Search This Blog

Saturday, April 09, 2011

A few thoughts for Christians and Pseudo-Christians to ponder

First two parts of this post will be a few thoughts from the guy who introduced me to Jesus Christ...

The work of Dr. Charles "Chuck" Wood
Retired pastor and educator
Current husband, father, grandfather, great grandfather,
Bible teacher, writer and contrarian


Those who “sell” Christianity of the basis of health and prosperity, as little more than an escape hatch from hell or as the magic road to an easy life, may just be misled themselves, but they are certainly misleading others. Jesus never suggested that to follow Him was a sure path to material and temporal success. He never suggested that the primary reason to follow Him was to escape the terrors of hell, and He spoke of cross-bearing rather than of ease and comfort. Briefly stated, the Christian life is often difficult and demanding. It has its rewards and mesmerizing moments when God directly intervenes in some situation, but on the overall, it is much more difficult than it is easy.

After more than three-quarters of a century of life, I still find myself waiting on God. Now, I don’t like to wait. I’ve been known to drive blocks out of my way to avoid a train stopped in a crossing, and with rare exception, I begin to get antsy once a meeting has extended itself beyond one hour (this does not pertain to preaching - with a really good preacher, I can listen for longer periods with complete inner peace). For some reason, however, the Lord often keeps me waiting, even for things He eventually grants me. I waited sixteen years to start preaching in a church building rather than in a gym. I finally got my wish and had six years of ministry in a lovely building. The waiting was a rough time (and Donna’s words whenever I brought up the subject of not seeing my prayers answered was always “yet”). In retrospect, I learned a lot in that period of time, and if I were starting a church today, I am pretty certain I would make a gym my very first building project because it has so many potential uses in reaching a community that an auditorium just doesn’t have. But the waiting was still tough.

(Personal note:   It was not a bad thing to have church in a gym, as it gave us a chance to have basketball games on off-days now and then)  The only pain was having to put away ALL THOSE CHAIRS after a Sunday morning service!

In an entirely different area, we are called upon to forgive transgressions from the heart and also to grant forgiveness when it is requested. I have little or no trouble granting forgiveness - after all the person is there (or in touch with me), he is admitting that he did wrong, and he is asking a favor of me. Forgiving from the heart? That’s another matter. I have no idea of whether or not the person is even aware of sinning against me. I can’t see his face or read his body language to discern just where he stands. I do not have the satisfaction of knowing that he is “bending the knee” to me and a lot of other things. Somehow I have to swallow the ignominy of having been offended or sinned against without the culprit even so much as tipping his hat in my direction. I don’t know about you, but I find that very, very difficult.

It’s difficult to judge one’s self, but I don’t believe I would qualify as “glory hound.” Throughout my ministry, I have sincerely tried to deflect credit, praise and accolades to others involved in whatever is being recognized. I don’t know of anything of real value that I have done that I could have done completely alone. I even hurry to say something that most men find difficult to admit: some of the greatest contributions to my life have been made by women (my mother, my sister, my two wonderful wives, my daughter and daughters-in-law, etc.) But, as much as I hate to admit this, I was grieved when the fiftieth anniversary of my participation in ministry was passed over without a word of any kind from any one. Yes, I know better. The years were invested in serving Him, and the only meaningful reward will come from Him. Others may have lost count, but He didn’t. It was difficult, but I never had any illusions about it being easy.

Illustrations could go on for ever, but I trust these are enough to remind us that Christianity in general, and the ministry in particular, are not, and never were designed to be easy. If you are struggling with the difficulties, get a better hold on the cross you are bearing and move on along the pathway of following and serving the One whose Word says, “...your labor is not in vain in the Lord.”


I’ll let you figure out why I am re-stating these “lessons of life” at this particular time. These, however, are nothing new in that I have sought to live and minister by most of these for at least a half century.

1. Although criminal activity is always sin, sin is not always criminal activity.

2. The local church or Christian organization is Biblically obligated to care for sin in its midst, but it has no authority whatever in regard to criminal activity.

3. Sin should be cared for, but it must be confessed (fully) in order for there to be any real closure on the matter. Somehow, “I’m sorry,” just doesn’t get it done.

