. However, millions ofChristians still firmly reject evolution infavor of an explanation based on a moreor less literal interpretation of theGenesis 1 account of Creation. This isparticularly true in the United States,where some surveys show that morethan half the population claims not tobelieve in evolution.

There are two major schools of thoughton how to resolve the conflict.

Really? What are they?

One is Creationism and the other isIntelligent Design. Creationism is a termto describe the belief that the Genesis 1account of Creation should be under-stood in strictly literal terms. Creationiststypically believe that the seven days inGenesis 1 were 24 hours in length, andthey are adamant that anything short ofthis literalist interpretation necessarilyleads to undermining the rest of theBible.

2

lmost 150 years ago CharlesDarwin published The Originof Species. The debatebetween science and religionhas been fast and furious eversince. Darwin proposed that

life on earth began hundreds of millionsof years ago and developed by evolutionthrough natural selection—a stark con-tradiction of the Christian fundamentalistview that God created everything in sixliteral 24-hour days.

Theologians had been arguing since thedays of Augustine about how to rightlyinterpret the Creation account in the firstchapter of Genesis, but Darwin’s revolu-tionary ideas gave the debate a newface. “If you don’t believe Genesis 1 isliterally true, then you are questioningthe whole Bible,” evolution’s opponentsdeclared. “Reject evolution and you lockyourself into an anti-scientific worldviewthat blocks progress,” its supportersargued.

Have you ever wanted simply to talkabout the issue in a calm and reason-able way, without being made to lookfoolish, ignorant or hostile either to theBible or to scientific discovery? Perhapssuch a conversation would go some-thing like this:

I’m confused. I’m not a theologianand I’m not a scientist. But I knowwhat the Bible says about how lifebegan, and I also know basically howthe theory of evolution explains it.They can’t both be right, can they?So who do I believe—God or the sci-entists?

That’s a good question, but it isn’t quiteas easy as that. This is not a straightfor-ward “either/or” issue. There are manysides to it with a lot of misunderstandingthrown in, and it is quite understandablethat you are confused, so let’s look atthis broad question in some detail.

I have heard that some Christiandenominations have dropped theiropposition to the evolutionary theory

AACreation And Evolution :

How Did God Bring About The Rich Variety Of Species On Earth?

F R O M C H R I S T I A N O D Y S S E Y

3

in the development of life. These unex-plained features, or “gaps,” are evidenceof an “intelligent Designer,” they claim.

In an effort to skirt the ban on teachingreligion as science in public schools,they do not insist that the Designer becalled God. They thus hoped that IDcould be taught in schools as an alterna-tive to Darwinian evolution. But this waschallenged in a historic case in the USAin York County, Pennsylvania, where itwas ruled that Intelligent Design couldnot be classified as science, because itincorporated a supernatural element.Even though it did not specify the identi-ty of the Designer, it was, in the court’sopinion, another form of creationism.

However, it isn’t just the courts who havea problem with ID. Many scientists whoare also committed Christians (and thereare many) point out that although IDmay at first seem to be a plausibleapproach, it is dependent on an unstable“God of the Gaps” theoretical founda-tion.

A what?

Opponents of Darwin’s theory havealways pointed out that there are incon-sistencies and gaps that evolution bynatural selection cannot explain. Forexample, they point out the lack of fos-sils of transition species. They alsomake the point that when you considerthe mathematical odds against even oneliving cell being formed by a chancecombination of non-living components,there has not been enough time for evo-lution to have taken place. In fact, theysay, the odds are so great as to beimpossible, no matter how much timeelapses.

These are reasonable objections—theredo appear to be “gaps” in the theory ofevolution by natural selection.Opponents of evolution then seize onthose “gaps” as evidence of the super-natural action of the Creator, whobecomes “the God of the Gaps.”

The trouble is that any time furtherresearch fills in a particular gap, the“God of the Gaps” idea loses some of itsforce. Breakthroughs in scientific disci-plines such as molecular biology haverefined the theory of evolution by naturalselection and have steadily eroded whatonce looked like irrefutable argumentsagainst evolution. The “God of the Gaps”domain is steadily shrinking. Not all thegaps have closed yet, and there are stillsome important unanswered questions.But as new research continues to uncov-er answers, the traditional challenges toevolution are losing ground.

A growing number of believing scientistsare recognizing that to fight a rearguardaction for the “God of the Gaps” is not

O C T O B E R / N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 9

The problem is that such an interpreta-tion flies in the face of scientificresearch, and, for many, it defies com-mon sense. Creationism is not allowedto be taught in public schools as analternative to evolution, because it isconsidered a religious idea, not a scien-tific one. If we’re realistic, we have toadmit that this is true. Creationism doesnot offer a proven, rigorous and valid sci-entific alternative to evolution, but isbased on a single narrow interpretationof the first chapter of the Bible.

Many Christians prefer an alternativeexplanation, known as “IntelligentDesign” (ID). Proponents of ID acceptthe findings of science, but argue thatevolution cannot explain certain features

F R O M C H R I S T I A N O D Y S S E Y C O N T I N U E D

Why not? You could equally well ask,“Why did Creation take him six days?Couldn’t he have done it all in oneinstant?” But leaving the question of lifefor a moment, let’s take a look at the wayGod may have brought the universe intoexistence.

Most scientists believe that our vast uni-verse came into being in one “big bang”some 15 billion years ago. Not allbelieve this, but let’s say for argument’ssake that this is when and how the uni-verse got started. At the moment of thebig bang and for some considerable timeafterwards, galaxies, stars and planetsdid not exist. The universe evolved overbillions of years to a kind of soup ofhydrogen atoms, and then expandedover more billions of years during whichgalaxies, stars, planets and other ele-ments of the universe came into exis-tence. Thus the universe became what itis today through gradual development,

the natural consequences of God’s orig-inal creative act. Perhaps God also didsomething like that with life on earth.The point is that a process like evolutionneed not contradict the reality that Godis Creator.

But if you accept that the universe is15 billion years old and that life onearth is billions of years old, doesn’tthat contradict the biblical revelationin Genesis 1 that God created every-thing in six literal days or, as a fewCreationists suggest, several thou-sand years?

It contradicts only if you insist on a liter-al interpretation of Genesis 1. And if youinsist on a literal interpretation of thisskeletal framework of days, this couldonly be six 24-hour periods.

4 N O R T H E R N L I G H T

the right approach. A fact is a fact, evenif it is an inconvenient one. And if thefacts show that evolution is the mostlikely explanation for the development ofspecies, they must come to terms with it.They call themselves TheisticEvolutionists.

“Theistic Evolution”! Sounds like acontradiction in terms.

Maybe, but it isn’t. Theistic evolutionistsaccept the findings of science, and seeno contradiction between the theory ofevolution and a proper understanding ofthe biblical account in Genesis 1.

But surely there is a contradiction.Evolution claims that species haveevolved over hundreds of millions ofyears. Doesn’t this contradict whatthe Bible says—that God directly cre-ated each and every life form?

Not necessarily. The Bible only tells usthat God is Creator; it says nothingabout how he created. The scientific evi-dence does indicate that the variousspecies of life have evolved over a verylong period of time.

But how can we be so sure aboutthat?

We can’t be 100 percent sure, of course.All science can do is study the evidencethat has been left behind in fossil formand apply current knowledge and tech-niques, such as genetic science and thevarious radiometric dating methods, inorder to form conclusions that seem inkeeping with the evidence.

What theistic evolutionists are saying isthat the revelation of the Bible in no wayrules out the possibility of life formsevolving through time. Although thenumber of theistic evolutionists is stillsmall, they have introduced some ideasthat are worth considering.

But why would God have used aprocess like evolution?

The first problem with accepting a six-day creation is that it flies in the face ofcommon logic and everything that hasbeen discovered about how the universecame into existence and developed. (Asyou say, a few Creationists havestepped back from a literal interpretationof Genesis 1 and have assigned a life tothe universe in the tens of thousands ofyears. Their reasoning not only ignoresscience, but manufactures a new inter-pretation of Genesis 1 based on theirown imagination.)

All theories of a “young universe” arecontradicted by the evidence of astro-physics about the age of the universeand from geology and paleontologyabout the age of the earth. On the otherhand, accepting an age of the universein the billions of years does not contra-dict either science or the biblical witness.The Bible only says that God created allthings that exist; it does not speak to the

question of the manner of the creativeprocess or how long the creativeprocess took—or whether it is continuingeven today.

Are you saying that a literal interpre-tation of the Bible is wrong?

It depends on the passage. Parts of theBible that are intended to be understoodliterally should be understood literally,and parts that are intended to be under-stood figuratively should be taken figura-tively. For example, some 40 percent ofthe Bible consists of poetry andmetaphors.

It is a misinterpretation of the Bible tointerpret poetic statements literally. Forexample, God is not a literal hen, rock,tower, or shepherd, even though the


The Bible only says that God created all things that exist; itdoes not speak to the question of the manner of the creativeprocess or how long the creative process took—or whetherit is continuing even today.

5O C T O B E R / N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 9

Bible describes him in such terms.Likewise, when Jesus said thePharisees were blind guides and thatthey swallow camels, he did not intendfor anyone to interpret his statements lit-erally; he intended that they be interpret-ed figuratively. Nor did Jesus intend thatpeople interpret his parables as literalstories of literal people; he intendedthem to be understood as parables—made-up stories that illustrate a point.

It is not watering down the Bible to readit the way it is intended. Poetry shouldbe understood as poetry, metaphors asmetaphors, similes as similes, and para-bles as parables. “Literal” and “true” arenot the same thing, and the truth is, tointerpret things literally that are notintended to be interpreted literally is tomiss the truth completely.

I hadn’t thought about it that way. Sogive me an example of how Genesis 1can be interpreted in a poetic ormetaphorical way.

Think of the writer of Genesis 1 as livingat a time when common oral (and even-tually written) traditions included cre-ation epics that presented visible phe-nomena, such as the stars, the planets,the sun, moon, land, sea and animals,as gods. Some of these creation epicsbegan with a preexistent primordialmound out of which the first god springs,who then in one way or another pro-duces the other gods. Another variationhas the sea as the first god. Such epicswere the standard approach to explain-ing the origin of the universe.

Contrast that with the Creation story inGenesis 1. It uses the standard style andgenre of creation epics at the time. Butusing that standard style, it makes theradical declaration that the God of Israel,completely unlike all the gods of thenations, did not emerge from anything,nor was he ever part of the universe.Quite the contrary, this God createdeverything out of nothing simply by thepower of his word. Each of the thingsthought of by the nations as being gods

is systematically presented as havingbeen created by this God and beingdeclared “good” by this God, demon-strating his utter power over them.

Genesis 1 is about the Who of Creation,not the how. We should let the writer ofGenesis 1 make his theological state-ment to us about who God is as Creatorin contrast to the gods of the nations andnot try to interpret him as providing ussome kind of scientific police blotter ofliteral events and dates.

So should we be distinguishingbetween the fact that God created allthings on one hand and how he mighthave caused it all to come about onthe other?

Yes. There is a needless conflictbetween science and religion on thematter of the Creation. The biblical reve-lation tells us that the God who revealedhimself to Israel and who has revealedhimself to humanity in Jesus Christ isthe Creator of all that exists. This revela-tion is not interested in detailing thephysical processes he might have usedto bring about this universe that human-ity is part of and has, as God’s gift, boththe capacity and the joy of studying andlearning about.

This means that nothing factual that sci-ence can say about how the universecame into being or how the process ofcreation has unfolded throughout thehistory of the earth can contradict thebiblical revelation—as long as the scien-tific speculation doesn’t conclude thatGod is not the Creator of all that exists.

But doesn’t evolutionary theory insistthat everything came into existencewithout a Creator?

No. It’s true that some scientists claimthat everything came into being natural-ly, spontaneously—without God’s origi-nal creative act. But that is a philosophi-cal statement, not a scientific one.

On the other hand, many scientists dobelieve in God, and they do not discountthe biblical revelation that God isCreator. They do their scientific work bystudying the physical phenomena in theuniverse that are the result of God’s cre-ative act. They accept that Genesis 1tells us that God has created all things,but recognize that Genesis 1 does nottell us how the creation process hasunfolded or how long it has taken tounfold. Scientists, using whatever evi-dence is available, seek to better under-stand the wonders of the amazing uni-verse God has brought into being.

So where does that leave me—theaverage person? What is the properapproach for a Christian?

We suggest curiosity mixed with humili-ty. There are strident and often angryvoices raised on both sides of this ques-tion. They only make the argumentincreasingly bitter and the divide wider.The fact that many scientists can acceptthe findings of science that point to evo-lutionary changes in the forms of life,while remaining committed to theirChristian faith, should be encouraging tothe rest of us. It does not have to be aneither/or argument.

In fact, it does not have to be an argu-ment at all. Realistic scientists know thatthey might never uncover all the myster-ies of creation.

“Take a long, hard look. See how greathe is—infinite, greater than anything youcould ever imagine or figure out!” (Job36:26, Message Bible)

But as the Proverbs remind us: “Goddelights in concealing things; scientistsdelight in discovering things” (Proverbs25:2, Message Bible). We may neverfully resolve these questions in this life,but it is a legitimate and exciting quest,and we are discovering wonderful thingsalong the way.


NL


ment littérale. De façon générale, lescréationnistes croient que les sept joursde la création cités en Genèse 1 étaientd’une durée de 24 heures. Ils maintien-nent que toute interprétation moins litté-rale provoque nécessairement le discré-dit du reste de la Bible.

