x

News

Five Ways Worry Can Be Helpful

by Editor
by Dr Timothy S. Lane

We typically think that worry is a bad habit. But there is a good worry and a bad worry. Bad worry leads you to check out or become hyper-vigilant. Your “fight or flight” instincts are in overdrive when you are doing bad worry. That is usually what we mean when we use the word “worry.” We tend to see it as negative. Good worry, though, allows you to remain engaged, dependent upon God and prayerful. We have come to use other words to describe this kind of worry, like “concern.” It is important to know the difference. So, how do you know when you are engaging in “good” worry? Here are five things you should “worry” about in a good way.

  1. WORRY IS NOT THE SAME AS CONCERN.

If worry is “over-concern,” then it is different from “concern”. It is appropriate to be concerned about things. What Jesus is forbidding is “over-concern,” and not concern, itself.
When my oldest child was beginning to drive, I had legitimate concerns, because I was well aware of how dangerous driving could be if not properly prepared. So I acted as any responsible parent would; I made sure she received appropriate driver training. (I was wise enough to get a professional and not take on the task myself!). And I prayed for her (and for the other road users!).
That was godly concern. It leads to wise action and dependent prayer. Similarly, this is why I lock my doors to our house and pray that God will keep the place safe. There are many other examples from our daily lives which can flow from proper, godly concern: regular doctor checkups, balancing your finances, preparing for a child’s college education, getting your car serviced regularly. Jesus is not telling us not to be concerned about things. He is telling us not to be over-concerned. The two are not the same, and you can recognize the difference because concern takes wise action and prays dependently. Worry, or over-concern, thinks and acts as though everything is either up to you or completely out of control, and prays desperately, if at all.

  1. THE SOLUTION TO WORRY IS NOT BECOMING LAID-BACK.

The answer to “over-concern” is not “under-concern.” The antidote to “over-concern” is not just being a lazy or “laid-back” person. Often times, being disengaged and indifferent can masquerade as godliness when in fact it is not. We all know laid-back people. Maybe you are one yourself. It can seem a wonderful way to live! But it is worth digging below the laid-back surface. Consider these three very different “laid back” people:
First, a person who is laid-back on the outside can still be a deeply worried person on the inside. They mask their anxiety by acting cool and collected. People like this tend to be driven, prickly and overly sensitive.
Second, a laid-back person can also be a deep worrier and one who has chosen to disengage and become indifferent. These kinds of worriers tend to be procrastinators. They avoid life.
Finally, someone can seem very calm and laid-back, but in fact they are deeply engaged with and invested in others’ lives and situations. They care deeply and passionately; and they are taking their worries to God and depending upon him as they face life’s challenges.
Those are three very different ways to be “laid-back.” The first two are not the answer to worry; and the third is not laid-back so much as God-dependent. The Christian life is one of complete engagement, not disengagement. In the same book where Paul talks about not being anxious for anything (Philippians 4:6), he also says, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12-13), and “I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me” (Philippians 3:12).

  1. WORK IS NOT NECESSARILY AN EXPRESSION OF WORRY.

Another common error is to think that the way to avoid worry is to become passive, and simply look to God to provide for all of your needs. Jesus’ illustrations about birds and plants might seem to suggest that passivity is next to godliness! Nothing could be further from the truth. God may provide food for the birds, but they have to actively go and get it. Plants do not automatically grow; they must draw on the nutrients in the soil and sun. So working hard is not necessarily (or even often) an expression of worry. In fact, it is a virtue. The fourth commandment says, Six days you shall labour and on the seventh you shall rest. In 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, Paul says:
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: you should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
And he warns in 2 Thessalonians 3:10: The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat. You can’t get more straightforward than that! So clearly, Jesus is not saying that we are to stop all activities and sit idly by while life happens around us. (Of course, overworking could be a sign that we are deeply, chronically over-concerned; but it is not automatically so). See also, Proverbs 6:6-11 and I Timothy 5:8.

  1. PROTECTING YOURSELF IS NOT THE SAME AS WORRY.

It is important to understand that godly fear and concern for your safety and the safety of others is not the same as the “worry” that Jesus is commanding us to avoid. Suppose that you are driving on a highway at night and you see another car heading toward you. A godly response would be to do whatever you can to steer your car to avoid an accident. Or suppose you are currently fearful for your own safety, or the safety of another person, because you have reason to believe that someone is going to harm you or them. You would be completely justified in doing whatever you can to protect yourself and others from harm. We read in the Gospels of how Jesus himself avoided the crowds who wanted to harm him because he knew he had more work and ministry to do (Luke 4:28-30).
If you are reading this and you are in a situation where you might be abused or harmed, then take action now to protect yourself. Call a friend or a pastor. If you are being threatened by your spouse, a parent, or anyone else, it would be wise and loving to contact an abuse center or the police. That is an expression of godly concern. I want to say as strongly as I can: it is not wrong to take action and seek help if you’re suffering or fearing abuse of any kind.

  1. SAVING AND PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE IS NOT NECESSARILY AN EXPRESSION OF WORRY.

Another common mistake that people have made when thinking about worry is to neglect or even frown upon putting money away for savings. Having a strong portfolio and significant savings may be an expression of worry and placing one’s confidence in finances and wealth, but it does not have to be. Consider Proverbs 6:6-1
Go the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in the summer and gathers its food at harvest. How long will you lie there, you sluggard? When will you get up from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest—and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man.
If you consider the context of Jesus’ teaching on worry in Luke 12:22-34 and Matthew 6:25-34, the obvious issue that Jesus is addressing is: which treasure are you looking to for strength and stability? The parable of the Rich Fool precedes Jesus’ teaching on worry in Luke 12:13-21. The idea of ultimate treasure precedes Jesus’ teaching on worry in Matthew 6:19-24.

Dr. Timothy S. Lane is the Founder and President of the Institute for Pastoral Care, a non-profit that equips local churches to care for their people, and Tim Lane & Associates, a counseling practice located in Peachtree City, GA. He is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), having been ordained in 1991 and a member of Metro-Atlanta Presbytery. He has a Master of Divinity degree and a Doctor of Ministry degree in Pastoral Counseling.

Tim has authored Unstuck: A Nine-Step Journey to Change That Lasts (2019), Living Without Worry: How to Replace Anxiety with Peace (2015), and co-authored How People Change and Relationships: A Mess Worth Making (2007).

Tim’s books are all available in the UK here.

This article appeared on Dr Lane’s website in 2016, and is used with his permission.

Is Forgiveness Possible Without God?

by Solas

In a culture that is frighteningly fast to judge (tweet the wrong thing, and you’re a social outcast) have we forgotten the virtue of forgiveness? But can ‘forgiveness’ really exist without God? In this week’s packed episode of SHORT ANSWERS we dig into all these incredible important questions and show how if you want to really know forgiveness, you need to know God.
For some more reading on this subject, check out the following articles: www.solas-cpc.org/totali-shame-ism-and-the-end-of-mercy/ https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/gavin-matthews-we-must-find-right-response-sri-lanka-easter-sunday-massacre-1418029 https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/gavin-matthews-you-cast-stone-check-youre-not-living-glass-house-2073390

Share SHORT ANSWERS on social media

Please share this video widely with friends or family and for more SHORT ANSWERS videos, visit solas-cpc.org/shortanswers/, subscribe to our YouTube channel or visit us on Twitter Instagram or Facebook.

Support us

SHORT ANSWERS is a viewer-supported video series: if you enjoy them, please help us continue to make them by donating to Solas. Visit our Donate page and choose “Digital Media Fund” under the Campaign/Appeal button.

Creation Stewardship: For the Glory of God and the Good of our Children

by Editor 5 Comments

The Bible helps us to know God, to understand his desire for our relationship to him, and our relationships with one another.  Indeed, the greatest commandment (to love God and to love others, Matt. 22:36-39) and the great commission (to make disciples, Matt. 28:19) both focus on these two relationships, so it is appropriate that these are the focus of our teaching and preaching in the Christian church.  But what about the Bible’s teaching about the rest of God’s creation and our relationship to it?  Is this relevant or important?  Is the earth simply the platform upon which God’s plan for his people is played out?  Is its primary purpose to simply provide us the resources we need (e.g. food, water, energy)?  Teachings about creation permeate both the old and new testaments from the beginning of Genesis (Gen. 1 and 2) to Revelation (e.g. Rev. 21:1, 11:18).
Here let me summarise some key Bible passages and four key principles about creation that emerge from God’s word. These are truths that should guide our relationship to the earth.

  1. God created all of it, its flora, fauna and ecosystems, as well as all natural processes such as plant growth and seed bearing, cycles of day and night, cycles of rain and drying, etc. (Gen: 1:1-2; Prov. 3:19-20; John 1:1-3)

God declared each part of his creation good and blessed each (e.g. fish and birds), expressing his will that they flourish (Gen. 1:22; Psalm 104:24-25; Hebrews 1:2).  God also is the sustainer of all creation and He is sovereign over all He has made (Psalm 104, 145; Coll. 1:17; Hebrews 1:3; Rev. 4:11).  All three key relationships mentioned above (our relationship to God, to one another, and to creation) were marred by the fall.  God’s covenant and his redemptive plan includes not only his people, but all of his creation as well (Romans 8:18-21; Psalm 96:11-13).

