A new world

Here is the world we made a few days ago complete with polar cap!

Our little blue planet

And it was good. But not that good!

Location, location, location? (healing debate part 1)

I am listening to a debate at the moment on Premier Christian radio between Michael Shermer and Adrian Holloway about the existence of miracles. Michael says he was a "born again evangelical Christian" but is now a staunch atheist and is in fact the president for the sceptic society. Why the change? Well through studying psychology and social sciences he says he came to realise that:

Michael Shermer

"beliefs, like political attitudes and religious faiths, are socially constructed and psychologically dependent. It depends on where you happen to have been born and what your parents believe and the influence of your peer groups and teachers and things like that rather than something that was absolutely true, and the study of social psychology and anthropology really reinforces that idea. Had I been born in another century or some other millennium or on some other part of the planet I certainly would not have been a Christian.

Obviously the fact that there are such strong clusters of religious beliefs around the world shows that the believers are largely dependent on where you just happen to have been born.  And that's different to science where physics is physics whether it's in India or China or North America or Europe. It doesn't matter where you are born the physics is still the physics. And yet that is not the case with religion."

Map of world religions from
http://www.worldreligiousrelief.com/?p=1

Richard Dawkins says this was a key factor in his conversion to atheism. But again I just don't get it. What if being an atheist turned out to be very dependent on where you were born? Would that make the non existence of God any less likely to be true? What if most places in the world had Christians living there? Would that make Christianity more likely to be true because of a homogeneous spread of this belief across the globe? If everybody believed in God for centuries and centuries would that undermine the truth of atheism?

Let's say Jesus did all the miracles he said he did and rose from the dead as he said he would. Does the fact that those in Jerusalem believed long before those in Australia, undermine the truth of those events or the beliefs?  Surely geographical or chronological factors are not decisive indicators of truth. They must know that. So what is the issue?

Perhaps it's the injustice of it. Your eternal destiny seeming to be heavily influenced by where you happen to have been born, what parents you had, friends you knew, books you read, TV you watched, even your genes. The list goes on. All these things could have been said to play a factor in someone being a Christian and yet the Christian world view would say that those things are not ultimately decisive: God is. He sovereignly works through all events and people and places to bring, to a saving knowledge of him, those he chose before he made the world. The problem doesn't go away of course because now we could ask if that, ie God choosing,  is really fair. That's not easy but it does show that the problem is not location, location, location, it's grace, grace, grace.

The bottom line is whether we can accept that God is truly free to choose which of his sinful enemies to die for? I confess I find that hard too. But knowing the terrible nature of my sin and the massive cost that Jesus paid to sort it for me, I find myself willing to trust God that he is both good and just in his decisions. I also find myself very motivated to tell other people about this grace so they can enjoy it too.   

In the debate Adrian emphasis the importance of evidence. He says he is open to be lead where the evidence leads. If the bones of Jesus were discovered in Jerusalem he would ditch Christianity. If that sounds dodgy he points out that the Apostle Paul felt like that too. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, says Paul, our faith is useless.

Adrian Holloway

Like Michael, Adrian too had a conversion but it was the other way round for him. He became a Christian because of a culmination of several different lines of argument that pointed towards the existence of God. He admits that our religious beliefs could be an aspect of our cultural context, but  that is no reason to throw them all out. It just means we need to think very carefully about what we believe. That is probably a better way of putting it than my ramblings above. Of course these things have an effect but we are not trapped by them. In fact the lives of both Michael and Adrian show you can change your mind by looking at the "evidence". Adrian suggests that "instead of throwing up our hands and saying "everyone believes different things it's hopeless I'll never find the truth" it would be sensible to look into things a bit. Why not, he says, read the Koran, the God Delusion, Mere Christianity by C S Lewis, etc or even pray "if you are there help me find the truth" and make an informed decision.   

He goes on, there are no guarantees in life. Is your marriage going to work, will the plane you step onto crash? It's the same with the Christian faith. Adrian doesn't have infallible proof but there is enough evidence for him to make a decision, like a juror, beyond reasonable doubt.

I think that's true, although there is another aspect to faith that transcends evidence. As you meet and get to know Jesus (often through various lines of evidence) you find your foot on something even more secure than the scientific method. The eye of faith can see things invisible to the natural mind with more certainty than we know the earth goes round the sun. It's the same with the bible, once evidence has lead you to the reasonable conclusion that it is the word of God, it can be a firmer place to stand.

Actually evidence and faith are probably a bit more inter-woven than that last paragraph suggests. What would I do if anthropologists discovered what they claimed to be the bones of Jesus? Would any amount of evidence change my mind that Jesus rose bodily from the dead? I certainly wouldn't close my ears to the claims and would want to investigate them. Maybe there would come a point at which I would be swayed but it would have to be pretty convincing evidence. It would be like persuading me that the person I have been married to and loved for 20 years is a spy using me for cover. Especially if my spouse protested their innocence and pointed to the evidence over the last 20 years that they have loved me faithfully. Love can be blind but it can also trust against all the odds. Christianity is a relationship with a person not a set of abstract beliefs about the world. Discrediting it to a Christian who has a living relationship with the Lord Jesus is a bit more involved than just producing some bones.

