Atheism defined!

I have to admit, this quote found from Atheist Tool Box did make me chuckle slightly:

"Unlike Religion, Atheists do not have to agree on all issues and share similar agendas. Atheists can be conservative or liberal, capitalist or communist, republican or democrat, black or white, male or female. Some Atheists are completely neutral in regards to religion and it's place in society, whilst other Atheists do have certain agendas. Some of the more common Atheistic agendas include the separation of church and state and the teaching of evolution in our school systems. It must be said however that these are individual groups within the Atheist community and in no way represent the Atheist community as a whole."

As far as I am aware, Christians do not agree on all issues. We have conservative Christians, and liberal Christians, capitalist Christians, communist Christians, Republicans, Democrats... there have even been some black and white Christians... I'm sure I've met both male and female Christians also...

I also have to giggle at this quote,

"It must be said however that these are individual groups within the Atheist community and in no way represent the Atheist community as a whole."

- well, that never applies to Christian groups...

It really annoys me that such things as this exist. And they exist on all sides of the arguement. When Christians act as if Atheists are, in some way, worse than they are it makes me cringe. Well, they're Atheists! Surely they are just... um... wrong! - Well, no actually. Similarly, when certain atheists (not representing the Atheist community as a whole, of course) make statements like the above, it also makes me cringe.

I doubt it will happen, but I long for some decent, respectful dialogue. While there are extremists and "anonymous extremists" (i.e. people who are unaware they are extremists) on every side of the debate, respectful dialogue seems unlikely. While so many Christians still use very dodgy (and often downright terrible) science to "prove" their agenda, and while so many Atheists see the religious as silly and unable to offer anything to a debate that has already (in their minds) been sealed - the future looks bleak.

I still live with hope that both groups will one day learn to not vilify the other, see them first as fellow human beings, and enter into what could be a very enlightening debate.

I am aware that my sarcasm is probably not helping my cause here, but the quote was so bizarre I couldn't just let it pass. I apologise.

Introduction to Biblical Language 101

As I'm currently lecturing undergraduate Biblical Hebrew, the following thought came to mind in a recent lecture: 'I am not actually teaching Biblical Language, but Ancient Language.' The fact that the bible was originally (kind of) written in this language is almost coincidental. What I mean is, the original writers of the bible generally used words, phrases, ideas and imagery that already existed, in order to speak of God, His nature, activity, thought process and identity. Against that, today we have what I would actually call Biblical Language - i.e. Language that is derived from the Bible.

Take, for example, the words we use to describe God:

Lord

I can think of very few instances where we use the word "Lord" in today's culture. Our understanding of the word is extremely limited. We would refer to the "House of Lords", or maybe our understanding of "Lord" comes from buying a 1cm² plot of land in some estate in Scotland, to receive a certificate saying we are a Lord (or a Lady, of course). There is a parent at my wife's school who insists on using this title on any correspondence he writes. Having attained it via the above method, most people think it is slightly humorous; certainly not noble in any way.

Certainly in Christian domains, the word Lord has it's primary meaning as "God" - whereas in Hebrew (and Greek) the word meant first "master" or even "father" (figuratively). This is in a culture which understood and employed a slave/master society.^a People would have seen that there was something in the role of the Lords they saw that reflected something about the identity of God. In fact, though not a perfect model, seeing God as someone with the authority to do and say what he pleases, to give whatever to whomever he pleases, is lost in our current use of the word "Lord" with regards to God. A Lord simply isn't that in today's Western Post-modern world. Yet we hang on to these words because "they're in the Bible", forgetting that they were not originally "religious" terms. They were words that helped people understand who God is, because it gave them an example. In a day where Lord is primarily "God" - what is our example? Whence do we find our analogy for the person of God? The answer is, we don't. Calling God "Lord" is as useful as calling God "Bread Guardian" - which is where we get our word Lord from!^b


Okay, perhaps there is slightly more reason to call God Lord than Bread Guardian but my point is that perhaps it is time to rethink our labels for God?

King

This brings me to another word we use for God - King. It has been a long time since England had a King, at least not in my lifetime. In a similar vein to the previous argument, I would say that we don't know enough about kings to successfully ascribe the label to God. Our experience of kings in our culture is either of a relatively useless monarchy (who are more often than not famous for all the wrong reasons!) or a tyrant, unwilling to allow a democracy. Is this a good example of what God is like? Set this against the role of "the king" in biblical times. The king was a man (usually) respected above anyone else. He had sovereign authority and power like no-one else, and he lead his people and ensured their safety (if he was a good king!). All of these things are what we are taught about God, but they are so far removed from our experience. We are told that God is Sovereign - but we never really see sovereignty in action. We are told that, as King, God is exalted high and reigns, rules and looks after his people - but where do we see this in our lives? Anywhere?

