When I wrote this, the annual ritual of New Year Resolution-making was in full swing. By the time it is published in February, most of these will lie in tatters. Siddharth Singh mocked on Twitter: “Startup idea: a gym named Resolution that runs for the 1st month of the year, collects a subscription fee, then converts to a bar named Regret” (1) . According to a recent survey 60% of us make these commitments, of which only 8% are kept; the most popular of which include dieting, exercise, weight loss, budgeting, quitting or reducing smoking/alcohol consumption (2).
The underlying message is that most of us are dissatisfied with some aspect of our lives and behaviour, and mark our own report card with the proverbial “could do better”. Yet the evidence suggests that the most important changes are the hardest to convert from aspiration into reality.
2018 was a year of enormous personal change for two people I spoke to; more revolution than resolution in fact. Nathaniel is a politics and philosophy student in Scotland; who described his life as one of exploring questions of meaning by day, and pursuing pleasure – mostly in alcohol, by night. However, academic success, and personal hedonism led Nathaniel not to contentment but to despair. Change came when he began to explore questions of faith, both listening to a Christian speaker; but then exploring the New Testament. Today he describes his newfound Christian faith in terms of God changing his whole life. (read his story here)
Likewise, another University student we met in Dundee, had a parallel experience. He was a convinced atheist, and attended a campus debate between an atheist academic and a Christian. After a long search, and exploring many questions, he became a Christian last May. Now he writes: “I held that atheism and therefore nihilism was true, but saw the inconsistency of this with my own strong conscience and need for meaning. Christians seemed to have better answers as to where to find meaning and purpose than nihilism, scientism or atheism.” The changes which occurred were not mere resolutions of behaviour; but a revolution of the heart.
Alcoholics Anonymous’ 12-step recovery famously involves invoking a ‘Higher Power’ which seems to affirm that deep change requires an external force or inspiration. While Christianity is routinely snubbed by critics as a crutch for the weak, the truth is that our ‘Disneyfied’ culture has taught us to search within ourselves to release the inner prince or princess we were ever-destined to be: but this quest has produced despair in countless people. Many people have searched their souls but instead of finding their true-self, meaning and purpose; have become profoundly disillusioned.
For those two students, the power for change came from outside them, when their materialistic philosophical-nihilism crumbled and they found purpose. The atheist writer David Foster Wallace understands this when he describes the place “where you tap real meaning in life” as “worship”, and remarks: “There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship … is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, then you will never feel you have enough…Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you … Worship power—you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart—you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on”(3).
The point Wallace makes is that the weight of our ‘worship’ must rest somewhere. It is what we worship which really governs the trajectory of our lives, not our well intentioned resolutions.. Mere aspirations prove to be powerless in the face of the power of worship, because finally our behaviour will always default to being an expression of what we value most. Thus the question we must all answer, if we are to gain the power to change, is this: ‘is the object of my worship worthy of it?’
In the ancient world, philosophers debated about whether the universe had a purpose, a meaning, an organising principle. They called it the “Logos”. The extravagant claim of the Christian faith is that this Logos turns out not to be an abstract proposition but a personal God, revealed in Jesus Christ. It was this discovery which those two students, and countless others in 2018 made, which unleashed a power in their lives that went far deeper than mere resolution. Vive la revolution.
_______________________ References:
David Foster Wallace, This is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a Compassionate Life (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2009) p100-110.
Where is God when it hurts? In the latest SHORT ANSWERS video, David Robertson takes a very personal look at the question of where God is to be found when we experience sickness, suffering, or grief.
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.
Every year Open Doors publishes their “World Watch List”; the definitive list of the places where Christians face the most severe persecution. The 2019 list contains some familiar names, but also some surprises.