  1. It all belongs to him, not to us. God is the owner and sustainer of the earth and everything in it. All that we have and all that we receive from the earth belongs to God

We are stewards, not owners, and our care of creation is a role delegated to us by him.  Thus, our relationship to the earth should be God-centred rather than self-centred.  (I much prefer the term “creation stewardship” rather than “environmental conservation” because it properly emphasises that the earth is his creation rather than our environment.).  Part of the respect we show to others is in the way we treat their possessions.  We show honour and respect to God in the way we treat his earth.

  1. The earth was created for him, not for us (I Col. 1:16, Rev. 4:11). The primary purpose of all of creation is to glorify God, not to sustain us. Although the Lord has blessed us abundantly by providing, through the earth, water to drink and animals and plants for food, trees to shade us etc., the primary purpose of the earth and all its creatures is to glorify God.
  2. God’s creation is an important part of his revelation to us (Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1-2). God reveals his character and his will, and guides and teaches us through both his written Word and his created world. His majesty, power, beauty and goodness are clearly displayed through all that he has made.  Throughout the scriptures we are instructed to observe his creatures, the birds of the air, the lilies of the field, and even ants! (Prov.  6:6-8; 30:24-30). He frequently points us to features of his creation to teach us (e.g. the life and behaviour of animals, the water cycle, the beauty of the mountains, the life cycle of plants, the features of trees, vines, branches, roots, soil).  Each time we cause the extinction of one of God’s creatures, pollute or tarnish one of the ecosystems he formed, or otherwise mar these aspects of his revelation to us, it is like removing or tarnishing pages of the Bible.

So, what do we conclude?  How then shall we relate to the earth and the rest of creation in light of these Biblical teachings?  One clear take-away is that our relationship to the earth and all that is in it should be one of steward, not simply consumer.  The Biblical principle of stewardship (caring for that which belongs to another) applies broadly to correctly handling money entrusted to us (e.g. Luke 16:11-12), to correctly handling Gods’ word (II Tim. 2:15), correctly handling God’s creation, and being good stewards of God’s spiritual gifts to us (I Peter 4:10).
One fundamental difference between our relationship to money or property and our relationship to the natural world is that we are an integral part of the latter.  We ourselves are a key component of the ecosystems in which we live.  Unlike other components of the earth that were created ex nihlo (out of nothing), humans were formed from the dust of the earth.  We were fashioned by God out of the earth, are an integral part of the earth, and our bodies return to the earth upon our death.  Thus, by being good stewards of creation we also care for ourselves and cause human life to flourish.  Because we have largely failed in our stewardship of the earth, the number of human deaths due to an unhealthy environment has been estimated at nearly 15 million annually and increasing, as are the number of environmental refugees. When we affirm, enhance and protect the life of natural ecosystems, we do the same to human life.  Creation stewardship is clearly a pro-life endeavour.
In what is often termed “the creation mandate” in the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve are instructed to maintain a Godly “dominion” over creation, looking out for its good, helping it to flourish, and to (abad) care for it and (shamar) protect it.  The language used in Genesis connotes the kind of dominion that a shepherd has over his sheep, caring for them and protecting them, and doing all he can to help the flock to flourish, not self-serving domination. In Genesis 1:28, the seemingly harsh words kabash (subdue) and radah (rule or have dominion over [KJV]) are set in the context of God’s will of blessing and fruitfulness of all the creatures he has made.  Because we are delegated by God to have dominion over creation and put it in under our subjection, we should model after God in our undertaking of this task and rule the earth in a manner that promotes its flourishing, not its depletion and degradation.  Psalm 145 provides a clear description of God’s model for dominion over his creation.
The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made (vs. 9). The Lord is faithful to his promises and loving toward all he has made (vs. 13). You open your hand and satisfy the desires of every living thing (vs. 16).
God’s desire is that we affirm and protect life, not only for humans He made in his image, but for all the earth.   One clear way we as Christians can honour God is to be good stewards of his creation, so that it will continue to flourish and that it will continue to declare his glory and continue to clearly reveal his nature and character to us.  God has absolute authority, power and sovereignty over his creation. But this does not mean that we should be dismissive of the condition of his earth and creatures, or that our actions have no effect on God’s earth. Just as our attitudes and actions can have profound effects on our relationship to others and our relationship to God, they can influence his created world.  God’s desire is that our influence be positive, life-giving and honouring and respectful of his handiwork.  At several points in the history of Israel, God spoke against his people for their abuse of the land, and in Revelation, God declares his wrath against, among others, “those who destroy the earth” (Rev. 11:18).
Our stewardship of creation is a task delegated to us by God.  As we are made in his image, we should use our God-given creativity and wisdom to promote earth’s flourishing, not to degrade it. For example, the Bible notes that God causes grass to grow for the cattle (Deut. 11:15; Psalm 104:14).  We know through science that the underlying process of photosynthesis explains how grass growth occurs.  Humans have used their ingenuity to enhance grass growth through increasing photosynthesis and plant breeding, greatly increasing the productivity and flourishing of many crops.  Humans have also had the opposite effects through actions such as over-grazing of grasslands which hinders grass growth and degrades grassland and savanna ecosystems.  The latter has been motivated by a desire for maximum consumption rather that sound stewardship.  We should promote the flourishing, not the depletion of the natural resources God provides through his creation.
Stewardship of creation is also an important, but overlooked way we can demonstrate love to others, particularly to our own children and grandchildren.  My wife Barbara and I have four young grandchildren.  We are deeply concerned about the world they will face as they grow up, given the trajectory of both our secular culture and of the earth they inhabit.  We pray that God would intervene in both our society, such that thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and in his creation and our relationship to it, for the good of our children and grandchildren and the good of others.  Many Christians are not fully aware of the seriousness of the current and projected changes in the earth we inhabit, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, etc.
I have been a natural scientist in the field of environmental biology and global environmental change for four decades.  I have been blessed to have been called to a vocation that has allowed me to gain a deeper look into God’s revelation through what he has made, and to study and understand many of the intricacies and complexities of his creation.  My studies have also enabled me to clearly sort out what is true, what is uncertain, what is speculation, and what are clearly false claims regarding these issues in popular media.  One important truth is the reality of human-caused climate change and its serious consequences.  The scientific evidence is unequivocal.  Climate change is likely a greater threat to our well-being than anything that has occurred since we first occupied the earth.  A second thing I know to be true is that unless God intervenes in a miraculous way, if we as God’s people do not change our relationship to God’s creation, and we continue to relate to the earth as consumers rather than stewards, that our children and grandchildren will suffer, and the poor and oppressed throughout the world will suffer even more.
As our actions are causing climate change and other major consequences at the global scale, our children and their children will face a very difficult future, one characterised by at least six major global changes, including:
1) greater frequency and intensity of fires, floods, hurricanes, deadly heat waves and other severe-weather events. With these come their associated losses of human lives and economic and other social costs such as increasing numbers of climate refugees.
2) diminished productivity and nutrition of crops and greater outbreaks of insect and fungal pests.  This will result in greater food costs and food insecurity for everyone, and greater hunger and famine-related deaths for many.
3) greater frequency and severity of disease epidemics, geographical expansion of disease-causing vectors such as malaria-transmitting mosquitoes, and significant decline in overall public health.
4) greater international conflict and a great weakening of national security due to the political and economic effects of increasingly limited resources.
5) greatly reduced benefits of medicines as the biodiversity of plants, animals and microbes that provide the bio-chemicals necessary for new drug discovery are diminished, and
6) reduced ability to experience an un-marred creation and thus reduced opportunity to clearly experience God’s revelation and to know him through all he has made.
For example, we have had a poor track record at the stewardship of the oceans.  At current rates of disposal, by the time our 1-year-old grandson Caleb turns 21 there will be a larger total mass of plastic in the world’s oceans than fish.  God’s sea creatures that were previously “teeming in great numbers” will be outweighed by all the plastic trash we produce.  As we have been displacing God’s creatures with our trash, the result is that more that 70% of the world’s fisheries are being depleted, populations of some ocean species have collapsed, and a major part of God’s revelation to us has been marred.  Closer to home, due to our insatiable appetite for energy, our per-capita consumption of fossil fuels in the U.S.  and resultant per-capita carbon emissions are several-fold higher than the global average and even several-fold higher than other developed countries.  As a result, here in my home state of Colorado, the increasing frequency of floods, fires, and other severe and damaging weather events are causing increased human suffering as well as economic costs (e.g. costs of home-owners insurance in Colorado has increased by more than 75% over the past nine years due to these effects of climate change).  These are not speculative doomsday scenarios.  All of these trends are real, all are results of our poor stewardship of the earth, and all are based on abundant scientific data.
God’s earth and his creatures are far from flourishing and are clearly on an accelerated trajectory of decline.  The principles of ecological thresholds and positive feedbacks explain why almost every time a projection of future change is revised, the revised projection is more severe and more rapid.  We are degrading God’s earth at such an accelerated pace that more than 11,000 scientists world-wide have recently declared climate change a “global emergency”1.
Being a good steward of God’s earth is a significant way we can love our children and grandchildren, as well as others throughout the world who are already suffering from the effects of climate change and other human-caused changes to the earth.
The poor suffer most from the effects of climate change and other global environmental changes because they depend most directly on resources from their local ecosystems for their livelihoods and they have the lowest capacity to cope and to mitigate these effects. Thus, we help the poor and therefore honour God by being good creation stewards (Prov. 14:31; 19:17).
Others adversely affected by climate change include our military men and women.  The U.S. Department of Defense has identified climate change as the greatest threat to international stability and to our national security.  Thus, as we support our military men and women through our prayers, we can also love and support them by reducing our carbon footprint.  Likewise, as we provide relief to those suffering from floods and hurricanes through various ministries, we can also love these people by being good stewards by reducing our use of fossil fuel energy and shifting to sustainable renewable energy sources, by reducing our consumption of single-use plastics and other non-renewable resources, by reducing our consumption of water resources, reducing food wastes, and in general by improving our care for God’s earth and his creatures, and by praying for God’s intervention both in healing his creation and in changing our hearts to transform our relationship to his creation as He transforms our relationship to him and to others.
Finally, I will mention that being committed to care of creation is one of many ways we can be a positive witness to God.  Not long ago I was sitting along the river outside a local coffee shop and commented to a woman sitting near me on the beauty of the river and the sunlit golden colour of the aspen leaves.  This started a conversation about nature and the environment, and the woman shared her concerns about how we as humans have become so disconnected from nature, buried in our cell-phones and other technology, and have done so much damage to the earth.  As this provided a great opportunity, I was able to share my views about nature conservation and my perspective as a Christian that I am thankful for all that God has created and that my motivation for being an environmental conservationist is to honour and thank God.  Conversations about environmental issues and nature conservation can provide great opportunities to share our beliefs with tree-huggers, mother-earth worshippers and others who have very different world views and need to hear the Gospel message.  Discussion of environmental conservation can provide an excellent entry point for us to give testimony to our creator.
This is not about “saving the planet”.  It is not about putting a higher priority on saving seals than saving souls.  It is not about worshipping the creation.  It is not denying the sovereignty of God over his earth.  It is about honouring God by being good stewards of the earth He created for his glory and his good pleasure, and it is about loving others by exerting Godly dominion and caring for God’s earth and sharing all he has provided through his earth with our children and their children.  Our dedication to care for creation is loving, compassionate, pro-human life, and God-honouring, and it can provide great opportunities for sharing our faith with others.