The problem is a difficult one to solve. Labelling God "our Prime Minister" or "our President" just doesn't quite seem right either. Though we understand the role of such people better than say, a king, God's role is quite different to theirs, so they remain unhelpful! God is not elected. God is not a leader who must make laws and policies to appease his voters... There are not other "parties" who can challenge the leadership of God... it just doesn't quite work. The CEO is a slightly better role comparison, but there are so many negative connotations to CEO, that I'd rather stay with King!!! This is not an easy problem to solve.

Forward Steps?

There was recently a new translation of the Bible produced called The Voice. One of the ideas behind this new version was that it would seek to ditch "jargony" words. However, I feel they have not been anywhere near as thorough with their pruning of such words. We need to realise that words like "King", "Lord", are all "Christiany" words today. This article could continue into a book-length rant, but rest assured, I won't let it. Suffice it to say, I believe we have a problem to solve.

---

^a It is worth noting that the "slave trade" of the A.N.E. was quite different to the more recent slave trade perpetrated by the White West.
^b "Lord" comes from Olde English word hlaford which derives from an earlier word hlafweard from hlaf "bread" + weard "guardian".

The Promise I Made...

...started to fade.

Girls Aloud, The Promise, 2008.

Introduction

This is the first of a few blogs I intend to write concerning the modern understanding of certain words and phrases, and the theological and philosophical consequences.

Giving Birth to Promises

So, back to Girls Aloud. Their recent song, The Promise in which the singer(s) states that the "the promise I made started to fade" is one of their most successful tracks, earning them a UK Singles Chart number 1, and their only BRIT award™ to date for Best British Single of 2008. It is at this point that I feel I must ensure you that I am not a Girls Aloud fanatic. Honestly. All of this information is provided courtesy of wikipedia (I'm such a good researcher... ahem...).

So, what's my point? Well, could it be that this song gives an insight into how people view a promise in contemporary society? Listening to the way people speak, I think it does. The notion that a promise can "fade" (or at least start to!) is interesting. I'm not sure it is right though. It seems as though people seem to think that a promise is something that one brings into being, and it exists as a thing in its own right.

For example, if I promise something, I am unleashing this thing, this promise, into the world to see how it will do. If it does well, if it survives then that is great. If however, it doesn't do so well, one day it will eventually run out of breath and die - the promise is mourned, and we all move on with our lives, not necessarily unaffected, but move on we do.

Further to this, if a promise is a thing in its own right, if it somehow exists independently of the one who "made" it, then should what the promise stand for suddenly be in opposition to the best wishes of its creator, it will be destroyed in the pursuit of happiness and comfort. After all, of the two of us (i.e. me and the promise) I am more important.

This, of course, is a very strange way to view a promise - because "promises" don't actually exist. You can't cage one, study one, reason with one, trade them (though people may try!) - essentially a "promise" has to be, at most, two things: Firstly, it an English word. Secondly, it is what the English word describes. What it describes is a commitment on behalf of the one who has "made" the promise to do (or not do) something in the future. So you see, a promise cannot exist independently of anyone because it isn't a real thing to exist! A promise is a commitment to something, once that commitment is no longer there, neither is the "promise" - and if there was no commitment in the first place, then the "promise" was a mere figment.

Perhaps this misunderstanding has arisen because the language that we use concerning promises. We speak of "making" a promise, as if a promise is something that can be created. The truth is when someone "makes" a promise, they are not really making anything at all. A promise is simply a verbal indication that one is committing to something (either action or restraint).

Theological and Philosophical Consequences

I have to ask, then, what impact does this skewed view of a promise have on theology and the way we think of life in general. I think it has HUGE consequences. When a couple decide to marry and "promise" before God and to each other that they will remain together, and fight against all difficulties to this end; if this promise is understood as anything but a commitment to this course of action, it is in grave danger of failing. Of course, marriages break down for all kinds of legitimate reasons - however, if from the very outset there is a grave misunderstanding of what a promise is, and the implications it has on the people "making" it, the success of the marriage is based completely on chance. This is not what God intended.

Furthermore, understanding the promise of God for eternal salvation as a commitment on God's behalf to that end, it becomes far more secure. Also, how many times do we "promise to do [x, y or z] for you, Lord" in a time of emotional encounter with God? Do we really mean what we are saying? Rather, do we even understand what we are saying?! "Lord, I am absolutely committing to do [x, y, or z] for You" - that seems quite different to the sappy "promises" many of us make to our God - where we simply wait to see how it all plays out..

We make our promises "willy-nilly" these days, because we have forgotten what a promise really is. I am sure we would make far fewer if we realised what it really meant.

---

Of course, feel free to completely disagree with me. I promise I won't it against you. :)