Le problème est que cette interprétationdéfie la recherche scientifique et pourbeaucoup, le bon sens. Il n’est pas per-mis d’enseigner le créationnisme dansles écoles publiques parce qu’il estconsidéré comme une position religieu-se et non scientifique. Si nous sommesréalistes, nous devons admettre quec’est vrai. Le créationnisme ne fournitpas une option prouvée, rigoureuse etscientifique à opposer l’évolution. Il estplutôt basé sur une interprétation étroitedu premier chapitre de la Bible.

Bon nombre de chrétiens y préfèrentune autre explication appelée théorie dela création intelligente. Ses défenseursacceptent les découvertes scientifiques,mais affirment que l’évolution ne peutexpliquer certains aspects du dévelop-pement de la vie. Selon eux, ces aspectsinexpliqués ou « chaînons manquants »prouvent l’existence d’un « créateurintelligent ».

J’ai appris que certaines dénominationschrétiennes ne s’opposent plus à lathéorie de l’évolution et que pour ellesl’évolution par la sélection naturelle estmaintenant une explication valable del’origine de la vie.

Il est vrai que bon nombre de dénomina-tions majeures ont cessé, d’une manièreou d’une autre, de combattre la théoriede Charles Darwin. L’Église d’Angleterrelui a officiellement présenté des excusespour des décennies de fausse représen-tation. Cependant, des millions de chré-tiens rejettent toujours l’évolution etoptent plutôt pour une explication baséesur le récit de la création de Genèse 1plus ou moins littérale. On retrouve cetteposition aux États-Unis particulièrement,où plus de la moitié de la populationdéclare ne pas croire en l’évolution.

Il existe deux écoles de penséemajeures qui proposent une solution àce conflit.

Vraiment? Quelles sont-elles?

La première est le créationnisme et laseconde la théorie de la création intelli-gente. Le créationnisme est la croyanceselon laquelle nous devrions interpréterle récit de Genèse 1 de manière stricte-

l y a près de 150 ans, CharlesDarwin a publié son livre L’originedes espèces. Depuis lors, un vifdébat entre la science et la religionfait rage. Darwin a suggéré que lavie sur terre a commence il y des

millions d’années et qu’elle s’est déve-loppée par l’évolution selon un proces-sus de sélection naturelle — ce quiconstitue une contradiction frappanteavec le point de vue chrétien fondamen-taliste selon lequel Dieu a littéralementcréé le monde en 6 jours de 24 heures.

Depuis l’époque d’Augustin, les théolo-giens débattent au sujet del’interprétation juste de la création décri-te dans le premier chapitre de laGenèse, mais les idées révolutionnairesde Darwin ont conféré un nouveau visa-ge au débat. « Si vous ne croyez pasque le premier chapitre de la Genèse estlittéralement vrai, vous remettez toute laBible en question », déclarent les uns.« Si vous rejetez l’évolution, vous vouslimitez à un point de vue non scientifiquequi empêche le progrès », affirmentleurs opposants.

Avez-vous déjà voulu aborder cettequestion de manière calme et raison-nable, sans sembler trop fou, ignorantou hostile à la Bible ou aux découvertesscientifiques? Une telle conversationaurait probablement ressemblée à cequi suit :

Je suis perplexe. Je ne suis ni théolo-gien ni homme de science; mais je saisce que la Bible enseigne sur l’origine dela vie, et je connais aussi les rudimentsde l’explication qu’en donne la théoriede l’évolution. Ces positions ne peuventpas toutes les deux êtres justes, le peu-vent-elles? Qui croire, Dieu ou les scien-tifiques?

C’est une bonne question, mais ellen’est pas si simple. Elle ne se règle pasen choisissant une ou l’autre option. Eneffet, elle comporte plusieurs aspectsmêlés à de l’incompréhension, il est trèscompréhensible que vous soyez per-plexe. Examinons, donc la question endétails.

Création et évolution :Comment Dieu a-t-il provoqué la riche diversité des espèces

sur terre?

II

L'odyssée chrétienne


P o u r c o n t o u r n e r l ’ i n t e r d i c t i o nd’enseigner la religion comme si elleétait une science dans les écolespubliques, les tenants de cette théorien’insistent pas pour que le Créateur soitappelé Dieu. En revanche, ils espèrentque l’alternative entre la théorie del’évolution intelligente et l’évolution dar-winienne soit présentée aux étudiants.Leur souhait a été mis à l’épreuve lorsd’un cas historique dans le comté deYork, en Pennsylvanie, aux États-Unis. Ila été établi que la théorie de la créationintelligente ne pouvait être considéréecomme scientifique parce qu’elle com-porte un élément surnaturel. Même s’ilne précise pas l’identité du Créateur,selon la court, la théorie de la créationintelligente est une autre forme de créa-tionnisme.

Cependant, la court n’est pas la seule àqui la théorie de la création intelligentepose un problème. Beaucoup de scienti-fiques qui sont aussi des chrétiensengagés (ils sont nombreux) relèvent lefait qu’au premier abord cette théoriesemble plausible, mais qu’elle reposesur un fondement théorique instable àsavoir le « Dieu des chaînons man-quants ».

Quoi?

Les opposants à la théorie de Darwinont toujours soulevé des contradictionset des chaînons manquants quel’évolution par sélection naturelle nepeut expliquer. Par exemple, ils fontremarquer qu’il n’existe aucun fossile detransition entre les espèces. Ils souli-gnent aussi le fait que sur le plan mathé-matique les chances pour qu’une seulecellule vivante soit formée au hasard,par la combinaison de composants nonvivants, ne laisse pas assez de temps àl’évolution de se produire. En fait, ilsdisent que les chances sont si faiblesqu’elles sont presque nulles, peu impor-te le temps qui s’écoule.

Ces objections sont raisonnables ilsemble y avoir des « chaînons man-quants » dans la théorie de l’évolutionpar la sélection naturelle. Les opposants

à cette théorie voient en eux la preuvede l’action d’un Créateur, le « Dieu deschaînons manquants ».

Le problème est que chaque fois que larecherche trouve un chaînon qui man-quait, le concept du « Dieu des chaînonsmanquants » s’affaiblit. Les progrèsscientifiques dans des disciplines tellesla biologie moléculaire ont raffiné lathéorie de l’évolution par la sélection

naturelle et ont régulièrement étiolé lesarguments contre l’évolution qui un joursemblaient irréfutables. Le champd’action du « Dieu des chaînons man-quants » se réduit constamment. Ils nesont pas tous disparus, il reste encored’importantes questions sans réponse.Mais au fur et à mesure que larecherche découvre des réponses, lestraditionnelles oppositions à l’évolutionperdent du terrain.

Un nombre grandissant de scientifiquescroyants reconnaissent le fait que menerun combat d’arrière-garde pourdéfendre le « Dieu des chaînons man-quants » n’est pas la bonne stratégie àadopter. Un fait est un fait, même s’il lesgêne. Et comme les faits démontrentque l’évolution est l’explication del’origine des espèces la plus plausible,ces scientifiques doivent l’admettre. Ilsse sont donné le nom d’évolutionnistesthéistes.

« Évolutionnisme théiste »! Les termessemblent contradictoires.

Ils semblent l’être, mais il n’en est rien.Les évolutionnistes théistes acceptentles découvertes scientifiques et nevoient aucune contradiction entre le récitbiblique de Genèse 1 et la théorie del’évolution.

Mais il y a une contradiction. La théoriede l’évolution affirme que les espècesont évolué sur une période de millionsd’années. N’est-ce pas contradictoireavec les déclarations bibliques selonlesquelles Dieu a créé chaque forme devie?

Pas nécessairement. La Bible nousenseigne seulement que Dieu est créa-teur; elle ne précise pas la manière dont

il a créé. Les preuves scientifiques indi-quent que les espèces ont évolué surune très longue période de temps.

Comment pouvez-vous en être certain?

Bien entendu, nous ne pouvons être cer-tains à 100 pour cent. La science nepeut qu’étudier les preuves laisséessous forme de fossiles et appliquer lesconnaissances et les techniquesactuelles, dont la génétique et lesdiverses méthodes de datation radiomé-trique pour tirer des conclusions ali-gnées sur les preuves.

Les évolutionnistes théistes affirmentque la révélation biblique n’écarte pasdu tout la possibilité de l’évolution desdiverses formes de vie. Bien qu’ils soientpeu nombreux, ils ont émis des idéesqui méritent d’être considérées.

Pourquoi Dieu aurait-il employé un pro-cessus d’évolution?

Pourquoi pas? Nous pourrions aussinous demander « Pourquoi Dieu a-t-ilcréé en six jours? N’aurait-il pas pu toutcréer en un instant? » Laissons la ques-tion de la vie de côté pour un instant,examinons la façon dont Dieu a pu créerl’univers.


La Bible nous enseigne seulement que Dieu est créateur; ellene précise pas la manière dont il a créé. Les preuves scienti-fiques indiquent que les espèces ont évolué sur une trèslongue période de temps.


La plupart des scientifiques croientqu’un « big bang », survenu il y a 15 mil-liards d’années, est à l’origine de notrevaste univers. Tous ne sont pas d’accordsur ce fait, mais pour les besoins del’argumentation, considérons que c’est àce moment et de cette manière quel’univers s’est formé. À ce moment-là, etpendant une longue période de tempsaprès, les galaxies, les étoiles et lesplanètes n’existaient pas. L’univers aévolué pendant des milliards d’annéeset s’est transformé en une sorte desoupe d’atomes d’hydrogène. Cettesoupe a pris de l’expansion pendant desmilliards d’années au cours desquellesles galaxies, les étoiles, les planètes etles autres éléments de l’univers se sontformées. Ainsi l’univers est devenu cequ’il est aujourd’hui par un développe-ment naturel, conséquemment à l’actecréateur originel de Dieu. Il est possible

que Dieu ait utilisé un processus sem-blable en ce qui concerne la vie surterre. Le fait est qu’un processus commel’évolution n’est pas en contradictionavec le fait que Dieu est Créateur.

Si vous acceptez le fait que l’universexiste depuis 15 milliards d’années etqu’il y a de la vie sur terre depuis desmilliards d’années, ne contredisez-vouspas la révélation biblique de Genèse 1qui décrit que Dieu a littéralement crééle monde en six jours, ou comme cer-tains créationnistes le suggèrent, enquelques milliers d’années?

Ces faits ne sont contradictoires que sivous insistez pour interpréter littérale-ment Genèse 1 et pour que sa structuresoit basée sur des jours. Car dans cecas, il ne peut s’agir que de période de24 heures.

Accepter que la création a eu lieu en sixjours pose un problème : cela défie lebon sens et toutes les découvertes àpropos de l’origine et du développementde l’univers. (Comme vous l’avez men-tionné, quelques créationnistes se sontécartés de l’interprétation littérale deGenèse 1 et fixent le début de l’universil y a quelques dizaines d’années. Leurraisonnement fait non seulement fi de lascience, mais il invente une nouvelleinterprétation du premier chapitre de laBible basé sur leur propre imagination.)

D’une part, les preuves astrophysiquessur l’âge de l’univers et les preuves géo-logiques et paléontologiques sur l’âgede la terre contredisent toutes les théo-ries prônant un « univers jeune ».D’autre part, accepter que l’univers exis-te depuis des milliards d’années nes’oppose ni à la science ni au témoigna-ge biblique. Celui-ci affirme uniquementque Dieu a créé tout ce qui existe; il neparle pas de la façon dont le processuscréateur s’est effectué ni de sa durée —il n’indique pas non plus s’il continueencore de nos jours ou non.

Dites-vous qu’il n’est pas bond’interpréter la Bible littéralement?

Cela dépend du passage. Certains pas-sages bibliques sont destinés à êtreinterprétés littéralement et doivent l’être,tandis que d’autres sont destinés à êtrecompris de manière figurative et il doiten être ainsi. Par exemple, environ 40 %des textes bibliques sont constitués depoésie et de métaphores.

Interpréter les déclarations poétiques demanière littérale équivaut à faire uncontresens. Par exemple, Dieu n’est pasune maman oiseau, une tour, un roc ouun berger, même si la Bible le décrit parces termes. De la même manière,lorsque Jésus déclare que les phari-siens étaient des conducteurs aveugleset qu’ils avalaient des chameaux, il neveut pas que qui que ce soit interprètesa déclaration littéralement, mais il veutque nous la comprenions de manièrefigurée. Les paraboles de Jésus, non



plus, n’étaient pas destinées à être inter-prétées comme la vie de véritables per-sonnes, mais comme des paraboles :des histoires créées pour illustrer unpoint.

Lire la Bible de la façon dont elle doitl’être ne la banalise pas. La poésie doitêtre lue comme de la poésie, les méta-phores, comme des métaphores, lescomparaisons, comme des comparai-sons et les paraboles, comme des para-boles. « Littéral » ne veut pas dire« vrai », et si on interprète littéralementce qui ne doit pas l’être on passe com-plètement à côté de la vérité.

Je n’avais jamais vu les choses sous cetangle. Donnez-moi un exemple de lamanière dont on pourrait interpréterGenèse 1 de façon poétique ou méta-phorique.

Rappelez-vous que l’auteur de Genèse1 vivait à une époque où la traditionorale (écrite ultérieurement) comprenantdes épopées sur la création qui présen-taient les phénomènes visibles dont lesétoiles, les planètes, le soleil, la lune lamer et les animaux comme des dieux.Une autre version présente la mercomme le premier Dieu. C’était généra-lement de cette façon qu’on expliquaitl’origine de l’univers.