The fact that the roll-call of shameful governments is once again headed by North Korea is a surprise to no-one. It has occupied this position of notoriety for 18 years. Little of what goes on in the world’s most systematically totalitarian regime is known in the outside world, other than the infamous repression of Kim Jong Un’s regime. For the Christian minority, persecution is notoriously severe, but precise statistics about the numbers involved remain hard to establish. Open Doors’ best estimates suggest that there are between 200,000 and 400,000 Christians, of whom between 50,000 and 70,000 are currently toiling in the brutal labour camps. [note]https://www.opendoorsuk.org/persecution/countries/north-korea/?ref=wwmap[/note]
The Global trend
Steven Pinker points to global trends of healthcare, education, life-expectance and violence and argues that the world is getting substantially better. While there are many reasons to celebrate widespread progress in many fields, this should be matched by concern that for many of the worlds Christians, persecution is getting substantially worse. Henrietta Blyth of Open Doors said: “Our research uncovers a shocking increase in the persecution of Christians globally. In China our figures indicate persecution is the worst it’s been in more than a decade – alarmingly, some church leaders are saying it’s the worst since the Cultural Revolution ended in 1976. Worldwide, our data reveals that 13.9 per cent more Christians are experiencing high levels of persecution than last year. That’s 30 million more people.” That includes one-in-three Asian Christians facing a violation of the human rights, simply on account of their faith. No wonder that British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt estimated that 80% of religious persecution in the world is targeted at Christians.[note]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46682411[/note]
China, which was once thought to be liberalising in its approach to human rights, including the freedom of religion, has moved up 16 places to become 27th worst country for Christians. It is shocking to see India appearing in the top-ten on World Watch List in 2019 for the first time ever.
The Indian Constitution protects freedom of religion and belief [note]https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45303.pdf[/note], yet research demonstrates that Hindu extremists can act with impunity and that violent attacks on Christians and churches are on the rise. This is driven by growing ultra-nationalism, which has brought waves of violence against India’s significant non-Hindu religious minorities. Rising nationalism is leading to similar persecution in other countries such as Bhutan, Myanmar and Nepal where national identity is tied to religion. Formal commitments to freedom of religion are being sidelined, as religious conformity is seen as national loyalty and minority belief a form of treachery.
The Worst Offenders
North Korea once held the unenviable record of bring the only country whose persecution index was ranked in the “severe” category. In recent years it has been joined by Afghanistan (2nd), Somalia (3rd), Libya (4th), Pakistan (5th), Sudan (6th), Eritrea (7th), Yemen (8th), Iran (9th), India (10th) and Syria (11th). The global situation has deteriorated so much that Open Doors have had to recalibrate their ‘points’ system for offending regimes. Nigeria, infamous for the kidnappings of Christian girls, saw 3,700 Christians martyred in 2018, but doesn’t even reach the top ten on this year’s persecution index. Gender-specific persecution is receiving new attention in Open Doors research which shows that that the persecution of men tends to be “focused, severe and visible” and that of women is “complex, violent and hidden”. Men are more likely to face detention without trial, or summary execution; whereas the persecution of women more typically involves sexual violence, rape or forced marriage.
Syria bucks the trend for worsening persecution, as the widespread collapse of the Islamic State regime has stemmed the tide of abuses coming from that context. [note]https://www.opendoorsuk.org/persecution/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA-JXiBRCpARIsAGqF8wWVORVR6zyaJlofh1PrpkYnL9RF79SasesQgiDXrx9gr6av8qk5wloaAk7JEALw_wcB[/note]
Read the World Watch List from Open Doors in more detail here: Persecution, is rated as “Extreme” in North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Iran, India, and Syria. It is rated as “Very High” in Nigeria, Iraq, Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Central African Republic, Algeria, Turkmenistan, Mali, Mauritania, Turkey, China, Ethiopia, Tajikistan, Indonesia, Jordan, Nepal, Bhutan, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Brunei, Tunisia, Qatar, Mexico and Kenya. While the following countries have “High” levels of persecution: The Russian Federation, Malaysia, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Bangladesh, Palestinian Territories and Azerbaijan.
A few weeks ago I had the incredible privilege of speaking at the headquarters of National Geographic Magazine in Washington DC in the USA. I had previously spoken there a few years ago, which was one of my favourite speaking engagements of all-time. I have a friend who is a commissioning editor for the magazine who has created a lovely lunchtime event there. Once a month he brings a Christian speaker in and lots of people invite their friends to come and listen. So we had a room full of people, the majority of whom didn’t have any kind of faith – and there was me!
I spoke on the question, ‘What does it mean to be human?’ For me it is one of the most important questions of our time. On the one hand we have naturalistic atheism which wants to say that we are nothing more than atoms, particles, and molecules; that we are nothing more than the stuff of which we are made. That has huge implications because it is utterly corrosive if you want to think about human rights or dignity or justice. On the other hand you have the Christian worldview, that says that human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). I talked about that for half an hour and then took questions. It was really interesting to see how many people there in that audience were searching spiritually. Lots of people have figured out that atheism doesn’t really work but they are not convinced that religion really works either, and so are very, very open. We see this wherever we go, on university campuses or in coffee shop events, or even here at places like National Geographic, in some ways the ‘high-temple’ of scientific naturalism. You’ll know that if you read NationalGeographicMagazine or watch their TV shows that many there think that evolution is the only game in town. But it was great to speak to a group of people who really were looking for something more and it was an incredible opportunity to present the gospel.