4. Any confession and seeking of forgiveness should be extended as far as the hurt of the sin or knowledge thereof. I’m not in favor of big, flashy confessions before people who have not been injured by the sin and who have no reason to know about it. When crime is involved in the sin, however, then the situation will likely be widely known, and the confession ought to be widely disseminated as well.

5. The very worst that can be done regarding serious sin/crime that is known by any sizeable number of people is to try to “cover it up,” or “gloss it over.” It is almost a certainty that someone will get wind of what has happened and make it known, Then, on top of the sin/crime issue, would be the problems that stem from trying to explain why it was not made known in the first place. 

6. The prominence of an organization or the “good name” of the person involved provide no excuse whatever for failing to deal with the sin and/or crime.

7. In the secular world, “damage control” is expected and can often be brought off without dealing with the real issue. It would appear to me that the very last thing a Church or Christian organization ought to think about is controlling the damage. Thoughtful or experienced people will almost invariably see right through the attempt that is being made. I think I have heard and read so many “damage control” excuses that I can almost quote them from memory.

8. Many Christians don’t think Biblically. Thus the pleas for unity, forgiveness and forgetfulness, etc. Those are Biblical concepts, but they cannot be brought into play until the issue has been settled through confession and the various steps that must be taken to completely deal with the sin/crime (you may want to check Joshua’s handling of the events at Ai).

9. No matter how you spin the coin, the victim is not the cause.”Well she enticed him.” or, “the way she dressed,,” or, “they were dumb enough to leave it lying right there where he could just pick it up.” This may be too complicated for some to follow, but the one who committed the sin is the one who is wrong, no matter what the extenuating circumstances might have been. I’m sick to death of hearing Christian people indicate that somehow the victim is the culprit (no wonder young women won’t report rape or child molestation.)

10. Confession brings forgiveness, but it does not always bring restoration of respect. Yes, Jesus put Peter right back “on the line,” but He also knew how the whole thing was going to work out. We don’t have that knowledge. A concomitant is that once respect has been lost it may be a long time (or never) before it is regained. Right or wrong, that happens to be how life works. And no one will ever convince me that anyone who has violated a child - male or female - should ever be allowed to work with young children again. But then again, I don’t believe that pastors who have committed adultery ought ever be pastors again - there are other places in Christian work where they might be qualified and useful.

11. If you were abused as a child or young person, there are those who will tell you that you just need to forget it and move on. One thing you can be pretty sure of in these situations is that the person giving you such “advice” has not experienced what you have. You are not ungodly or unspiritual because you are still struggling with its consequences long after it happened’

12. At some point, however, you have to come to terms with what happened and move on in life. I know emotional and sexual abuse are nowhere near the same issue, but I was deeply emotionally abused in childhood. At some point I had to come to the place where I decided that what happened then wasn’t going to destroy the rest of my life. You may need a lot of help, but as I see it, until you come to the place of putting it aside and moving on, you are allowing the person who victimized you to continue to exert a measure of control over you life. Maybe (may the Lord let it be so) going public with the whole situation will prove to be that point where freedom can be achieved. I sincerely pray that this is the case. And I do think you did the right thing in going public when those who should have done so would not.

3)  Radar speaks 

Christians in general have surprised me more and more recently as I get older.  The biggest surprise comes when I meet a long-time Christian who reveals that he or she has not read part of the Bible!   It is remarkable to me that any serious Christian who has been a born-again believer for longer than five years could have failed to have read every single bible book through at least once!    Yet there are a lot of long-time Christians who have not ever read large portions of the Old Testament.   It is hard to truly appreciate and understand the Bible if you have not read it.   All of it!

When we read about the great leaders of the Bible we often see that God allowed us to see their failures as well as their conquests.   Moses was brave and strong-willed in taking on the Pharaoh and yet he not only struck down and killed a man in anger, he struck a rock angrily as if he was able to do the miracles of God himself.    Abraham was a man of great faith who was willing to sacrifice his own son if God commanded and yet he got his wife's servant pregnant when he began to doubt God's promise that he would be a Patriarch.   David was a man after God's own heart, a mighty warrior by skill and faith rather than size and power but he also hung around the top of his kingly residence from whence he could see women washing themselves naked on the rooftops and wound up committing adultery and defacto murder.   Solomon had great wisdom but decided to try hedonism anyway because, apparently, he could and found it to be devoid of meaning.   His excesses doubtless contributed to the misdeeds of his offspring.
In the New Testament, we see that Peter denied Christ at the time of the illegal trial of Christ to save his butt, then after Jesus rose again Peter willingly put himself in personal danger and faced beatings, imprisonments and even martyrdom as a joyful necessity of being an evangelist.
Thomas was called "doubting" but he spoke and evangelized with great faith as one of "THE 12" during the time of the Acts of the Apostles.   Paul had been in the business of imprisoning and even seeing to the death of Christians before becoming one himself.