Comparez ces histoires au récit de lacréation de Genèse 1. Ce dernier utilisele style et le genre de l’époque. Tout enfaisant cela, il fait une déclaration radi-cale à l’effet que le Dieu d’Israël, qui esttotalement différent des dieux desnations, ne sort de nulle part et ne faitpas partie de l’univers. Au contraire,Dieu a tout créé à partir de rien, simple-ment par la puissance de sa parole. Lerécit de la création, présente tout ce queles autres nations considéraient commedes dieux comme un élément que Dieua créé et qu’il a déclaré « bon »; celadémontre sa toute-puissance sur eux.

Le premier chapitre de la Bible répond àla question qui et non comment. Nousdevrions laisser son auteur faire une

déclaration théologique à propos deDieu le créateur en comparaison avecles dieux des nations et ne pas tenter del’interpréter comme une sorte de registred’événements et de dates litérals ou àcelui des arrestations scientifiques.

Nous devrions donc faire une distinctionentre le fait que Dieu est le créateur detoutes choses et la manière dont il s’yest pris pour qu’elles soient?

Oui. Un conflit inutile entre la science etla religion au sujet de la création faitrage. La révélation biblique nousenseigne que le Dieu qui s’est révélé àIsraël et à l’humanité, en Jésus-Christ,est le créateur de tout ce qui exis-te. Cette révélation ne s’intéresse pasaux détails des processus physiquesque Dieu peut avoir employés pour quel’univers dont l’humanité fait partie soitformé.Toutefois, Dieu nous a donné lacapacité et la joie d’étudier etd’apprendre des choses au sujet de sacréation.

Ainsi, aucun fait scientifique à propos dela façon dont l’univers a été formé et decelle dont la création s’est opérée dansl’histoire de la terre n’est en contradic-tion avec la révélation biblique, tant etaussi longtemps que les spéculationsscientifiques ne concluent pas que Dieun’est pas le créateur de tout ce qui exis-te.

La théorie de l’évolution ne met-elle pasl’accent sur le fait que tout est venu àl’existence sans créateur?

Non. Il est vrai que certains hommes descience prétendent que tout s’est opérénaturellement, spontanément, sansl’acte créateur originel de Dieu. Mais ils’agit là d’une déclaration philosophiqueet non scientifique.

D’autre part, beaucoup de scientifiquescroient en Dieu, et il ne rejettent pas larévélation biblique qui affirme que Dieuest le créateur. Lorsqu’ils effectuentleurs travaux scientifiques, ils étudientles phénomènes physiques qui décou-

lent de l’acte créateur de Dieu. Ils nereconnaissent le fait que Genèse 1 révè-le que Dieu est le créateur de touteschoses, mais admettent que ce chapitren’explique pas comment le processusde la création s’est déroulé ni pendantcombien de temps. Ils se servent detoutes les preuves dont ils disposent, carils cherchent à mieux comprendre lesmerveilles de l’extraordinaire universque Dieu a fait.

Où en suis-je, moi, un chrétien type?Quelle est la meilleure approche pour unchrétien?

Nous vous suggérons la curiosité mêléeà l’humilité. Il y a des voix stridentes, etsouvent en colère, qui défendent lesdeux côtés de cette question. Elles nefont que rendre le débat plus amer etelles divisent encore plus les deuxcamps. Le fait que de nombreux scienti-fiques acceptent les preuves scienti-fiques qui soulignent des changementsévolutionnistes, tout en étant des chré-tiens engagés, devrait nous encourager.Ce débat ne doit pas absolument se ter-miner par un choix au détriment del’autre.

En réalité, il ne doit pas du tout y avoirde conflit à ce sujet. Des scientifiquesréalistes savent qu’ils ne découvrirontpeut-être jamais tous les mystères de lacréation.

« Vois combien Dieu est grand, sa gran-deurs nous échappe. Nul ne peut calcu-ler le nombre de ses ans. » (Job 36:26,la Bible du Semeur)

Comme les proverbes nous le rappellent« La gloire de Dieu, c’est de tenir cer-taines choses cachées, la gloire du roi,c’est de s’enquérir soigneusement deschoses » (Proverbes 25:2, la Bible duSemeur). Nous ne résoudrons peut-êtrejamais les questions de la vie, mais ellesconstituent une quête excitante et légiti-me, qui nous permet de découvrir deschoses merveilleuses sur notre route.


NL

1 0 N O R T H E R N L I G H T

enial of reality is a fairly com-mon human condition.Sometimes there is a fear offacing the truth, and sometimesthere is so much pain involvedpeople simply shut things out.

There may be a number ofother factors involved in livingin such denial.

For me, the existence of Godis part of reality. I have livedin relationship with him for along time now, and haveexperienced the reality of aGod who is interested in mylife. I have always enjoyeddiscussing proofs for God’sexistence— and no doubtone of the biggest proofs ofall has to be the very exis-tence of the world and thewider universe (Romans1:20). The matter that makesup the universe had to have acause. Science debates thatcause, but it had to come from some-where, and be caused by something. Soa creation is evidence of a creator.

Yet, for me, the strongest proof for God’sexistence is my own experience of him.I find this experience has been guidedand defined by the Bible. The God it por-trays is the same one I experience.

For me, to deny God would be to denyreality. To live in a state of denial is to bementally and emotionally unhealthy.There is no way we can deal with lifeconstructively if we are not prepared toadmit to the realities this life involves.

For someone to deny God’s existence isto deny what I am firmly convinced isreality. Though we are all free to live insuch a state, it is not a state that allowsus to come to terms with the biggestissues of life—what purpose is there forour existence, and what is the goal oroutcome for which our lives weredesigned? How were we meant to live,and how can we know right from wrong,good from evil?

These are the questions that coming toterms with the reality of God hasanswered. I have been touched by hismerciful hand, and he has led me tounderstand that he wants me to live lifeboth now and on out into eternity as his

adopted child (1John 3:1-3). Further, hisnature is one of love, and he desires thatthe loving service he bestows on usdefine how we should treat one another.

He provides a way—and through thework of the Holy Spirit, the capacity to bedifferent. We are strongly curvedinwardly as human beings. We havepowerful tendencies turning us inward—and only God can overcome that inher-ent selfishness. Only he can shed lighton the dark corners of our own hearts,with their propensity to selfishness,hypocrisy, judgmentalism and posturing.

The Bible uses the metaphor of light todescribe the work of Jesus in our world(John 1:4,5). We human beings some-times resist the light because it revealsreality—and we struggle within our-selves because sometimes we honestlyprefer to live in denial (John 3:19). Yet,being in a state of denial is a destructiveway to live. We cannot address the real-ities we face—and the truth about our-selves—living in the blindness of denial(John 12:35).

The way to move out of denial and spir-itual blindness into the reality of the lightof God is by faith. Once our relationshipwith God beings to grow over time, thedoubts subside, and we come to experi-ence him as reality.

But where do we get the faithto move from denial or doubtto faith? The Bible teaches usthat God loves all people, andwants to enter into a relation-ship with each one of us. Hewill give us the faith we needto take those first steps— andto continue into a rich and fullrelationship with him(Ephesians 2:8). This is whatthe Bible calls salvation—which can be described as ajourney from darkness tolight. Another way of putting itwould be to say it is God’smercy at work in drawing usfrom living in denial, towardliving in the true reality.

Once we experience God, doubts abouthis existence or even about his naturedissipate. We begin to see clearly thathe is there, and is really the foundationand sustainer of all reality. Denial anddoubt will evaporate, displaced by know-ing God, who is the ultimate reality.

D I R E C T O R ’ S D E S K

By Gary MooreNational Director

From Denial To Reality – Darkness To Light

DD

NL

1 1O C T O B E R / N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 9

e déni de la réalité est assezcourant chez les humains.Parfois, nous avons peur de voirla vérité en face, d’autres fois, lesujet en question nous cause tel-lement de douleur que nous

préfèrons l’éliminer tout sim-plement. Le déni peut êtrecausé par de nombreuxautres facteurs.

Pour moi, l’existence de Dieuest réelle. Je suis en relationavec lui depuis longtempsmaintenant, et j’ai expéri-menté la présence d’un Dieuque ma vie intéresse. J’ai tou-jours aimé participer à desdébats sur les preuves del’existence de Dieu. Lameilleure preuve de toutesest sans nul doute l’existencemême du monde et del’univers (Romains 1:20). Lamatière avec laquelle cedenier a été fait doit avoir uneorgine. Les scientifiques sedemandent quelle est cetteorigine. Peu importe la répon-se, l’univers doit venir dequelque part et quelquechose doit être la source de sa création.Ainsi, la création prouve l’existence ducréateur.

Pourtant, pour moi, la meilleure preuvede l’existence de Dieu est ma relationavec lui, que la Bible définit et conduit.Le Dieu que la Parole présente est celuique je connais.

Chez moi, nier l’existence de Dieu seraun déni de la réalité. Vivre dans le dénin’est pas sain sur les plans mental etémotionnel. Nous ne pouvons bien gérernotre vie, si nous ne sommes pas prêtsà admettre les réalités qui en font partie.

Si quelqu’un nie l’existence de Dieu, ildénie une réalité dont je suis fermementconvaincu. Bien que nous soyons touslibres de vivre dans cet état, ce dernierne nous permet pas de répondre défini-tivement aux grandes questions de la

vie – par exemple : Quel est le but denotre existence, et pour quoi sommes-nous conçus? Comment devrions-nousvivre? Comment pouvons-nous distin-guer le bien du mal, ce qui juste et ce quine l’est pas?

On trouve une réponse à ces interroga-tions lorsque la question de l’existencede Dieu est réglée. J’ai été touché parsa main miséricordieuse, il a fait ensorte que je comprenne qu’il veut que jevive, ici-bas et dans l’éternité, commeson enfant d’adoption. (1Jean 3:1-3). Enoutre, il est amour par nature. Il désiredonc que le service d’amour qu’il nousconfit définisse la façon dont nous noustraitons les uns les autres.

Il nous donne le moyen, et grâce àl’œuvre du Saint-Esprit, la capacitéd’être différent. Étant humains, noussommes profondément repliés sur nous-mêmes. Nous sommes fortementenclins à nous tourner vers nous-mêmes. Seul Dieu peut vaincre cetégoïsme inhérent. Lui seul met en lumiè-re les recoins sombres de notre coeur,qui a un penchant pour l’égoïsme,

l’hypocrisie, le cabotinage et les juge-ments tout faits.

La Bible emploie une métaphore sur lalumière pour décrire l’œuvre de Jésusdans notre monde (Jean 1:4, 5). Nous,

êtres humains, résistons par-fois à la lumière parce qu’ellerévèle la réalité. Une lutte faitrage en nous parce qu’il nousarrive de préférer vivre dansle déni (Jean 3:19).Cependant, ce mode de vieest destructeur. Nous ne pou-vons faire face aux réalités denotre vie ni à la vérité à notresujet tout en vivant dansl’aveuglement que provoquele déni (Jean 12:35).

La foi est le moyen de se sor-tir du déni et del’aveuglement spirituels pourvivre la dans réalité de lalumière de Dieu. Avec letemps, notre relation avecDieu croît, le doute s‘efface etle Seigneur devient une réa-lité pour nous.

Mais d’où vient la foi qui faitdisparaître le déni et le doute? La Bibleenseigne que Dieu aime tous leshumains et qu’il veut être en relationavec chacun d’entre eux. Il nous donne-ra la foi dont nous avons besoin pourfaire les premiers pas et pour poursuivrecette relation riche et remplie avec lui(Éphésiens 2:8). C’est ce que l’Écritureappelle le salut. On peut le décrirecomme un périple qui passe desténèbres à la lumière. On peut aussi direque la miséricorde de Dieu nous attirehors du déni vers la vraie réalité.

Une fois que nous avons connu Dieu,les doutes à propos de son existence etmême de sa nature se dissipent. Nouscommençons à voir clairement qu’il estprésent et qu’il est véritablement le fon-dement et le soutien de toute réalité. Ledéni et le doute vont s’évaporer pourfaire place à la connaissance de Dieu,qui est l’ultime réalité.

CHRONIQUE

de Gary Mooredirecteur national Du déni à la réalité,

des ténèbres à la lumière

LL

NL


onsider this statement: “If youlive in [North] America thechances are good that yournext door neighbors believethe following: The Inventor ofthe laws of physics and the

Programmer of the DNA code decided toenter the uterus of a Jewish virgin, gothimself born, then deliberately had him-self tortured and executed because hecouldn’t think of a better way to forgivethe theft of an apple, committed at theinstigation of a talking snake.”

Now there’s a mouthful.

This overt attack on core Christianbeliefs was made by scientist RichardDawkins and was passed busily aroundthe Internet recently. Dawkins is the cel-ebrated author of a 1985 work calledThe Blind Watchmaker which gave peo-ple pause about what Christians andothers call the Argument from Design,the theory that the apparent harmony inthe universe demands an intelligent, all-encompassing Mind behind it.

Irrational Religion?

In his early work Dawkins made a stimu-lating “dialogue partner” for well-equipped Christian thinkers. Now, how-ever, he has moved things up a notch.“As Creator of the majestically expand-ing universe, he [God] not only under-stands relativistic gravity and quantummechanics,” write Dawkins, “but actuallydesigned them. Yet what he really caresabout are sin, abortion, how often you goto church and whether gay peopleshould marry.”