Dr David C. Hartnett recently retired from Kansas State University, where he was a Professor of Plant Biology. He is a plant ecologist specialising in grasslands and savannas. He served as Director of Konza Prairie Biological Station, held a Fulbright Scholarship at the University of Botswana and conducted research across the plains of southern Africa and North America. He has served on editorial boards and review panels for the African Journal of Ecology, the Journal of Rangeland Ecology and Management, the Congressional Subcommittee on National Parks and the National Science Foundation, amongst others.
Notes:
1 Ripple, W. J. et al.  2019.  World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.  Bioscience  http://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806

Book: The Big Ego Trip: Finding True Significance in a Culture of Self-Esteem

by Editor

Professor Glynn Harrison has written a groundbreaking and insightful book. He exposes the idea of ‘self-esteem’ as a circular and unproductive concept – maybe even one that is harmful. He then reconstructs from the ground up, what is helpful [such as specific praise] and puts this firmly in a Christian worldview.
I’m sure we have all seen ridiculous examples of people trying to boost their self esteem by saying stock phrases like ‘I am happy’ or ‘I am amazing’ when the evidence seems stacked against this being true. Being hopeful for a different future is very different from blindly stating those things to be true now. All that happens is you realise how far from the truth this is and (for the person with low self-esteem) this makes you feel worse!
This kind of thinking has also crept into our Churches. It is one thing to believe some of the great things that the Bible says about us as true (such as ‘I am a child of God’) – it is another to make global statements like ‘I am excited about the plans God has for me’ when, to be frank, you are terrified.
This idea of talking yourself into good self-esteem is called ‘Boosterism’ and was one of the core educational techniques of the last few decades. However – shock horror – it does not work. All it does do is make the good feel better and the down feel worse.
Instead, he suggests that a better interpretation of the psychological literature is to see that specific (not global) statements are helpful in accurately appraising our position for the better and not giving in to the lack of specificity and ‘walking through treacle’ of depression. It is helpful to say things like ‘I am not doing so well today, but I hope to do better tomorrow’, or ‘I am not very good at football, but I am OK at drawing.’ This also fits better with the Christian worldview: ‘I am a sinner, but God loves me anyway’, ‘I believe that God will reveal himself to me in time.’
The book starts with a really helpful overview of most psychological theories then explains how they all seems to get bundled together in a culturally dictated mess called ‘self-esteem’ which served a number of post-war purposes but was never really that well through out. By the time the psychologists realised it was not working, the pop-psychology section of your local bookstore had arrived!
If you want a critical [and reasonably academic] look at what happened and how to reclaim positive psychology for good [and for God] then this is a great place to start. The style is easy to read with plenty of illustrations and jokes [a few chuckles form me along the way!].

You can purchase The Big Ego Trip from our book partner – 10ofThose.com

Dr Rob Waller

robwallerhas been a Consultant Psychiatrist for almost 15 years, including two years spent working overseas in New Zealand. He is a Member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and holds postgraduate qualifications in Teaching and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. He is an Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer in the Division of Psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh. Rob is a Director of the ‘Mind and Soul Foundation‘ which exists to educate, equip and engage the church with knowledge, resources and understanding of mental health and Christian belief.

PEP Talk Podcast With Peter S Williams

by Solas

Sometimes we can think of the “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins as the biggest enemies of Christianity today. When we speak about God with our friends, we wonder if they think we’re suffering from a “God Delusion”. How can we respond in a positive way, or even take advantage of the opportunities the new atheism presents? Andy speaks with philosopher Peter S Williams to find out more.

With Peter S Williams – PEP Talk

Apple Podcasts
Spotify
Amazon Music
RSS Feed

Our Guest

British philosopher and apologist Peter S. Williams is ‘Assistant Professor in Communication and Worldviews’ at Gimlekollen School of Journalism and Communication, NLA University College, Norway. Peter is a trustee of the Christian Evidence Society, a Montgomery Trust Lecturer and a Travelling Speaker for the European Leadership Forum. His books include: A Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of Wisdom (Wipf & Stock, 2019) and C.S. Lewis vs the New Atheists (Paternoster, 2013). His papers have appeared in journals including Philosophia Christi, Theofilus and Think. See more at: www.peterswilliams.com

A Beginner’s Guide to the Argument from Design

by Editor

Suppose I discover a Rolex watch lying on the sidewalk in front of the office building where I work. Without hesitation I would pick it up.
My lucky day!
My first inclination would be to keep the watch. But, I would like to think that after the initial excitement of finding such a valuable timepiece, I would make a reasonable effort to find the person who lost the watch.
Apart from a sense of right and wrong, my motivation to find the watch’s owner would ultimately stem from the conviction that the watch didn’t simply come into existence spontaneously from materials in the environment through the outworking of the laws of physics and chemistry. If it did, why should I feel compelled to try to find the watch’s rightful owner?
I also know that the watch probably belonged to someone who purchased it with his or her hard-earned money. More than likely, the merchant got the watch from a distributor; and the distributor from the manufacturer. Ultimately, the watch traces from buyer to manufacturer. The manufacture of the watch, of course, required the work of a watchmaker.

The Watchmaker Argument
The reasoning that would lead me to seek out the watch’s owner undergirds one of history’s best-known design arguments: the Watchmaker argument. This argument was posited by Anglican natural theologian William Paley (1743–1805) in his 1802 work Natural Theology.
For Paley, the characteristics of a watch and the complex interaction of its precision parts for the purpose of telling time were signatures for the work of an intelligent designer. Paley evokes the work of that kind of skilled craftsman in Natural Theology:
When we come to inspect the watch, we perceive—that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose . . . The inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker, that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which, we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.

The Skeptics’ Challenge
The Watchmaker argument hasn’t fared well over the centuries. Skeptics often point to David Hume’s critical analysis of design arguments, which appeared in his 1779 work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, as devastating to Paley’s case for the Creator. Hume leveled several criticisms against design arguments. The foremost, however, centered on the nature of analogical reasoning.
Based on Hume’s arguments, skeptics curtly dismiss the Watchmaker argument, maintaining that the two things compared—organisms and watches—are too dissimilar for a good analogy. Hume asserted that the strength of an analogical argument depends on the similarity of the two things compared, insisting that:
Whenever you depart, in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty.
The merit of the Watchmaker argument then rises and falls on the question: Do living systems resemble machines made by human beings enough to warrant the analogy between the two? If so, how strong is this analogy and, consequently, the conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from it?