If you have not read Hosea or Jonah or Isaiah or Ezra or Ruth or II Timothy or 1 John along with the Gospels and the Paulian Epistles you have missed God's message.   If you have not studied Proverbs you have not truly sought Godly wisdom.   If you have not thoroughly read and respected Genesis you will more easily fall prey to the fallacies of the Emergent Church.    I will yield the floor to Creation dot com:

The Emergent Deception—the evolution factor

What every pastor and every Christian needs to know about the Emergent Church movement

Brian McLaren
Brian McLaren Credit: Images from stock.xchng and Wikipedia 

Published: 31 March 2011(GMT+10)
“Brian McLaren: Christians in denial over evolution of faith,” screamed one headline.1 Another reprint of the same article quoted him as saying, “Evolutionary Christianity has freed me.”2 When we wrote about the Evolutionary Christianity teleseminar series, we said it was unclear what exactly the ‘rockstar of the emergent church’ (not our moniker for him) had to add to a discussion about evolutionary Christianity. Given the favorable press his teleseminar session received, it seemed worth revisiting it.3

What is the Emergent Church? And who is Brian McLaren?


The Emergent Church is one of the fastest-growing movements in American Christianity today. They are hard to ‘nail down’ with definitions, as definitions are one thing they work studiously to avoid. Generally, they emphasize social justice and acting in the community over ‘dogma’ and doctrinal correctness. They look for new ways to engage in postmodern culture, and embrace the culture themselves to varying degrees (though some in the Emergent Church would strongly disagree with this characterization, or any characterization, of their views). This “Lest we offend approach” has much appeal to Christians wanting to engage the culture, but many would also not realize that they value dialogue and draw heavily from Eastern and Catholic influences on spirituality. It smacks of a ‘many ways to God’ type religious views.

Widely hailed as a ‘rockstar’ of the emerging church, McLaren is controversial for, among other things, fasting during the Muslim holiday of Ramadan a few years ago.

Brian McLaren describes himself on his website as an “author, speaker, activist, and public theologian.” He is a former pastor and has authored many books on various topics, including A New Kind of Christianity and Naked Spirituality, most recently. He was included in Time magazines “25 Most Influential Evangelicals”, and was described there as an “elder statesman” of the emerging church. Widely hailed as a “rockstar” of the emerging church, he is controversial for, among other things, fasting during the Muslim holiday of Ramadan a few years ago.

McLaren’s faith


McLaren several times referred to his “fundamentalist” upbringing. He said that as he was naturally interested in science and art, and as a natural learner and questioner, he “was on a collision course” with the sort of Christianity he was brought up to believe. He described himself as “on his way out” of the Christian faith by the time he was a teenager. He ultimately found a form of Christianity he could accept in the Jesus Movement. In faith, he values experience over dogma and ‘right belief’.

He expressed a negative view of people who ‘had all the answers’. He seemed to think of that as a narrow and dogmatic way to view the world. Instead, we should question, and learn from other views. This all seems very noble and open-minded, but it becomes problematic if we dig a bit deeper. Questioning isn’t supposed to be an exercise in and of itself—at some point, ideally we would come to some sort of answer. That answer might be refined over time as we gain access to new insights and a deeper understanding of the dynamics involved, but at some point we should be able to define a fundamental truth and say with some certainty “This is the answer.” And to be able to say this confidently is not a mark of arrogance if it is grounded in our conviction of scriptural truth.

Developing religion


In religion, he claims, “People are looking for the next step in their development.” And depending where they are in that progression, answers and explanations that seem to make sense to one person may seem ridiculous to someone else. In illustration, he gives the story of a Cambodian woman who came to faith after Pol Pot’s genocide. When she spoke of hearing the Gospel, he asked her what that Gospel was. She replied that really what it was is that there was a God who created the universe, and that maybe if there was a God there was some hope in the midst of all that loss. Great, but what about some instruction on how to find that God, or how to be saved from her sin?

