From French atheist to Christian theologian

Christian theologian Guillaume Bignon writes of his conversion, "How God turns a French atheist into a Christian theologian."

A number of people lately have been intrigued to meet a French theologian, and have asked me to tell them the story of how I, a French atheist, became a Christian scholar. Even the theologians and apologists I met recently at the ETS Conference in Baltimore (where by God’s grace I was delivering my first scholarly paper) seemed to care (understandably) more about my conversion from atheism than my immediate theology paper! Therefore, it seemed fitting to type it up properly, to have a clean telling of that story of God breaking into my life, ready to be shared with people who ask. So here it is

He tells of how he became an atheist at a young age then his honest investigation into Christianity several years later. Encouraging testimony, enjoyable read.

Gospels are authentic

Judge Clarrie Briese offers several reasons to think the gospels are authentic. He gives evidence based on

1. Honesty;
2. Ability;
3. Number of witnesses;
4. Human experience; and
5. Coincidence of witnesses.

Under ability he argues,

One criticism levelled against these witnesses is that they testified from a position of bias, that being ardent disciples of Jesus their testimony must be greatly affected by that bias and colour everything they wrote about Him. There is the suggestion that this would have resulted in exaggeration and distortion of the facts. On the face of it I suppose that sounds plausible. However, when you read their writings, you do not encounter the language of fanaticism, the language of prejudice, or language normally associated with a lack of objectivity.

Another example: The Gospel writers include in their accounts some of their own stupid actions and mistakes, even recording that Jesus called their leader ‘Satan’. Calculating, subjective and prejudiced men do not operate in this fashion.

Experience teaches us that where a witness divulges material or facts which belittles the witness and puts him or her under criticism or in a bad light, and that material could have remained hidden but for the witness volunteering it, you can be pretty sure that such a person is telling the truth. Men and women do not invent stories to their own discredit. So why would the Gospel writers include incidents which showed up their past weaknesses, mistakes and stupidities? And why would they assert that women were the first witnesses to the Resurrection, when that society regarded women’s testimony as worthless, unless women really were the first witnesses?

They also included difficult sayings of Jesus which could be misinterpreted and place Jesus in a bad light. For example, we think of His prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane where He shrinks from the thought of death and again His cry of God-forsakenness on the cross. Men who wrote with a lack of objectivity, for example with the agenda to present Jesus in the most heroic light, would be sorely tempted to omit that view of Him. That the authors of the Gospel did not is a tribute to their honesty, to their obvious desire to be accurate in the facts about Jesus.

Christ and Karma

Krister Sairsingh

Trinidadian Krister Sairsingh shares his testimony of coming to Christ from Hinduism. It is exciting and encouraging. Well worth the read. I found his discouragement with karma interesting:

The law of karma — that whatever wrong we do we will have to pay for in some other life — rules out the very idea of forgiveness. According to the law of karma, reincarnation is therefore necessary in order to pay for the sins of a previous life.  One's present life is determined by one's previous existence while one's future existence is shaped by one's present life. Each soul is held to be responsible for its own destiny. The law of karma offered a simple and attractive explanation of the mystery of suffering in the world. People suffer because of their own evil action. But reincarnation as a necessary working out of the law of karma was never good news to me — even though I knew it undergirded the whole fabric of my religious and moral world.

Reading Jesus' words in the gospels caused him more despair:

As I read the Gospels I became much more aware of my human failings, that I was a creature governed by unruly desires rather than the virtues of compassion and generosity. It dawned on me that I was often unkind to the numerous beggars who knocked at our gates. Whatever charity I showed was born not out of compassion and kindness but out of a desire to build up good karma, to secure a better birth in the cosmic wheel of existence. I began to see how hard I had tried to distance myself from the uncultured lower caste Hindus and how much I distrusted and despised Muslims. There was a feeling of desperation because I knew that I would have to suffer the consequences in some other life for all my evil actions. In some ways the teachings of Jesus even compounded the feeling of distress because he taught that we would be judged for our thoughts, attitudes and words, not just our deeds. I knew the depths of my prejudice and bigotry. Spiritual liberation — release from the cycle of birth and death — seemed humanly impossible. I could only conceive of a downward spiral. I felt there was no way out.