It's not just sailors any more

Popeye with traditional anchor tattoos 

A recent Guardian article said "a fifth of all British adults have now been inked (as contemporary usage has it)." It's not just sailors anymore. The survey said 29% of 16- 44 year olds have one or more tattoos as opposed to only 9% of Over 60s. Celebrities are leading the charge to the tattoo parlour with the likes of Wayne Rooney, David Beckham, Robbie Williams, Amy Winehouse, and Angelina Jolie decorating their birthday suits with all sorts of words and pictures.

Why? Well, the tattooist interview by the guardian gave this explanation:

"A tattoo gives you something to live for. Why do you get up in the morning? To wear grey, to have your life ruled by train timetables? A tattoo offers you something personal and fun and exciting in a world that can be drab and grey. People's souls are crying out for that. Tattoos are great for finding out more about yourself, for meeting people, for getting up in the morning and looking in the mirror and thinking: look at that! A work of art, in progress."

Now, what interests me is not the increased popularity of tattoos, or discussing the wisdom of putting something permanent on your body, but the terms in which this answer was given. The guy is effectively preaching a gospel of body art. Forget the proposed solution for a moment and listen to the need he is describing. People crave meaning in their lives. Something to get them out of bed in the morning, something to live for. Many feel that the world and their lives are rather dull and pointless. They know somehow that things have faded, that they should be much newer and brighter. Then there is the aching need to know who we really are. Some trace their family tree back in search of identity while others reinvent themselves and become "the new me". And what do we do if we don't like who we see in the mirror? Even if we think we are doing ok, few want to stay as they are, but grow, develop and change for the better.

This tattooist has seen a recurring need in the hundreds of people he has coloured in over the years; the desire for meaning, beauty and identity.  People get tattoos, he says,  because they are looking for meaning. Sometimes they are purely decorative but often it means something important to a person; A girlfriend's name, a baby, a symbolic crane for long life and wisdom, places people have been, (apparently in the 1800s sailors had a tattoo of a turtle done to show they had crossed the equator), and so on. My guess is that the permanence of tattoos helps express something significant in a person's life. T-shirts are too disposable and diamonds too expensive and limited in their semantic range. Tattoos on the other hand can say anything with a sense of strong permanence. * 

With so many souls crying out for meaning in a fallen world, it's worth considering whether tattooing is the complete answer. Interestingly the article says that 23% of adults regret having their tattoo and that tattoo removal (which is more painful and very expensive) is almost as big a business as tattooing itself. Is it really delivering in the way people expect? Does a picture on your arm fill the void of meaning in your life or change who you really are? Can a butterfly on your shoulder or a dragon on your back brighten up a world dulled by so much sadness and suffering?

Some people trust in a gospel of shopping, some believe the promises of salvation through fame, while others trust in the old favourite money to help make sense of life. "Gospel" means "good news" or "great announcement" and most adverts herald their particular product as the answer to life's ills. The truth is though that meaning and identity are not really found in these things and their beauty is fading.

Personally I have looked in many of those places for answers but have found that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the one that truly delivers where others fail. I have found meaning in an eternal relationship with God that will endure long after my body (and any tattoos I decide to have) has rotted in the grave. I have a new identity in Christ and "the new me" is day by day learning to live out of who I am. All the stuff I don't like about myself has been dealt the death blow on the cross of Jesus and is passing away. Everything I aspire to be is being formed in me as I become more like Jesus. There is a way to go but God will do it! 

My new word for beauty is "glory"; The visible, shining excellence of who God is. One day this world will be lit up with God's glory. Every stone, tree, brick, and person radiating his magnificence as everything is made new. God spoke the first creation into being with his word and it was good. He redeemed the second creation with his blood and it will be glorious beyond description.

Shopping, tattoos, food, friends and even fans may have their place but surely the answer to the cry of the human heart is found in anther gospel - That of Jesus Christ. He has a tattoo - it's on his thigh and reads "KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS".  




* another thought - I remember a strong feeling of wanting to express myself as I grew up. There was something I wanted to get out in art or programming, or music but never managed. I wonder if some of that is because we are made to worship. To creatively, powerfully, deeply and loudly express our love and adoration of the Lord Jesus. It's like being born with a 1000Watt speaker but not knowing what to play into it. Since becoming a Christian that deep urge seems to be satisfied in worship. Just another thought. 

Let there be light!

Had a great time on Monday doing craft with one of my daughters. She always wants to make something and this time had the great idea of building a model world. "Not a flat one, a round one". Excellent! That's just what I like doing. I created one a few years ago on the computer. Took me ages to write, with thousands of lines of code. It's terribly out of date now but at the time I was really pleased with it as it's not built on a 2D plane but a 3D sphere. It only has a 2km radius but has the same height data as the real world so you can walk over England or Africa etc. I never got to do shadows but I did do clouds and 3D bumpy surfaces. The animals are very poor though. Here is a video of it. I had terrible trouble exporting it so sorry if it doesn't work or is poor quality. 

Building 3D worlds has always struck me as a very godly pursuit reminding me that I am made in the image of a creative God (that was my slightly forced justification for spending ours working on it anyway!). In the first chapter of Genesis God speaks things into being. Not unlike programming :-) These days though time is too short to spend all night hunched over a keyboard coding. There are more pressing aspects of God's kingdom to give my energies too.