Richard Dawkins has evolved (excusethe pun) into one of a breed of scholarsand journalists now lumped under therubric “the new atheists.” Along with jour-nalist Christopher Hitchens and neuro-scientist Sam Harris (labeled by TheGlobe and Mail a “brainy bookworm”),he is part of a potent new trinity. In 2004Harris issued The End of Faith: Religion,Terror and the Future of Reason whichpulled few punches. All religion, claims

Harris, represents irrationality and mad-ness. It has to go. Says Harris:

“Most of the people in this world believethat the Creator of the universe has writ-ten a book. We have the misfortune ofhaving many such books on hand, eachmaking an exclusive claim as to its infal-libility…All are in perverse agreement onone point of fundamental agreement,however: respect for other faiths, or forthe views of unbelievers, is not an atti-tude that God endorses.”

Harris’ attacks gained ground after theevents of 9/11 when radical Islam

emerged as a malevolent force. ForHarris, radical Islam is only the supremeexample of religion’s “toxic intolerance.”Thus, any such dogmatic ideas aboutGod and religion are best expunged ifcivilization is to survive. Harris is so con-vinced of this that he even advocates anuclear pre-emptive strike on Shiite Iran.

Ideas, we like to say, have conse-quences and recent have gained a widehearing. The philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778)—not an atheist—stated that ifGod did not exist it would be necessaryto invent him. Dawkins and Harris andtheir colleagues offer no such left-hand-

CCAtheism On Steroids...

And Some Antidotes

T H E M E

1 2

Rethink: Darwin’s attitude toward religion was morecomplex than simple rejection.

By Neil EarlePastor, Glendora, California congregation


see today derive from the “kinds” men-tioned in Genesis One.

Yet, almost unknown to too manyChristians, devout thinkers and carefulBible students since the time ofAugustine (354-430) and John Calvin(1509-1564) chose to focus on the the-ology not the geology of Genesis One.Even before the apparent challenges toGenesis posed by the lengthy Darwiniantime scheme with The Origin of Speciesin 1859, leading Christian lights hadpushed beyond “strict literalism.” Theyargued that the early chapters ofGenesis, though reflecting surprisinglyrealistic history and geography, weremore concerned with attacking paganidolatry than Charles Darwin. (SeeRonald Numbers, The Creationists andDavid N. Livingstone, Darwin’sForgotten Defenders.)

The skilful repetition, the cadences, theword patterns [“tohu wabohu” for form-less and empty in Genesis 1:2], themeasured flow of Genesis 1:1 toGenesis 2:4 read to these Bible loversas more like an artistic Call to Worshipthan a scientific proposition.

Not What or When but “Who”

Whereas the gods of the pagans wereportrayed as fighting among themselvesand disrupting cosmic harmony, Israel’sGod was superbly and serenely in con-trol. He spoke and worlds came intoexistence. He gave decrees and cosmicorder reigned supreme, water receded,earth and continents rose majestically.God even took delight in creating—it isall “very good.” Instead of a “battle of thegods” there is a never-ending rest andstability—thus Day Seven has noevening and morning.

Here is the majestic and worshipful intro-duction to the God of the Bible! Justwhat we should expect. The theme hereis not pre-Adamic wars, Charles Darwinor even Darwin’s many scientific criticstoday. The subject is God Himself. TheGod of Genesis is worthy of worship

because he not only gave life, heblessed it. The language used is earth-centered and human-centered. Theexact mechanism is not revealed. Theemphasis is not on science or technolo-gy or hydraulics, but a divine purposebehind the order and patterning we seeabout us.

James Houston of Vancouver’s RegentCollege said of Genesis 1: “It is not aprimitive account of how the universebegan, but about who brought all thingsinto being.” As David O’Brian has writtenso eloquently: “If he (God) had chosento inspire a scientific treatise I have nodoubt that he would have given us onethat battalions of Einsteins would needmillennia to unravel…He carefully chosenot to burden his revelation with scientif-ic language that would rapidly find itselfoutdated” (Today’s Handbook ForSolving Bible Difficulties, pages 168-169).

The payoff here is that once we discernthe real purpose and intent of the earlychapters of Genesis we find that about80-90% of the so-called conflictsbetween Science and Religion recede tothe background. This means that we canalmost let the new atheists sound off onwhat are for more and more thoughtfulChristians, essentially dead issues. Letothers in the scholarly community takeon Darwin. (See, for example, AnthonyLatham’s The Naked Emperor.)

Leviticus…or Jesus?

Dawkins and Co. are not prepared to letChristians off the hook, so easily, ofcourse.

If outmoded attacks on Genesis fail todent Christian armor, they move intomore complicated territory. They ask:What about the blatant sexism inherentin such passages as the laws relating tothe Jealousy Offering in Numbers 5? Orthe command to indulge in Holy Warwhen Yahweh seemed in the mood (1Samuel 15:1-3)? Or of all the things thatare categorized as “abominations” in

ed compliments. Harris is emphatic:“Intolerance is intrinsic to every creed.”Religion and God must go if the planet isto survive. This is atheism on steroids.

In general, there are three overall con-cerns of the new irreligious fraternity.These can be listed as questions relat-ing to creation and origins; harsh OldTestament laws and examples; thenbehavioral issues, i.e., the wayChristians and the organized churchhave failed to live the Christ-like life.

Geology or Theology?

Leslie Newbiggin, a successful theolo-gian from the mission field of India, cau-tions Christians that true dialoguemeans the ability to learn from one’s dia-logue partner. That is, a basic humility isrequired. This applies even in debatingthe fierce new atheists. Why is thisimportant? Simply because, sad to say,too many of Christianity’s allegeddefenders have hardly distinguishedthemselves on the question of origins. In1925, during the famous “Monkey Trial”in Dayton, Tennessee, the Bible’s self-styled allies dismissed the findings ofgeology with the line: “I am more inter-ested in the Rock of Ages than the ageof rocks.”

This did not work then. It will by nomeans work today. This writer remem-bers attending a lecture in 1994 byHenry Morris, the father of what used tobe called the creation-science move-ment. Morris’ sincere and strenuousattempts to seek an alternative explana-tion for the Darwinist hypothesis of ran-dom chance producing coherent orderand design across time led him downmany paths that today’s IntelligentDesigners have followed. Cardinalpoints here include the Young Earthhypothesis—an attempt to make theevolutionary time scheme fit into the fourthousand or so years seemingly postu-lated by the Book of Genesis. For Morristhis meant that geological features todaystem from Noah’s Flood, the dinosaursdied in the Flood, and that all species we

T H E M E C O N T I N U E D


tions, to educate, stim-ulate and inspire.”

Of course he has inmind here the greatreform movementsacross the centuries,the most notable andsuccessful, perhaps,being the Christiancrusade against slav-ery. Johnson thenwrites forcefully that“the record of mankindwith Christianity isdaunting enough;mankind withoutChristianity conjuresup a dismal prospect.…Christianity suppliesa hope. It is a civilizingagent. It helps to cagethe beast. Itoffers…intimations ofa calm and reasonableexistence.”

Finally this: “In the lastgeneration, with publicChristianity in head-long retreat, we havecaught our first view of

a de-Christianized world, and it is notencouraging.”

This is an eloquent truth. Victims of statepersecution and radical violence stretch-ing from Sudanese despots to the mer-ciless Taliban might well agree. It is nosurprise that Paul Johnson is a vocifer-ous public foe of what he calls“Darwinian fundamentalism,” the recy-cled call to construct a better world onthe basis of no faith in God whatsoever.Informed Christians know this: they havebeen here before. They are not about tolet these arguments go unanswered.

Leviticus 18? Or Yahweh’s seeming touphold slavery in Exodus 21:1-11?

Nothing new here, either. AlertChristians will already have answersfor this. Dawkins’ brilliant sparring part-ner and former molecular biophysicist,former atheist and renowned Christianchampion, Alister McGrath, is onesuch thinker. He has shown that mostof these questions have beenanswered already within Scripture.“Dawkins rightly demands that thereshould be an external criterion fordealing with the interpretation of thesetexts,” says McGrath, “there indeedexists such a criterion—the life andteachings of Jesus of Nazareth” (TheDawkins Delusion, page 90).

Jesus, says McGrath, transformed thewater of the Old Testament law into thewine of the Gospel message. Jesusexplained that many of the harsh stric-tures enjoined in the Law given toIsrael were a matter of the people’sown hardness and carnality (Matthew19:8). “I also gave them over tostatutes that were not good and lawsthey could not live by,” states Ezekiel20:25. In Numbers 5, for example, ajealous husband could not beappeased except by a special publicceremony. This being the Iron Age, thebias was definitely against the woman.But Jesus Christ’s treatment of womenin his ministry was truly revolutionary.The Gospel brings freedom.

Nor is this merely a debating point.Today, in the United States, a group ofChristians called “dominion theologians”argue that the laws of Leviticus shouldbe the law of the land. Strange, but,Christians may paradoxically owe thenew atheists a debt by forcing main-stream teachers to oppose such ideas.It’s an ill wind that doesn’t blow somegood.

The last point almost epitomizes whatthe new atheists consider the nub of thematter: the poor record of the Christianchurch to abide by Jesus’ law of love.

A Sense of Balance

The Inquisition. The Crusades. TheSalem witch trials. Imperialism in thename of Jesus. The long lamentable listof Christian mistakes and crimes makesa sorry tale indeed. One cannot skateover these failures. Still, in his conclu-sion to his History of Christianity (1976),the British journalist-historian PaulJohnson reasserted what often gets lost.“As an exercise in perfectionism,Christianity cannot succeed, even by itsinternal definitions,” Johnson wrote. Itsgreatest contribution, he argues, is to“set targets and standards, raise aspira-

NL


Jesus, says McGrath, transformed the water of the OldTestament law into the wine of the Gospel message


theists, on the whole, are amisunderstood lot. Maybethat’s why they have crankedthings up a notch and becomea little more noisy lately. Thequestion then arises...what

should Christians do in response? Well,the best way to end a shouting match iscertainly not to shout back louder.Maybe what Christians need to do issimply listen for a while.

I started to listen to atheists about twoyears ago and I discovered somethinginteresting. Atheists actually share onevery important thing in common with theaverage Christian: they care about thetruth. Contrary to what many Christiansmight think, most hard core atheists did-n’t end up that way because they want-ed to live a life of sin or because theythought going to church was uncool.Most ended up embracing a worldviewwithout God because they personally feltthat that sort of worldview was most like-ly to be true.

In their 1997 book AmazingConversions: Why some turn to faith andother abandon religion, Canadian psy-chologists Bob Altemeyer and BruceHunsberger suggest that many youngpeople end up quitting church, notbecause they didn’t take what theylearned there seriously, but rather,because they did take it seriously. Oneof the things that fundamentalist church-es often stress (and this is certainly trueof the old WCG) is that a person shouldtest religious claims carefully and “proveall things”. While this process can leadmany to accept Christianity, it can alsolead others to reject it.

So here’s my point. Atheists are not stu-pid. In fact many of them know the Bibleas well as, if not more than, the averagebeliever does. Therefore, any Christianwishing to have a fruitful dialogue withan atheist needs to be prepared. Veryprepared. They need to be familiar withwhich arguments atheists find very weakand which arguments are perhaps a bitstronger. But most of all, they need to be

willing to listen and to take the time totry and understand where the other iscoming from.

Let me share with you two key thingsthat atheists want you to know. First ofall, they want you to know that they arenot bad people. Atheists believe quitestrongly that it is possible to havemorals without God and they’ll behappy to explain to you how. In fact,their notions of right and wrong aregenerally quite similar to that of theaverage Christian so whatever you do,don’t go down the “you just want to beable to do whatever you want” road. Inreality, atheists want to do good thingsjust as much as Christians do. Sure,sometimes they mess up but thenagain, so do Christians.

Secondly, atheists want you to knowthat what they are looking for is evi-dence. Don’t bother quoting scripture tothem. That’s like a Mormon expectingyou to accept their religion simply basedon what the Book of Mormon says. Youmust first establish why you think theBible is authoritative before using it asan authority. Also, personal anecdotesusually don’t go over well. After all, theyare hard to confirm and are usually onlymeaningful to the persons involved. Andwhatever you do, don’t try to shift theburden of proof by saying things like,“Well, prove to me that God doesn’texist.“ If you make the claim that youbelieve in God, it’s up to you to providethe evidence for that claim.

Now, there’s no way that you are goingto be able to provide indisputable evi-dence for the existence of God. But whatyou can do is compare the evidence fora theistic worldview with the evidence foran atheistic one. You can talk aboutwhere the universe came from (the cos-mological argument) and how it appearsto be perfectly designed for life (the tele-ological argument). You can point outthe fact that all worldviews have theirstarting assumptions and that all containcertain gaps. On the other hand, youalso need to be ready to tackle tough

issues such as the problem of evil and toadmit that churches don’t always prac-tice what they preach. But most of all,you need to be ready to listen. Atheistsgenerally have already heard most ofwhat Christians have to say but fewChristians have taken the time to hearwhat atheists have to say.

At the end of the day, the new atheistsare not as scary as you might think.They’re not baby snatchers out to preyon the minds of unsuspecting youngChristians (very few people becomeatheists overnight). I’d say they’re morelikely a thoughtful group of folks who aretired of being ignored. Sure, on someissues they undoubtedly go too far. Buton other issues, they make some veryvalid points. Now that they have ourattention, let’s listen to what they have tosay.