The Argument from Design
Though the Watchmaker argument was advanced over two centuries ago, it’s still relevant today—Hume’s criticisms not withstanding—particularly when applied to biochemical systems.
In Paley’s day, no one knew anything about the complexity of even the simplest cell. But today we have peered into the cell’s inner workings and have discovered complexity, unimagined. For example, a number of protein complexes that perform vital operations for the cell bear an uncanny resemblance to machines made by human designers. This eerie similarity gives new vitality to this old argument.
In my book The Cell’s Design, I describe how some of these biomolecular machines are configured and how they work. Here, I would like to focus on one of these protein machines.
F1-F0 ATPase
This well-studied protein complex plays a key role in harvesting energy for the cell to use. F1-F0 ATPase is a molecular-scale rotary motor.

Figure: ATP Synthase. This cartoon shows the construction of the molecular motor F1-F0 ATPase, including its rotor, stator, turbine, and cam. Image credit: Reasons to Believe
The F1 portion of the complex is mushroom-shaped and extends above the membrane’s surface. The “button of the mushroom” literally corresponds to an engine turbine. The F1-F0 ATPase turbine interacts with the part of the complex that looks like a “mushroom stalk.” This stalk-like component functions as a rotor.
Located in the inner membrane of mitochondria, F1-F0 ATPase makes use of a proton gradient across the inner membrane to drive the production of ATP (adenosine triphosphate), a high-energy compound used by the cell to power many of its operations. Because protons are positively charged, the exterior region outside the inner membrane is positively charged and the interior region is negatively charged. The charge differential created by the proton gradient is analogous to a battery and the inner membrane is like a capacitor.
The flow of positively charged hydrogen ions through the F0 component, embedded in the cell membrane, drives the rotation of the rotor. A rod-shaped protein structure that also extends above the membrane surface serves as a stator. This protein rod interacts with the turbine, holding it stationary as the rotor rotates.
The electrical current that flows through the channels of the F0 complex is transformed into mechanical energy, which then drives the rotor’s movement. A cam that extends at a right angle from the rotor’s surface causes displacements of the turbine. These back-and-forth motions are used to produce ATP.
As a biochemist I’m probably not alone in recognising how the discovery of this remarkable machine energizes the Watchmaker argument. But what about Hume’s criticism?

Nanotechnology Weighs In
The science of nanotechnology provides a powerful rejoinder to Hume. One of the challenges facing nanotechnology centers around the need to generate controlled motion in nanodevices. In an attempt to solve this problem, researchers have proposed interfacing biomolecular machines to nanodevices. For example, Cornell researchers have attached nickel nanopropellers to the F1-F0 ATPase rotor isolated from the cell. Upon the addition of ATP, the F1-F0 ATPase rotor turned the nanopropellers. When the researchers added compounds that inhibit the protein machine, the rotation stopped. In other words, the F1-F0 ATPase rotor turned the nanopropeller because it is a machine.
The key point to bear in mind is that the researchers conceived and then used the F1-F0 ATPase as an actual machine. By demonstrating its function, their work drives home the recognition of the machine-like character of biomolecular motors.
In this way science affirms the Watchmaker argument by showing that, indeed, there must be a Mind who comprehended the construction of F1-F0 ATPase and designed its use.

Dr Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana is Vice-president of Research and Aplogetics at Reasons to Believe. Prior to joining this ministry, Dr Rana was a biochemist, working in Research and Development for a Fortune 500 company in the USA.

Salisbury, the gospel, curry and questions!

by Editor

The night before our Confident Christianity conference in Salisbury, Andy Bannister spoke at a men’s curry night in the city. Almost sixty guys came to the event, and packed the place, which was really encouraging. The evening was aimed at people who are not Christians, the folks in the local church had invited friends along.
St Paul’s church in Salisbury hosted the event, in a café they own called The Hope Centre, close to the centre of the city. The curry was really great, cooked by a former Army chef – which everyone really enjoyed. Then Andy Bannister addressed the subject of “The Pursuit of Happiness”. It’s a topic that seems to work particularly well in café-style settings, outside the traditional walls of the church.
Our culture encourages us to seek affirmation in things like work, performance, success, sexuality, and so forth. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these things, but they are not designed to be ultimate; which means that if you make them the ultimate thing then ultimately they will let you down! Partly that’s because they are ephemeral. Food for example, is wonderful, it’s a basic need, which when met provides a level of satisfaction; but doesn’t provide ultimate meaning, significance and satisfaction. It produces a temporary sense of wellbeing, which is good – but not permanent happiness. A parallel with food can obviously be made with sex; as while both are good, neither are ultimate. Finally, we all need something bigger than ourselves as a foundation for happiness, security, identity, and our very selves. That foundation, is of course the gospel – Jesus said “I have come that you may have life, and life in all its fullness (John 10:10).
After Andy’s talk, there was a really open, lively and thoughtful Q&A session – in which it was obvious that people were really thinking the whole issue of happiness through in new ways. The ‘happiness’ topic is particularly helpful in meetings such as this. Christian apologists typically go for subjects such as “Evidence for the existence of God”, or “God and Science”, which are great subjects for people who are thinking about faith and raising objections. However the ‘happiness’ topic is a great one for engaging people who are perhaps agnostic, or even apathetic, because it shows them that ‘the God question’ really matters. In the Q&A in Salisbury, some of the audience raised questions such as “Well, what you’ve said makes sense but what about…….” and then raised objections and apologetic issues. That’s really significant because those people are now ready to engage with the apologetic issues.
Blaise Pascal said, “Preach the gospel in such a way that good people wish that it were true; then show them that it is!” The “Pursuit of happiness” question addresses the first part of that, whereas a lot of our other work at Solas, moves onto those other issues. Confronting the objections of sceptics is really important, but so is arousing the interest of the apathetic by showing them that the gospel has something powerfully relevant to say about aspects of life they already care deeply about.

Did Jesus Actually Exist? | Andy Bannister

by Solas

Was Jesus just a myth, a fiction created by the early church? Or did he really exist as a well-documented figure in the historical record? Wherever we look among professional historians of all faiths or none, Andy Bannister finds there is an overwhelming consensus that Jesus actually existed. Today on Short Answers, he explains why.
For a more in-depth look at this subject, Andy recommends John Dickson’s “Is Jesus History?”, mentioned in this video.

Share SHORT ANSWERS on social media

Please share this video widely with friends or family and for more SHORT ANSWERS videos, visit solas-cpc.org/shortanswers/, subscribe to our YouTube channel or visit us on Twitter Instagram or Facebook.

Support us

SHORT ANSWERS is a viewer-supported video series: if you enjoy them, please help us continue to make them by donating to Solas. Visit our Donate page and choose “Digital Media Fund” under the Campaign/Appeal button.