Luckily one of them is giving quality time to my family by building 3D spherical worlds! Right now our new one is downstairs drying. We made it by wrapping a PVA glue and tissue paper "fiberglass" shell around a football. Next we will cut it open to remove the football. Then glue it back together. It's already got a sea and continents so just needs some trees and houses. The final plan is to put a light inside it so it glows: Can't wait to say "let there be light, and there was a small PVA glue globe, and it was a good" and so on. 

A brilliant version of the bible for Adults and Children alike

When I first became a Christian I was so daunted by the size of the bible and particularly the Old Testament that I decided to buy a children's version to get a quick overview. While it did help me a bit with the bare bones of some of the main events, like many children's bible stories it was heavily sanitised plus I was left with the feeling that it was just a collection of unconnected faintly moralising stories without much of a plot running through them.

More recently, having actually read the OT for real, I was looking for a version for my children to read. They had three or four versions already but they all suffered from the same problems that I had encountered before. It was never obvious reading about Abraham, David, or Jonah what the point of the stories was. If someone loves Jesus and has decided to follow him why wade through the OT? Jazzing it up in colourful language and pictures may keep a child's attention but what's the point if it doesn't tell them about Jesus? Recently a friend recommended "The Jesus Storybook Bible : Every story whispers his name", and we have so far listened to/read the first third. I have to say it's absolutely brilliant. It is written soooooo well, it's exciting, funny and interesting but also very insightful and Jesus focused. Each story clearly points to Jesus in ways that even I hadn't fully appreciated before. I really cannot sing it's praises enough.   

Here's the introduction:

The heavens are singing

about how great God is;

and the skies are shouting it out, "see what God has made!"

Day after day ... night after night ...

they are speaking to us.

Psalm 19:1 -- 2 (paraphrase)

God wrote, "I love you" -- he wrote it in the sky, and on the Earth, and under the sea. He wrote his message everywhere! Because God created everything in his world to reflect him like a mirror -- to show us what he is like, to help us know him, to make our hearts sing. The way a kitten chases her tail. The way red poppies grow wild. The way a dolphin swims. And God put it into words, too, and wrote it in a book called "the Bible."

Now, some people think the Bible is a book of rules, telling you what you should and shouldn't do. The Bible certainly does have some rules in it. They show you how life works best. But the Bible isn't mainly about you and what you should be doing. It's about God and what he has done.

Other people think the Bible is a book of heroes, showing you people you should copy. The Bible does have some heroes in it, but (as you'll soon find out) most of the people in the Bible aren't heroes at all. They make some big mistakes (sometimes on purpose). They get a afraid, run away. At time are downright mean.

No, the Bible isn't a book of rules, or a book of heroes. The Bible is most of all a story. It's an adventure story about a young hero who comes from a far country to win back his lost treasure. It's a love story about a brave prince who leaves his palace, his throne -- everything -- to rescue the one he loves. It's like the most wonderful of fairytales that has come true in real life!

You see, the best thing about this story is -- it's true. There are lots of stories in the Bible, but all the stories are telling one big story. The story of how God loves his children and comes to rescue them.

It takes the whole Bible to tell this story. And at the centre of this story there is a baby. Every story in the Bible whispers his name. He is like a missing piece of the puzzle -- the piece that makes all the other pieces fit together, and suddenly you can see a beautiful picture.

And this is no ordinary baby. This is the child upon whom everything would depend. This is the child who would one day -- but wait. Our story starts were all good stories start right at the beginning ...

It really is the best Children's' bible I have ever come across. The author is Sally Lloyd-Jones. Is she related to "the Lloyd Jones?" I'll let her answer that from her blog:

http://sallylloyd-jones.blogspot.com/2007/02/are-you-lloyd-jones.html

When you're such a fan, of such a great man, of course you'd love to be able to say you're related or connected somehow. You wish you had met him. And been able to hear him preach. Or had him as your great Uncle. You sometimes even wish (inappropriately) you could tell all manner of lies to make it a better story--you remember him singing welsh hymns to you, he took you riding on his horse--in short, you wish you could say anything other than, "no". Which for some reason I can't help but follow with "sorry". (I feel it is such a let down and I'm rather let down by the whole thing myself.)

I don't think she needs to feel sorry at all. The truth is, asking the question is a massive compliment because given her amazing gift of writing and insight into truth being related to the late great Lloyd-Jones is a very plausible possibility. Another recognisable name that cropped up was Tim Keller. Sally says he had some input into the book and a little research confirms it is indeed "the Tim Keller".

If you have young children and you're looking for a great bible story book then this is the one to get. It's also a good one to listen too (the Deluxe version has a great set of CD's with it) if you have just become a Christian and want to get a quick feel for the whole bible story. Not only will it inspire you to read the "real thing" it will help you listen for the whispers of Jesus in every story.

   

Who created God?

Richard Dawkins

At the centre of Richard Dawkin's "God Delusion" book is the question "Who created God?" It's supposed to be a devastating blow to the credibility of Christianity rendering speechless those who believe in a creator God. It has always baffled me as to why that is such a problematic question. The answer is "no one created God. He is uncreated. Why is that a problem?"