While we would argue that the Gospel is in fact that Jesus Christ came to earth to pay the penalty for man’s sin, that He was raised on the third day, and that salvation is only through Him (to give the barest outline—see our Good News statement for a more full explanation of the Gospel), God as Creator is certainly the basis for the Gospel. McLaren, however, seemed to think of that as a primitive belief that was useful insofar as it gave the woman hope, but one gets the impression that he thinks of it as something one would ideally outgrow.

One central idea in McLaren’s argument several times is that we’ve got more knowledge today, and that changes how we interpret Scripture. This is relatively misleading. Biblical creationists could also argue that the wealth of scientific knowledge we have today actually supports biblical creation. He says, “For the first time in history we have access to all the feeling states that humans have always needed to thrive.” These states include trust, gratitude, and inspiration. He argues that for most of human history, mythic beliefs were the only way to instill these feelings, because there wasn’t the knowledge of ‘deep time’ and billions of years. The host, evolutionary evangelist, the Reverend Michael Dowd, made the comparison to how ancient people made up gods when they didn’t understand phenomena like lightning and thunder, but now we know what causes lightning and thunder. In the same way, it is implied, what we’ve learned about how the universe actually works, now that we know that everything evolved over billions of years, the Genesis ‘myth’ is, if not outmoded, in need of a serious reappraisal to see where it actually fits in an enlightened postmodern outlook.
McLaren says that these evolutionary beliefs that couldn’t have been known prior to the modern age are “so much richer than the mythic beliefs we had before.” “Mythic” beliefs like God’s creation of the world, His providential love for humanity that caused Him not to abandon us even after we rebelled? “Mythic” beliefs like God coming to earth in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and then dying the most ignominious, horrific death that the people of that day could dream up to pay for our sin? “Mythic” beliefs like Him rising on the third day? If one is a myth, how are the others historical? Because the same ‘science’ that says the earth is billions of years old and that all life evolved says that dead people don’t come alive again on the third day. One wonders what is McLaren’s logical basis for accepting one ‘myth’ (and I hope that he does accept the Resurrection, because one must believe that to be a Christian) while rejecting the other. Where does the truth begin, after all?

‘We know more today’


Dowd points to the scientific knowledge of how the world works that has been revealed in the last 200 years “that couldn’t have been revealed to the Apostle Paul, that couldn’t have been revealed to Moses.” One almost expected him to continue “that couldn’t have been revealed to Jesus,” but thankfully at least he didn’t consciously take that step.

I have no problem with saying that Paul didn’t know about nuclear fission, and that Moses didn’t know anything about atomic theory. In a sense, we do know some things that Paul and Moses didn’t know about. But I don’t think that’s what Dowd was saying here. He’s speaking specifically of the evolutionary understanding of the world’s history and life. And if that ‘story’ (both participants in the teleconference session were very fond of the word ‘story’) is correct, then it’s not just that Paul and Moses didn’t know some stuff, it’s that they thought some stuff was true that actually wasn’t. And if that’s true, then that throws a spanner into the whole of Scripture, because if they could be wrong about something that important, if God could have misled them, or if He could have been misinterpreted there, then how can we believe Scripture when it says that Jesus is the only way to salvation? “If I tell you of earthly things and you don’t believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12).

But do they believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation? In a series called Evolutionary Christianity, one could be forgiven for expecting some semblance of Christian thought, and at least nominal acceptance of some of the really core beliefs. But if they believe that the Bible is revelation from God in any meaningful sense that puts it on a plane above, say, The Code of Hammurabi or Mastering the Art of French Cooking, it certainly doesn’t show in their statements. They talk about ‘ancient Genesis myths’ and ‘Egyptian creation myths’ without differentiating any substantial difference as far as inspiration is concerned. These stories, along with apparently everything else, “emerged in conversation” with each other and other creation myths, each trying to solve problems in the others. In this view, we’re asked to view the myths not in terms of ‘true’ and ‘false’, but how ‘helpful’ or ‘unhelpful’ they are. They claim that ‘from this standpoint we can see the deep wisdom in virtually all of them.” But I would argue that this view actually disrespects the texts themselves, which make truth claims, and so should be evaluated on that level. And it almost goes without saying that this is certainly not a biblical way to view them.