Matt is currently working on a gradu-ate thesis entitled, “Personality andworldview: A study of young adultchurch leavers in North America”.

AABy Matt Baker

Member, Harvest Christian Fellowship,Abbotsford, BC


Listening To Atheists

NL

N O R T H E R N L I G H T 1 6

n the beginning there was nothing.Then, bang, there was something.Matter, space and time magicallyemerged from a single point thathad no dimensions.

Why is the universe the way it is?Why does it exist at all? What is spaceexpanding into?

For me, there is a profound elegancebuilt into the universe. Looking up intothe night sky, it is hard not to feel itsbeauty and majesty.

According to world renowned physicistStephen Hawking, “If the rate of expan-sion one second after the Big Bang hadbeen smaller by even one part in a hun-dred thousand million million, the uni-verse would have re-collapsed before iteven reached its present size” (A BriefHistory of Time, Stephen Hawking,Bantam Books, New York, 1988, p. 126).

Put another way, the odds of getting itjust right are the same as if you areblindfolded and must hit a target onecentimetre square on the other side ofthe universe. Impossible odds.

The initial rate of expansion would havehad to be chosen very precisely in orderfor the universe to evolve to the pointwhere it could eventually support life onearth. I am convinced it would be verydifficult to explain this whole process as“blind chance.”

Natural forces could not have been thecause because natural forces did notexist prior to the Big Bang. There had tobe a cause. For me, it seems reason-able to believe that some sort of intelli-gent God was the first cause.

Although I look at science for cluesabout the existence of a creator, I haveto be truthful to admit that science isunable to confirm the existence of God,because science is limited to the physi-cal things.

This makes sense to me because theScriptures tell me that God is non-phys-ical and therefore non-testable (thebasis of the scientific method is testabil-ity). But still, I believe that God does givephysical clues to his existence. To thedisinterested and hostile those clues arenot compelling enough.

Perhaps this is because if the evidencefor God’s existence was overwhelmingand obvious freedom of choice would becompromised. If freedom of choice werecompromised, then love is compro-mised. God will not allow this to happenfor he is love (1 John 4).

God’s existence can neither be 100%proven nor 100% disproven. Evidencedoes support God’s existence but evi-dence cannot cause belief. Ultimately itcomes down to faith. An atheist’s beliefthat there is no God is as much an act offaith as a Christian’s belief that there is aGod.

II


Faith is both a gift from God and a will-ing acceptance on a person’s part. Godoffers a personal relationship to every-one because of Jesus’ sacrifice, but noteveryone will accept this offer. Faithdemands freedom of choice. If someoneis convinced one is an independent“god” unto oneself, then it is understand-able why someone would not want toexplore the possibility of a higher power.

It’s not a question of, “Why I can’tbelieve in God”, but, “Do I want tobelieve in God?” If a person genuinelydesires to know if God exists, God willreveal himself to them.

Does God exist? It’s a matter of faith.After we die, and atheism happens to beproven right, Christian’s have lost noth-ing, since atheists believe all conscious-ness and memory is gone at death. Butif Christianity happens to be provenright, atheists have lost everything.

By Gordon TelfordMember, Bridge City CommunityChurch, Saskatoon, SK Do I Want To Believe In God?

NL


WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD CANADA

JOSEPH TKACHPASTOR GENERAL

GARY MOORENATIONAL DIRECTOR

Dear Members,

You may remember I wrote you a letter last year about this time. I wanted to do the same thing this yearto thank you once again for your ongoing support for the work of Jesus Christ being carried out by theWorldwide Church of God Canada. There have been some very exciting and encouraging developmentsthat I wanted to report to you.

As most of you know, our church embarked on a period of doctrinal reassessment and change over 15years ago. Our denominational leadership looked carefully at our theological teachings, and found therewere rather significant areas in which we needed to change. This has taken time and has been challeng-ing. Nevertheless, it has been most rewarding as we have come to more clearly understand both thegospel message and the doctrines of the Bible more accurately.

Much prayer for God’s guidance has gone into this process. We have sought the direction of the HolySpirit – called “the Spirit of truth” by Jesus Christ (John 15:26). It has been a long journey, but we arenow settling into what I believe to be a very sound and Biblical understanding of God and his purposes.This theology is often referred to as Trinitarian theology, as it is begins with the central question of whoJesus really was. The Bible clearly tells us that Jesus was God in the flesh. As the Son of God he wasthe member of the Godhead (John 1:1-3) who became fully human (though still fully God) and died forour sins (John 1:14). He introduced humanity to the Father and at the end of his ministry, the HolySpirit. Jesus came to reveal the Father (Matthew 11:27), and to send the Holy Spirit (John 16:7). At theend of his ministry on earth, Jesus commissioned his disciples to bear witness of the gospel and makedisciples of all nations, baptizing them “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the HolySpirit.”(Matthew 28:19). The Father, the Son and the Spirit are revealed in scriptures to be the one, trueGod who created us, and who loves us and has redeemed us – if we will but receive it.

This theology is also referred to as Adoption theology, because our destiny as humans is to enter intorelationship with God as his redeemed children – adopted by him into the family he is building (Romans8:15-17). It is also called, at times, Incarnational theology because of the emphasis placed on the factthat Jesus was both fully man and yet fully God. When he walked the earth he lived a real human life –not some sort of pseudo or fake life. The book of Hebrews makes this very clear (Hebrews 4:14-16;Hebrews 2:17-18).

The booklet providing an overview of this teaching, and giving numerous scriptural references showingwhere this teaching is made plain in the Bible will be printed serially in the next two issues of NorthernLight. The booklet was produced by Grace Communion International the new name for our parentdenomination, headquartered in Glendora, California.

This has also been a very productive year in terms of ministry involvement both here in Canada and in


terms of the mission work we support abroad. Our church in Canada has supported a radio broadcastand follow up seminars in support of marriage in Colombia, South America; summer youth camps in thePhilippines; and support for the training of medical personnel for community service in the very poorvillages in Bangladesh.

Further, we have continued to work with the special relationship our church here in Canada has with ourdenomination in Africa. This year, we have supported summer camps, pastoral training conferences, awomen’s retreat, poverty alleviation projects and even purchased a tent as a meeting space for a brandnew church plant in rural South Africa. My wife Wendy and I were in Southern Africa doing missionwork during August, and were able be present at the first service under the new tent, and make the offi-cial presentation on behalf of the church here in Canada. Needless to say, there was a great amount ofgratitude and appreciation expressed for this gift.

Of course, all these projects are done in Christ’s name, and are meant to be expressions of his love forall human beings. This is very much also true here in Canada in the many ways our congregations andmembership express the love of God to people in both word and deed. I should also make special noteof the fact that our eastern and western youth summer camps here in Canada saw rising attendances, andwonderful fruit borne this past July.

I don’t want to make this letter too long, but wanted to let you know some of the things God is accom-plishing as we learn to more fully yield ourselves to him. Truly it is his work, but what a matchlessopportunity he gives us to allow us to participate with him in this great plan of salvation he is workingout for all mankind.

Thank you so much for your generous support as coworkers with us in this great cause!

In Christian service,

Gary MooreNational DirectorWorldwide Church of God Canada

The New Tent Home Congregation greeting Canada


Chers membres,

Vous vous souvenez peut-être que je vous ai écrit à peu près à la même époque l’an dernier. Je voulais lerefaire cette année pour vous remercier une fois encore pour votre soutien de l’œuvre de Jésus-Christ quiest réalisée par l’Église universelle de Dieu du Canada. Je voulais en outre vous faire part de développe-ments très excitants et encourageants.

Comme la plupart d’entre vous le savez, il y a plus de 15 ans, notre église s’est lancée dans une périodede révision doctrinale et de changements. Les dirigeants de notre dénomination ont examiné attentive-ment nos enseignements théologiques et ils ont découvert que des changements s’imposaient dans desdomaines assez importants. Cet exercice a été long et rempli de défis. Quoi qu’il en soit, il n’en a pas étémoins gratifiant parce qu’il nous a permis de comprendre le message de l’Évangile et les doctrines de laBible de façon plus claire et plus exacte.

Nous avons beaucoup prié pour que Dieu nous guide au cours de ce processus. Nous avons cherché ladirection du Saint-Esprit, que Jésus appelle « l’Esprit de vérité » (Jean 15:26). Ce fut un long périple,mais je crois qu’aujourd’hui nous nous établissons sur une compréhension de Dieu et de son plan que jecrois très saine et biblique. On la nomme souvent la théologie trinitaire, car elle débute par une questioncentrale : qui Jésus est-il réellement? La Bible enseigne clairement que Jésus était Dieu fait chair. Étantfils de Dieu, il faisait partie de la Trinité (Jean 1:1-3). Il est devenu pleinement humain (tout en étanttoujours pleinement Dieu) et il est mort pour nos péchés (Jean 1:14). Il a présenté l’humanité au Père et,à la fin de son ministère, au Saint-Esprit. Il est venu pour révéler le Père (Matthieu 11:27) et pourenvoyer le Saint-Esprit (Jean 16:7). À la fin de son ministère sur terre, Jésus a confié à ses disciples lemandat d’être témoins de l’évangile, de faire de toutes les nations des disciples, de les baptiser « au nomdu Père, du Fils et du Saint-Esprit » (Matthieu 28:19). Les Écritures révèlent que le Père, le Fils et deSaint-Esprit sont le Dieu vrai et unique qui nous a créés, qui nous aime et qui nous a racheté si nous lerecevons.

On nomme aussi cette doctrine, la théologie de l’adoption parce que en tant qu’être humain notre destinest de devenir un enfant racheté par Dieu – d’être adopté par lui et d’ainsi faire partie de la famille qu’ilest en train de former (Romains 8:15-17) – et d’entrer en relation avec lui sur cette base. On appelle éga-lement cet enseignement la théologie de l’incarnation, car elle met l’accent sur le fait que Jésus était à lafois pleinement homme et pleinement Dieu. Lorsqu’il a marché sur terre, il a vécu une vraie vie humai-ne, il ne l’a pas simulée ou feinte. L’épître aux Hébreux l’explique clairement (Hébreux 4:14-16;Hébreux 2:17-18).

Une brochure qui donne un aperçu général de cet enseignement et qui fournit de nombreuses référencesqui démontrent que la Bible l’enseigne clairement sera publiée dans les deux prochaines parutions deNorthern Light. Cette brochure a été produite par Grace Communion International, le nouveau nom denotre dénomination mère, qui est basée à Glendora, en Californie.

ÉGLISE UNIVERSELLE DE DIEU

JOSEPH TKACHPASTEUR GÉNÉRAL

GARY MOOREDIRECTEUR NATIONAL


Par ailleurs, la dernière année a été productive sur le plan de l’implication ministérielle, ici au Canada, etde l’œuvre missionnaire, à l’étranger. Notre église au Canada a soutenu une émission de radio et desséminaires de suivi ayant pour but de fortifier le mariage en Colombie et en Amérique du Sud; des colo-nies de vacances pour les jeunes aux Philippines; un programme de formation de personnel médical quirend des services communautaires dans les villages très pauvres du Bangladesh.

En outre, nous avons poursuivi notre travail grâce à la relation spéciale que notre église canadienneentretien avec notre dénomination en Afrique. Cette année, nous avons soutenu des colonies devacances, des conférences de formation pastorale, une retraite pour femmes, des projets pour soulager lapauvreté et nous avons fait l’acquisition d’une tente pour qu’une nouvelle église rurale d’Afrique du Sudpuisse se réunir. Mon épouse Wendy et moi sommes allées en mission dans ce pays en août dernier, etnous avons pu assister au premier service tenu dans la tente et en effectuer la présentation officielle aunom de l’église du Canada. Bien entendu, les frères nous ont exprimé une immense gratitude et uneappréciation pour ce don.

Bien sûr, tous ces projets sont réalisés au nom de Christ pour exprimer son amour envers tous les êtreshumains. Cette réalité est aussi vraie dans les expressions nombreuses et variées de l’amour de Dieu, enparoles et en actions, que nos congrégations et nos membres réalisent au Canada. Je dois aussi vousinformer spécialement qu’en juillet la participation à nos colonies de vacances, à l’est et à l’ouest, a aug-menté et qu’un fruit extraordinaire en est sorti.

Je ne veux pas que ma lettre soit trop longue, mais je veux vous partager ce que Dieu accomplit lorsquenous apprenons à nous soumettre davantage à lui. C’est vraiment son œuvre! Mais quelle occasionincomparable il nous donne de participer avec lui au merveilleux plan de salut qu’il met en œuvre pourl’humanité.

Chers coouvriers dans sa grande cause, je vous remercie pour votre soutien généreux!

En Christ,

Gary MooreDirecteur nationalÉglise universelle de Dieu du Canada

La nouvelle tente qui sert de foyer. La congrégation remercie le Canada.


remember the girl who left herChristian home for university and inonly a few weeks had her entireChristian upbringing and beliefsturned upside down, and that wasthe last I heard from her. I also

remember the steady stream ofteenagers who drained the church for allit had to offer as far as youth activitiesand then left the church and turned theirbacks on God. All those years of carefulnurturing in Christian belief, growing upin a Christian home and attending aChristian church, and these kids, justlike that, turned atheist.

And now with atheism on a roll and real-ly getting aggressive in its attack againstthe ills of Christianity, these young athe-ists have all kinds of ammunition to sup-port their rejection of God. So wheredoes that leave them? Kids who grew upin a Christian atmosphere have, bychoice, rejected God and now wantnothing to do with him. Does that meanthey’re headed for Hell?