John Lennox

John Lennox points out that the question can just as well be asked of naturalists : "Who or what created matter and energy?" If the answer is that they have always existed then they obviously have no problem with something being uncreated. If the answer is that matter and energy came into being at some stage then something must have caused their appearance and we either have to take that as eternally existent or the thing before that or before that and so on but the buck has to stop somewhere. Something somewhere must have been eternally existent and the first cause of everything. You can't have an infinite sequence of past causes or we would never arrive at the present.http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/who_created_the_creator/

I think the real sticking point though is Dawkins' view that something cannot be a valid explanation or cause if it is in fact more complex. That seems to be a firmly held presupposition, and is in fact at the heart of a reductionist worldview. While it has proved a very fruitful expectation in understanding many things, there is no reason to think it is true of everything. Can you reduce personhood, consciousness, love, information or  morality? There is nothing wrong in trying but do we want to rule out the possibility that a person is the source of person hood ahead of time? Could there not be some highly complex, beautiful, loving and morally perfect being behind everything? Looking for simpler explanations of more complex phenomena is a very valid pursuit and one that works because the universe does seem, in many ways, remarkably ordered but it is a step of faith, or at least a big inductive jump, to say that all valid explanations are in terms of simpler phenomena.

One final point: I have heard people argue that when we find ancient ruins we ascribe intelligent design to them, i.e people made them. This is helpful in that it gives an example of a more complex cause (a person) for a simple phenomena (some scratches in a stone) but it fails to be relevant here because it is not a closed system.  Dawkins and others would simply say that there is a series of increasingly simple explanations for the person, in terms of evolution, and therefore there is ultimately a simpler explanation for the scratches. When we are talking about an uncreated creator there is no possibility of a simpler sequence of causes behind his apparent complexity because there is, by definition, nothing before him. That is why the assumption that "a valid explanation must ultimately be in terms of a less complex cause" needs to be challenged.


I might be missing something but it seems to me that the "who created God question" is not the deal breaker that people think it is.       

Half a dozen people testified to being healed this sunday!

Had a great Sunday yesterday.  Mike Betts preached on Philip. I think Toby had spoken on him not long ago and many of his points underlined those Toby made about Stephen last week. God is looking for servant hearted people who are full of the Spirit;  a tea towel in one hand and doing miracles with the other! He made the helpful point that the qualification for waiting on tables in Acts was being filled with the Spirit. Do we sometime separate jobs into spiritual and practical? The Apostles said that people doing practical tasks needed to be filled with the Spirit. That's because it's not just getting the job done that matters, it's how the job is done, with what attitude and motivation, in whose strength, in what sort of relationships and to whose glory? I want to work harder and make more time to see people filled with the Spirit. Need to think about how.

At the end of his preach Mike asked for people to come up with words of knowledge (hear from God and come up to the front). There were several, people responded, we prayed for them and at least half a dozen testified to being healed in some way. Brilliant! It felt like little baby steps but we are definitely breaking into something. A friend likened it to learning to ride a bike. We managed to stay on for a few wobbly yards without being held.

I am finding I have faith and expectation when I am praying that wasn't there in the same experiential way before. As Bill Johnson suggests, I keep the praying short, and then ask what God is doing. I used to ask, dreading a negative response, but now I am asking because I can't wait to hear what God is doing.

At the end we prayed for a baby with a brain tumour, plus a little girl about to go in to hospital for a serious op. Praise God for the healings we are seeing (pains gone, joints freed up etc) but we are looking to God for extraordinary miracles!   

Ambulance logo for USA and
UK have a snake on a pole

We will keep pressing on. Next week I am preaching again for the first time in ages. The next passage in Matthew's collection of healing miracles is chapter 9:18-31 where Jesus heals a women from years of haemorrhaging and raises a dead girl. So much is in my mind to say. I want to recap the key truths in my last four preaches, talk about living in the gap between our biblical expectation and current experience, as well as pick up on the healing touch of Jesus in this passage. Not sure how I am going to do it and leave lots of room to pray for people. Moses lifted up a snake on a pole and people were healed as they looked at it. That was a picture of what will happen this Sunday as we lift Jesus up.  

Revisiting the first chapter of Genesis

John Cleese asked Michael Palin in their highly amusing argument sketch "Is this just the five minute argument or the full half hour?" Lucky for us when Mick, Adrian and Andrew modeled healthy critical discourse at the Brighton leadership seminar, we were treated to an hour and a half of stimulating discussion. After looking at passive and active judgment they moved onto consider Tim Keller's take on the first chapter of Genesis. Exciting stuff!

Keller's experience is that people don't believe Christians on the resurrection because they seem unintelligent and uninformed when it comes to generally recognized and accepted scientific findings. I think this is true.

Charles Darwin

Andrew pointed out that sound biblical inerrantists B. B. Warfield and J I Packer are both open to evolution or at least don't dismiss it, and think it's more likely than the alternative. (In fact J I Packer says "the young earth view is naive"). These aren't the kind of guys to sell out.  The Catholic church's official line is in line with evolution too but again, as no one, not even the pope, is infallible we need to engage with the subject matter.

Andrew's view is that Genesis is Poetic narrative, semi-poetic or Hymnic  although not Hebrew poetry.

Andrew agrees with Keller that if Genesis 1 isn't a journalistic record to be read chronologically  then it doesn't conflict with evolution. Keller does however go for a literal garden and a literal fall.

