THE GOD DELUSION

BOOK REVIEW: THE GOD DELUSION

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion, Bantam Press 2006. 406 pages.

Introduction

God has gifted Dawkins as a good writer – writing in a flowing and easy-to-read fashion that serves to keep the reader’s eye on the page. Though The God Delusion is a serious book which Dawkins’ wry sense of humour permeates, it’s not always easy to know when he is being tongue-in-cheek. As one would expect The God Delusion contains its fair share of “heavy material”, but Dawkins manages to spice each page with a peppering of interesting witty turns of phrase and salty anecdotage.

Premise & Content

The premise of Dawkins’ book is that Darwinian Evolution (as understood, explained, and applied by Dawkins) does away with any need for God. Thus, by way of extension, Dawkins is trying to do away with God.

The contents of the book are packaged in ten well-designed evenly-sized chapters prefaced with a loud but tuneful bugle call in an attempt to rally to his cause all readers who are even “vaguely yearning to leave their parent’s religion”. These are being coaxed to run away with Dawkins and sign up in his growing army of militant Atheists: “If you are one of them,” says Dawkins, “this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness – raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one.”

And, just to show that his contempt for religion is as well meaning as it is practical there is an Appendix at the end of the book with “A partial list of friendly addresses, for individuals needing support in escaping from religion.” Such devoted compassion from a man who believes in the survival of the fittest!

The book therefore is a call for “religious people” to turn to a Dawkinsian-style Atheism. With all the world’s religions rolled up as one in a carpet to be dumped Dawkins drops his bundle to throw mud. One would expect The God Delusion to be a systematic dismantling of God and of Christian thought rather than a rant against religion. There is much gnashing of teeth on Dawkins’ part. But teeth grinding betrays a nervous disorder!

Yet, to convince the masses to join him in his cause against God Dawkins first has to prove that God is a mere delusion of the mind. And frankly, this is where the Darwinian worldview he promotes in his book really begins to unravel like a cheap imitation Arran-knit sweater. For he would have us believe with him that the pattern of design we plainly see throughout creation is not real but fake! Thus it is Dawkins himself who is promoting the real delusion of illusion!

The Ugly Heart of Unsuccess

Dawkins believes that his form of the Theory of Evolution (as explained in his The God Delusion) does away with any need for God. But, in order to win over the wavering “religious people” to his Atheistic cause Dawkins predictably seeks to make a detailed collage of the worst of religious aberrations. Here he succeeds somewhat in that he has the reader agree with him that all extreme religious fanaticism is a bad thing, and that lots of weird people believe and do lots of weird things. However, the section on his fellow Evolutionist Adolf Hitler surely needs a lot more work!

The reader is left wondering how Dawkins managed to paper-over the rigorously applied Evolutionism of Dawkins’ fellow Evolutionists Hitler and Stalin. Evolutionism is a theory. Hitler and Stalin (and others) put that theory into practice big time. But all Dawkins does is try to demonstrate that Hitler may or may not have been a fellow Atheist while Stalin probably was!

This is a very real Achilles heel for Dawkins and his Evolutionary Atheism. For the intelligent reader knows that people (even Hitlers, Stalins, and suicide bombers, etc.) live their lives in accordance with what they believe in their hearts. Hitler wanted a world without Jews and their religion, and, though he abhors Hitler and Stalin’s applied Evolutionism, even so, like Hitler and Stalin, Dawkins too wants a world without religion. The world knows all too well of the very evil men who have wanted a world without religion. Here Dawkins needs to be very, very careful. For anti-religion is the really thin ice on the surface of his primordial pond.

Hitler’s Master Race, Nazi eugenics, American eugenics,[1] Stalin’s Gulag, Pol Pot’s Killing Fields, and contemporary abortionism are not some of the finer moments or achievements of the Militant Evolutionist Movement to which Richard Dawkins has hitched his wagon while calling us to follow his lead.

Fundamental Flaws

There is an even greater fundamental flaw that runs through the bedrock(?!) of Dawkins’ Atheistic premise. It has to do with reality and Dawkins’ view of it. He makes a candid admission, which – even if meant tongue-in-cheek – betrays an epistemological equivocation. It’s mined from the book’s section dealing with “Little Green Men” and the search for intelligent life (SETI).

Lest we be accused of quoting Dawkins out of context we need to lift the quote we wish along with a whole load of its surrounding text. Dawkins says,

In what sense, then, would the most advanced SETI aliens not be gods? In what sense would they be superhuman but not super-natural? In a very important sense, which goes to the heart of this book. The crucial difference between gods and god-like extraterrestrials lies not in their properties but in their provenance. Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process. No matter how god-like they may seem when we encounter them, they didn’t start that way. Science-fiction authors, such as Daniel F. Galouye in Counterfeit World, have even suggested (and I cannot think how to disprove it) that we live in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly superior civilization. But the simulators themselves would have to come from somewhere. The laws of probability forbid all notions of their spontaneously appearing without simpler antecedents. They probably owe their existence to a (perhaps unfamiliar) version of Darwinian evolution: some sort of cumulatively ratcheting ‘crane’ as opposed to ‘skyhook’, to use Daniel Dennett’s terminology. Skyhooks — including all gods — are magic spells. They do no bona fide explanatory work and demand more explanation than they provide. Cranes are explanatory devices that actually do explain. Natural selection is the champion crane of all time. It has lifted life from primeval simplicity to the dizzy heights of complexity, beauty and apparent design that dazzle us today. Page 73 (Emphasis and underlining mine).

