Possibly the best TFTD - ever

I don’t always agree with Giles Fraser, or should I say he doesn’t always agree with me. Last Wednesday I thought he delivered one of the most pertinent Thought for the Day’s on BBC Radio 4 I have heard since I first started listening to them back in the 1970s. Here is the full text and you can judge for yourselves:

In a BBC opinion poll out today, 46% of respondents agreed that Rowan Williams has helped the Church of England remain relevant to modern Britain. 27% disagreed, and 27% didn’t know. But what is all this business about being relevant? And how important is it? After all, the achingly trendy schoolteacher, desperately pretending to be one of the kids, is rightly a figure of fun. Is that what we mean by relevant? If so, then I suspect that the church is better off without it. Gimmicky relevance and trendy vicars are not going to make much difference to the broader arc of human history.

Indeed, by far the more important question is not whether what the church says is relevant but whether what it says is true. Is it true that God exists? Is it true that this God loves all human beings and seeks for them an existence that is fully and wonderfully alive? Is it true that Jesus died to free us from bondage to destructive self-absorption? You may think the answer to these questions is “no” – fair enough. But if the answer is “yes” - or even “perhaps” - then I think all this stuff about relevance looks after itself. Which is another way of saying that if the church wants to remain relevant, what it has to do is speak out of its deepest convictions. It has to re-tell its own story with passion and honesty. That will continue to be the job of the next Archbishop of Canterbury - who will be chosen by a meeting that starts later today.

It is an impossible job, of course. For there will be times when the church is saying something completely different to contemporary culture; when it will be deliberately out of step with the prevailing world-view. Christians ought to expect this to happen a lot - not least because we dream of a world that is transformed by God’s love, and, quite obviously, and in so many ways, the world in which we live is not a world thus transformed. The theologian Stanley Hauerwas says that Christians ought to be “resident aliens” – aliens because what we say seems so weird and out of touch with modern reality that it feels like it comes from another world.

And that’s is fine with me because I’m not all that enamoured with a great deal of what passes for modern reality. This is a world where millions die of starvation and where people continue to butcher each other for countless stupid reasons, including of course, stupid reasons created by religion itself. This is the reality the church must continually address and challenge. But let’s not call it relevance. We are not politicians wanting your votes. We are not shops wanting your business. The message of the church has been around for two thousand years, and I dare say is going to be around for another two thousand more. So we don’t really have to worry too much about focus groups or opinion polls. If what we say is true then it’s always going to be relevant. Indeed, it’s surely a matter of life and death.

Here's the broadcast (unfortunately the audio is slightly corrupted).

Thanks Rowan

I’ve had the privilege of seeing the Archbishop of Canterbury in a variety of settings. After Lambeth ‘98 Rowan, still then Bishop of Monmouth, was invited to speak to the Chelmsford Diocese Clergy Synod and gave a magisterial summary of that contentious conference, teasing out the nuances and complexities in contrast to the headline grabbing bluster of others. It was no surprise when he was made Archbishop of Wales soon after and then Archbishop of Canterbury a couple of years after that. Rowan, as ABC, came to lead a session at Spring Harvest on God and Creation that ended with a bomb scare and evacuation from the building which prevented a Q & A session. In case anyone thought Rowan was running scared he came back and was interviewed at length during the Big Top evening celebration. A friend published a book, quite a short book and just one in a series, and he received a hand written letter from Rowan with some comments on the illustrations in the book!

I also greatly enjoyed working with Jane Williams as a colleague on the faculty at St Mellitus College. Jane hosted us all for a staff residential at their house next to Canterbury Cathedral and I was reminded that this was a family home as well as an official residence. At Spring Harvest Rowan was asked what we could pray for and he asked for prayers in particular for his children. Whenever I read some of the vile rubbish that has been all too frequently spouted about Rowan, it is his family I think of because they have born the cost of Rowan’s ministry alongside him. I try to imagine how I would have felt as a teenager reading or listening to some of the abuse hurled at Rowan and what I would think of such people and the faith which they espouse.