Too often Christians lock the gospel up within the four walls of the Church but we forget that the message of the gospel is persuasive and powerful and has something to say. The gospel has something to say, whether it’s on university campuses, or in culture-shaping institutions like National Geographic.
The icing on the cake, was that as well as the National Geographic’s own offices, they have a little museum and every time I’ve been there they have had different exhibits. This time they had an exhibition on the Church of The Holy Sepulchre — the church in Jerusalem, built over the site which is thought to have been the tomb of Christ. They had produced this amazing three-dimensional show in which you could “fly” through the church, round it, under it and over it! It turns out that National Geographic were involved in restoring the church a couple of years ago. The exhibition around it was incredible, and there were clearly Christians involved because while it tried its best to be neutral, some of the language was pretty Christian. So it was really encouraging to see the gospel being preached, either directly through my opportunity to stand up and say something, or indirectly on the panels about this church in this amazing location. It archaeologically has a good claim, that it very well maybe was the place where Jesus’ body laid for those three days between his burial and his resurrection.
SOLAS: At University, you got very involved in “the New Atheist” thinking, how did you get into that, what grabbed you about their thinking and what persuaded you that they had a case?
PB: I was on a drama course, at University of Kent, 4-year Masters Programme. In that kind of environment you get to mix with all sorts of people who throw all sorts of ideas around. One of my best friends there said, “you must read this book called The God Delusion, it’s absolutely amazing.” So I started looking into Dawkins, watching him on YouTube, and reading the book.
At University, you want to be independent and break off from your parents and do your own thing. In the crowd I was mixing with – a very liberal, expressive, quite emotionally sensitive, crowd, you really do buy into the general narrative; that ‘we’re here to be expressive, experimental and push boundaries, and get in touch with really deep things about human nature’. So regarding ‘religious-stuff’ or ‘God-belief’ the narrative is that it is something oppressive, dull and boring, and for unimaginative idiots. People throw around arguments in the pub such as “the Pope tells people not to use condoms, isn’t he an idiot”. Then, you hear about ‘creationism’ whereas you believe in evolution, and think it makes you a more sophisticated person, because you embrace the grey areas and complexities of the human condition. So the whole ethos was, ‘if you are a sophisticated, intelligent, person, you don’t do ‘the god-stuff’ which is for losers. That was an atmosphere that I very much enjoyed and embraced, because that gave me more permission to just do things my own way. SOLAS: So you were attracted to a non-Christian lifestyle, and Atheists like Dawkins provided you with a justification for that..?
PB: Yes, I’d ditched whatever bits of Christian upbringing I’d had. But what’s interesting about Dawkins is that he was pioneering the view that you don’t have to give respect to religious ideas. In his view, you can just say it’s wrong and that it’s stupid to believe it. I read his book again and again, and the bit I found liberating was when he defined faith as “belief without evidence”. I now know that’s nonsense, but back then, I bought into his definition that faith meant believing stuff without evidence.
Immediately that made sense, and gave me the right to reject anything anyone said if I didn’t think they had provided evidence. That was the ‘golden-card’. I thought that if I stuck to this life principle then it would open the doors for me. I felt that if anything came up to do with ‘God-stuff’, I could just dismiss it. Dawkins threw down the challenge daringly at the time and it seemed compelling. SOLAS: Is Dawkins an ‘anti-theist’?
PB: That term is more used of Christopher Hitchens, I enjoyed discovering him in the “Intelligence Squared” debate, where he, Dawkins, and Grayling, debated three religious people who really didn’t make much of an impression. Dawkins is technically an agnostic, because he thinks that there is something like a 6.9 out of 7 likelihood that God doesn’t exist. His position is that God is the least reasonable option for explaining our existence and the apparent design in nature. Hitchens though says that you should be an ‘anti-theist’, that theism is wrong, and likens living under a creator to being in a ‘celestial North Korea’. They are very attractive people to listen to. Dawkins gives you a sense of being ‘in’ on the wonder of science, and he plays his talents for explaining science and enthusing people about it. He persuades many people that finding science beautiful, and the natural world amazing, means rejecting all religion. So he turns the ‘argument from beauty’ on its head by saying that life is more beautiful and the world more explainable without God, and that belief in God is lazy and boring. Hitchens was incredibly engaging and drank and smoked a lot too, which is also attractive to students! SOLAS: And were you ever a passionate atheist, trying to convince other people?