Dawkins is calling on people to unite with him in his battle against God. But Dawkins cannot even prove that he himself exists – never mind disprove the existence of God! To be sure the subtlety is that Dawkins is not saying here that he does not know if he himself exists, but rather that he does not know whether he exists in a computer simulation or not. However, the point is that simulations are just that, they are simulations, not reality.

Reality Check

Dawkins does seem to need to do his own “reality check”. For as we look at him in his simulator we see that he has left himself dangling from a “skyhook” of his own! He can call that Darwinian skyhook “some sort of cumulatively ratcheting ‘crane’” if he wants, but that doesn’t change the fact that, as he admits, he cannot prove reality.[2]

This means that Dawkins has not got a solid piece of rock left to stand on from which to hurl his Evolutionistic abuse at his true Maker. For, if he cannot even prove that he himself is real (and not some hologram or other), then how, we ask again, is he possibly going to disprove the reality of God? Yet Dawkins goes on to speak of the “real world” when attempting, from his lofty crane, to swing the demolition ball in order to demolish “The Ontological Argument and Other A Priori Arguments” for the existence of God.

Commenting on a quote from Bertrand Russell, while disagreeing with him, Dawkins says, “My own feeling, to the contrary, would have been an automatic, deep suspicion of any line of reasoning that reached such a significant conclusion without feeding in a single piece of data from the real world. Perhaps that indicates no more than that I am a scientist rather than a philosopher.” Page 82. (Emphasis and underlining mine)

When, for Dawkins is the “real world” really the real world? Is it when he can prove whether he is in a computer simulation or not? Or when he can disprove the existence of God? Clearly Dawkins lives in a world of his own imagination (or perhaps someone else’s!) and wants the rest of us to join him in his world full of cranes and skyhooks! But let’s be nice! It’s arguments that set themselves up against God that we wish to tear down, not men!

Delusion by Design

The title of his book might be The God Delusion but it could very well have been called The Apparent Design Illusion! For Dawkins goes on to say, “We live on a planet where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, each one of which independently displays a powerful illusion of apparent design.” Page 139.

Dawkins clearly takes less than seriously the implications of his concession that he lacks a mechanism to verify that he himself is no illusion. He nonetheless is deadly serious that, by use of his Darwinian “cumulatively ratcheting crane”, he has found a way to tear down any illusion of design in creation. But why on God’s good green earth would he wish to do away with design? It’s so that he can do away with the Designer (not to mention combat the Intelligent Design Movement that is threatening Dawkins’ Evolutionism). Brilliant!

But how is Dawkins himself able to design anything, such as write a book, if, as he alleges, the human species is simply part of the “…perhaps ten million species, each one of which independently displays a powerful illusion of apparent design.”? For, in this worldview isn’t Dawkins himself part of the powerful illusion of apparent design?

If a book implies a book-writer, and “Designer Babies” (eugenics) also imply a designer, then don’t original human beings (even ones who write books!) imply a Designer? Of course! Otherwise we are all deluded. Surely mathematics, arithmetic, physics, chemistry, biology etc. all reveal evidence of true design. But Dawkins’ would have us all adopt his version of Darwinian Evolution and believe that up till now we have been deluded in that all these disciplines simply display a powerful illusion of apparent design!

“Craneology”

In the following Dawkins’ quote we shall see that Dawkins then goes on to try to kill two birds with one presuppositional stone. He says, “The evolution of life is a completely different case from the origin of life because, to repeat, the origin of life was (or could have been) a unique event which had to happen only once. The adaptive fit of species to their separate environments, on the other hand, is millionfold and ongoing.” Page 139.

Origin of life: one event. Evolution of life: manifold ongoing events. Here we see Dawkins equivocate again. By the use of his words “the origin of life was (or could have been)” we see that he’s not exactly sure what took place at the beginning, (ie, when life originated). Frank admission! But he is sure of what is taking place now, ie, that that life (however it originated) is evolving.

However, it’s here that Dawkins himself is using an a priori argument that he has already dismissed when used of God. Arguing back in time from what he perceives to be happening now, Dawkins is wheeling his Darwinian crane into position to originate life. Remember, what he has already said about God and the origin of life, “My own feeling… would have been an automatic, deep suspicion of any line of reasoning that reached such a significant conclusion without feeding in a single piece of data from the real world.”

Therefore, to Dawkins’ mind, if Darwinian Evolution (ie, evolution of life) is true, then that which brought it about (ie, the origin of life) must also be true. But, by his own frank admission, Dawkins doesn’t know who or what originated life. Yet he wants us to believe that it couldn’t possibly be the God who has revealed Himself as Creator in the Christian Bible – God being merely a “skyhook” in Dawkins’ estimation.

On this crucial question of God’s existence – for it is the heart and soul of his book – he wants his cake and to eat it too. For, without explicitly stating it, he surely wants us to believe that something like Darwin’s powerful crane could have originated life – even though (by his own admission) the origin of life is beyond the reach of Darwin’s crane! Dawkins needs to do a lot more work in this area. Another well-designed book perhaps?

Hoisted by a Skyhook!