Today Rowan announced that he would be stepping down as Archbishop at the end of the year and sadly some have taken the opportunity to hurl further abuse at him. I’m not going to link to these articles because that would simply give them more of the attention they so desperately crave. I simply contrast Rowan’s graciousness, prayerfulness and Godliness with their vituperation.

Reading Rowan’s theology can sometimes be a challenge but always rewards close attention. In debate or discussion with opponents such as Richard Dawkins, or in conversation with the likes of John Humphrey’s, one senses the pastor heart longing to see these people come to know the God who loves them. Rowan’s poetry opens up another side to his faith in God and love of life.

There is one incident amidst all the international travels, conversations with world and faith leaders, debates over matters such as the Anglican Covenant and the Ordination of Women to the Episcopacy, that I want to remember about Rowan’s time as ABC.

A father sent Rowan, along with other Christians, a letter his six year old daughter Lulu had written to God. You can read the full account here but the letter simply said:

To God how did you get invented? From Lulu xo

Rowan sent a personal reply which reads as follows:

Dear Lulu,

Your dad has sent on your letter and asked if I have any answers. It's a difficult one! But I think God might reply a bit like this –

'Dear Lulu – Nobody invented me – but lots of people discovered me and were quite surprised. They discovered me when they looked round at the world and thought it was really beautiful or really mysterious and wondered where it came from. They discovered me when they were very very quiet on their own and felt a sort of peace and love they hadn't expected.

Then they invented ideas about me – some of them sensible and some of them not very sensible. From time to time I sent them some hints – specially in the life of Jesus – to help them get closer to what I'm really like.

But there was nothing and nobody around before me to invent me. Rather like somebody who writes a story in a book, I started making up the story of the world and eventually invented human beings like you who could ask me awkward questions!'

And then he'd send you lots of love and sign off.

I know he doesn't usually write letters, so I have to do the best I can on his behalf. Lots of love from me too.

+Archbishop Rowan

What’s Darwin’s book called?

The Richard Dawkins Foundation For Reason and Science has commissioned some research to discover ‘the extent to which adults recorded as Christian in the 2011 UK Census (or who would have been recorded as Christian, if they had answered the question) believe, know about, practise and are influenced by Christianity, as well as their reasons for having described themselves as Christian in the Census’.

Dawkins was joined on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme by Revd Giles Fraser, former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's, to debate the survey and here is the recording of their discussion.

The highlight for me comes at about 3.15 when Fraser says ‘Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin of Species I’m sure you could tell me that.’ Dawkins responds ‘Yes I could’ and Fraser says ‘Go on then’. Dawkins' response is rather revealing as he struggles to remember the full title. The point Fraser is making is that you wouldn’t  dismiss someone’s belief in evolution just because they can’t remember the full title of the book, yet, this seems to be the approach taken in the survey regarding the Christian faith. Fraser goes on to critique the survey and the interpretation placed on it’s findings.

 

I must say I am fascinated by the amount of effort expended by Dawkins and his chums in opposing the Christian faith. I am greatly encouraged that they take Christianity so seriously they feel compelled to devote so much time and energy to their cause. Perhaps as Christians we should feel challenged to be as serious and energetic about the faith we espouse.

The Screwtape email

Wormwood,

What on earth is going on? How could you be so stupid? Did I not tell you that the best way to defeat the enemy is to stop talking about him and avoid drawing attention to him? Apathy and ignorance are far better weapons than any overt assault.

For a while the enemy’s agents were doing our work for us. Don’t you remember the successes of the last century? We didn’t need to do a thing, just sit back and watch as his supporters did their best to undermine his work. They were tripping over themselves to get into the media to debunk every aspect of belief.