PB: I really enjoyed getting into the debates and seeing how well I could argue the case. So , yes, I’d fight for it. SOLAS: But then some cracks started to appear. What were the first things that made you question the atheism that you were living, and believing?
John Lennox (photo: John Cairns)
PB: It was when I discovered “good” Christian apologists confronting the New Atheists. YouTube recommended videos with titles like “Dawkins wipes the floor with…” or “Dawkins destroys….” such and such a person. However, through those debates I was exposed to other points of view. Some Christian debaters I saw were really pathetic, waffly and vague. Eventually, though, I discovered William Lane Craig, and John Lennox. The first Christian apologetics book I read was The Dawkins Delusion, by Alister McGrath, which raised some interesting points. However, the heavy-artillery came in with people with philosophical training, like Lennox and Craig. Soon after that, I discovered Justin Brierley’s “Unbelievable?” programme and from there David Robertson. SOLAS: And were there particular lines of argument which were especially important for you as you started to discover Christian apologetics which were persuasive and credible? Were there particular things which were helpful for you at that critical stage?
PB: Well before looking at particular arguments there was a more general theme. Firstly Dawkins and others were struggling when they came up against academically capable apologists rather than the popular-level ones.
William Lane Craig
It was here that I discovered the best way to develop logical argumentation. William Lane Craig was the one that really led the way with that, because of the way he would lay out an argument: “Premise 1”, “premise 2” and the conclusion. That was interesting because even though the New Atheists, put a lot of emphasis on being logical and evidence based, they didn’t really teach how to actually do that. This is why the strongest apologists are those with philosophical academic training. David Robertson is very strong philosophically, with his grasp of logic; but also he’s got a very good history degree behind him. Justin Brierley and his debating show Unbelievable? on Premier Christian Radio also deserves a shout out – I think I listened to the whole podcast catalogue!
When Craig is sharing the Kalam Cosmological Argument, (the one about how the beginning of the universe implies God) he spells it out very clearly. Premise 1: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”. Premise 2: “the Universe began to exist”. Premise 3: “Therefore the universe has a cause”. Then he unpacks the implication of premise three, the nature of the cause. He laid the structure of the argument out clearly so you could see the logic, and the evidence presented to support the premises of his arguments, openly and systematically. Then he would critique Dawkins’ arguments.
The closest thing Dawkins did to that was in chapter four of The God Delusion, where he outlines his central argument, known as “The Boeing 747 Gambit”. Dawkins developed a seven-step argument, which begins with the fact that the universe is complex and looks designed, and the temptation is to attribute this to a designer. But he says this is inadequate because it raises the question, “who designed the designer?” He argues that it’s no good trying to explain this complex universe by invoking something even more complex, as that just magnifies the problem. So basically, it’s a dressed-up version of the “Who made God?” argument. He invokes evolution as a way to get that complex universe from simple beginnings and makes it look as if he has solved the problem.
That looks compelling until someone like William Lane Craig comes along and dismantles it. He shows that Dawkins has made all sorts of logically invalid steps and equivocations. One such example is that Dawkins confuses complexity of function with complexity of structure. He’s saying that the universe is structurally very complex. Then when it comes to God, he assumes that God must also have a complex physical structure. But of course the whole point is He doesn’t! God is Spirit, He is a mind. So the complexity that God has is His power, mind and thoughts (i.e. complexity of function). So Dawkins is making a complete “apples and oranges” equivocation there. He is assuming that the only possible beings are those with complex structures, which is to assume naturalism and thereby atheism implicitly from the outset. This was also later pointed out to Dawkins by the agnostic philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, during his dialogue with Rowan Williams in 2012. Dawkins had nothing to say at the time other than “you cannot be serious” (sounding like John McEnroe!), and then proceeded to complain about “the meddling philosopher” after the event.
So, firstly, I discovered how logical argumentation actually works, and then saw that The New Atheists didn’t live up to that standard, and were being hypocritical.