The whole premise of Dawkins’ book is that Darwinian Evolution does away with the need for God. But read the following Dawkins quote to see yet again that Darwin’s “powerful crane” is not powerful enough to reach the origin of life:

The anthropic principle is impotent to explain the multifarious details of living creatures. We really need Darwin’s powerful crane to account for the diversity of life on Earth, and especially the persuasive illusion of design. The origin of life, by contrast, lies outside the reach of that crane, because natural selection cannot proceed without it.” Page 140.

Thus Dawkins explicitly confirms that the origin of life lies outside the reach of Darwin’s crane. Thank God for that! This is really good to know! But it does mean that by Dawkins’ own admission Darwin’s Theory of Evolution cannot touch the Creator. So how then does Dawkins expect to rally the troops round his Atheistic flag with an unclear trumpet call? If the origin of life lies outside the reach of Darwin’s powerful crane then how has the Theory of Evolution done away with God and the need for God? For the whole premise of Dawkins’ book could be summarized in headline form as: Darwin Deals Deity Death Blow! Story by Richard Dawkins.

Conclusion

As a Christian I found nothing in The God Delusion very challenging. Yes, Dawkins did ruffle my feathers here in there, especially with his Christian caricatures and misrepresentations, such as his portrayal of Christianity as being anti-science! Yes, we are with Dawkins where he points out the folly of religious extremes and all aberrations of Christianity including other religions and philosophies. But no, we depart from him where he denies the Creator and Designer of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. Creation itself, with its very real order and design running throughout, is revelation of its Maker. The God Delusion does not even come close to demonstrating scientifically (or in any other way, shape, or form) that God is a delusion.

Books Refuting The God Delusion

Many books have been published specifically to refute The God Delusion. However, I personally can vouch for at least three excellent refutations: The Dawkins Delusion, Deluded By Dawkins, and The Dawkins Letters – Challenging Atheist Myths. The first is a SPCK publication written by Alister McGrath, a professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University. The second is a Kingsway Publication by Andrew Wilson, a Pentecostal Minister. And the third is published by Christian Focus, and written by David Robertson, who is a columnist, author, and minister in the Free Church of Scotland. Dawkins Delusion is the most scholarly of the three, but Deluded By Dawkins is intelligently well written. However, I found the Dawkins Letters to be the most engaging, interesting, and exciting!

---

[1]  Following are a couple of the remarks Mr. Platt made to the California senate judiciary committee, June 24, 2003, regarding senate resolution no. 20 - relative to eugenics”

...that California not only led the nation in forced sterilizations, but also in providing scientific and educational support for Hitler’s regime. In 1935, Sacramento’s Charles M. Goethe praised the Human Betterment Foundation for effectively “shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler…” In 1936, Goethe acknowledged the United States and Germany as leaders in eugenics (“two stupendous forward movements”), but complained that “even California's quarter century record has, in two years, been outdistanced by Germany.” In 1936, California eugenicist Paul Popenoe was asking one of his Nazi counterparts for information about sterilization policies in Germany in order to make sure that “conditions in Germany are not misunderstood or misrepresented.”

...that California’s eugenicists could not claim ignorance that Germany’s sterilization program was motivated primarily by racial politics. For example, in 1935, the Los Angeles Times published a long defense of Germany’s sterilization policies, in which the author noted that the Nazis “had to resort to the teachings of eugenic science” because Germany had been “deprived of her colonies, blessed with many hundreds of defective racial hybrids as a lasting memory of the colored army of occupation, and dismembered all around.” Not only did California eugenicists know about Nazi efforts to use sterilization as a method of “race hygiene” -- targeted primarily at Jews -- they also approved efforts to stop “race-mixing” and increase the birth rate of the “Northern European type of family.” The chilling words of Progressive reformer John Randolph Haynes anticipated the Nazi regime’s murder of 100,000 mentally ill patients: “There are thousands of hopelessly insane in California, the condition of those minds is such that death would be a merciful release. How long will it be before society will see the criminality of using its efforts to keep alive these idiots, hopelessly insane, and murderous degenerates. … Of course the passing of these people should be painless and without warning. They should go to sleep at night without any intimation of what was coming and never awake.”

http://www.hnn.us/articles/1551.html

[2] Summary from Wikipedia:

“Skyhook” Dennett used the term “skyhook” to describe a source of design complexity that did not build on lower, simpler layers - in simple terms, a miracle. In philosophical arguments concerning the reducibility (or otherwise) of the human mind, Dennett's concept pokes fun at the idea of intelligent design emanating from on high, either originating from God, or providing its own grounds in an absurd, Münchausen-like bootstrapping manner. Dennett also accuses various competing neo-Darwinian ideas of making use of such supposedly unscientific skyhooks in explaining evolution, coming down particularly hard on the ideas of  Stephen Jay Gould.

“Crane” Dennett contrasts theories of complexity which require such miracles with those based on “cranes”, structures which permit the construction of entities of greater complexity but which are themselves founded solidly “on the ground” of physical science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea

THRASHINGS!

                                                                 THRASHINGS!