But now, thanks to your incompetence, he’s back in the game. People can’t stop talking about him, even Prime Ministers are saying what a good thing he is. What possessed you? (O.K. I know what possesses you but that’s not the point). Thanks to your recruitment policy there are a few very vociferous people, destroying all our good work. Every time one of your agents opens his/her mouth, or puts fingers to keyboard, a whole new round of discussion and debate opens up. These ‘new atheists’ as they’ve become known, simply do the enemy’s work for him and I seriously suspect they are double agents so effective have they been in raising the enemy’s profile.

The enemy’s supporters have never been so motivated and engaged in the battle: demanding public debates; churning out books putting forward the argument for belief; speaking his name at every opportunity and never out of the media. There are intense discussions going on all over the place and that is not helpful to our ambitions. It’s true some of them overreact and a few make fools of themselves by their aggressive responses and I’d encourage you to play that for all it’s worth. Nevertheless, serious damage to our cause has been done.

As for that bus campaign! What made you think having his name on the side of the Number 23 to Tooting was a publicity coup for our side?

And encouraging our supporters to go to Carol Services to enjoy the singing but ignore the religious stuff, how was that ever going to work? Haven’t you read what’s in those carols? The only saving grace is that the enemy’s supporters are often too stupid to read and act on the words themselves.

I want the whole operation closed down before you wreck our mission for good.

Your seriously hacked off uncle,

Screwtape.

Countdown

I’ve added a countdown to Christmas calendar to the Treehouse. The calendar comes courtesy of Damaris who produce some excellent resources. Each day the calendar displays a video on a theme connected with Advent and you can preview all the videos online. There is also a tab to play the Real Jesus video.

This is just one example of the many high quality digital resources available at the moment. I came across the calendar via the Digital Evangelism Issues blog.

Hawking heaven

I am always bemused at the seriousness with which certain people’s words are taken when they are talking about subjects outside their own particular discipline. Richard Dawkins opens his mouth about religion and the media goes into a frenzy, unable or unwilling to spot the weaknesses and at times blatant ignorance beneath the froth of the headline quotes.  Another media favourite is the eminent cosmologist Stephen Hawking. A couple of days ago The Guardian reported an interview with Hawking covering a wide range of issues. The quote that got the headlines was when Hawking declared that heaven is just ‘a fairy story for people afraid of the dark’. Here is the full quote:

"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he said.

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.

An excellent response to Hawking was offered by Michael Wenham, a fellow sufferer of motor neurone disease, again published in The Guardian. Wenham challenged Hawking’s comment about the brain as a computer:

It's unarguably true that there's no heaven for broken down computers, as I have found to my cost when I poured fruit juice over my laptop. The brain may be nothing but a most remarkable computer, yet there's something generically different from a computer in a brain which, when it starts to malfunction as happens in MND, can begin to love Wagner's music and "enjoy life more". That, I would say, is irrational, but not uncommon. Human beings, it would appear, are something more than machines. Maybe science will one day describe what the difference is.

And with regard to Hawking’s remarks about heaven Wenham comments:

Finally, Stephen Hawking's headlined observation about death, that an after-life "is a fairy-story for people afraid of the dark" is both sad and misinformed. Openness to the theoretical possibility of there being 11 dimensions and fundamental particles "as yet undiscovered" shows an intellectual humility strangely at odds with writing off the possibility of other dimensions of existence.

For someone "facing the prospect of an early death", with probably an unpleasant prelude, the idea of extinction holds no more fear than sleep. It really is insulting to accuse me of believing there might be life after death because I'm afraid of the dark. On the contrary, sad though I shall be to leave behind those I love, I suspect the end of life, whatever happens, will be a relief. And, like Pascal making his wager, if it is dark, I really won't mind, because, of course, there won't be a me to mind.

Wenham’s response continued with an affirmation of his own faith, founded on his belief in the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, before concluding:

As for the idea that belief in an afterlife is a consolation, it is not just about heaven. Most faiths in fact have a notion of judgment, which is hardly comfortable for anyone, although it does focus the motivation not to waste one's life. Moreover in our situation Professor Hawking surely knows better than that some notion in your head, whatever that notion might be, makes the frustrations and pains of a terminal illness somehow more bearable. That's the nonsense of those who have not been there. I can't prove it of course, but on good grounds I'd stake my life on it, that beyond death will be another great adventure; but first I have to get finish this one.