David Robertson
There were specific arguments too, such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, (the beginning of the universe needs to be explained by God); and The Argument from Contingency (that the universe can’t sustain its own existence so you need to invoke a necessary being, and God is that being). There’s The Fine-tuning Argument, that God is the best option rather than chance or necessity for the life-permitting constants and quantities of the universe. Then there’s The Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, that William Lane Craig, David Robertson and John Lennox weigh in on. Then there’s The Ontological Argument, but The Moral Argument was very significant; because there I found out how weak the New Atheists were. They make moral pronouncements about religion being evil but their responses are an absolute mess when you press them on how they account for the existence of objective moral truths. They try and mischaracterise that whole argument, by making it about whether you can behave like a good person if you don’t believe in God. But that’s not the issue! The issue is, “Even if you do behave like a good person, how do you explain the actual objective truth of what makes anything good!?” How do the objective standards of goodness exist: that’s the question!
So there were some specific arguments which were particularly useful. However, at a broader level I was struck by how ineptly, and at times hypocritically, the New Atheists responded to good Christian apologists who defended their beliefs using logic and evidence. SOLAS: So there you were reading both sides of the argument and you tried famously (or perhaps infamously!) to bring them together! You publicly asked Prof. Dawkins if he would be willing to debate William Lane Craig. And you weren’t that impressed with his answer….
Peter asking Prof Dawkins why he avoids debating William Lane Craig
PB: Oh no…. it was pathetic!! I got very disgruntled with Dawkins. I felt almost personally let down by him. I’d based a lot of my world-view, values and behaviour on his work. I embraced a particular way of life, the unrestricted hedonism which in many respects was implied by and championed by Dawkins. I had felt free of any God or restraint, which looked evolutionarily fine.
Dawkins had made this great name for himself as this intellectual giant who wiped the floor with people, but I began to realise that loads of them were very cheap targets or celebrity figures. I got increasingly irritated with Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate Craig, “It might look good on his CV, but not on mine”, “I don’t know who Craig is” But William Lane Craig had debated, Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett!
Then in that Intelligence Squared debate entitled “Is Atheism the new fundamentalism”, Bishop Richard Harries argued that a characteristic of fundamentalism is that it always attacks the weakest part of the opposition and doesn’t engage with the strongest one. I thought that that was an open door to ask Dawkins if he would debate Craig. He said he was happy to debate Bishops, Cardinals, and Pope’s (even though the whole challenge that he has thrown down is an academic one). And then he said, “I won’t debate people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. I’m busy!” Well, Bill Craig isn’t a professional debater, he is primarily engaged in peer-reviewed academic publishing. Dawkins responses were obviously excuses for avoiding debating William Lane Craig.
Peter Byrom challenges Dawkins to debate Craig
SOLAS: So there you were, balancing these two positions, and cracks were starting to appear in your atheism, and your New Atheist heroes were not performing well. How did you move from that position to full Christian faith?
PB: There were several fronts. I felt that I was getting almost a free extra university module in critical thinking in philosophy, because I was learning how to do logical argumentation, from Christians! So, intellectually the barriers to belief were coming down and the questions being answered. I was finding the New Atheists were doing a weaker and weaker job. When Christopher Hitchens debated Bill Craig, that was the weakest I had ever seen him perform. I noticed that some of my atheist friends struggled with the counter-arguments too.
But in terms of coming to Christian belief myself, there were a mixture of factors. The intellectual side came first. I had decided that I didn’t want to go anywhere near Christianity because I didn’t want an authority figure over my life. I’d come to university, I was doing my own thing, making my own rules, playing my own game, I was enjoying the pleasures and ‘loose’ ways of living that a lot of students do. I didn’t want a big ‘father-figure’ in the sky thank-you! So, emotionally I was very set against it. But the intellectual barriers had started to come down.
At the same time I ended up living with two friends. One was a Christian who became an atheist, the other an Atheist who became a Christian. He had a massive conversion experience, and that was really annoying; really inconvenient! I didn’t want that in my life. I thought I had got rid of it, and then my friend had to go and become a Christian and stir everything up again. So our flat was a constant source of debate and discussion because I was living with two people who believed these different things!
However, I saw the impact of becoming a Christian on my friend. I couldn’t help noticing that bits of his character seemed to be oddly improving! He seemed to be calming down a bit, he seemed to be a bit more level-headed about a few things. In terms of my own lifestyle choices, I got into a relationship that was really foolish, based purely on hedonism. That was incredibly damaging and messy, one of the most selfish things I ever got into . But I got into that because I was very much embracing the whole kind of “be free and hedonistic, be the animal that you are” ethos. SOLAS; “There’s probably no God so stop worry and enjoy your life…” like the atheist bus campaign slogan!?
PB: Exactly, and that was a ridiculous trajectory and I spent three years of my life on that; a really bad road to go down. It actually compares very weakly to the standards that came from the Christian point of view.