I had a hilarious conversation reminiscing with a childhood friend about being raised in the age of thrashing. Born in the mid-50s, we are products of growing up in Scotland during the 60s. Now, if you are thinking that the idea of getting a “thrashing” is not funny, then it simply means that you are normal. However, it was the mentality of our parent’s generation, and our parent’s parent’s generation, that we were laughing at, yes, tears of laughter were rolling down our cheeks as we recalled our childhoods!

He told me that his grannie (born 1885) told his mum (born 1917) that she wasn’t thrashing him properly! Aye, luxury! We were in stitches because it made us think of ye olde Monty Python skit called The Four Yorkshiremen. See: https://tinyurl.com/k2pvvhss

Many Scottish kids would get a thrashing at home. Then they would go and end up getting a thrashing at school. And, then perhaps they’d receive another thrashing by a bully between school and home. Parents at home, teachers at school, and bigger students on the playground and beyond. There’s a whole lot thrashin’ goin’ on in the 60s. How come?

My childhood friend mentioned Presbyterianism. And connected it to the line, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, which, surprise, surprise, isn’t actually found in the Bible. It comes from the 17th-century poet and satirist, Samuel Butler, in his poem “Hudibras”:

“Love is a boy by poets stil’d;

Then spare the rod, and spoil the child.”

The Bible verse actually says, “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly” Proverbs 13:24 (cf, Proverbs 22:15; 23:13). How did this verse end up, firstly, being corrupted, and secondly, twisted into fuelling the fiery thrashings that some of my generation had to endure while growing up in 60s Scotland? For where does it say in Scripture that parents, schoolteachers, (yeah, even policemen kicked our backsides!) are to physically abuse children? Nowhere! These and like distortions of Scripture only serve to inoculate people against the Good News!

My friend even quoted from a portion of Ephesians, which says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honour your father and mother,’ which is the first commandment with promise: ‘that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.’” Ephesians 6:1-3.  I added that “thrashings” (with a rod or otherwise) was contrary to what the Bible actually teaches, for it says, right after the verses quoted by my friend, “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” Ephesians 6:4. Also, “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged” Colossians 3:21.

Provoke, embitter, aggravate, exasperate, irritate, and antagonise, are words that would describe what is happening to a child that is given a thrashing with a rod or whatever. Mega discouragement! Yet, this is exactly what the Bible teaches against! The idea is instruction, not destruction, but construction, i.e., edification. The Biblical idea is to, “Train up the child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” Proverbs 22:6. Notice that it does not say “beat up the child”, but rather “train up the child”.

Okay, the “rod” as in the so-called “rod of discipline”, is as symbolical as are the “keys of the kingdom” and ‘the sword of justice”. The “rod” represents the Family, the “keys” the Church, and the “sword” the State. Thus, Family, Church, and State equals one nation (under God).

The Church does not have real keys, but the term simply refers to the role of the Church, i.e., the Gospel opening up the kingdom of Heaven to all who believe. The State does not have a real sword, but it represents its role as the promoter and maintainer of justice. Likewise, the rod is not a real rod, but merely symbolizes family discipline, and, like the Gospel of Grace, and the Sword of Justice, the Rod of Discipline must be used only in accordance with Scripture, lest there be trouble. Otherwise, the nation (i.e., Family, Church, and State) will pay the price. For the nation will crumble as each of these three spheres crumbles.

Solution? Yes, stop the thrashings! But don’t forget to discipline your children. Again, “Train up the child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” Proverbs 22:6.

LOVE NEEDS A MIRROR

 (Photos by Neil Cullan McKinlay)

Blue seas appear when the clouds disappear and the sky gives a parting kiss before vanishing over the horizon. Then moonlight strikes the ocean, turning it into molten lead, which, at the appointed time, is transmuted into gold by the rising sun. Yes, the night stays dark till the Creator gently retrieves the gold fob watch from His waistcoat-pocket come morning. The echo of the words, ‘Let there be light’ will not fade away for as long as day follows night. As the sea reflects the sky, so time reflects eternity, so earth reflects heaven, and so man reflects his Maker. Love is like a mirror.

But as choppy seas distort the image of the sky on the face of the waters, so the fountains of evil broke open to issue forth from the wellspring of man. Sin distorts man the image of God. But God is love, and on the Day of Pentecost God the Father and God the Son from heaven poured the good oil of God the Spirit on the troubled waters of mankind. The desert blooms into life when it receives the showers of God’s blessing. And nations cease to rage as the Son of Righteousness rises with healing in His wings. As the sea begins to reflect the glassy sea in heaven above, the peoples, along with cherubim and seraphim, fall down before the Lamb, for the good Shepherd leads us beside still waters and we lie down in green pastures. His will shall be done on earth as it is in heaven when man truly reflects His Maker once more, for a soul restored is an image renewed.

Cultural activities on earth reflect heavenly activities. Man is to eat, drink, and do all things to the glory of God. Which is to say that man is to love the LORD our God with all of our heart, soul, strength, and mind, and love our neighbour as ourself. In all our works, and in all our interactions with God and with our neighbour we are to mirror love, even the Father’s love for His Son. Thus the kingdom of the Son of His love manifests itself only to the eyes of man renewed by the Spirit, for spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Apostle Paul – writing of Christians – says, ‘Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.’ 2 Corinthians 3:17-18.