‘Holy Sexuality’ – Solas in Conversation with Christopher Yuan

by Editor
Gavin Matthews spoke to Christopher Yuan for solas

Solas: Hi Christopher. Let me start by asking how long have you been a theologian, writer and lecturer?
CY: Hi, it’s good to speak to you! Well I’ve been lecturing for about 12 years now, I’ve been an author for 8 years, but I’ve been speaking for about 15 years.
Solas: So, how long have you been a Christian..?
CY: I’ve been a Christian only about 20 years, I didn’t come to faith until I was 29.
Solas: And that was the subject of your first book….?
CY: Correct – my memoir, “Out of a Far Country”
Solas: Where did you first come across Christ, where did you first encounter the Bible’s message. What did you think of it, and how did Christ win you for himself?
CY: Well, I wasn’t raised in a Christian home, I didn’t own a Bible or go to church. But my parents raised me with very traditional Chinese values, strong family values. But I wrestled with my sexuality from a young age. I came across pornography at about 9 years of age, and that was the first time that I realised that I had these attractions but I kept them hidden. Back in 1979, homosexuality was not talked about at all, so I kept those feelings hidden through high school, college even when I was in the Marine Corps, at college.
It was not until I moved to Louisville Kentucky to go start dental school that I “came out of the closet” and after about a year I went home and told my parents. This devastated my Mum and Dad, they weren’t Christians but amazingly God actually used that crisis to bring my mother to faith first, and then a few months later my father as well.
I thought they had lost their minds. I am of the first generation of my family to be born in America to Chinese parents who came to the US to pursue the American dream – and I would say they succeeded in that and yet they were miserable and about to get a divorce – until they became Christians. I went in the opposite direction, I thought “good for you – you’ve saved your marriage” but not for me.
Then, while in dental school, I spent a lot of time in gay clubs. I also started using and selling illicit drugs and was later expelled from dental school. So I moved to Atlanta, Georgia and eventually became a supplier to drug sellers in over a dozen states.
Meanwhile my parents prayed for a miracle. My mother prayed that God would do “whatever it takes” for me to come to surrender my life to Jesus. She prayed and fasted every Monday for seven years, she fasted once for 39 days, and enlisted over a hundred prayer warriors to pray and fast for me. However I remained totally resistant, to the point that once, when my parents came to visit me I kicked them out! As they left, my Dad gave me his Bible, but I immediately threw it in the trash.
The miracle they prayed for started with a bang on my door from twelve drug enforcement officers, a lot of police and two big German Shepherd dogs. So I found myself in jail and I called home. I was dreading making that phone call. My mother’s first words were “Are you OK?” No condemnation, just unconditional love and grace.
In prison, I was diagnosed with HIV, and hit a personal low-point. A few days after that I was walking around the cell block and I passed by a rubbish bin, and what I found on top of the trash was a Gideon’s New Testament! I took it to my cell and began reading it and God began to convict me. The first thing He had to deal with in me was my drug addiction. I would say that within the first few months, God freed me from the bondage of that struggle. God kept dealing with me and my idols – and the biggest one was my sexuality.
I began reading the Bible and I came across these passages that seemed to condemn a core part of who I am – my sexuality. So I went to a prison chaplain and asked him his opinion. Surprisingly he told me the Bible does not condemn homosexuality and even gave me a book. So I took that book, thinking I could find biblical justification for homosexuality. I had that book in one hand and the Bible in the other. And everything inside me wanted to agree with what this book was saying. I look back now and understand it was God’s indwelling Holy Spirit who convicted me that those sources were a clear distortion of God and His word.
So I gave the book back to the chaplain and turned to the Bible alone and I went through every verse, every chapter, every page, of scripture – looking for a justification for homosexuality. I wanted an answer as to what God teaches on this. And I realised that it was really clear. God does not bless monogamous same-sex relationships. Which also meant I was at a turning point, and had to make a decision. I either had to abandon God, abandon His word and live as a gay man in a monogamous same-sex relationship, allowing my attractions to dictate who I was; or abandon pursuing a monogamous same-sex relationship by freeing myself from my sexuality by not allowing my desires to control who I was – and to live as a follower of Christ. My decision was clear and obvious. I followed Jesus.
Solas: You didn’t just talk about being freed from behaviours, you went a stage deeper and talked about being freed from ‘idols’ – tell me why you phrased it like that…?
CY: In my first book, Out of a far Country, I explained that while I was in prison I was dealing with a lot of idols. I am from Chinese culture where Buddhism has many physical idols. Now, I didn’t have any idols that I bowed down to, burnt incense to or whatever. But an idol is really “anything in my life that I can’t live without”. That for me was the drugs, and the party scene, and my sexuality. I realised that I couldn’t live without my sexuality – so that was an idol. It wasn’t just a behaviour pattern – it was who I was.
So in Holy Sexuality and the Gospel, my new book, I begin with personhood.  I don’t know of any other sin-struggle where we have conflated behaviour, or even sinful desires with identity. For example, if you have a friend who is a liar, we don’t view that as who he is but what he does. Yet when it comes to sexuality: gay/straight/bi/homo/hetero we have made it who we are.
As Christians we don’t always recognise that when we talk to our gay friends about sinful behaviour, we are misunderstood. I never (as a gay man) heard that what I was doing was sinful, but what I heard was that the Christian was telling me that my entire person from head to toe was reprehensible before God.
So God needed to separate those issues and show me that sexuality is not who you are, but how you are! When I was able to separate that, then God was able to tell me who I was – that I’m created in His image.  But our fallen nature is inclined towards sin and that we need Christ’s redemption to know the true image of God which is Christ. So that means our identity needs to be in Christ. When I realised that, it was quite radical.
God called me to full-time ministry while I was in prison. My sentence was miraculously shortened from 6 to 3 years. I got out of prison and went right to Moody Bible Institute, and studied biblical languages, finally earning a doctorate and was able to write my book.
Solas: So in the new book, you try to recapture the vocabulary around sexuality into biblical categories, and away from some of the psychological categories, of the normal discourse in our culture.
CY: Yes! Because even among more evangelical/conservative Christians who hold to biblical sexual ethics that marriage is between a man and woman; there’s still diversity and ambiguity.  So, I wanted to do away with some of that ambiguity and be as precise as possible. So for example, the term “gay” today means more than just a person who has enduring patterns of desire towards the same sex, but has come to be conflated with personhood, identity and ontology. I find that a bit problematic because sexuality is not who we are, but how we are.
In an agnostic or atheistic world-view framework, without God to give life purpose meaning and dignity, we have to create value, dignity and purpose for ourselves. So the mid-1800s brought us the Romantic period in which there was an emphasis on emotions. Because if there is no God – then what else is there so we need to be tune with our emotions?
Then there were philosophies like existentialism, in which we have to create our own values by what we do and our experiences in life.  But Romanticism and Existentialism lead to futility and emptiness. How can we create our own value? How can we actually base our true essence in what we feel and do? That ultimately leaves a void into which God’s beautiful, wonderful and biblical truth of who He is and who we are as revealed to us through scripture, comes in.
So it was really important to begin my book with identity—but also to give clear categories, that are biblical and razor-sharp clear, especially when we talking to Christians. Obviously when we are talking to non-Christians, biblical categories don’t make any sense. For example, “attraction”. There is a lot of discussion amongst Christians today about whether attractions, particularly same-sex attractions are sinful or not.
I’ve heard both sides and I believe we can move forward by not using a category difficult to define, but using clearer biblical categories correlated to attraction. I have a chapter on “desire” and one on “temptation” in my attempt to bring more clarity to the topic.
As a matter of fact the cover of my book was very intentional. It may not seem very creative (it’s black and white!) but it was very intentional in that we are living in a world of grey today; fifty shades of it right? A world of grey in which all these various forms of shades are celebrated but biblical sexuality is truly just black and white. And I wanted to bring that clarity and not just redefining the definitions and categories, but actually using biblical categories.
Solas: And you bring up something which is not very popular today – to bring up the old language “the mortification of the flesh”. What does that mean theologically, what does it mean for you..? And why that is such a critical thing in the book..?
CY: Yes, yes! I was relying on the Puritans and the theology of John Owen, he wrote a lot about the mortification of the flesh, using Paul’s words that we need to ‘put to death the deeds of the body’. So I broke it down to ‘temptations’ and ‘desires’ and if I could be very specific, same-sex sexual temptations and same-sex sexual desires.
Same-sex sexual temptations, in and of themselves are not sinful (but rooted in our sin nature). Jesus was tempted in every way, yet was without sin, Hebrews says. So temptation is not sin, but giving in to temptation is sin. Then we come to same-sex desires.
I’ve heard people say that same sex desire is not sin, but lust is sin. But, that’s problematic because if you actually look at the way the Bible uses the word “desire” and “lust”, it’s the same Greek word epithumia and it’s the same Hebrew word we’d translate as ‘covet’ or ‘desire’. So I realised that it’s not that desire turns into lust, it’s that wrongly ordered or wrongly intended desires is lust, is sin. So my same-sex desires are sinful; but the temptation isn’t, therefore I needed to realise that my same-sex desires needed to be ”mortified” – or put to death.
However, in my chapter on desire I also talked about romantic desires. In my love of precision of language I divide desire into three categories, sexual, romantic and platonic desires. When we are talking about interpersonal relationships and desires, same-sex sexual desires are sinful and same-sex romantic desires are sinful, but same-sex platonic desires are not.
This is where I would disagree with those who argue that desires for friendship are part of their sexuality. Those who say their goal is a covenanted friendship or spiritual friendship, they have conflated platonic desires with sexuality. I disagree. If we have broadened non-sexual, platonic, non-romantic desires to be part of our sexuality; then sexuality has no more meaning. Everyone would be “bisexual”.
So with that clarity, I realised that my same-sex attractions needed to be mortified. It wasn’t something I could dress up to look good, or sanctify – it was something that I needed to resist. And that is just a helpful way to think. I don’t think it is a bad thing, because sometimes people think “that is so depressing”, but if you read the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says “if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off”. So we don’t try to dress it up, or hide it behind our back or sit on it. Jesus says if your right eye causes you to sin gouge it out. Now that’s going to be painful. Sanctification is difficult and sometimes painful—but worth it!
However some believe same-sex desires are just a disability, like deafness. As in, something that just needs to be tweaked bit, refined a bit or pointed in the right direction, or maybe just healed a little bit, or sanctified and made better, thus some would say, “my gay-ness – aspects of it are bad, but there are other aspects that can be good. Good can come of me being gay.”
However, if we view this as something which is rooted in our sinful nature, (and Paul and Jesus are very clear about this) – then it is something that needs to be ‘put to death’ or ‘mortified’ and cut off. That is much more helpful because when we mortify the flesh, then we can be more fully submitted to the Spirit. That’s what Paul talks about, there is a battle going on between our sin nature (our sarx) with the Spirit. And that’s a real, true, daily battle for the Christian.
Solas: You talk about what the Spirit wants to ‘cut-off’; but you also have a very positive vision of what the Spirit wants to build in the church, the body of Christ into a family…. Tell us about that. And how it must include single people and how the church has been so terrible at that..
CY: Amen – yes!
Here’s what I saw was missing in a lot of the writings in the past when books addressing the issue of sexuality focused on individuals and orientation change. So I wanted to bring a bit of correction. We get it wrong when it comes to singleness because we don’t understand “spiritual family”.
Spiritual family means the body of Christ, the local church. But the local church wasn’t even discussed when it comes to ministering to the same-sex attracted. There were a lot of support groups and different types of therapies and counselling and then today we have an approach with a lot of emphasis on how to help individuals who have that ‘double-whammy’ of not only experiencing same-sex attraction, but also of being single.
But Christians have often not been good at building intimacy outside of marriage or our physical family. We have totally denigrated healthy intimacy among men, and healthy intimacy among women. Because today if you get too close – people will think that you are gay!
Actually there is not a lot the in the Bible about friendship, but it has a lot to say about family. The Biblical story has a narrative arc. The Old Testament emphasises the physical family, but the New develops the idea of spiritual family – what I like to call the eternal family, which is the body of Christ. The New Testament writers talk about “brothers and sisters”, and we’re known by our love. 1Cor13 – that whole “love chapter”, which has almost exclusively read at weddings (and it works there) and yet when we look at the context, Paul was not talking about husbands and wives, but about how brothers and sisters in the Lord are to love each other in the church.
Where I believe that the “ex-gay” organisations which focus on ‘orientation change’, are off (some have closed, and some have adopted very unbiblical views of sexuality) is that they were untethered to the body of Christ, the local church. But on the other end, are “gay celibate Christians” who form mini-communes in the US where a group of “gay celibates” moved in together. Some of those have then abandoned biblical ethics and have “fallen in love”.
We can’t be untethered from the church. The local church is our family, where we are fed every week. Friends don’t come together and preach to each other. And what about the sacraments? There are reasons why we have the Lord’s Supper. If you want a “covenanted relationship”, the Bible provides that in the spiritual family! What greater symbol of the covenant than baptism? Entrance into the covenanted family! The other great symbol of the covenanted family is communion – that continuous reminder that we are covenanted together! There is also headship. God gave us elders and pastors to be our shepherds in true discipleship and mentoring in the church.
Solas: So, having talked a bit about the content of the book, tell me who you wrote it for, who you hope will read it, and how it will impact them..
CY: I wrote this book first for those who have been personally impacted by this topic of sexual identity, or with a loved one. The younger generation especially have a passion to know, ‘how do we better share Christ with our neighbours who are gay’? But since the book came out our ministry has received countless e-mails from people who read the book to help them share Christ with a gay friend, but were surprised that actually it was helpful for them personally too.
I wrote 4 big chapters, 2 on marriage and 2 on singleness. Books often talk about what marriage is, but few books talk about what marriage is not! There were some corrections I wanted to give to conservative Christians who want to uphold the sanctity of marriage. Some overdo it, and I offered a healthy biblical correction to challenge people. Then there are 4 chapters at the end which give us practical action steps on how to minister to Christians who have same-sex attractions, but also share Christ with loved ones in the gay community.
My first book is for the heart – my story. The second one is for the head and then for the hands to think right before we go and do right.
Solas: And what have reactions to the book been like?
CY: Varied – but very positive! I do get a lot of naysayers. However the criticism seems to have changed. We are no longer accused of just being hateful; now we’re accused of being “harmful”, that Christian perspectives are actually hurting people, and killing people. According to those who oppose us, gay young people are committing suicide today, because of our perspective. That’s a pretty serious claim, which I’ve considered. Am I causing harm? That’s the last thing we want to do. The claim is that Evangelicals who believe that same-sex behaviour is sinful, cause stigma which drives suicide rates up. However, what’s quite interesting is if you go to the Netherlands, one of the most gay-affirming countries in the world, there is very little Evangelical Christian presence, and same-sex marriage has been legal for years – and affirmation of gay relationships amongst young people is normal; you would expect suicide rates to be down. But they are not. In fact, gay teen suicide rates are higher than amongst their counterparts.
Solas: So mixed reactions to the book? Some people loving it, some people pushing back against it?
CY: Yeah – some people thinking I’m killing people! I was at a church this last weekend and the entire pastoral staff read my book, Holy Sexuality and the Gospel, and a lot of people are finding it really helpful. That’s what I wanted to see – a helpful resource for the body of Christ.
Solas: Thank you! This has been a fascinating conversation, which will no doubt cause a lot of discussion. Thanks so much for your time. Will you be back in the UK anytime soon?
CY: No plans, at the moment – but I’ll let you know when I am!
Solas: And perhaps Scotland will be on your agenda next time…?
CY: I hope so!