Another response to Hawking’s views about heaven and the afterlife was offered today by Tom Wright in the Washington Post.

It’s depressing to see Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant minds in his field, trying to speak as an expert on things he sadly seems to know rather less about than many averagely intelligent Christians. Of course there are people who think of ‘heaven’ as a kind of pie-in-the-sky dream of an afterlife to make the thought of dying less awful. No doubt that’s a problem as old as the human race. But in the Bible ‘heaven’ isn’t ‘the place where people go when they die.’ In the Bible heaven is God’s space while earth (or, if you like, ‘the cosmos’ or ‘creation’) is our space. And the Bible makes it clear that the two overlap and interlock. For the ancient Jews, the place where this happened was the temple; for the Christians, the place where this happened was Jesus himself, and then, astonishingly, the persons of Christians because they, too, were ‘temples’ of God’s own spirit.

Hawking is working with a very low-grade and sub-biblical view of ‘going to heaven.’ Of course, if faced with the fully Christian two-stage view of what happens after death -- first, a time ‘with Christ’ in ‘heaven’ or ‘paradise,’and then, when God renews the whole creation, bodily resurrection -- he would no doubt dismiss that as incredible. But I wonder if he has ever even stopped to look properly, with his high-octane intellect, at the evidence for Jesus and the resurrection? I doubt it -- most people in England haven’t. Until he has, his opinion about all this is worth about the same as mine on nuclear physics, i.e. not much.

Wright goes on to a more general critique of Hawking and others who share his worldview:

As for the creation being self-caused: I wonder if he realises that he is simply repeating a version of ancient Epicureanism? i.e. the gods are out of the picture, a long way away, so the world/human life/etc has to get on under its own steam. This is hardly a ‘conclusion’ from his study of the evidence; it’s simply a well known worldview shared by most post-Enlightenment westerners…

The depressing thing is that Hawking doesn’t seem to realize this and so hasn’t even stopped to think that there might be quite sophisticated critiques of Epicureanism, ancient and modern, which he should work through. Not least the Christian one, which again focuses on Jesus.

My own comment is this: I do wish that those who clearly have a brain (computer or not) would use it to think through what they say about faith with the same measure of rigour that they apply to their own areas of expertise.

Shelley was wrong: a response to Andrew Copson.

Andrew Copson the chief executive of the British Humanist Association has written a piece in The Guardian in praise of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Copson draws attention to Shelley’s argument for the non-existence of God put forward in The Necessity of Atheism. The conclusion of Copson’s article I wholeheartedly agree with, as he calls for his readers to challenge the persecution of people in different parts of the world for thinking and speaking freely. Copson has in mind the non-religious but the argument applies to all, religious and non-religious alike.

In support of his case, Copson cites the case of a young man in Saudi Arabia facing persecution.

One of the most upsetting stories I was ever told was by a young humanist from Saudi Arabia who grew up so frightened of what would happen if he spoke out loud about his beliefs to another person that the only outlet for his thoughts was to go on long walks away from all people, and speak his mind only to the air. In fact, he never spoke to another human being about his most fundamental beliefs until coming to Britain in his late 20s, and experiencing then for the first time what those of us who live in freedom take for granted: the joyful dynamic of testing and developing our own ideas in conversation and dialogue with others.

It is a terrible story and I am pleased to hear the young man now enjoys the freedom to express his beliefs. I use the word ‘beliefs’ because that is the word Copson uses twice in recounting the story and the second time he refers to ‘fundamental beliefs’. Is Copson now accepting what many of us have been arguing for a long time, that Humanism and Atheism are belief systems? And if Humanism and Atheism are beliefs then why should they be considered any more rational than religious beliefs?