Jesus rebuked the storm, stilling the wind and calming the sea. When we are rebuked by the message of His cross our spirits are stilled and our souls are calmed. Thus we stop our rage against the LORD and against His Anointed. Indeed, ‘Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing?’ Psalm 2:1. Why are people like ‘raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame?’ Jude 1:13. It’s because we are cracked mirrors of God the lot of us, and cracked mirrors distort the image of true love. Our love at best is second best because we don’t love – as we ought – God who is love.

Because God loves His only begotten Son, so our first love ought to be Jesus Christ who is the express image of God. For He images the Father perfectly, while the rest of us fall short of His glory. This is because the heart of fallen man is a black hole full only of darkness when it comes to God and the things of God. ‘The heart is an idol factory,’ says Calvin. With it we form gods in our own distorted image, even gods we can ignore. But then there’s our conscience, of which the 17th century Puritan Richard Sibbes said, ‘is the soul reflecting upon itself.’ And then the 18th century poet Robert Burns said, ‘O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us, to see oursels as others see us!’

As fallen men our image of ourself is as every bit as distorted as our image of the God who made us, and whose image we are and whose image we are to reflect in our everyday activities. But love looks beyond itself, for the Father loves the Son and the Spirit who both love the Father and each other.

By faith the Christian looks to the One who says, ‘He who has seen Me has seen the Father.’ John 14:9. – To the One who says, ‘If you love Me, keep My commandments.’ John 14:15. Then out of love and gratitude to God for saving him, the Christian – in the power supplied by the Holy Spirit who has regenerated and sustains him – seeks to reflect God through obedience. Love needs a mirror because love’s object is others. Only in the Jesus revealed in Scripture do we see the clear and undistorted image of God.

WEATHER

                                                                         Weather

Weather can be so fickle. It is said that Melbourne can have four seasons in one day! However, ordinarily, whether daily or seasonally, weather patterns can easily be determined because God upholds His creation. For God promised after the Flood, ‘While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease’ Genesis 8:22. That is reassuring. It is also reassuring that ‘He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust’ Matthew 5:45b. Therefore, though the weather may at times seem so variable to us, God controls it. From drought to flood, from chilly snowdrifts to hot desert sandstorms, God is the weather maker. Therefore, we can be sure that day will follow night, because He is faithful to His covenant (Jeremiah 33:20-21; 25-26).

Indeed, weather is one of the ways that God displays (reveals) His faithfulness, His grace, and His wrath. To have lightning strike your property is referred to as ‘an act of God’, simply because that is exactly what it is! However, remembering that He ‘sends rain on the just and on the unjust’ serves to teach us to careful about being judgmental of others in their times of adversity. Yes, there are times God openly punishes evil people (Matt. 24:36-39), but we must remember that He also chastens those He loves (Heb. 12:6).

Weather might seem such a fickle thing to us, but not to the Sovereign who created it. Therefore, ‘Praise the LORD from the earth … lightning and hail, snow and clouds, stormy winds that do His bidding’ Psalm 148:7-8. Summer thunderstorms can be frightening, but it is good to know that God has their complete control.

Whether on the Manitoba prairies or the Queensland plains, I have seen some magnificently awesome thunderstorms, ones that have made me tremble. However, knowing that God was at the back of
them, and that He was in the midst of them, meant that, instead of cursing the inclement weather, I sent shudders of praise Godward! For, ‘He makes the clouds His chariot and rides on the wings of the wind. He makes the winds His messengers, flames of fire His servants’ Psalm 104:3b-4. ‘He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under His feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; He soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness His covering, His canopy around Him – the dark rainclouds of the sky’ Psalm 18:9-12. Yes, truly awesome!

Whether minus 40 Celsius on the Manitoba prairie, or plus 40 Celsius on the Queensland plain, God is behind it, but moreover, He is in it. Whether drought or flood, God is working His purposes out. He even involves weather as He makes moves on His chess table of life. I can attest to that! Fed up with shoveling snow throughout the long Canadian winters, I moved to Australia’s sunny shores. ‘If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me’ Psalm 139:9-10.   

Trust God in the gently descending due of morning stillness. But trust Him also in the stinging rain and hail of the raging thunderstorm. They awakened Jesus, asleep in the stern of a boat in the middle of a storm in the middle of a lake. How could He sleep? Well, ‘He arose and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace, be still!” And the wind ceased and the was great calm’ Mark 5:39.

PHANTOMS & FISHES

                                                         PHANTOMS & FISHES

While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. Luke 24:36-43.

Introduction

Do you remember as a kid learning how to dive into the water? Sure, some adults can’t swim, never mind dive, but when we were kids, we used to dive off a pier into one of Scotland’s most famous lochs, Loch Lomond. Mind you, you wouldn’t dive into Loch Lomond in a Scottish winter! The water would be freezing cold, but it might even be frozen, you know, solid ice!

Water is one of those trinitarian things, things that reflect the Creator, solid, liquid, vapour or gas. When you dive from a great height, your body passes through the air, and then it passes through the water as you enter it, (if you know how to dive properly, that is!). But what if the water has turned solid?

Why can’t your body pass through a solid such as ice? Because your body is solid, and when it meets another solid object, especially at speed, one or the other or both has to give.

The Apostle Paul appears to refer to human beings as body, soul, and spirit in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, where he says, “May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our LORD Jesus Christ.”

We believe that each human is a trinity of spirit, soul and body, i.e., that each living human being is a soul-spirit with a body.