Dr. Christopher Yuan has taught the Bible at Moody Bible Institute for over ten years and his speaking ministry on faith and sexuality has reached five continents. He speaks at conferences, on college campuses, and in churches. He has co-authored with his mother their memoir, Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God, A Broken Mother’s Search for Hope (100,000 copies sold and now in seven languages). He is also the author of Giving a Voice to the Voiceless. Christopher graduated from Moody Bible Institute in 2005, Wheaton College Graduate School in 2007 with a Master of Arts in Biblical Exegesis and received his doctorate of ministry in 2014 from Bethel Seminary. Dr. Yuan’s newest book is Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by God’s Grand Story

Christopher Yuan’s books are available here;
Holy Sexuality and The Gospel
Out of a far Country

Several of Christopher’s talks are available online including:
This lecture on Holy Sexuality 
Family testimony: 

Christopher’s website is here.

Book: Gunning for God: Why The New Atheists are Missing the Target, by John Lennox.

by Editor
lennox gunning for god

Gunning for God is John Lennox’ reply to the critique of religion in general and Christianity in particular, which has been so loudly and trenchantly offered by writers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and the late Christopher Hitchens. In chapter after chapter, analysing different aspects of their work, he finds their arguments flawed, their understanding of Christian belief skewed, and their use of evidence faulty. Lennox’ most significant claim, however is that the New Atheists fail to live up to their own much-vaunted standards of objective enquiry, when it comes to matters of faith. Because they are led by a mistrust of religion which has spilled over into distaste and then blind-prejudice, the New Atheist literature if filled with misquotations, misrepresentations and unsupported assertions, which Lennox exposes and dismantles with some relish.
For his part, John Lennox is a Professor of Mathematics at The University of Oxford, sometime lecturer in the Philosophy of Science, and someone who has publicly debated these issues with Dawkins and Hitchens. He also writes from distinctly Christian convictions – and wishes the reader to know why (contrary to the New Atheist assertions to the contrary) these form part of a seamless worldview with his science – and not in contrast or contradiction to it. This is where the book begins, but soon moves forward to consider things such as Hitchens’ ‘religion poisons everything’ argument. Lennox ably demonstrates the historical silliness of this argument – and counters with the record of atheism, both in government and in the “wildly intemperate” statements about curtailing the freedom of belief and conscience that atheist writers such as a Sam Harris have made.
The latter half of the book focuses more on Christianity in particular, and deals in detail with some of the critiques of Christian theology which have been raised, such as the morality of the Bible and the doctrine of the Atonement (Jesus died in our place to reconcile us to God). Here Lennox finds countless examples of (wilful?) misunderstanding of what Christians believe, and the construction and subsequent demolition of straw-men instead of careful argument, especially in the works of Dawkins, which he lambasts. Finally the book ends with a defence of the historically credibility of the central Christian claim that miracles occurred in Christ’s life (engaging with Hume’s argument), culminating in his resurrection from the dead.
This remarkably combative book pulls no punches, and demonstrates many of the flaws in the writings of Dawkins et al. concisely and aggressively. While no doubt Lennox would listen attentively if Dawkins were to be lecturing in his specialist area of biological research, it soon becomes apparent that he takes a very dim view of Dawkins ability to comment meaningfully in the areas of philosophy or theology.
Gunning for God, makes a strong contribution to this debate which has dominated so much public discourse about faith over the last decade or so. No doubt believers will be heartened by this book, and followers of Dawkins et al, very irritated by it. It deserves to be widely read, especially by people who have embraced the New Atheist worldview. At the very least, serious engagement with Lennox would help them to adjust any serious misrepresentations of Christian faith they have accepted from the New Atheist writers.
This otherwise excellent book would greatly benefit from the addition of a proper index.
Gunning for God by Prof John Lennox is available here (paperback £6.99)

PEP Talk Podcast With Mary Jo Sharp

by Solas 1 Comment

How can we present the gospel through our lives and in our churches when, unlike Christ Himself, we are far from perfect? Navigating the tricky waters of hypocrisy or painful experiences is so important in bringing friends and family to Christ. This time on PEP Talk, Mary Jo Sharp reflects on her own journey from atheism to faith, and how she dealt with these kind of issues.

With Mary Jo Sharp – PEP Talk

Apple Podcasts
Spotify
Amazon Music
RSS Feed

Our Guest

A former atheist, Mary Jo Sharp first encountered apologetics in her own spiritual search while seeking answers. Mary Jo is now an Assistant Professor of apologetics at Houston Baptist University and the founder and director of Confident Christianity Apologetics Ministry. She has been featured in Christianity Today’s cover story “The Unexpected Defenders” and is an international speaker on apologetics, focusing on love and logic to uncover truth. She lives with her husband and family in Portland, Oregon. She serves on faculty with Summit Ministries Student Conferences, and is also the author of the top-selling Bible study, “Why Do You Believe That?” as well as Living in Truth with LifeWay Christian Resources. She recently released her book Why I Still Believe.