Andrew gave 6 points on why he used to think that evolution was barmy for those who believe the bible. He has changed his mind on most of them.

1) Its incompatible with Gen 1. He no longer holds this view because of the poetic nature of Gen 1.

2) It is driven by randomness. Again, he no longer holds this view because God works through apparently random stuff, i.e. valleys, cliff erosion, casting of lot, "the lot is cast into the lap but every decision comes from the Lord" Prov 16:33, and 1 Kings 22:28, 34 where someone prophesies that the King of Israel is going to be killed, ...and someone draws his bow "at random" and kills him.

3) The problem of the final step in which hominids become humans. He still thinks this is problematic. Genesis 2 is not Poetic in style. Man was made from the dust of the earth, and the woman from the rib of man. It was not two farmers that God choose and made in his image. Keller agrees but Andrew asks where and how is the line drawn? I have this problem too.

I recall Stott argues that Genesis 2 and 3 do in fact have very symbolic truths in them. It's increasingly easy to rub out more and more of the bible because of apparent challenges with scientific opinion but the answer is not to shut our eyes and hold onto our own particular interpretation. As Keller notes, this does not help in the presentation of the gospel. Of course a third error would be to become wishy washy, open to anything and lacking conviction and faith. Being aware, to a degree based on your time and ability, of the various interpretations and scientific evidence is a good start and shows you are not blinkered in your approach even if you have arrived at strong conviction on the subject. (For clarity that last paragraph was my thoughts).

4) Evolution is only ever held by unbiblical fluffy people. He now realizes this isn't true.

5) There are Scientific objections to evolution as a whole. Adrian points to Jon Lenox' book. I have a few but I'm not sure which one.  

6) Death and wastefulness before the fall. Andrew points out that if you believe in an old earth you tend to go for the death of animals. So this argument needs to go with a young earth.

Andrew reminds us that many Christians historically believed in evolution. Darwin's theory was in fact promoted by many of the clergy at the time. He also says something can be poetic and literal.

Adrian says he is for a literal 6 day creation. Andrew says Kellar says its poetry and then goes with the possible interpretation that is in line with science.

Interestingly enough, apparently Augustine and Origin said it was literal but didn't go with a 6 day account.

 

Adrian points out that we need to look at the rest of the bible. Ex 20 argues the Sabbath from Genesis 1 based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Andrew counters that Moses was the same author of Genesis 1 and Ex 20 and had Ex odus in mind when we wrote Genesis. I didn't really follow the argument though but agree with him that for Moses it may not have been the length of the days that was the issue but the 6 and 1 structure.

Andrew says that there is a change of style in Chapter 2 when it says "These are the generation of the heavens and the earth" and gives geographical locations so it seems the style changes to historical narrative.

 

Q&A

(I will paraphrase what was said as best I can and interject myself when I feel like it!)

Q : Talk a bit more about death. Is it still a valid argument against evolution?

Andrew : Romans 5 says death came into the world through sin. Death for plants, animals and humans means three different things. Grass doesn't die in the same sense that animals die. The grass continues to grow. Same with trees and fruit. An animal's just go into the ground while a human has a soul that lives on after death. In Romans 5 surely Paul is talking about the death of humans. But do we want to say God created a world in which animals didn't die? Ie where immortal. The young earth view would seem to say yes they were eternal.

Q : We must not undermine the first chapters of the bible or we loose everything.

Andrew : Yes. Undermine anything God says and you loose everything. Including Genesis 1. I am saying there is a chapter in the bible that has possibly been misinterpreted, not that there is a chapter in the bible that is wrong.  People used to think that the earth went round the sun because of a metaphorical statement in the bible. We  later came to the conclusion that the bible didn't mean what we thought it meant due mainly to overwhelming scientific evidence.

Me : The issue is about interpretation not inerrancy. 

Me. Keller and Andrew do not think that God put his image in a creature coming out of evolution. I can't see why that is such a big issue. Did he fashion literal dust in a few moments or did he use dust that had been fashioned over millions of years into a humanoid? Eve could still have been taken from Adam in some way.

Me : The questions all seemed hostile to evolution. Interestingly someone said in a question that there was "no evidence for evolution". They seemed really certain of that. But surly that is not true is it? Everything I have read seems to support the very opposite. Someone makes the point that we must distinguish between macro and micro evolution but perhaps a more relevant distinction should be highlighted between the so called "fact of evolution" and the process of evolution. Scientists believe they have a massive, overwhelming amount of evidence for all living organisms having a common ancestor. The discussion and theorizing tends to come more in the actually process of how evolution, speciation, adaption etc took place.

Mick finished by repeating Keller's point that in our discussions and debate we should get to a stage of being able to state the other persons argument in a way that the other person agrees with it. Then we will be able to engage fruitfully with them.   

"Hello, I'd like an argument please."