What does any of this have to do with what we’re looking at in Luke 24:36-43? Before we go there, let me ask: Did Jesus walk on water before or after His resurrection? Did Peter walk on water? Did an axe-head float on water? These are miraculous things! But Jesus, Peter, and an axe-head walking or floating on water don’t suggest for a minute that Jesus, Peter, and the axe-head were not solid objects. Why? Because humans and axe-heads are solid by nature.

The resurrected Jesus went to great lengths to prove to His disciples that His resurrected body was as solid as it had been when it was nailed to the cross:

 

He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” Luke 24:38-39.

Phantoms     

If you saw a ghost, you’d turn white as a sheet, wouldn’t you? These disciples had turned as white as the sheet that they thought they saw floating around. We’re told that, “They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost” Luke 24:37.

So, the disciples of Jesus were all white as sheets. They thought they had seen a ghost! Ghost in the original language used by Luke here is pneuma, the same word for breath, wind, or spirit.

Now, this seems to mean that the disciples believed in ghosts or spirits. But what are ghosts or spirits? Disembodied souls, you know, dead people? If you are a soul-spirit with a body, then, when the body dies your soul-spirit leaves it. But you don’t get to float around like a bedsheet in the breeze. It’s either straight to Heaven or straight to Hell when you give up the ghost! Jesus said to the repentant thief on the cross, “Today, you will be with Me in Paradise.” Not, your disembodied spirit will float around for a few days scaring people.

Hebrews 12:23 speaks of disembodied spirits presently in Heaven, i.e., the “Intermediate State”. Hebrews calls them “the spirits of the righteous made perfect.” And there are those spirits in Hell in 1 Peter 3:19 called “the imprisoned spirits.” But for the record, disembodied spirits don’t get to hang around as ghosts after death. It’s straight to either Heaven or Hell!  

So, the resurrected Jesus was scaring people. But was He a ghost? That is the question. There was another time that His disciples thought He was a ghost. Mark 6:47-52,

 

“Later that night, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. Shortly before dawn he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified. Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.” Mark 6:47-52.

Hold onto that line in Mark 6:51-52, “They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.” Matthew records the part where Peter walked on water too,

“LORD, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.” “Come,” he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “LORD, save me!” Matthew 14:28-30.

Anyway, so much for Peter, but, at the moment, what we’re interested in are the words, “When they saw him [Jesus] walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost.” Jesus, walking on the sea is recorded by Matthew, Mark, and John. John doesn’t mention it, but the word ghost as used by Matthew and Mark is not pneuma as in spirit, but phantasma as in an apparition, a phantasm, or a phantom even.

Are phantoms solid, liquid, or gas? What would happen if you were to try to touch a phantasm or spectre, a phantom? Your hand would pass right through it, wouldn’t it? Why? Because it’s not solid.

But the pre-resurrected Jesus is neither ghost nor phantom. He is Body, Soul, and Spirit like every other real and true human being. However, unlike every other human being, He is fully God and fully Man in one Person. He is one Divine Person with two natures.

It is a common error to confuse His humanity with His divinity, and His divinity with His humanity. This is where we need to be really careful. Please do not ascribe divine attributes to His humanity or human attributes to His divinity. Yes, Jesus is one Person, not two persons, He is one Divine Person with two natures forever. Always keep His two natures distinct. Never confuse them.

Why did the pre-resurrected Jesus walk on water? It was to demonstrate His divinity.

 And why did the pre-resurrected Jesus feed the five thousand before His resurrection? Yes, it was to prove that, though He was fully Man, He was also fully God.

But why did the post-resurrected Jesus feed Himself? It was to prove that, though He was fully God, He was still also fully Man even after His resurrection.

His disciples thought He was a ghost before His resurrection, and again after His resurrection. They were confusing and accusing Him of being a phantom, a ghost, i.e., a spirit. “When they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost.”

Jesus did miracles such as feeding the five thousand and walking on water to show that He was divine. And why did His disciples find it so hard to believe even after all the outward and observable demonstrations of His divinity? Yes, it was because, “They had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened” Mark 6:52. Hard hearts cause spiritual cataracts.

And then when He appeared to them after His resurrection, “He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?’” Well, it’s the same thing, i.e., hardened hearts. The word for minds here is kardiais from which we get the word for heart, you know, cardiograms and cardiologists and all of that.

“And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.”\

Fishes

After His resurrection Jesus proved to His disciples that they hadn’t seen a ghost. And to prove that it was Him and that He had the same body that was nailed to the cross and subsequently laid in the tomb, He “ate in their presence.”

Question: Is a piece of broiled fish solid, liquid, or gas? Hold that thought.

Jesus fed the five thousand to prove His divinity before His resurrection. Then He fed Himself to prove His humanity after His resurrection. But His disciples were still all at sea! They should have known that it was Jesus who was walking on the water. Why? Because He fed the five thousand. And now they are going to learn that it is Jesus because He fed Himself!

By the way, what did Jesus feed to the five thousand? Bread and fish. He multiplied five loaves of bread and two fishes. He gave thanks and broke the bread and divided the fish among them all.

The resurrected Jesus revealed Himself to the two men on the road to Emmaus, how? “Jesus was recognized to them when He broke the bread” Luke 24:35. That’s what the two men told these disciples when they met with them. It was after this that Jesus stood in the midst of them, and they were scared out of their wits, thinking they were seeing a ghost!