A Beginner’s Guide to the Fine-Tuning Argument

by Editor 2 Comments

Chili Rating: ? ? ?
In the past few decades a broad consensus has emerged among physicists that a number of aspects of the physical cosmos appear to be ‘fine-tuned’ for life, which is to say, various aspects of its basic structure and of the fundamental laws that govern it are balanced on a knife-edge. If any of them had differed by only a very tiny amount, the universe would not have been capable of supporting life at all. Some of these ‘fine-tuned’ features of the universe are such that had they differed only very slightly, the universe would not even have contained galaxies and stars, let alone complex conscious creatures like ourselves.
There are many specific examples of fine-tuning.[1] Let’s look at just a couple. It’s been estimated by physicists that if the strength of gravity were different by just one part in 1060, there could be no stars and galaxies. A tiny bit stronger and all the matter would have collapsed back in on itself; a tiny bit weaker and the matter would have spread out too quickly for anything like galaxies or stars to be able to form. Another example is what’s known as the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant governs how fast space itself expands or contracts. A tiny bit too strong and the universe would have collapsed back on itself; a tiny bit too weak and the universe would have expanded too quickly for galaxies to be able to form. It’s estimated that the chance of the cosmological constant having a value that would permit life is roughly 1 in 1053.
To be sure, whilst physicists are broadly agreed that the universe exhibits fine-tuning, they don’t agree on the interpretation of this fact. Is it evidence that an intelligent mind stands behind the cosmos? Or does it even call our for explanation at all? These sorts of questions, I would suggest, fall not within the domain of physics but of philosophy.
Here’s one reason that someone might suggest that fine-tuning doesn’t call out for any explanation at all: “If the universe hadn’t been fine-tuned for life then we wouldn’t be here to notice that fact; there’s no other kind of universe we could have observed other than a fine-tuned universe; and so we shouldn’t be surprised to find ourselves in a fine-tuned universe.” The philosopher John Leslie has responded to this objection by way of an analogy.[2] Suppose that you’re about to be executed by a firing squad made up of fifty of the world’s finest marksmen. Each one of them has a live round in his rifle, and each of them has a fantastic aim. They raise their rifles, take aim, and fire, but to your amazement, you’re still alive — every single one of them has missed.
Obviously, you’d think, “this cries out for explanation; there must have been a setup; they must have all missed on purpose.” But suppose someone said to you, “Actually, you shouldn’t be amazed, after all, if the marksmen hadn’t all missed then you wouldn’t be here to wonder about it.” This is a flawed line of reasoning. It’s true that the only scenario you could witness is one in which the marksmen all miss. But the fact that they all missed is very improbable given the hypothesis that they all intended to kill you, and so you should look for another hypothesis to account for what happened. Similarly, it’s true that the only kind of universe we could observe is one which is fine-tuned, but the existence of a fine-tuned universe is very, very improbable given the hypothesis of sheer chance, and so we should look for another hypothesis.
What other hypotheses are on the table? One is that the fine-tuning of the universe is not the result of chance, but rather, the deliberate choice of a rational mind who stands behind the universe. Let’s call this the design hypothesis. But recently another hypothesis has received considerable attention. This is the multiverse hypothesis. The multiverse hypothesis postulates that our universe isn’t the only one, but that instead there exists a whole vast ensemble of universes, differing from one another with respect to their fundamental laws of physics and initial conditions. Given enough universes, the thought goes, at least one of them will have physical laws and initial conditions which make possible the emergence of life.
So the question is: does the multiverse hypothesis account for fine-tuning at least as well as the design hypothesis? The philosopher Robin Collins has written extensively on this question, suggesting that the multiverse hypothesis faces the following dilemma.[3] Either the multiverse is unrestricted — containing every logically possible universe — or it is restricted — containing only some of the logically possible universes. If the multiverse is restricted, then there remains an unanswered question about why the multiverse contains this set of universes rather than any other set, and so the fine-tuning problem is simply pushed up a level. On the other hand, if we appeal to an unrestricted multiverse to explain fine-tuning, this poses serious problems for the very idea of scientific explanation. In a nutshell, the problem is that if the unrestricted multiverse hypothesis is true, then every event that is logically possible is 100% probable — that is, if something is logically possible, then it actually happens somewhere in the multiverse. Suppose you roll a die 100 times and it lands on six every time. Normally, we would regard such an event as calling for an explanation in terms of the die being rigged. But if the unrestricted multiverse hypothesis is true, everything that is logically possible actually occurs, and that includes a fair die landing on six 100 times in a row. It seems like whenever something very surprising happens, the explanation will always just be “oh well, everything that is logically possible actually happens in an unrestricted multiverse, so don’t worry about it.” And that spells the end of scientific investigation. In short, the multiverse hypothesis has serious flaws that render it doubtful whether it really does rival the design hypothesis.
Finally, it’s important to note the limitations of the fine-tuning argument. Just taken on its own, the fine-tuning argument doesn’t show that the God of the Bible exists. But it does, arguably, give a fair amount of support to the hypothesis of an extremely powerful and extremely wise designer, and as such, the fine-tuning argument can form part of a wider cumulative case for Christian theism.


Dr Max Baker-Hytch received his doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford University in 2014. He is Tutor in Philosophy at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. He is also Senior Academic Tutor at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics.

Further reading:

Neil Manson (ed.), God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science (London: Routledge, 2003)
John Hawthorne and Yoaav Isaacs, “Fine-Tuning Fine-Tuning,” in Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)
Robin Collins, “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (Oxford: Blackwell, 2012)

[1] For an overview, see Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2000)
[2] John Leslie, “Anthropic Principle, World Ensemble, Design,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 19 (1982), pp. 141-51.
[3] Robin Collins, “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, (Oxford: Blackwell, 2012)

Confident Christianity in the Cairngorms

by Editor

I’ve been speaking at the church weekend away for Trinity Church in Aberdeen – a really up and coming church. They are currently meeting in a hotel, but they have just bought one of the biggest church buildings in Aberdeen. While there are many churches moving out of the city centre, they are moving back into it! I love what they are doing, they are very missional, have lots of young families, and students and there are lots of obvious signs of growth going on.
Trinity have an annual church weekend away, which they held this year at the Abernethy Centre in Nethy Bridge near Aviemore, deep in the heart of the Scottish Highlands, in the beautiful Cairngorms National Park. I was there speaking for the weekend, and we took the theme “Confident Christianity”. We started on the Friday night teaching people how to use questions and to have natural conversations about their faith – and they were a really enthusiastic and engaged audience! Then, on the Saturday and into the Sunday we looked at various topics such as “Jesus and the failures of the church”. That sessions aims to help people who are drawn to Jesus but are put off by things such as The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, and other times in history where the church has gone badly wrong. Then we looked at suffering and how we can believe in God when there’s suffering in the world? Next we looked at what it means to be human, and whether can be reduced to just being atoms and particles, or if we are than that – and that atheism’s answers to that are actually terrible, while Christian answers are brilliant! Then on Sunday morning we looked at the uniqueness of Jesus in a world of faiths.
It was great to be with them, because not only were all the sessions packed – but the engagement levels were very high too. There were loads of questions in the breaks too, in fact I hardly got a break because people wanted to discuss, and ask questions. We had two, hour-long Q&A sessions, but we could have gone on much longer – because we had questions on every topic under the sun.
Then what really made the weekend for me were some non-Christian people there too, who I’m always drawn to at these events! One lady who is new to the church, is really interested in the Christian faith; and asked some brilliant questions in the Q&A around the issues of truth, and how we can know what is actually true. It’s great to see a church which is such a welcoming community for someone who is searching, and is a place where people and their questions are really welcomed.  I also had another really lovely conversation with someone who isn’t yet a Christian, but is very close, which is really exciting. It was really encouraging to this person engaging especially with the talk on the uniqueness of Jesus. The church seemed encouraged by the weekend – and it was a real privilege to be with them.

Andy Bannister Short Answers 13Andy Bannister is the Director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity

Is There Evidence That There Is a God? | Andy Bannister

by Solas

Do Christians just believe because they believe? Or is there actual evidence that God exists—and more specifically, evidence about which God we’re talking about? In a packed episode of SHORT ANSWERS, Andy Bannister gives a lightning tour of just a few pieces of evidence for God (selected from over a hundred!): evidence from philosophy, from science, from ethics, and from history. For a deeper dive into some of this material, check out our “A Beginner’s Guide to Apologetics” series elsewhere on the Solas website.

Share SHORT ANSWERS on social media

Please share this video widely with friends or family and for more SHORT ANSWERS videos, visit solas-cpc.org/shortanswers/, subscribe to our YouTube channel or visit us on Twitter Instagram or Facebook.

Support us

SHORT ANSWERS is a viewer-supported video series: if you enjoy them, please help us continue to make them by donating to Solas. Visit our Donate page and choose “Digital Media Fund” under the Campaign/Appeal button.