They claim that even in these stories, there’s a sort of “evolutionary unfolding.” But the stories still haven’t evolved completely. McLaren makes the statement that we don’t yet have a unified statement that allows us to see each other as brothers and sisters worldwide, or one global family; our creation stories are apparently still at a level that “facilitates cooperation at a smaller scale.” But we do have a better, more unifying creation story that allows us to see ourselves as one human family—the creation account in Genesis proclaims that every single human being is descended from Adam and Eve, and everyone alive today is descended from Noah and his three sons. This is a very recent common ancestor, which makes us all very closely linked, as modern genetic evidence suggests. But this creation story would not allow us to see each other as brothers and sisters if it was not based upon actual history.

The ‘benefits’ of an evolutionary outlook


McLaren spends a lot of time talking about what Genesis doesn’t mean, but he doesn’t actually get around to saying what it does mean. He says that it’s a really good story that explains what’s fundamentally wrong with us, why we want to do things but we don’t, why we break our word, let people down, etc. But unless one takes a literal historical view of Genesis and the Fall, one wonders how one can define what is morally wrong or right? But he has an answer for this. Lest we think for a moment that he’s actually taking a high view of Genesis where it really explains why we are the way we are, he quickly says, “But now we understand that we have instincts that don’t match our world.” He argues that the instincts that we have now helped our ancestors to survive, but those instincts are not appropriate for the modern world in which we live. But if they were appropriate in ancient times, why do we have ancient codes that condemn those tendencies? All this view does is make man, not God, the ultimate authority of what is wrong or right.

He says that we should be grateful for those tendencies, because they helped our ancestors to survive; without them, we literally wouldn’t be alive, in that view. But then, is he calling sin good, just hundreds of thousands of years ago? McLaren derides the view that we are the way we are because our great-great … grandmother ate an apple, saying that it has “no explanatory power, no gratitude.” Well, for starters the Bible doesn’t say it was an apple, but nonetheless the event actually has a great deal of explanatory power, if you believe that’s what actually happened. It would certainly take some “explanatory power” to justify a God who created us with impulses that would allow us to survive and evolve, and then to say that those very things He created us with are sinful.

McLaren claims that since he realizes this, he doesn’t struggle with his sinful nature, and that he doesn’t feel guilty like he used to. He uses the example of seeing a beautiful woman, and says, “Of course I think that woman should be carrying my child!” But he says the understanding of evolutionary psychology means that he knows why he’s attracted to the woman, and simultaneously allows him to reject those impulses. Dowd agrees, saying that the view that certain behaviours consign people to Hell while others get people into Heaven is a very “pre-moral” way of looking at things that may help some people at a primitive moral state, but that this way of perceiving right and wrong creates an “inner world” of shame, hypocrisy, and leads people to be unacceptable. Sexual attraction (not always directed appropriately) is one part of our makeup that was advantageous as we evolved, but that isn’t always now. But that seems to be trivializing and justifying the sin of lust, which Jesus certainly didn’t just shrug his shoulders at and say, “Oh well, you evolved to be that way” (cf. Matthew 5:27-28).

The claim itself that a Christian isn’t struggling with their sin nature is problematic, because even with all of its definite calls to holiness and rejection of sin, the Bible is very candid about the human propensity toward sin. 1 John 1 says that if we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, and that if we claim we have not sinned, we make Jesus out to be a liar and His word is not in us (vv. 8, 10). Is this what McLaren and Dowd are claiming? Perhaps, but I think it is more likely that they are redefining the problem until it is practically impossible to call any propensity towards wrong action sinful.


An underlying problem


He referred to creation as one might refer to a crazy old aunt—he had to acknowledge it was there, but wanted to change the subject as quickly as possible. 
As disturbing as some of these comments were, the underlying attitude toward Scripture, and Christianity in general, was far more serious in my opinion. One waited in vain for any statement that was unapologetically and specifically Christian. He seemed to be apologizing for Scripture rather than presenting an apologetic; he referred to creation as one might refer to a crazy old aunt—he had to acknowledge it was there, but wanted to change the subject as quickly as possible. Even religious terminology was apologized for with phrases such as “if I can use such faith-based terms”, etc.