He seems aware of the darkness in the cellar of his soul. It is much darker than most people admit. Our good actions are often less good than we think, and our bad ones much worse than we realise. Karma made him aware of the necessity of judgment and the words of Jesus showed him how much worse the situation is. I laughed at the irony as I was reading this paragraph. It is as if he is told: "Karma is not good news because you are judged for your actions; it gets worse, you are judged for your thoughts and attitudes too."

I can smile because I know the solution, but how despairing it was Sairsingh. A good place to be in order to then grasp how good the Good News is. Who can deliver us from this body of death?

He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Colossians 1:13-14)

Herod's slaughter of the innocents

National Geographic did an article on King Herod last year. I didn't find the writing style particularly riveting though it was variably informative. The article started with this comment about Herod.

An astute and generous ruler, a brilliant general, and one of the most imaginative and energetic builders of the ancient world, Herod guided his kingdom to new prosperity and power. Yet today he is best known as the sly and murderous monarch of Matthew's Gospel, who slaughtered every male infant in Bethlehem in an unsuccessful attempt to kill the newborn Jesus, the prophesied King of the Jews. During the Middle Ages he became an image of the Antichrist: Illuminated manuscripts and Gothic gargoyles show him tearing his beard in mad fury and brandishing his sword at the luckless infants, with Satan whispering in his ear. Herod is almost certainly innocent of this crime, of which there is no report apart from Matthew's account. But children he certainly slew, including three of his own sons, along with his wife, his mother-in-law, and numerous other members of his court. Throughout his life, he blended creativity and cruelty, harmony and chaos, in ways that challenge the modern imagination.

The claim that Herod is innocent of this crime because there is not further documentary evidence of the event betrays an unjustified anti-biblical bias.

That Herod was capable of commanding the murder of infants is mentioned in the paragraph above: 3 sons, a wife, etc.

Herod had these people killed,

• Mattathias Antigonus
• Several leaders of Antigonus’ group
• John Hyrcanus
• Aristobulus (brother-in-law)
• Kostobar (brother-in-law)
  
• Alexandra (the mother of Herod's wife Mariamme)
• Miriamme (wife)
• Alexander (son)
• Aristobulus (son)
• 300 military leaders
• Several Pharisees
• Antipater (son)

Many of these were killed to prevent a perceived challenge to his kingdom.

And if these examples do not suffice to document Herod's paranoia and blood-thirst, Josephus records a well known story how Herod had many men imprisoned in Jericho shortly before his death with instructions they be executed when he died. The reason? So there would be mourning at the time of his death. This was not carried out.

So it is apparent that Herod was capable of ordering the death of children if he perceived a threat to his throne.

However the bigger issue here is the illegitimate implication that documentary evidence from the Bible has second class status. Or even errant status. Not only is any other contemporary (or not so contemporary) document held up as the primary standard that the Bible is judged by, the Bible is often assumed to be in error when it touches on aspects of history that no other historian has mentioned.

Matthew was roughly contemporary with these events. He wrote of Herod earlier than Josephus did.

There is documentary evidence of Herod slaughtering the children. It is recorded in Matthew 2. There is no evidence that Herod did not do such an action. There is no good reason to exempt him of this crime.

Running for Jesus

I like this article for several reasons. Firstly I am impressed by the journalist who wrote a good and accurate article about a Christian, and for not adding any negative slant.

And for the courage of Anna-Lisa to say that she sees her ability as a gift and seeks to use it for the glory of God.

"I'm a Christian and my religious faith is very important to me," [Anna-Lisa] Uttley said.

"That's why I am running. It is a gift I have been given and I have committed my running ability to God."

While I do not really understand the pleasure of exercise, many do. Another athlete Eric Liddell (who she admires) said, "When I run it is in His pleasure."

What ever we do we should do for the glory of God.

And she is by all accounts an excellent athlete, breaking the local 3 km record on 2 occasions; previously unbroken for > 20 years! While she may not always have the words to answer her sometimes sceptical questioning classmates, this may be for some of them a more powerful testimony.