This brings me to the problem with Shelley’s argument or at least with Copson’s brief summary of his argument about the non-existence of God. Here is how Copson describes Shelley’s thesis:

The argument itself is simple. If you have seen or heard God, then you must believe in God. If you haven't, then the only possible reasons to believe in God are reasonable argument or the testimony of others. The main argument given for believing in a deity – that the universe must have had a first cause – is not persuasive because there is no reason to believe either that the universe must have had a first cause or that this cause, if it existed, was a deity. The testimony of others – a third-rate source of knowledge in any case – is invariably contrary to reason. This is not least because it reports God as commanding belief, which would be irrational of God, given that belief is involuntary and not an act of will. So there is no reason to believe in God.

The first part of the argument is to dismiss the necessity of belief in God as the first cause of the Universe. Given that everything else we observe in our universe seems to have a cause why should the Universe be any different? I would suggest it is as much a matter of belief to say the Universe has no first cause or creator as to argue that it does, given that we have no other examples of anything not having a cause. I am no cosmologist but my reading of the latest debates about the origins of the Universe suggest that at best the jury is out on this one.

However, my faith is not primarily based on belief in a first cause / creator God. This brings me to the second part of Shelley’s argument, the testimony of others, which is described as a third-rate source of knowledge contrary to reason. Testimony may be a third-rate source of knowledge but most of us live our lives depending on it otherwise we might never try anything new. Or is he only saving this judgement for testimony regarding belief in God.

Is it irrational to take the testimony of others to find out if something is true and finding it is true to believe in it? It strikes me we do this all the time in our lives. Was Shelley and is Copson seriously suggesting that it is irrational to believe anything on the basis of testimony, for that would seriously undermine most scientific endeavour which builds on the testimony of others. I fly in aeroplanes not because I know how they fly but because I have trusted the testimony of others  who have flown and then discovered it to be true for myself. Scientists would be required to keep repeating the same experiments if they didn’t trust the testimony of others. 

Or is Shelley arguing that it is only testimony about belief in God that is third-rate and irrational? I presume he is as it would be irrational to dismiss all testimony as third-rate and irrational. How does Shelley’s claim stand up?

The claim is that testimony to belief in God is irrational because God demands belief and such belief would not really be belief because it would be involuntary, forced on us, and not a decision of our free will. It would therefore be irrational of God to demand we believe in him. Testimony to such a demand of God would also be irrational. Now this might be true if that is what testimony about God is like but is it? It certainly doesn’t sound like the God I was invited to consider believing in by the witness of others. The God I was invited to consider was the God of Jesus Christ who called me to join with him in the great adventure of the Kingdom of God. No one demanded that I believe, no one forced me to believe, no one asked me to abandon my reason or free will in deciding to become a follower of Christ.

I came to faith as the result of the testimony or witness of my parents and other Christians I knew. I was brought up to believe but there came a point when I had to decide whether this belief was actually true or simply something I was conditioned to believe by my upbringing. The point about testimony is that it points to something else and we only discover if that testimony is true when we begin to live as if what that testimony points to is true. This is how I define faith; living as if what I say I believe in is true. Having committed myself to living in this way I find it to be true. I can’t convince or compel others to believe, all I can do is invite them to try it for themselves.

If Shelley’s caricature about Christian witness and the God of that witness were true then he would be right and belief in such a God would be irrational. However, this is not the God I believe in and it is not the testimony of the vast majority of the Christians I know.

In his article Copson asks that we stop caricaturing humanists and atheists and he is right to make that plea. As Copson says:

The works of Shelley join the novels, poems, songs, sculptures, paintings, architecture and plays of generations of godless artists in exposing the straw man of the desiccated rationalist for what it is, and showcasing a humanist vision of life.

I’d be grateful if Copson would return the courtesy and stop caricaturing the God that I believe in and the testimony of others to that God in order to dismiss my faith as irrational.