Who created human rights? (and why it’s a problem for atheists)

by Editor
It is 72 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations. Following his Big Conversation debate with Peter Singer, Andy Bannister says the document still poses a significant problem for atheists.
On the 3rd July 1884, four sailors aboard a yacht, the Mignonette, encountered a terrible Atlantic storm. The yacht sank, leaving them stranded in a tiny wooden lifeboat.With little food and no water, by their eighth day adrift they were desperate and so made the fateful decision to kill the cabin boy. For four more days until their rescue, the three surviving sailors fed on the cabin boy’s body.
When they returned to England and the story broke, it scandalised the nation and the survivors were charged with murder and made to stand trial. If you were the judge, what would you do? After all, the story leads to two possible conclusions. The first is purely utilitarian: one person was killed, three people survived. And the cabin boy, unlike the older sailors, had no dependants; his death left no grieving children.
But I suspect few readers would agree with that option. Most of us have a more visceral reaction: what those three sailors did was fundamentally wrong, because they violated the cabin boy’s human rights and dignity.
Free and equal 
Whether it’s a small crime against humanity (the murder of a cabin boy under desperate circumstances) or a major one (the Rwandan genocide or Stalin’s Russia), most people have the same reaction: it is wrong to violate the dignity of another human being. This year is the 72nd anniversary of the document that most famously encapsulates this idea: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was adopted by the United Nations on 10th December 1948 in Paris.
The UDHR opens with these powerful words: “Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
We’re passionate about human rights, we award Nobel Prizes for them, but a fairly basic question is often overlooked. These rights, this dignity that human beings are claimed to have – where is it located? What  is its basis, its foundation? In short, however noble the UDHR may sound, is it true?

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights

These are trickier questions to answer than you might imagine, and the options are limited. Perhaps one might suggest that human rights just are; they just exist. This was the route taken by the secular human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell whom I once debated on Premier Christian Radio’s Unbelievable? show. Tatchell is passionate about human rights, but when I pressed him on why we have them, he basically said they exist because they exist. This is hugely problematic, not just because it’s a circular argument, but because the racist can use the same rationale – they can claim to be superior to other races and when we ask why, reply: “I am because I am.”
Another popular secular route is to try to find something special about human beings: perhaps the fact we have speech, or consciousness, or creativity. Again, as part of ‘The Big Conversation’ series from Unbelievable?, I recently dialogued with one of the most famous atheist philosophers in the world who holds this position. Peter Singer is famous, firstly, for his commitment to utilitarianism – we pick our actions based on what causes the least suffering or promotes the greatest happiness (so cabin boy casserole is very much a real option). But in our conversation Singer also said that what gives us rights and dignity is not that we are human, but that we have the ability to have preferences for the future, and that we can act in accordance with those preferences.

There is a grave problem with trying to ground rights and dignity in somebody’s abilities. Even leading atheist Sam Harris has pointed it out: “The problem is that whatever attribute we use to differentiate between humans and animals – intelligence, language use, moral sentiments, and so on – will equally differentiate between human beings themselves. If people are more important to us than orangutans because they can articulate their interests, why aren’t more articulate people more important still? And what about those poor men and women with aphasia? It would seem that we have just excluded them from our moral community.”

Now the options are getting more limited. Maybe we can say that human rights exist because they matter to me; because they’re personally important to us. The problem, of course, is that when Martin Luther King cries “I have a dream!” in his famous civil rights speech, how do we answer the person who says: “I’m glad you care; but personally I don’t.” Isn’t the point about rights and dignity that we should all care? We need more than mere personal preference.
The last option is to appeal to the state: human rights exist because the government grants them. The problem here is that if rights are something the state gives, the state can equally take them away. In 1857, an African-American slave named Dred Scott sued his owner for his freedom. The US Supreme Court ruled against Scott, the Justices stating that as a “negro”, he did not possess rights.
We hear a story like that, 150 years on, and wince with shame at how our ancestors behaved. But if human rights and dignity are just arbitrary inventions that the state confers, then the state can equally arbitrarily take them away. Tax deductions today, rights deductions tomorrow.

Invented or discovered? 
So how do we solve the problem that many of us are committed to human rights but we can’t ground human rights? Well, the first thing to say is we need to get beyond preference. There’s a huge temptation today to see morals, values and choices as just our personal preference.
I was surprised to discover that even Singer drifts this way at times. I reminded him during our conversation of the passage in his famous book, Practical Ethics (Cambridge University Press), where he basically admits there isn’t really a way to differentiate between a life spent stamp-collecting, a life spent watching football, or a life spent helping the poor. If ethics is just something we make up, then I can see why he is stuck here.
But what if ethics, human rights and human dignity aren’t made up? One of the brilliant insights that the world leaders, philosophers and theologians who crafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had was the assumption that human rights and dignity aren’t invented but discovered. During our conversation, Singer actually admitted this, remarking that he increasingly thinks that moral values and duties exist independently of us, in a “similar way to mathematical truths existing”.

There’s a huge temptation today to define morals as just our personal preference

That’s a massive step for an atheist like Singer to take, for it means that as well as physical things (atoms, particles, tables, chairs, chocolate éclairs etc) you also have invisible, non-physical entities floating around, principles such as “love your neighbour”. For somebody like Singer, who believes human beings are the unpurposed product of time plus chance plus natural selection, this looks remarkably peculiar. As I put it to him in our dialogue: it must have been an interesting day on the Serengeti all those thousands of years ago when one of our ancient hominid ancestors woke up to discover themselves bound not just by the law of gravity, but also by the law of “do not murder”. Was their first thought: “Hoorah! I’m now a moral agent!”, or “Bummer, now I can’t whack the hominid in the next door cave over the head and steal his lunch”?

By contrast, the Christian view of what it means to be a human being and a bearer of rights and dignity starts from a very different place. Christians ground human rights in the incredible truth, proclaimed in texts like Genesis 1:26-27, that human beings bear the image of God, the imago dei. Incidentally, that idea is unique to the Bible. It’s not found in Islam, or Hinduism or Buddhism – it’s a uniquely Judaeo-Christian concept.
Many atheists throughout history have reluctantly recognised this is a far better foundation for human rights than attempting to arbitrarily ground value and dignity in other places. Some of them have also raised the next obvious question of what happens to value and dignity if you pull God out as the foundation. The 19th Century German atheist Friedrich Nietzsche (who hated Christian ethics as he felt it elevated the weak and the poor) was brutally honest: “The masses blink and say ‘We are all equal – Man is but man, before God – we are equal.’ Before God! But now this God has died.”
So, there is a stark choice: one can adopt a Christian understanding of humanity – that we have real value and real dignity, because we are made in God’s image. Or you can reject that narrative, ignore the consequences, refuse to answer Nietzsche and pretend everything is OK.

Where are we going? 

But one last thought. If human beings have dignity, why should that affect how we behave? Suppose you are walking down your local high street when a passer-by trips you up, pokes you in the eye, and steals your Starbucks. “Hey!” you cry. “I have dignity! How dare you!” And they look at you and say: “So what?” How can you compel them to take your rights seriously?
You see, you can’t talk about rights without talking about duties. What is our duty towards a dignity-bearer, towards a fellow human, and why? That question opens a whole new can of worms. Is there a way we are supposed to be? Are some actions really wrong, and some really right? Harvard University law professor, Michael Sandel says: “Debates about justice and rights are often, unavoidably, debates about purpose…Despite our best efforts to make law neutral on such questions, it may not be possible to say what’s just without arguing about the nature of the good life.”
Sandel’s observation gets to the heart of what it means to be a human being. Are we creatures designed to seek justice, goodness and fairness? Or are we just primates that got lucky in the evolutionary lottery and whose genes are purely directed at reproductive success?
This was a topic that Singer and I returned to many times in our ‘Big Conversation’ (see dialogue box above). I remarked to Peter that it’s all very well calling a book Practical Ethics, but that only goes so far. Imagine that I get home from a trip and I say to my wife: “Hey, I just bought this amazing book, Practical Canoeing, at the airport!” Next day I load my wife and children into a canoe and start paddling out into the North Sea. “What precisely is the plan?” my wife begins to ask, increasingly insistently. To which I keep replying: “Honey, stop asking silly questions! Can’t you see how wonderful this canoe is? It’s so practical.” Finally, she shouts at me: “But where are we going?”
Practical ethics, utilitarianism, human rights, and so forth – all these things are all very well, but unless we ask what the purpose of a human life is, what we are supposed to be, what we are supposed to be aiming at, we really will just end up paddling in circles.

If Christianity is true, love is the supreme ethic

As the conversation with Singer shows, if you ultimately believe that the universe is just atoms in motion, that there is nothing intrinsically valuable about human beings, and if some humans have more value than others, because the metric you use to measure ‘worth’ or ‘personhood’ assigns them a greater score, then you have a problem. But by stark, beautiful contrast, if the Christian story is true, then we were made with a purpose. We were made for something. Indeed, made for someone. We were made to discover God’s love, to love God in return, and to love our neighbour. If Christianity is true, love is the supreme ethic – that’s what it means to be human and it gives a value, a purpose, a direction to human life – and a basis not just for human rights but also for our duties to one another.

This is why atheists face such a sharp dilemma. Only if the Christian story is true do humans have dignity and worth. And only on that basis can you talk meaningfully about rights and about responsibilities. Who created human rights? The one who created humans.
Watch Peter Singer and Andy Bannister’s Big Conversation

Dr Andy Bannister

andy-bannister-main_author_line

Dr Andy Bannister is the director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity. This article first appeared at www.premierchristianity.org