One of my favorite Monty Python sketches is the one where Michael Palin pays to have a five minute argument with John Cleese:

Monty Python sketch

man1 "Hello, I'd like an argument please."
man2 "I've told you once"

man1 "No you haven't"

man2 "Yes I Have"

man1 "No you haven't"

man2 "I'm sorry is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?"

man1 "Oh, I see. No, it's just the five minutes"

man2 "Ah, Ok. Well I definitely told you"

man1 "no you didn't"

etc

It's a classic! Probably funnier when they do it than when you read the script though! It's just an argument for an argument's sake. Often though, arguments can be very much more fruitful and in fact crucial in helping us arrive at a clearer idea of the truth. Recently at the Brighton Leadership Conference Mick Taylor had the idea of modeling constructive argument about theological issues in one of the seminars. I've just listened to the recording and it was great.

It was helpful not just because it gave an example of friendly debate, but because of the topics discussed. The first was on hell but they spent most of the time on the second which was the whole creation/evolution issue. I have been thinking about that a lot recently and have already blogged some of my thoughts in my other blog http://marcusbible.blogspot.com. I am blogging through the bible and have obviously had to address this issue right at the start.

Mick Taylor, Adrian Birks and Andrew Wilson engage with these issues using Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". While they whole heartedly recommend the book some of them disagree with some of what Tim writes on these two subjects. That is good because it allows them to demonstrate healthy critical thinking and discussion. No writer, not the Pope nor even Tim Keller, is infallible so we must weigh what we read.

First they tackle Tim Keller's apologetic approach to hell and judgment. Keller seems to shy away from the idea that God throws people into hell and emphasizes that people choose to go there of their own free will. ie "there is no lock on the door". This is more palatable apologetically but is it a fair representation of the truth?

Andrew argues that the bible seems to say someone's entrance into hell is not totally voluntary.  People don't want hell. Keller says the rich man didn't seem like he wanted to get out. He just wanted relief where he was. But Andrew points out that the rich man didn't want others to come there and wanted them to be warned which I think weakens Keller's argument quite a bit. As Piper puts it, people may want sin but they do not want hell. It's like wanting chocolate but not weight gain.

Adrian points out that arguments against penal substitution seem compatible with a "passive wrath" view (which is not a good thing!). He quoted David Stroud saying in one of the main sessions "The essence of Justice is God lifting his hand" and points out that God's wrath goes much further than that. Keller's idea of hell is therefore inadequate. God doesn't just withdraw from people like Pol Pot and Hitler. He is active in punishing them.

Mick agreed that although he didn't like the idea that much, God is certainly more active in punishment than Keller seems to be saying. 

Andrew gives examples of God's "star wars" like commands (I always think of star wars too when I read Deut 20:16-18, and the Emperor's deep voice saying "wipe them out, all of them") to wipe out all the Amorites because of their sin. It does not read as though he is leaving them to the natural consequences of their evil actions. It's not just "have it your way I'm leaving you to your own devices". He sends his people to execute his judgment.

Adrian makes the helpful point that Romans 1 is not talking about hell. It's talking about the revealing of judgment now.  It's not wrong though to extend the principles to hell but given the nature of the other passages that do talk explicitly about hell it's not a strong case for the passive view of God's judgment in hell (Rev 20:14). 

There is an argument that says if God is going to see justice done then we don't have to take it into our own hands now and life can be more peaceful. One problem with that is that knowing your victims will leave any retribution to a God you don't think exists might make you more vicious and unrestrained in your attack. Adrian points out that if the vengeance of God is withdrawal then evil doers won't be that afraid of the consequences of their actions because they don't want God anyway.  

Mick says that in our minds it's either passive or active judgment but maybe both are valid. Maybe then it's ok to pick one and major on it. He also points out that we don't want to paint a picture of a God who is enjoying punishing people and highlights the challenge of not doing so. He says we want to avoid on the one hand the danger of a God who delights in punishing people, and on the other a punishment that isn't really that bad. 

I must say I've always felt a little uneasy about sweeping the active side of God's judgment under the carpet. Andrew made the point at the start that a lot of our problems with hell could be cultural. People in countries where there is massive injustice would have more of a problem with God's forgiveness than his judgment. For God not to judge the evil they see all around them would be unthinkable. That said, it's not wrong to start by emphasizing one aspect of the truth that makes more sense to a particular culture as long as at some stage you teach the whole truth.   

There was time for Q and A at the end but actually none of the questions were about judgment, they were about the hotter topic of evolution. I'll give my notes on their discussion on that and some of the Q&A in the next blog entry. 

Oral Roberts and healing

Terry's comment about the many healings done through Oral Roberts got me looking into him a bit. I found this video about him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19sbUluAzDs. He says some very helpful things so I will transcribe some of it.

Oral Roberts

Towards the end of his life Oral Roberts said this about his healing meetings:

"The word of God was paramount followed by which you saw people convicted of their sins and then the healings began. And even in my failures, and I failed on so many people I prayed for - the people saw the failures - you know it's some experience to have them come across the platform in front of you and pray. One gets healed and the next one does not. One gets healed and the next five don't. Five get healed and the next two don't. I'm very exposed and very vulnerable sitting there. But you see I knew I wasn't a healer. And if God wouldn't heal them there wouldn't be any miracle. But if I preached his word he promised in the last verse of Mark's Gospel 'I'll confirm my word with signs following'. I really believe that. I believe that. And it happens. And the confirmation of my preaching by signs following brought the crowd into the faith and many of them got healed sitting out there in their chairs. They didn't even have to come into the healing line."