And, by the way, the two men on the road to Emmaus were not present at the Last Supper. Therefore, their knowing Jesus in the breaking of the bread may simply be that they saw the nail-prints in His hands.

Question: Are ghosts solid, liquid or gas? Jesus said to His hard-hearted disciples, “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” Do you see that? Jesus said, “a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

Then to prove that He was the real thing and not a phantasm, spectre, apparition, ghost, spirit, or phantom, He ate some broiled fish in their presence.

Now, this is of course a hypothetical question, but if the resurrected Jesus were to dive off a pier on the edge of a lake, would He pass through the air? Yes! Would He pass through the water by entering into it? Yes? But what if the water was a Scottish loch, i.e., frozen solid in winter?

Now, if you are thinking that Jesus is God, and as God He can pass through solid ice if He wants to, then I put it to you that you are confusing Jesus’s humanity with His divinity. That is why Jesus is going to such great lengths to show His disciples here that He is neither gas nor liquid, but is solid as a rock, by which name, i.e., Rock, He is known throughout Scripture.

Try 1 Corinthians 10 where it speaks of spiritual food and spiritual drink.

“For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10:1-4.

Question: Were the spiritual food and drink will-o-the-wisp swamp gases? No! Manna from heaven, Exodus 16:15, and the spiritual drink was from the spiritual rock that was Christ in the Old Testament, Exodus 17:1-7. Why did Moses only get to view the Promised Land from afar and not get to enter it? He struck the rock in anger. He grieved the Spirit. He broke faith with God and didn’t treat the LORD as holy, Deuteronomy 32:51-52.

Whether spiritual food, or spiritual drink, or spiritual rock, the word used by the Apostle is pneumaticon, from which get the word pneumatic, as in air-driven, or in our case, wind or spirit-driven, i.e., led by the Spirit. After His baptism, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. To be pneumatic, i.e., spiritual, then is simply to be obedient to the Holy Ghost.

Right, what about the spiritual (pneumatic) body you will be raised with, you know, the one spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:44b, “If there is a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body”? Well, like the resurrected Jesus, when you are resurrected you are not going to float around like a white bedsheet in the wind! No! Body, soul, and spirit, you will be totally obedient to the Spirit of God.

As we begin to haul in our nets and get ready to row back to the shore, Question: When you are resurrected and you get your renewed body, will it be solid, liquid, or gas? Solid? Why? Because of phantoms and fishes, that’s why! Neither the pre-resurrected nor post-resurrected body of Jesus was liquid or gas.

Jesus went to great lengths to prove to His disciples that His resurrected body was the self-same body that was nailed to the cross. “He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” Luke 24:38-39.

Did the dead body of Jesus dissolve into gas? No! It saw no corruption! Did His resurrected body dissolve into gas? E.g., there are people who believe that Jesus walked through a solid door or came through a solid wall or whatever to appear in the room with His disciples.

Like Jesus’s resurrected or glorified body, so too will your resurrected and glorified body be solid. And you too will be fitted to live on the solid planet earth with the solid Jesus forever, without tears, death, sorrow, and pain! O and yes, the resurrected and glorified Jesus is no vegetarian. He ate fish!

The resurrected Jesus made Himself known to the two men on the road to Emmaus in the breaking of the bread. They returned to Jerusalem and spoke to the eleven disciples, as is recorded in Luke 24:33-35. Then in Luke 24:36-37 we read the following, “While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.”

We believe this is the same incident that John records in John 20:19-20, where it says, “On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.”

Right, so what is the problem here? Well, the doors were locked, and afterwards Jesus appeared in the midst of them. So, what is the natural and obvious conclusion? That the resurrected body of Jesus was able to ooze under the door or through the keyhole? That He really was a ghost, and as such, He could pass through solid objects? Hardly!

John Calvin gets it right where he talks about Jesus appearing in the room after the doors had been locked,

 

The Evangelist does not say that He entered through the shut doors, but that He suddenly stood in the midst of His disciples, though the doors had been shut, and had not been opened to Him by the hand of man. We know that Peter (Acts 10:10) went out of a prison which was locked; and must we, therefore, say that he passed through the midst of the iron and of the planks? Away, then, with that childish trifling, which contains nothing solid, and brings along with it many absurdities! Let us be satisfied with knowing that Christ intended, by a remarkable miracle, to confirm His disciples in their belief of his resurrection.”

We stand with all the Reformed confessions on this. We are not to confuse or confound His two natures.

With Jesus, “two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.” Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 8, section 2. And, “On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered; with which also he ascended into heaven.” WCF 8, section 4. “Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes, in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.” WCF 8, section 7.

Conclusion

So, there you have it, phantoms and fishes. Jesus revealed His pre-resurrection divinity to the five thousand, and to the Twelve Disciples, by feeding all of them from five loaves of bread and two fishes. He then revealed His post-resurrection humanity to His disciples by breaking bread and eating fish.

Let me finish with John 21:9-14 where it speaks of the resurrected Jesus, when His disciples were out fishing,

“When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.” John 21:9-14.

The bread and the fish. Now they knew it was Jesus and not some phantom. Their spiritual cataracts had been removed. Their hearts were no longer hardened. How about you?

