A couple of months ago, I uploaded an article concerning my views about religion. I said that I might come back and add to it. However, I thought rather than return to it, I would write a new article, or in this case, a series of articles. I recently bought the book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions, authored by Richard Bewes. As I've been reading it, I've had my own ideas and feelings, so I thought I would compile them together in article. Before I begin, I want to make a few prefaces.
Richard Bewes is Rector of All Souls Church, Langham Place. This obviously means that he is biased towards Christians, and is, in some places, downright offensive to non-Christians. I don't think his arguments would do much to persuade a staunch atheist. I also want to clarify that whilst I am not a Christian or religious, I'm also not an Atheist. I am open to the idea of religion and learning as much as I can. I am currently rereading the bible, along with various guides, but I make no claims as to being a biblical scholar. When Bewes references the bible, he is referring to the King James and the English Standard Versions. In the rare occasion, that I refer to the bible, I am also referring to the King James Version, but also Today's New International Youth Version.
Although the book discusses the top 100 questions, I will only be responding to those that interested me the most. I read the book in groups of ten questions, thus I will be responding to certain questions in a similar manner. On occasion, I may also refer to my good friend Naomi who is a devout Christian and infinitely more knowledgeable about such things, than I am.
The first twenty questions are concerned with:
The Universe we Inhabit
Q.5 A woman's place?
Why was the first woman created second, as only a 'helper' for the man? This seems to place women on a lower footing altogether.
It's easy to regard the bible, and Christianity in general as patriarchal. We refer to the God with the masculine pronoun of "he," and Catholicism has never been too keen on female priests. True, you get denominations that are more progressive, I had a Protestant friend whose rector was a woman, but the argument remains that Christianity can be considered patriarchal.
This is something that the bible further evidences. Female characters rarely have agency, with Ruth, Esther, Deborah and Mary being some of the few exceptions. However, women are largely commodities, and when they're not, they're portrayed less than favourably e.g Jezebel and Delilah. God has been compared to a jealous husband who wishes to punishes Judah and Israel who function as a promiscuous wife, who constantly prostitutes herself to foreign gods. Of course, this is more of a statement of the gender politics of the time, rather than of Christianity, but this isn't a socio-political debate, but one about women fit into the bible.
Bewes identifies Genesis 1:27:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
He argues that this "gives us the definitive, over-arching statement, where the man and the woman counter-balance each other." Later he argues that Eve, unlike Adam, wasn't made from clay, but rather from Adam's rib. Eve, and women, are equals, rather than underlings. If Adam was made in God's image and God is perfect, it can be argued that Eve is a further refined depiction of this perfection. Or maybe she's better. This argument has the danger of falling into a defense of idolatry, which God detests, but Bewes also identifies that this signifies how man and woman came from the same essence. We began the same, as we were created equal and were always meant to be equal. Naomi made the interesting point that Adam and Eve were included to show how God relates to his people. They're not meant to be seen as role models, but rather as vessels for God to demonstrate his love and power. She also argued that Eve was created to provide companionship for Adam; she was essential for his existence.
6. Can you explain evil?
I get so discouraged by the evil on every side; the conflicts that seem to mount up, the undisciplined youth, corrupt leadership and terrorism worldwide. Where does it come from? I see no hope.
This is a common question that I see in relation to Christianity. If God is an omnipotent, perfect being, how could he allow evil to exist? How could he have created it in the first place?
One of Bewes' explanations is how evil represents a defection, not a first cause. He references Isaiah 14: 12-15, which describe Lucifer's expulsion from heaven. Bewes continues by arguing that "i you are free to love, then you are also free to rebel. So evil entered, not as something that had always existed, but as a deviation, a rebellion from the original first cause."
This is an argument that I cannot believe. It sounds to me that he is arguing that evil exists, because we have strayed from the path that God has laid out for us. There are two famous quotations that go against Bewes' argument:
"All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
"The world suffers not for the violence of the bad people, but for the silence of the good people."
Evil doesn't exist because we have strayed from our path, but rather because we have refused to stray from it. Sometimes it is necessary to break convention and stand up for what's right.
James 4:17 reads "so then, if you know the good you ought to do and don't do it, you sin." This is generally known as the Sin of Omission. If you have the opportunity to do good in the world and you don't, you are therefore committing a sin.
A common moral scenario sees the tale of three men. One man, we'll call him Jim, is walking home one night down a dark alleyway. He is then beaten and mugged by another man, let's call him Brian. There is a third man, who I'll call Tom, who witnesses the whole affair, but does nothing to help. Rather he chooses to carry on walking. Who is the worst man in this scenario? Brian for beating up Jim? Or Tom for doing nothing to stop him?
Q9. The Creation of Viruses?
If God created all things, why did he create these terrible viruses?
This question corresponded to the last one. If God is a benevolent being, why would he create viruses that bring nothing but misery and pain?
Bewes argues, as does Naomi, that viruses are a warped aspect of creation. They were originally good, but the fall of humanity changed that. Bewes asserts that viruses exist to instill three things: a sense of humility, a sense of eternity and a sense of humanity. Essentially, he is arguing that viruses exist to remind us that we all die as we're human, which means that we must make use of the time we have. He makes the interesting point that "many millions of people never even began to think about God and his saving plan, until they or a loved one were struck by an apparently random virus."
Finally, he asserts that the presence of these viruses give us something worth fighting for: the eradication of these viruses. He states: "if God declared war on evil, pain and death - and he has clearly done so in Christ - then we must allow the presence of such infection and disease to provoke us into fighting them in his name."
I can respect, if not agree with, all three of his arguments. You're always hearing about people taking hedonistic joyrides or fulfilling their bucket lists, upon diagnosis of a terminal illness. And yes, the eradication of these viruses has been a great unifying factor, even returning to the bible, where in Leviticus, there are numerous rules about personal hygiene and not touching the dead. But from a moral standpoint, I would say these arguments are downright coldhearted. Imagine explaining to a parent that the sacrifice of their terminally ill child will remind all of us how short our lives can be or that it will help to unite everyone together in defiance to this illness. As true as this might be, I would also argue that this would be a cold comfort to any grieving parent.
10. Where do animals fit?
What is the purpose of animals in our world? How do they tie in with the human race?
Bewes makes the compelling argument that "we would not be able to get along in life without the aid of animals. They help to run the world," he later compares them to God's angels, assisting and aiding humanity, as much as the angels do God. Animals are vital to this world and we have a duty to protect them. Genesis 1:27-28 state that:
"So God created man in his own image, [...] male and female, created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them [...] replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
When we read dominion, I think we incorrectly assume that this means that we have to dominate and wrestle the earth into our submission. However, what God intended for us was to be caretakers of the planet. He wanted us to rule it with compassion and kindness, not with an iron fist.
As I have stated before, I am not an expert. Therefore, I welcome all challenges, criticisms, comments and interpretations. Just keep it respectful.
No comments:
Post a Comment