I think this is absolutely brilliant. Here is a man who has seen God's word and obeyed it. What's more he's lived in that place of "now and not yet". Not only has he seen people wonderfully healed he's watched them walk away still sick. Even today he remembers the failures. But they didn't stop him. He had seen and been changed by God's word. He lived in the gap between his personal experience and biblical expectation.

   

The clip cuts to him live at a rally in his younger days.

"It's true that I cannot heal, and I haven't made any claims like that because we know that God alone can heal. But God uses servants, instruments. And I feel that this is an hour where his gifts are being given especially to the deliverance of people from sickness and affliction. We have fine doctors in the world today, some of my very dearest friends are medical men. And I appreciate these men. They have done a lot for me. They are doing a lot for other people. We also believe that God heals through prayer. And that God can do what no earthly power can do. God can do it. But we must have faith. Believe. Release our faith. Let our faith go to God."

That sounds exactly like what we might say today. Not a sniff of "going to the doctors means a lack of faith". God heals through medicine but he also heals miraculously in the name of his son Jesus. Bravo!  

The Older Oral again:

"I kept telling them I can't heal you. I would if I could. But your faith, Faith comes by hearing the word of God. So we had a balanced ministry of the word of God first and then the healing services followed. There were about 40 or 50 sermons over the years that I had preached, say in a 16 day crusade. Not all 40 or 50 [in one crusade] but I would feel led to use a number until they were seasoned sermons. I came to believe that a sermon has to be preached 20 or 30 times so that it consumes the preacher, he becomes the sermon and when I walked out I was that sermon. And the people could feel it and hear it and I didn't have to grab for words. They poured out of my mouth. They poured out of my inner being, my belly area."

The word and the Spirit are powerful allies. I also like what he says about the preacher becoming the sermon. That's why it takes me so long to prepare a preach. My brain can't regurgitate stuff from my head very well. It needs to be in my heart as well.

Younger Oral still going for it in the rally talking about a person's faith:

"He must release that believing. He must get into action. For it is one's active faith, his released faith, his faith turned loose that heals him. Because the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up. All of it is action. You release your faith, God releases his power. You believe and God heals. You do something, God does something. You turn to God, God turns to you.  You believe in him and he sends his power down to your life."

He's right. Faith is active. I remember well Bill Johnson saying there is a time to stop praying and ask the person to do something they couldn't before. ie "stretch out your arm" or "bend down". Often in that action they are healed.

All in all Oral Roberts comes across as very genuine and there is remarkable consistency, certainly in the clips that I saw, in what he said 40 years ago at the beginning of his ministry and what he said at the end. As I listened I heard a man who had read God's word, particularly God's desire to heal, and was living it out. He knew the challenges. Some got healed and some didn't. He felt exposed. He felt vulnerable. He just had to give it to God and carry on in the obedience that comes from faith. God give me his genuine trust in you.  

Chance would be a fine thing!

Just read the latest update from Matthew Hosier's blog. http://matthewhosier.blogspot.com/ He has been reading PJs blog too and thinking about the sovereignty of God. He makes the helpful point that there is no such thing as luck. He also includes an interesting quote from a guy called Abraham Kuyper (Wikipedia tells me he was prime minister of the Netherlands between 1901-1905) who wrote about Calvinism:

Card playing has been placed under a ban by Calvinism, not as though games of all kinds were forbidden, nor as though something demonical lurked in the cards themselves, but because it fosters in our heart the dangerous tendency to look away from God, and to put our trust in Fortune or Luck. A game which is decided by keenness of vision, quickness of action, and range of experience, is ennobling in its character, but a game like cards, which is chiefly decided by the way in which the cards are arranged in the pack, and blindly distributed, induces us to attach a certain significance to that fatal imaginative power, outside of God, called Chance or Fortune. To this kind of unbelief every one of us is inclined… To fear God, and to bid for the favours of Fortune, seemed to Calvin as irreconcilable as fire and water.

I suppose you could play cards with faith: Trusting in God's goodness to you in making the next card an ace! "I trust you Lord, so I'll put £100 on black". I guess that sounds a bit silly, and I'm not being entirely serious, but it's not half as foolish as looking at the events of my life, past and future, as if I am at the mercy of chance. I wonder how much of my life I see by default as luck rather than God's sovereign control. If my default position was that God was in control, I wonder if I would be more inclined to approach a game of chance as a fight of faith.

A more plausible reason we don't see snakes and ladders as a fight of faith is because winning isn't that important or even the main aim. It's the taking part that counts. That is such a hard concept to get across to children:

"Let's play a game. The object is to win but we are not really playing to win just for the fun of playing, but try to win, just don't be too sad if you don't win, because we are not playing to win. In fact it's good to be happy if someone else wins and be pleased for them. Say 'well done. Thank you for the game.' But try to win or the game won't be much fun".   

Another perspective on chance is that God has created a world where it looks like randomness is at work because that is part of the beauty and order of his creation. If I knew enough I'd say something clever and relevant about quantum theory but I don't so I'll just mention it in case there is a link here! I'm sure it's something to do with chance and statistics operating under the apparently deterministic Newtonian laws. So when we are playing snakes and ladders perhaps we are really enjoying quantum theory (or even chaos theory, small changes in initial condition and all that...)! This view would say that chance was just as beautiful as a dance or a sunset so when we are betting we are paying to appreciate chance. Would that make your local high street betting shop a kind of art gallery?