Well, what does one say after readingJohn 3:18? “Whoever does not believestands condemned already because hehas not believed in the name of God’sone and only Son.” This is the verdict(verse 19): “Light has come into theworld, but men loved darkness insteadof light.” That sounds like game over forour kids. If they’ve rejected God orJesus Christ, they’ve had it, right?

But how was the Light presented? Wasit really Light at all? Did our kids grow upwith the Light as John described it inverse 17, that “God did not send his Soninto the world to condemn the world, butto save the world through him”?

It suddenly dawned on me one day, afterreading that verse, that I hadn’t present-ed God in his true Light to my own chil-dren. In my actions and teaching as aparent, I’d mostly presented God as theGreat Condemner. Any bad behaviourfrom my children had been dealt withswiftly. If my kids wanted a relationship

with me, they’d better meet my expecta-tions. When their school reports arrived,they’d better be good. Mistakes weren’teasily forgiven.

Seeing God in that light I can understandwhy kids become atheists. I’d be anatheist too. But Jesus told us God’s notinto condemning, he’s into saving. He’sinto restoring our relationship with him,not finding reason to make it difficult.And when I realized that, what a differ-ence it made when my third child’s nextschool report came home. It was theusual mix of good and bad, but it wasn’twhat he had or hadn’t done that mat-tered to me anymore, it was our relation-ship. That’s what counted most fromnow on. But how could I keep our rela-tionship intact when his report card was-n’t that great? This was new territory forme.

Well, God sent Jesus to save, not con-demn. How? By putting grace ahead ofour behaviour. So instead of castigatingthe poor lad for not coming up to expec-tations, I found myself asking him if hewas happy with his report. Not was Ihappy, but was he? I’d never done thatbefore, but I hadn’t put our relationshipahead of his behaviour before, either.So, was he happy? Yes, he was. For hisfirst year in high school he was jollypleased with how he’d done, so I sug-gested we buy a Black Forest cake tocelebrate him being happy. I’d neverdone that before, either. But as Iwatched him happily munching away onhis third piece, I wondered if I’d hit ontosomething wonderful.

And so it was for the rest of his years inhigh school: I never once made himthink our relationship depended on himdoing well, and if he was happy, we cel-ebrated. We got through a lot of cakes,but for both of us, his high school yearswere the best years of our lives. Wehave nothing but happy memories.

I see now the importance of presentingGod in his true Light. He’s into whateverit takes to keep relationships intact and


By Jonathan BuckPastor, Barrie, Huntsville,

North Bay, Peterborough, andSudbury congregations

Kids Who Reject God

II


flourishing, which he does purely bygrace. So when my granddaughterbroke one of our dishes and she wascrying her eyes out on the kitchen floor,I gave her 2 Corinthians 5:19 with bothbarrels. I grabbed her by the shouldersand yelled at her, “You’re forgiven,you’re forgiven!” It had an amazingeffect. She stopped crying, looked up atme and said “OK,” and off she scuttledas free as a bird, our relationship intactdespite what she’d done. It was a won-derful chance to show God in his trueLight to her.

But what if it’s too late and our kids havegrown up, fled the nest and they’re outthere in the secular world living secularlives, and there’s little chance now asparents to show God in his true Lightanymore? Has our kids’ rejection of Godsealed their fate forever?

It didn’t for Israel. They rejected God inthe Old Testament and rejected Jesus inthe New, but God hasn’t ended his rela-tionship with them (Romans 11:1-2). He

allowed his kids to rebel against him(verse 32), but only as a preliminary toshowing them his mercy later on.Rejecting God doesn’t mean game over.Why? Because God isn’t into rejectinganyone. He came to save, not condemn.He’s into restoring relationships and giv-ing second chances. And when Israeleventually sees that, Paul says they’ll allbe saved (verse 26).

How brilliant God is. When his kids, thechildren of Israel, rejected him and wentatheist, he turns their rejection into ademonstration of his mercy and obviousproof of his love for them, and when theysee God in that Light it changes them forever.

But isn’t that God’s plan for everyone?Yes, it is. He “wants all men to be savedand to come to a knowledge of the truth”(1 Timothy 2:4). He wants everybody,eventually, to see him in his true Lightbecause that’s what turns us to him, justas it turns Israel to him one day, too. So,if we did it wrong as parents and our kidsrejected God, their rejection is only tem-porary because one day they’ll see Godas he really is, and even for hardenedatheists like those Israelites he’ll be verydifficult to resist!


NL

How brilliant God is. When his kids, the children of Israel,rejected him and went atheist, he turns their rejection into ademonstration of his mercy and obvious proof of his love forthem, and when they see God in that Light it changes themforever.


hope you don’t mind my presum-ing to write to you, since I knowvery little about science and theworkings of the universe. Neitherdo I have your education andknowledge. I don’t know how

many solar systems there are, or abouttracking the air currents. I cannot explainhow the sound barrier was broken, and Iknow nothing about nuclear fission. I’mnot interested in debate, and I don’tintend this as a challenge. But we dohave something in common: althoughwe have made different conclusionsabout the origin of life, we each have adeeply entrenched faith.

You seem to believe God does not exist,every bit as strongly as I believe hedoes. My faith isn’t new, neither is yours.And both are rooted in faiths—in some-thing neither of us can ultimately “prove”.

So it may seem a bit strange, my writingto you, yet there are a few things I’d liketo know. You seem to be much morevocal than you once were—and muchmore angry. Even bitter. I’m not sure

why. Do you feel threatened in someway? Or, are you simply taking a pageout of “our” book (a book I’m not sure“we” meant to “write”)?

There was a time when you basicallywent about your business of living yourfaith, pretty much leaving us to live ours.Now you dismiss those who disagreewith you as being dishonest, and just ahair off stupid. I really wonder whatchanged that. Could it be, you are sotired of being preached at by extremename-calling judgmental fundamental-ists (so have I, by the way) that you arebecoming one, yourself? You’re judg-ment is, that one cannot believe in Godand be intelligent. And you don’t “do”cop-outs? Just as Christians preachedto attract converts, now, you are doingthe same. Intolerance for intolerance—or, forgive me, “an eye for an eye”?

And for us, instead of letting our lights“shine”, some have turned up their “halo-gen brights” in your eyes and tried totake away what I believe is your godgiven right to make up your own mind.

Granted, we have not always been “pret-ty” examples. Actually, I haven’t quite fig-ured out how a people who say theybelieve in a God who is love and some-how manages to alienate about half ofthe world by their behavior. Except forone thing you may call an excuse—but Icall a reason. I make mistakes. I hopeyou are honest enough to accept you’vemade a few in your life. We are stillhuman. Here we may differ also, I thinkyou believe we will never be anythingelse. I believe we will.

I know you cannot convince me differ-ently and I don’t think I can convinceyou. Thing is, in the “final analysis” itdoesn’t matter. If you will insist onremaining unconvinced that the Eternal,Creator loving God simply is not, it isn’tworth the debate—the challenges, thetime, and trouble of beating my headagainst a stone wall for nothing.Because, if you are correct, it doesn’tmatter. If you are wrong—you will findout.”

Dear Atheist...By Camay AchtemichukMember, Yorkton SK congregation

II


NL


of you, with your chin on your handand I called it “the thinker”.

At what age did you develop an inter-est in diving?

Around the age of 9 or 10. I rememberwatching it on TV, CommonwealthGames. That was the first spark.

What was it about diving that caughtyour interest and attention?

I’ve always been a bit of a fish, lovedwater and like the thrill, the rush. Divingis a good sport for both of those.

euben Ross grew up in asmall town in Saskatchewan(Pilot Butte), the youngest of5 children. His parents, Natand Mary Ross, 3 siblingsand Grandmother, Gladys

Whyte are members of PathwayCommunity Church in Regina. Reubenis an Olympic Athlete. He representedCanada in diving at the Beijing Olympicsin August 2008. His Grandma, GladysWhyte of Regina interviewed him inNovember 2008 about his experiencesas a high performance athlete.

When I first saw you 23 years ago, Ithought to myself, “what is in storefor this little one”. Later I had a photo

What made you decide it was worth-while to put in so much time andenergy?

It wasn’t easy at times. You questionyour commitment, “is it worth it”.Especially at the age of 13-14, you seeall the other kids having free time. I hadto go to the pool every day, but I didhave success at what I did. I realized Ihad talent.

Your coaches told you you had tal-ent?

Yes, I didn’t always realize. My coacheshad more faith in my talent than I did.

RR

F A I T H P R O F I L E S

By Gladys WhyteMember, Pathway CommunityChurch, Regina

Rueben (left) with his brother Elliot, in China.

Reuben Ross


How and when did your dream ofgoing to the Olympics develop?

I started dreaming about it when I wasvery young. I remember before the2000 games I was upset that I was tooyoung. It’s always been the dream, thepassion, the pinnacle to reach for.

And now you’ve realized that dream.

I have.

What was it like walking into thathuge arena in Beijing with theCanadian Team?

That was probably one of the mostincredible experiences of my life, walk-ing into the stadium and realizing that itwas real. It was all so surreal beforethat, even though you were in Beijing,it’s hard to realize you are actually at theOlympics and that you are going to becompeting, representing your countryamong the best of the best of the world.It was that moment that it really becamereal. It was such a rush, such extremeemotion.

And the thrill of having so many peo-ple there watching you dive?

That was really special. It was incredi-ble to have so many family there.

How many were there?

Thirteen, “crazy” members of the familycoming to watch and support. I was veryglad that they could come and that theycould share that with me.

They were thrilled too.

I’m sure.

You left home at the age of 16 andwent o Edmonton to train. What ledyou to that decision and what wasthat like for you?

It was weird, it wasn’t really much of adecision. When I heard the coaches

weren’t going to be in Regina any more,I thought I need to go to Edmonton. I got2 suitcases, I don’t know where I’m livingor what school I’m going to. It was pret-ty all up in the air, but it all worked out. Inever regretted that decision.

Where did you live?

For the first month I lived with one of theother divers. Then after that I lived withElliot, my brother, who was living there.

Now what are you studying andwhere are you presently living, andtraining?

I’m at the University of Miami, studyingcivil engineering. It’s my 3rd year. It’sbeen good so far, busy, but for the most

part I’m enjoying what I’m doing, whichmakes it a lot easier. I’m living on cam-pus above a Baptist Church in an apart-ment with 6 guys. It’s been a very goodplace to live.

What are your goals for diving andyour academic life for the upcomingyear?

I would like to win NCAA finals again,improve my scores internationally andwin a medal at world championships, insynchro in Rome in July

While diving has been a large part ofyour life for the past 12 years, I knowthat you have grown up with aChristian faith and have spent someof your summers at Church camp.

F A I T H P R O F I L E S C O N T I N U E D

Participating in charity dive show after 2009 World AquaticChampionships in Rome


areas of life, they are not entirely sepa-rate, so I have to learn to incorporate.For example when I’m diving, I’m a diverbut I also try to make a difference in thepeople around me, to be there for themand to respect them.

What has been important in your per-sonal journey of faith in being a fol-lower of Christ?

As with anything in life, there are alwaysstruggles. That is the same with being aChrist follower, there are not alwayseasy times. With diving there are goodtimes and hard times. There are somany facets of a Christian life. You haveto work through the struggles like you dowith any other sort of thing.

I know you don’t have much sparetime for reading, but how is yourfavourite Christian author?

I haven’t read too many Christianauthors. I like Phillip Yancy and C.S.Lewis. His books are so . . . I enjoy theway he looks at things. That’s why I like

both of those authors. They look atthings differently, not your typical opin-ion. They analyze things and look atthem from different angles.

Do you have a hero and why is thatperson your hero?

I don’t have a specific hero. There aremany influential people throughout mylife who I try to learn from.

Your life is very busy. What do youenjoy doing in your “free” time?

You always have to have some freetime. It is just as important part of life asworking or school. I usually spend freetime interacting with friends, watchingTV or playing games or spending timewith family.

What is the most important life-les-son you have learned?

There are so many life lessons, its’ hardto pick a specific one. Perseverance isan important thing that I’ve learned andhad to deal with in difficult situations.You are better for it and for gettingthrough it.

You have had some wonderful oppor-tunities in learning, travel and seeingother cultures. What advice andencouragement would you like topass on to other young people?

Keep an open mind, observe and absorbas much as you can. Think, see theworld and observe it. Don’t close yourmind to one way of thinking. This is animportant thing to learn.

Footnote: Rebuen did realize severalof his goals in 2009. He won 1st placeon the 3 Meter Board at Canada Cup,international diving meet. In the USinternational meet, he won 2nd place.At the World Aquatic Championshipsin Rome, he placed 3rd on the 3 Metersynchro event, with Alex Despatie.Reuben placed 11th on the 3 Meterindividual event and 7th on the 10Meter synchro event with RileyMcCormick.

2 6

How does your Christian faith impactyour diving career and your study-ing?

It’s another important aspect of your lifeand something that can’t be neglected.As life gets busy it’s easy to push itaside, but it is important to keep.

How do you balance and incorporateyour Christian life into your divingand university career?

The most important thing I try to do is tolive my life as a Christ follower and tolove and respect others and to try tomake a difference with my actions ratherthan so much with my words. I try to liveas a Christian.

How do the demands of training andstudying impact your life as aChristian?