Not everyone who becomes an evolutionist will go down the slippery slope to liberalism and eventually unbelief. But examples like McLaren and Dowd show that the slope is not simply hypothetical. Simply because some theistic evolutionists are otherwise evangelical and orthodox does not make that an ‘okay’ view for Christians to hold. We’re not saying you can’t be a saved evolutionist—we’ve never said that. But we see over and over again that how one takes Genesis can be indicative of one’s view of Scripture in general. What was demonstrated in this teleconference was not just disbelief in Genesis, but a rejection of a biblical view of sin (sin becomes things that we evolved to help us survive several hundred thousand years ago) and salvation (there are good things in other faith traditions, other ‘myths’). In its place, they’ve embraced the evolutionary worldview and a ‘many ways to God’ approach while retaining some ‘Christianisms’ to make it easier for evangelicals to swallow.

Unfortunately, many lay Christians are eager to appease the world and make Christianity more acceptable and appealing in the hope that many more will accept the faith. But, in the process, McLaren and his ilk have defined Christianity out of any true meaning or purpose. Their imaginative ‘cleverness’ have made them nothing more than willing dupes for the true religion of evolution, which is atheism. As such, atheists must be rubbing their hands with glee. If the world was to think that this is what Christianity means, then the church is on the fast track to nonexistence.

Christians should not be surprised that the gospel will be rejected by many. There is no need to redefine it. Man’s nature is to be rebellious to His Creator and evolution provides a great excuse to ignore God. True Christians need to make a stand for the truth claims of Scripture and its big picture, which has been totally lost in this almost complete reinterpretation of the gospel. We should take heed of the admonition of the Lord Jesus Christ (the Creator God revealed in the flesh) when He said:

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:19).

History shows us that appeasement has had little success when dealing with sin.

Readers’ comments:


Colin M., Australia, 30 March 2011
This article reminded me of the G K Chesterton quote:

“Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

Richard L., United Arab Emirates, 31 March 2011

Let us also remember Brian McLaren’s childhood. In an online transcript of a radio interview—which I cannot currently locate—he mentions that he eagerly asked a lot of questions about science when young. Very unfortunately, he had a Sunday School teacher who crushed those questions—saying that he had to choose between science and the bible. One or the other. So sad! What a horrible response! His walk away from true faith seems to have started there. A reminder of the importance of our reaching the young with the truth that God knows what he’s talking about—even in those areas of the bible that talk about science.

Related articles

Further reading


  1. Katherine T. Phan, “Brian McLaren: Christians in denial over evolution of faith,” The Christian Post, 27 January 2011, , last accessed 22 March 2011.
  2. Katherine T. Phan, “Evolutionary Christianity has ‘freed me’, says Brian McLaren,” Christian Today, 31 January 2011, , last accessed 22 March 2011. 
  3. Brian McLaren, “Naked Spirituality and a New Kind of Christianity,”,, 21 December 2010. 

Brian McLaren and Rob Bell are just the tip of an ungodly iceberg that is "A form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof."   Paul did not mince words when he told Timothy and all believers who would read his missive:

2 Timothy 3:4-6 (New International Version, ©2011)

"... treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—  having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
  They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires...

In the end, those television preachers who woe you with soothing words and empty promises seek to get your money and erode your faith as they build their own kingdoms of temporal wealth and power.   They will have their reward in this world and their fate will be determined in the next.   There may be some who do it believing they are right but more often they do it believing that you are gullible.  

Robert Tilton may have been exposed as a fraud and jailed, but he is back out and living a high life in a multi-million dollar Miami mansion.   Benny Hinn still draws crowds even after his faked healings have been revealed.  A "man of God" who cannot keep himself from committing adultery can defeat demons and heal thousands with a wave of his uncalloused dainty hands?

You think any of that has anything to do with GOD?!?

Christianity is supernatural in some respects, but it is entirely logical as a worldview and is the basis for modern Western civilization.   Those who seek to live a life honoring Christ are about helping others and leading others to a knowledge and relationship with God.   They don't do magic tricks and they don't labor to drive Bentleys and live in houses bigger than your local courthouse. 

Or do you prefer the tender mercies of Islam?