HATTERS CASTLE

                                             BOOK REVIEW: HATTERS CASTLE

AJ Cronin, Hatters Castle, Franklin Classic, (1931), Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1947. (Facsimile 605 pages.)

AJ Cronin is a master of articulation. This finely crafted masterpiece of Scottish literature twists and turns like the swollen and fast-flowing River Leven between Loch Lomond and Dumbarton, in which latter town the dreich, dour, and depressing tale is mostly set and told. But, fear not! Though the subject matter is harrowing, the writing is magnificent! And, the sporadic use of the beautiful Doric dialogue should be of no great challenge to all lovers of languages.

Set in the late 1800s, the streets (such as Station Road, the Vennel, Church Street), and local placenames mentioned (Levenford, the Common, Cottage Hospital), will have the average “Son (or daughter!) of the Rock” (i.e., Dumbartonians) travelling down memory lane, (if such lane can be found after all the years of town-planning mismanagement!). Dumbarton’s Cronin Street memorialises the author.

First copyrighted in 1931, this piece of classic literature, in which Cronin’s omniscient reading of his characters’ thoughts, impulses, and emotions, betray his study of the human psyche as does his medical references reveal his erudition in the fields of medicine and medical conditions.

Whether set indoors or out, Cronin’s highly descriptive use of language has the reader participate (as the proverbial fly on the wall) in each of the book’s scenes, practically engaging the five senses of tasting, smelling, hearing, seeing, and touching. He has you run the whole gamut of emotions, but mostly that of weeping as you follow along from one tangled knot on the story’s thread to another.       

In short, Hatters Castle is home to the Brodie family, over whom the belligerent and abrasive father, James Brodie, the king of the castle, iron-fistedly rules like some tyrannical monarch. Hence, Brodie’s “castle” is also aptly referred to as a “House of Tribulation” (p. 528), and an “Amazing Chateau of Nonsense” (p. 535).

I especially loved Cronin’s liberal use of Biblical references and allusions, all of which served to contrast and expose human deceit and hypocrisy, as well as express Victorian manners and worldview. From steam engines to stifling starched collars, this sad tale leaves a trail of eye-watering thick smoke as it clickity-clacks from one station of despair to another.

Reader beware. This fictional story is not for the faint-hearted. I think the essence of the book may be summed up in the following:   

“It will be as though a man fled from a lion,

And a bear met him!

Or as though he went into the house,

Leaned his hand on the wall,

And a serpent bit him!” Amos 5:19.

HATTER’S CASTLE – The Movie

Adapted from the novel by A.J. Cronin.

Starring Robert Newton, James Mason, Deborah Kerr, Emlyn Williams. 1942.

I watched a crackly version of this movie on YouTube. It had annoying and distracting Romanian subtitles in a large strange light blue font. That aside:

The film cuts to the chase and starts in the Winton Arms with an exchange between Nancy the barmaid and Grierson, the “king of the castle”, James Brodie’s, nemesis. Brodie’s name is mentioned. He is expected to attend a meeting taking place in the pub’s backroom, already in progress in which Brodie’s name is being disparaged. Brodie arrives at the Winton and has a (trystical) meeting (or two) with Nancy as she is coming down (as he is going up) the quiet stairway to the meeting room.

Any likenesses to anywhere in Cronin’s hometown of Dumbarton are only coincidental. The accents are “Brigadoonish” and Nancy and many of the others sound more Etonian than Dumbartonian. Right, the (Scottish) viewer must suppress all feelings of patriotism and settle down simply to be entertained by a non-parochial movie seeking universal (read American) appeal.

So many liberties and departures from the book are taken in the movie, that it would be better for the viewer to forget about the book and simply get on with eating your popcorn. Therefore, meanwhile back at the movie…

The film gets it completely right by focusing on the pompous and tyrannical James Brodie’s daughter, Mary, (played by the beautiful Glasgow-born Helensburghian) Deborah Kerr. Alas! James Brodie seems to be the only member of his whole family that has something resembling a Scottish accent! The viewer needs to be careful not to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys in the movie according to whether they have Scottish or English accents! But I digress. Back to the entertainment…

Scenes of snow falling on top-hats and jingling horse-drawn coaches serve to calm the Scottish purist’s heart. Mary is grounded by her overbearing father. Her love for the dashing and reciprocating Dr Renwick is forbidden. This is the essence of the movie and is indeed the solid undercurrent of the much more elaborative and illustrative book.

Okay, like the book, the movie’s story is pretty-well all doom and gloom. It clearly demonstrates man’s inhumanity to man by the vainglorious Brodie, especially in his brutal treatment of his kind-hearted, but truly resilient, daughter Mary. That is the tension held throughout the movie. The viewer hopes for, nay, begs for Brodie’s comeuppance and Mary’s vindication.

Filmed during WWII, I don’t know if the initial release of this movie brought the house down. However, like Samson pushing apart the two pillars, Brodie (metaphorically, and alas! also physically!) brings his whole house crumbling down about him. But like “a root out of dry ground”, like a soft pleading cry of a hand extended from beneath some bombed-out rubble, Mary brings hope back to humanity, with a promise of redemption.

The book has impacted me deeply. The movie has helped to drive home to me the book’s overall message: Selflessness conquers self-aggrandizement. Love conquers all.