It’s a busy schedule and you have tolearn to balance the three important

NL

F A I T H P R O F I L E S C O N T I N U E D

Rueben with his mother Mary and father Nat after winningbronze in the syncro event at the World AquaticChampionships in Rome.


n many of his letters, Paul con-cludes with a list of commands. InGalatians, he gives a series ofproverbs. He wants his readers tobe guided by the Spirit, not a list oflaws, so he gives them principles

that require some thought.

Restore a sinner gently (verses 1-5)

The Galatian Christians were probablyconcerned about sin—they were attract-ed to the law of Moses because itseemed to address the problem of mis-behavior. But Paul is more concernedabout the person than he is the sin: Ifsomeone is caught in a sin, you whoare spiritual should restore him gen-tly. But watch yourself, or you alsomay be tempted.

What kind of sin is Paul talking about—amoment of weakness, or a persistentproblem? It’s not clear, but it alienatedthe person from the community, andrestoration was needed. This must bedone gently by Spirit-led people, whoknow their own tendency to sin in other,perhaps less public ways. We shouldtreat others the way that we want to betreated, with compassion and patience.

As brothers and sisters in the faith, weare to help one another: Carry eachother’s burdens, and in this way youwill fulfill the law of Christ. If you wanta law, he seems to say, start with the lawof helping others. Jesus served othersrather than himself, and so should we.When someone is caught in a sin, weneed to help the person—not make theburden heavier. This is love, which fulfillsthe purpose of God’s law (5:14).

Paul’s next proverb is a truism: If any-one thinks he is something when heis nothing, he deceives himself. Thisseems to be a warning for people whothink they are spiritual giants and neverlikely to be caught in a sin. If you thinkyou can stand on your own, he sayselsewhere, watch out, for you could fall,too (1 Cor. 10:12).

Each one should test his ownactions. Then he can take pride inhimself, without comparing himself tosomebody else. We are not the judgeof how well other people are doing in thefaith—but we should be attentive towhether we are doing what we ought.We can celebrate that we have grown,but we should not take pride in beingbetter than others. Each person has hisor her own journey in life. As Paul says,each one should carry his own load.

On the surface, this appears to contra-dict what Paul said in verse 2. Are we tohelp one another, or to be self-reliant?Well, both. We should be attentive to ourown life, but we should also help oth-ers—and we should recognize that wewill sometimes fall short in our responsi-bilities, and will then need the help ofothers. Spiritual growth is a matter ofcooperation, not competition.

Supporting teachers, doing good(verses 6-10)

Paul’s next proverb concerns financialsupport for the leaders of the church:Anyone who receives instruction inthe word must share all good thingswith his instructor. When the peoplewere spiritually immature, Paul was will-ing to support himself by making tents,but he also taught that believers shouldsupport those who labor in the gospel. Ifwe want teachers to help us with theirabilities, then we must help themaccording to our ability.

Paul says, Do not be deceived: Godcannot be mocked. A man reaps whathe sows. This principle could be appliedin many settings; here, it seems to referto financial support for teachers in thechurch. No matter how diligent ourteachers are, if they have to supportthemselves financially, they willinevitably have less time to help others.When we give more, we receive more.

Paul applies the proverb to spiritual mat-ters: The one who sows to please hissinful nature, from that nature will

reap destruction; the one who sowsto please the Spirit, from the Spiritwill reap eternal life. A self-centered lifeproduces only material things that even-tually waste away. A life curved in onitself doesn’t even want the kind of lifethat God offers.

But if we are attentive to spiritual priori-ties, the result will be more blessingsfrom the Spirit. This is not a matter ofearning eternal life through goodworks—it is simply an acknowledgmentthat spiritual choices have results. If wefocus on ourselves, our life will producenothing of value. But if we make deci-sions in life following the Spirit, we willbe participating in the kind of life we willenjoy forever. The Spirit leads us andempowers us, but we still have thechoice of how to live, and our decisionsdo have consequences.

Paul makes it clear that the works of thelaw cannot save us, but he has nothingagainst good works: Let us not becomeweary in doing good, for at the prop-er time we will reap a harvest if we donot give up. Why do we get tired ofdoing good? Because it doesn’t alwayshave immediate rewards. But it willeventually have good results.

Paul concludes: Therefore, as we haveopportunity, let us do good to all peo-ple, especially to those who belong tothe family of believers. Since doinggood is the right way to live, we shoulddo good not just to our friends, but to allpeople—and yet Paul notes that wehave a special responsibility to others inthe church.

In Paul’s day, wealthy citizens oftenfinanced public banquets and new civicbuildings: they were “doing good to all.”Be a public benefactor, Paul is saying,especially within the church. If you sowgenerously, you will reap abundantly (2Cor. 9:6).

Do Good To AllA Study Of Galatians 6

B I B L E S T U D Y

By Michael Morrison

II


Boasting in the cross (verses 11-18)

Paul now takes the quill and writes theclosing words himself, as Greek authorsoften did. He writes in large letters eitherfor emphasis, or simply because he wasnot as skilled as the secretary in writingon porous papyrus. See what large let-ters I use as I write to you with myown hand!

He adds a few thoughts about circumci-sion: Those who want to make a goodimpression outwardly are trying tocompel you to be circumcised. Theonly reason they do this is to avoidbeing persecuted for the cross ofChrist. Basically, the false teacherswanted Christianity to be a sect withinJudaism, and for all Gentile believers tobecome proselytes. They may have

offered various religious reasons, butPaul says that what they really wantedwas to be accepted by unbelievingJews.

But there is an irony here: Not eventhose who are circumcised obey thelaw, yet they want you to be circum-cised that they may boast about yourflesh. As a former Pharisee, Paul knewthe rigor involved in keeping all thelaws—and these people don’t have thatkind of zeal, he says. They just want tobrag about bringing proselytes into theJewish fold.

Boasting about achievements is haz-ardous to our spiritual health. May Inever boast except in the cross of ourLord Jesus Christ, through which theworld has been crucified to me, and I

to the world. When we boast in thecross, we are “boasting” in our weak-ness, admitting that human effort endsonly in death. We are proclaiming thegospel of what Christ has done.

Because of the cross, our old self is irrel-evant. The new spiritual reality is that itdoesn’t matter whether a person isJewish or Gentile. Neither circumci-sion nor uncircumcision means any-thing; what counts is a new creation.In the cross, we died, and in the resur-rection, we were made new. Our rela-tionship with God is based on our con-nection with Christ, not on our flesh.

Peace and mercy to all who followthis rule, even to the Israel of God.The “rule” is that circumcision doesn’tmatter. Paul is ending with a benedictionon those who accept his teaching. Theyare “the Israel of God.” If people want tobe part of Israel according to God’s def-inition, they should ignore the flesh andtrust in their new status in Christ.

Finally, he says, let no one cause metrouble, for I bear on my body themarks of Jesus. Paul has been perse-cuted for Christ, and he points to hisscars. If you want to look at the flesh,look at these scars as evidence that I’mtrying to please God, not anyone else.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ bewith your spirit, brothers. Amen.

B I B L E S T U D Y C O N T I N U E D

The Greeks had a Word for it

Καταρτιζω

When Paul exhorted believers to “restore” a person who hadsinned (Gal. 6:1), he used the Greek word katartizō. This comesfrom the Greek word artizō (related to the English words artistryand artisan), and the prefix kata (which can have a variety ofmeanings, but in this word conveys a sense of completeness).

This is the word that Mark uses to say that the disciples weremending or preparing their nets (Mark 1:19), and Jesus uses itfor a fully trained student (Luke 6:40). In secular Greek, it wasused for a doctor setting a broken bone so that it could heal. Ingeneral, it means to make something suited for its purpose.

By using this word, Paul is putting emphasis on the solution, notthe problem. “The whole atmosphere of the word lays the stressnot on punishment but on cure” (William Barclay, The Letters tothe Galatians and Ephesians, 53). “The goal here is not pun-ishment or expulsion of the transgressor but restoration to theperson’s former state” (Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia,422).

Questions for discussion

1. Based on Paul’s letter, how couldbelievers in Galatia know whether theywere “spiritual”? (v. 1)

2. If I am dealing with a person caught insin, what kind of words would help theperson carry the burden? (v. 2)

3. In the support I give my pastor, am Itrying to please the Spirit, or have Igrown weary? (vv. 8-9)

4. How do I boast in the cross of Christ?(v. 14)

NL


aul conclut bon nombre desses épîtres par une liste decommandements. Dans cellequ’il adresse aux Galates, iltermine plutôt par une sériede proverbes. Il désire que

ses lecteurs soient dirigés par l’Esprit etnon par une liste de lois. C’est pourquoiil leur écrit des principes qui exigent dela réflexion.

Restaurer un pécheur avec douceur(versets 1 à 5)

Le péché préoccupait probablement leschrétiens de Galatie; ils étaient attiréspar la loi de Moïse, car elle semblerégler le problème du mauvais com-portement. Mais Paul se soucie plus dela personne que du péché : Siquelqu’un s’est laissé surprendre parquelque faute, vous qui vous laissezconduire par l’Esprit, ramenez-ledans le droit chemin avec un espritde douceur. Et toi qui interviens, faisattention de ne pas te laisser toi-même tenter.

De quel type de péché Paul parle-t-il, unmoment de faiblesse, un problème récu-rant? Ce n’est pas clair, mais il est cer-tain que ce péché excluait le pécheur dela communauté et qu’une restaurationétait nécessaire. Celle-ci doit s’effectuerpar une personne guidée par l’Esprit, quisait qu’elle est sujette au péché sousdes formes probablement plus privéesque celles qui concernent le pécheur àramener sur le droit chemin. Nous de-vrions traiter les autres comme nousvoudrions l’être, c’est-à-dire faire preuvede compassion et de patience.

Apparement, le proverbe suivant est uneévidence : Si quelqu’un s’imagine êtreune personne d’exception – alorsqu’en fait il n’est rien – il s’abuse lui-même. Paul semble s’adresser auxgens qui croient être des géants spiri-tuels qui ne pourraient jamais être sur-pris en train de pécher. Que celui quicroit être debout, dit-il ailleurs, prennegarde de tomber (1 Corinthiens 10:12).

Que chacun examine son proprecomportement. S’il découvre quelque

aspect louable, alors il pourra enéprouver de la fierté par rapport à lui-même et non par comparaison avecles autres. Nous n’avons pas à juger lesprogrès des autres dans la foi, maisnous devrions nous examiner attentive-ment pour savoir si nous agissonscomme nous le devrions. Nous pouvonséprouver de la fierté à propos de notrepropre croissance, mais nous ne devonspas être fiers d’être meilleurs que lesautres. Dans la vie, chacun effectue sonpropre périple. Comme Paul le dit, cha-cun aura à répondre pour lui-mêmede ses actions.

À première vue, cela semble contradic-toire avec ce que l’apôtre à déclaré auverset deux. Devons-nous nous aiderles uns les autres ou compter sur nous-mêmes uniquement? Eh bien, les deux.Nous devons examiner attentivementnotre propre vie, mais nous devonsaussi venir en aide aux autres. Nousdevrions en outre reconnaître que par-fois nous n’arriverons pas à assumernos responsabilités et que nous avonsbesoin des autres. La croissance spiri-tuelle est propice à la coopération et nonà la compétition.

Soutenir les enseignants, faire le bien(versets 6-10)

Le proverbe suivant concerne le soutienfinancier des dirigeants de l’église : Quecelui à qui l’on enseigne la Paroledonne une part de tous ses biens àcelui qui l’enseigne. Lorsque lescroyants n’étaient pas mûrs sur le planspirituel, Paul voulait pourvoir à sespropres besoins en fabriquant destentes, mais il a aussi enseigné que lescroyants devraient soutenir financière-ment ceux qui prêchet l’évangile. Sinous voulons bénéficier des capacitésde nos enseignants, nous devons lesaider selon les nôtres.

Paul déclare : Ne vous faites pasd’illusions : Dieu ne se laisse pastraiter avec mépris. On récolte ceque l’on a semé. Ce principes’applique à de nombreuses situations;

Faisons du bien à tout le mondeUne étude de Galates 6

PP

Étude biblique

de Michael Morrison

Faisons le bien sans nous laisser gagner par le décourage-ment. Car si nous ne relâchons pas nos efforts, nous récolte-rons au bon moment.


L’apôtre conclut : Ainsi donc, tant quenous en avons l’occasion faisons dubien à tout le monde, et en premierlieu à ceux qui appartiennent à lafamille des croyants. Puisque faire lebien est la bonne manière de vivre, nousne nous devrions pas la réserver uni-quement pour nos amis, mais plutôtl’exercer envers tous. D’ailleurs, Paulprécise que nous avons une responsabi-lité spéciale envers les membres del’église.

À l’époque de Paul, il arrivait souventque des citoyens bien nantis soutien-nent financièrement des banquetspublics ou la construction de nouveauxbâtiments municipaux. Ils faisaient ainsidu « bien à tous ». Paul nous exhorte à

être des bienfaiteurs publics surtoutenvers l’église. Si vous semez généreu-sement, vous récolterez abondamment(2 Cor. 9:6).