I think the bigger danger in games of chance is if money is involved. You are really dicing with death when you bet money on a random outcome (unless you are so Godly or prophetic you are operating in raw faith:-). There can be something very toxic about the combination of chance and money. Having said that joining in the office world cup sweep stake didn't seem that deadly and I lived to tell the tale.  

Speaking of chance and randomness, evolution is no more flawed because it uses a concept of chance than quantum theory. It may be challenged on other grounds but not because it involves an apparently random process. God is always sovereignly working through everything. He doesn't take a back seat when DNA recombines any more than he does when I toss a coin. He is the one working through all things such that we get normal, poisson, and Chi-square distributions.    

So what about genetic diseases? It's the same challenge we face with God's sovereignty and sickness or God's sovereignty and sin. Ultimately I don't know why God doesn't stop sin or doesn't stop evil but I know he works through it for good and that keeps me from despair in the face of the things I see and hear. It also provokes my faith when I pray for things to happen to which I could attach a very low probability. So what if only two people out of several hundred have ever been healed when I prayed for them. This next person is going to get well because God is sovereign!   

The practical answers in this realm are clearer than the systematic answers. God is sovereign so I trust him to work all things for the good of those that love him. He has told me what his kingdom looks like so I pray and act to see that come about. It's like I am on a rope being pulled out of this dark and deadly world. I may get cut and scraped along the way but at least I have hold of the rope and know I will come though it and be rescued. The question then becomes why not rescue me another way? I have to trust him that he is rescuing me and others in the best possible way.   

Put on the full armour of God

Just got a few mins to post some more notes from the Brighton leadership conference. They are from Terry's talk on Eph 6 about the armour of God. I've found it so helpful to go through them again. One memorable highlights was the "Oh look there is some dog poo" comment about religion. It was a vivid illustration but the point has stayed with me. I found it so helpful the way he looked at some great men of God and pointed out that at some time or another you leave the lime light, or the anointing changes or fades and it's just you and God again. I really want to make sure I am rejoicing that my name is in the book of life and not in any of the things he is letting me do. Not that I am doing much at the moment but I so want to see more power in healing and prophecy etc. This truth must be deep in my soul, that I am accepted in Christ, not because of anything I have done. My motivation for gifting must be love. Nothing more, nothing less. Hope the notes make some sense:

• Sword of the spirit.
• Not defending, it's against the enemy. The aggressive use of truth.
• Not proof text but holy spirit inspired utterances.
• Helmet of salvation.
• Salvation now is small fry next to the future event of salvation from hell and judgment. The night is far gone. Day is at hand. It's like seeing the thin golden line on the horizon as you fly in an aeroplane. It's the day dawning. In hope we are saved. We are like children waiting for Christmas presents they see under the tree.
• Set your hope on the revelation that is to come.
• "We will look back at our life on this earth as one night in a bad hotel." Mother Teresa.
• Don't feel like God loves you?!!!.... Gird yourself with truth! Truth shapes the way we think. 
• Paul used the glorious passage in Philippians about Jesus being in very nature God to stop two women from fighting. Books have been written about it. Whole libraries, yet it was written for very practical application.
• The breast plate of righteousness.
• Heart, emotions. Satan accuses us day and night. All the time. Drip drip drip.
• It's not the breast plate of performance like in religion where you have to earn God's favour and acceptance.
• Terry to Wendy "Watch out there is a bit of religion down there" in reference to some dog poo. Philip 3:8 "I consider [my good works as a zealous righteous Pharisee] dung"  
• Billy Graham saw thousands saved but now can barely walk, reliant on a Zimmer frame to move. Lucky he never relied on anything but Jesus to save him. Once he could do loads for Jesus now he is far more limited.
• Oral Roberts used to heal hundreds but later in his life the gift didn't seem to work that way anymore. Our faith and joy needs to be in Jesus' righteousness not our own.
• And how do revival leaders feel when the revival stops? When Satan says God isn't with you anymore. It all depends on whether their confidence was in their works or Jesus'.
• Footwear. Stability. The passage says 'stand' three times.
• "Here I stand I can do no other". Luther.
• Os Guinness was a friend of Terry's at bible school.
• Joshua, I have given the city to you.  So Joshua marched all night.
• Shields.
• They would soak their shields in water to extinguish fiery arrows. Fiery arrows are terrifying. Coming from the sky.
• Anxiousness is a sin. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't be anxious.
• Faith is not automatic like a garage door. It doesn't open of itself. You fight the fight of faith. Faith is active.  
• Fear not you worm Jacob I will thresh the mountains through you. Is 41:14-15.
• When Joshua took Jericho they had a good attack but poor defense. Acan took some treasure and hid it. You can be a great TV evangelist seeing miracles and thousands saved but not be guarding your marriage.
• We can't just share our marriage course. At least I hope not. We will be teaching Christian married couples something very different to none Christians. Of course we can share common sense but anyone can do that. "have a date night", "forgive each other", "communicate" etc but our marriages are built upon a different foundation.
• Love your wife, cherish her like Christ did the church.
• All truth is taken by faith. Science is built on presuppositions taken by faith.