Right diagnosis, wrong prescription

There is an interesting article in Christianity Today suggesting that it is time for Christians to reassess their perpetual outrage. The author, Christopher Hays, argues that many artists court attention by producing offensive material in the hope that people will respond and therefore generate valuable publicity. Hays rightly argues that Christians are too quick to react with outraged comment and this simply serves the purposes of those they attack:

To rise above the billowing waves of culture, the latter-day Voltaire need only to offend a small-but-vocal subset of Christians. But unlike Jonathan Edwards's angry God, the Christian culture rages ineffectually, merely providing sound bites for the familiar stories in the mainstream media.

By overreacting when some hack misrepresents the biblical story, however, we send the message that the misrepresentation is more surprising and controversial than the genuine article.

Though I think Hays’ gets the diagnosis right, that Christians too readily take offence and then take to the blog, Facebook page or tweet, I believe his prescription for the problem misses the mark. Hays’ argues that Christians should simply ignore the controversial:

A thought experiment: Imagine if every Christian leader who was invited to comment on the next Dan Brown book simply said, "Why are you calling about this? You know his books are fictional, they're boring to anyone informed, and they're kind of poorly written." No facts, no offense taken—no story.

While many Christians crave the catharsis of rebuttal, a passage from Proverbs balances this sentiment against the wisdom of stoical restraint: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes" (26:4-5).

While this might be a good response for some attention seekers, I want to argue for a more creative response. Not to protest and condemn, nor to ignore, but to positively engage with the controversy. Take Philip Pullman whose novel The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ Hays specifically cites. When the book was published Christians reacted creatively by reviewing the book and noting it’s strengths and weaknesses. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s review of the book is a good example of this more positive approach and is more powerful for its measured tone. ++Rowan has been happy to discuss Pullman’s Dark Materials work with the author, taking the opportunity to respectfully challenge the caricature of Christianity presented by Pullman. In fact, it was in response to ++Rowan’s observation that the church in Pullman’s trilogy had no Jesus and cross that Pullman wrote The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ.

For several years I have been involved with colleagues in running a series of courses reflecting on how Christians engage with controversial portrayals of Christianity and Jesus. We have sought to explore the opportunities afforded by engagement rather than protest. Partly this is because many Christians in their swiftness to react have missed the point; the Life of Brian and The Last Temptation of Christ are a couple of notable examples we examine. Primarily we are keen to show how the more controversial works raise issues and questions that give the church a tremendous opportunity to engage and witness. When Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code came to the screen many churches used it as an opportunity to invite people to explore the claims made by the film and to present an alternative understanding of the issues, including the nature of the gospels, the formation of the canon of scripture and early church history.

So yes, Christians should be slower to react with predictable outrage. But rather than ignore the controversies, I would encourage Christians to engage with the issues raised and explore creatively alternative responses.

Gracious debating

The day after William Windsor and Kate Middleton announced the news that they are to marry, I happened to be in a coffee shop reading The Times (free copy). Tucked away amongst the mountain of waffle about the royal wedding was a fascinating interview with Professor John Lennox about his latest book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?. I hadn’t read much of Lennox’s work nor seen him in action, so I did a bit of digging around and the more I’ve read and heard the more impressed I’ve become.

John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College. He’s developing a sideline in debating the New Atheists including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Lennox has also turned his sights on Stephen Hawking following Hawking’s claim that the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, Hawking argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.' You can read more of Lennox’s response to Hawking in this article.

However, the point I want to make is not so much about Lennox’s arguments, but about the manner of the way in which he engages in debate and approaches his task. Lennox is both reasonable and reasoned. No frothing at the mouth. No raging against the dying of the light. Rather, Lennox has a commitment to get to know and understand his opponents and to engage in friendly debate. He has confidence in the truth, doesn’t believe it can be imposed on any one and has a real desire to set his beliefs out in the public square for consideration. Underlying his approach is the conviction that as Christians we are called to love the Lord our God with our minds as well as with everything else.

If I was to sum up John Lennox’s approach to Christian apologetics it would be to describe it as a confident humility. To me that seems to be a good approach to take, as opposed to some of the defensiveness and special pleading from other quarters. Judge for yourself…