Placez votre fierté dans la croix(versets 11-18)

Paul prend maintenant la plume pourrédiger lui-même la conclusion del’épître, comme le faisaient souvent lesauteurs grecs. Il a écrit ces paroles engrandes lettres pour mettre l’accent surelles ou tout simplement parce qu’iln’était aussi doué que les scribes pourécrire sur le papyrus poreux. Vousremarquez ces grandes lettres; c’estbien de ma propre main que je vousécris!

ici, il semble faire référence au soutienfinancier des dirigeants de l’église. Peuimporte l’assiduité de nos enseignants,s’ils doivent pourvoir à leurs propresbesoins financiers, ils auront inévitable-ment moins de temps pour aider lesautres. Lorsque nous donnons beau-coup, nous recevons en abondance.

L’apôtre a appliqué le proverbe précè-dent à la vie spirituelle. Celui qui sèmepour satisfaire ses propres désirsd’homme livré à lui-même récolterace que produit cet homme, c’est-à-dire la corruption. Mais celui qui sèmeselon l’Esprit : la vie éternelle. Une viecentrée sur elle-même ne produit quedes choses matérielles qui ultérieure-ment seront détruites. Celui dont la vieest repliée sur elle-même ne désiremême pas le type de vie que Dieu offre.

Cependant, si nous nous fixons despriorités spirituelles, nous récolteronsplus de bénédictions spirituelles. Il nes’agit pas de gagner la vie éternelle parde bonnes œuvres, mais simplement lareconnaissance du fait que les choix spi-rituels produisent des résultats. Si nousnous concentrons sur nous-mêmes,notre vie ne produira aucun fruit devaleur. Mais si nous prenons des déci-sions en nous laissant diriger parl’Esprit, nous participerons à un type devie dont nous jouirons pour toujours.L’Esprit nous guide et nous donne lacapacité d’agir selon lui, mais nousdevons toujours choisir comment nousallons vivre, et nos décisions auront tou-jours des conséquences.

Paul affirme clairement que les œuvresde la loi ne peuvent pas nous sauver,mais il n’a rien contre les bonnesœuvres. Faisons le bien sans nouslaisser gagner par le découragement.Car si nous ne relâchons pas nosefforts, nous récolterons au bonmoment. Pourquoi nous lassons-nousde faire le bien? Parce que nous n’ensommes pas toujours récompensésimmédiatement; mais nous obtiendronsde bons résultats ultérieurement.

Étude biblique

Les Grecs avaient un mot pour le direΚαταρτιζω

Lorsque Paul a exhorté les croyants à « ramener dans le droitchemin » quelqu’un qui a péché (Gal. 6:1), il a employé le termegrec katartizō.Celui-ci provient du mot grec artizō (auquel sontrelié les termes artiste et artisan), et du préfixe kata (qui a plu-sieurs significations, mais dans ce terme-ci il fait référence à lacomplétude).

Marc a employé le terme katartizō pour dire que les disciplesréparaient ou préparaient leurs filets (Marc 1:19), et Jésus l’autilisé pour parler d’un étudiant complètement formé (Luc 6:40).Dans la langue grecque séculière, ce terme était utilisé lors-qu’un médecin replaçait un os afin qu’il guérisse. De façongénérale, il signifie rendre quelque chose pertinent à son but.

En employant ce terme, Paul met l’accent sur la solution et nonsur le problème. « L’atmosphère même du mot souligne leremède et non sur la punition » (traduction libre, WilliamBarclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians, 53).«transgresseur, mais de restaurer la personne pour qu’elleretrouve son état premier » (Ben Witherington, Grace inGalatia, 422).


Il ajoute quelques réflexions au sujet dela circoncision : Ceux qui vous impo-sent la circoncision sont des gensqui veulent faire bonne figure devantles hommes. Ils n’ont qu’un seul but :éviter d’être persécutés à cause de lamort du Christ sur la croix.Essentiellement, les faux enseignantsvoulaient que le christianisme soit unesecte du judaïsme et que tous lescroyants gentils deviennent prosélytes.Ils ont fourni beaucoup de raisons reli-gieuses, mais Paul explique qu’au fondils voulaient être acceptés par les Juifsnon-croyants.

Mais voici l’ironie : ceux qui pratiquentla circoncision n’observent pas laLoi, eux non plus. S’ils veulent vousfaire circoncire, c’est pour pouvoir sevanter de vous avoir imposé cettemarque dans votre corps. Comme ilavait déjà été pharisien, Paul connais-sait la rigueur avec laquelle les loisdevaient être appliquées et il savait queces gens ne faisaient pas preuve de cetype de zèle. Ils ne voulaient que se van-ter d’avoir emmené des prosélytes aujudaïsme.

Se vanter de nos réalisations met enpéril notre santé spirituelle. En ce quime concerne, je ne veux à aucun prixplacer ma fierté ailleurs que dans lamort de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christsur la croix. Par elle, en effet, lemonde du péché a été crucifié pourmoi, de même que moi je l’ai été pource monde. Lorsque nous nous glorifionsdans la croix, nous nous « vantons » denotre faiblesse, nous admettons quenous efforts humains ne mènent qu’à lamort. Nous proclamons l’évangile del’œuvre accomplie de Christ.

À cause de la croix, notre vieil hommen’est plus pertinent. Le fait qu’une per-sonne soit juive ou gentille n’est plusd’importance; c’est la nouvelle réalité quicompte. Peu importe d’être circoncisou non. Ce qui compte, c’est d’êtreune nouvelle créature. À la croix, noussommes morts et par la résurrectionnous sommes devenus de nouvelles

créations. Notre relation avec Dieu estbasée sur notre lien avec Christ et nonsur notre chair.

Que la paix et la grâce de Dieu soientaccordées à tous ceux qui suiventcette règle de vie, ainsi qu’à l’Israëlde Dieu. Cette règle c’est que la circon-cision n’importe plus. Paul termine sonépître par une bénédiction pour ceux quiacceptent son enseignement. Ce sonteux qui constituent l’Israël de Dieu. Siles croyants veulent faire parte d’Israëlselon la définition que Dieu en donne, ilsdoivent être indifférents à leur chair, etvivre par la foi selon leur nouveau statuten Christ.

Désormais, dit-il, que personne ne mecause plus de peine, car je porte surmon corps les cicatrices des bles-sures que j’ai reçues pour la cause deJésus. Paul a été persécuté pour Christet il montre les cicatrices que cela lui aoccasionnées. Si vous voulez considé-rer la chair, considérez ces cicatricescomme une preuve que je cherche àplaire à Dieu et à personne d’autre.

Chers frères, que la grâce de notreSeigneur Jésus-Christ soit avec voustous. Amen.

Étude biblique

Questions pour la discussion

1. Selon l’épître de Paul, comment lescroyants de Galatie pouvaient-ils savoirs’ils étaient « spirituels »? (v. 1)2. Si je dois intervenir auprès d’une per-sonne prise en flagrant délit de péché,quel genre de paroles l’aideraient à por-ter son fardeau? (v. 2)3. En ce qui concerne le soutien quej’accorde à mon pasteur, est-ce quej’essaie de plaire à l’Esprit ou suis-jedevenu las? (vv. 8-9)4. Comment est-ce que je place mafierté dans la croix de Christ? (v. 14)

NL

iving in what a friend of minecalls the “God bubble” I often gothrough life ignorant of some ofthe latest trends in society. Thiswas made quite clear to me in2007 while attending the

Canadian Church Press conference inToronto. On the last day of the confer-ence there was a panel discussion onthe upcoming trends that would confrontChristianity in Canada and the impactthey could have on Christian communi-cators.

In addition to the usual trends of thegeneral secularization of our society,one speaker alerted us to what hethought was the most alarming trend—the rise in the popularity of books pro-moting an atheistic world view.

In particular, he mentioned Letter To AChristian Nation, by Sam Harris. In hisbook Harris “takes on” Christianity show-ing why it is not to be believed and fol-lowed. In the opening pages of hewrites:

“You believe that the Bible is the word ofGod, that Jesus is the Son of God andthat only those who place their faith inJesus will find salvation after death. As aChristian, you believe these propositionsnot because they make you feel good,but because you think they are true.Before I point out some problems withthese beliefs, I would like to acknowl-edge that there are many points onwhich you and I agree. We agree, forinstance, that if one of us is right, theother is wrong. The Bible is either theword of God, or it isn’t. Either Jesusoffers humanity the one, true path to sal-vation (John 14:6), or he does not. Weagree that to be a true Christian is tobelieve that all other faiths are mistaken,and profoundly so. If Christianity is cor-rect, and I persist in my unbelief, Ishould expect to suffer the torments ofhell. Worse still, I have persuaded oth-ers, and many close to me, to reject thevery idea of God. They too will languishin “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41). If thebasis doctrine of Christianity is correct, I

have misused my life in the worst con-ceivable way. I admit this without a sin-gle caveat. The fact that my continuousand public rejection of Christianity doesnot worry me in the least should suggestjust how inadequate I think your reasonsfor being a Christian are.” (pp. 3-4,Letter To A Christian Nation)

These opening statements set the tonefor the rest of the book. The fact a bookabout atheism made the New YorkTimes best seller list at number 7 inOctober 2006, one month after beingreleased, made Christians stand up andtake notice.

As a result of that panelist’s comments, Iread Sam Harris’ book with interest andtoo had to wonder if such books couldcause many to reject Christianity—espe-cially the younger generation. That is,until I brought this book up during ameeting with fellow pastors of thisdenomination. After I gave a short reporton the book, one of our pastors said,“Bill, those ideas are from modernity,and don’t fit with the post-modern mind-set of the majority of younger people.”

I had to agree with him.

So it was with interest I read AlisterMcGrath’s comments in his book, TheDawkins Delusion?. In it McGrathaddresses Richard Dawkin’s book TheGod Delusion, and what he sees as thestate of atheism in our world today:

“Until recently, western atheism haswaited patiently that belief in God wouldsimply die out. But now, a whiff of panicis evident. Far from dying out, belief inGod has rebounded and seems set toexercise still greater influence in boththe public and private spheres. The GodDelusion, expresses this deep anxiety,partly reflecting an intense distaste forreligion. Yet there is something deeperhere, often overlooked in the heat of thedebate. The anxiety is that the coher-ence of atheism is itself at stake. Mightthe unexpected resurgence of religionpersuade many that atheism itself is

fatefully flawed as a worldview?” (pp. 95-96, The Dawkins Delusion?).

This very point was affirmed in a recentarticle in the October 3rd National Postby Graeme Hamilton. In discussing theilliteracy about religion in our society, heexplains steps to reverse this trend byoffering courses on religion are meetingwith great interest.

Quoting Spencer Boudreau, a professorof education at McGill University, hewrites, “Boudreau is optimistic theemerging generation is more open tostudying religion. Strident secularism inQuebec was a product of the QuietRevolution, when the province emergedfrom a period of church dominationreferred to by some as the great dark-ness.

“The kids aren’t there anymore. They’revery curious, they’re very open,” he said.“The religion classes at McGill are full.The students want to know more.”(“Young People’s Ignorance Of ReligionWorries Experts,” by Graeme Hamilton,National Post, October 3, 2009).

Perhaps, it is atheism, not Christianitythat is in decline.


T H E L A S T W O R D

By Bill HallEditor, Northern Light MagazineAtheism In Decline?

LL

NL

D E N O M I N A T I O N N A M E C H A N G E S U R V E Y NORTHERN LIGHTVol.12, No.4 October-December 2009

Bill HallEditor

Layout and DesignGary Moore

Editorial AdvisorDavid Bacon

Doug Collie

Copy EditorsColin Wallace

Online Edition EditorPascale Monosiet

French TranslatorFeature EditorsDorothy Nordstrom

Jonathan BuckDavid Sheridan

Neil EarleNorthern Light is published 4times annually for members ofthe Worldwide Church of God inCanada. Editorial contributionsand comments on any issueraised in Northern Light are wel-come although unsolicited mate-rials may not be returned.Please address all correspon-dence to:The Editor,

Northern Light101 - 5668 192 Street,Surrey, BC V3S 2V7

or email us at: [email protected]

The new online edition ofNorthern Light is available atwww.wcg.ca.

Portions of Northern Light aregenerously provided compli-ments of Christian Odyssey, pub-lished bi-monthly by theWorldwide Church of God.

Unless noted otherwise, scrip-tures are quoted from the HolyBible, New International Version,© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984International Bible Society. Usedby permission of ZondervanBible Publishers. À moinsd'indication contraire, les versetscités sont tirés de la Bible LeSemeur.

Publications AgreementNumber 40063058

If undeliverable return to:

Northern Light101 - 5668 192 St.Surrey, BC V3S 2V7email: [email protected]

We have now received the results of a survey from all our

Canadian congregations regarding our proposed name change

to Grace Communion International-Canada.

Here are the results:

Want to change to Grace Communion International: 59.5%

Are neutral concerning a name change: 20.7%

Keep the name Worldwide Church of God: 19.8%

Clearly, with a majority in favour, and just over 80% either in

favour or not opposed, we have a mandate from the membership

to pursue this name change. I believe for most, there will be joy,

and a sense that another page has been turned on our journey.

Though we have roots to our past that we will never deny, and

have learned greatly from, we are a very different church now

than we were in the past.

As it will take some time to institute a name change to Grace

Communion International-Canada, please continue to use our

current name Worldwide Church of God-Canada for donation

cheques made out to the church.

Once all the legal, and other paperwork is in place for our name

change, we will make an official announcement of the change.

Thank you for participating in the survey and for your patience in

this matter.

Gary Moore-Canadian Director

Documents

HOMEWORK CLUB-ENGLISH FOR ADULTS - CanadaDelusion, have reinvigorated the Atheist vs. Religion debate in the Western World. In addition to his books, he is a well-known spokesperson