So there were two things. Firstly the intellectual case for Christianity needed to be made. But then, secondly, having already started heading down a hedonistic, foolish lifestyle; then that needed to collapse as well. I think that intellectually I became convinced of Christianity, maybe a year or so before I actually made the step to converting! I’d say the intellectual was a necessary, but not sufficient condition for actually becoming a Christian. SOLAS: So, your head before your heart!?
PB: Yes, that’s right! I suppose the head made it easier to direct the heart where it needed to go. SOLAS: What year was this?
PB: This was during William Lane Craig’s “Reasonable Faith” tour in October 2011. I took a long time to become a Christian. For about a year or so, I was very critical of Dawkins; and slowly shifting allegiance to William Lane Craig and the Christian apologists. I was at my most atheistic around 2006-2008. However by 2011, atheism was looking intellectually weak; and existentially and from a lifestyle point of view it was unfulfilling, silly, cheap and shallow. From 2009-2011 I was challenging atheism with good Christian apologetics. Then by 2011, I was finding Christianity more intellectually convincing that atheism. But I still hadn’t moved on it, because my heart wasn’t there yet. I needed my bad lifestyle choices to fall down around me because I needed to start afresh.
I was very disgruntled with Dawkins too, and tried all sorts of ways to persuade him to debate Craig, including that question that ‘went viral’ on YouTube. Dawkins had made all these boasts about how his view was superior, and that nobody had ever defeated his arguments. So when Craig came to Oxford, Peter May of UCCF had this brilliant idea of inviting Dawkins to debate Craig and putting out an empty chair, with his name on it when he refused!
There were these great representatives of two great clashing world-views, and Dawkins was the one with much more media exposure and yet he was the one running away. Daniel Came the atheist from Oxford University wrote a letter to Dawkins which was published in The Telegraph, which said “You need to debate with Bill Craig otherwise this will look like cowardice”.
So, my oncoming Christianity manifested itself first of all as a frustration with Dawkins. His refusal to debate Craig was the final straw, atheism just doesn’t have the intellectual rigour that he claims. Then I became really concerned about some of the smear campaigns that Dawkins tried to use against Bill Craig. Then one evening I realised, I actually believe, and that I should just get on with it and become a Christian. SOLAS: You mentioned that when you were an atheist, you lived consistently with that and that that was very unhelpful in your life. You talked about unhelpful relationships, no structure of values and things not going well. How has your life looked as a Christian?
PB: There have been all sorts of changes. It’s actually made me confront a lot of the things that lead me to going down those bad roads. My biggest problem is perfectionism. Psychologically, it’s a terrible thing to have. If you are a perfectionist you have an absolute crippling fear of failure; and don’t want to take any risks because everything has to be right. It was very easy for me to be led by the pleasure-seeking and led by other people. But coming into the Christian world, I tried to do everything well and follow all the rules, and not let people down. Then I began to grasp biblical principles that actually helped to confront this perfectionism. Actually becoming a Christian, involves learning that your security is in Christ, and that it’s not about getting your act together and being a perfect person. The irony is that it frees you up to have a better shape to your life because your security is all in God. He has forgiven your sin, and you don’t need to go and worship idols and base your life-identity on something else, like hedonism.
In other ways, things have been incredibly different. I have a better relationship with my parents for example. I had got really into heavy smoking and heavy drinking which needed to be addressed as well. Now I’m married and we have a child on the way, and are getting a new home. There’s a lot of change and a lot of growing for my wife and I because we’re both finding that when you have your mind on Christ, it’s really important to read God’s word, start applying it personally, existentially and emotionally as well.
So the apologetics opened my head to allow my heart to follow to a place where I could take God’s word seriously and start getting the benefits of it.
The Christian life isn’t all easy, however. Some things also get worse before they get better, and the “getting better” is first and foremost to do with growing in knowing God and having Him shape your character, rather than necessarily having “better” life circumstances. But it does mean that, whatever happens, you are secure in Christ, and can trust Him, and that is the greatest thing to have.
If I was to sum it up, I’d say “Don’t be conned”. Faith is not “belief without evidence” as Dawkins says, but is “placing your trust in what the evidence shows you”. Or, to quote C.S. Lewis, “faith means holding on to what your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods!” So, don’t be duped into thinking that you don’t have to use your mind when it comes to the question of God. That’s the case whether you are an atheist who wants to avoid God, or a Christian who wants to grow in God, you’ve got to really use your mind. The heart and the soul cannot be separated from it. Don’t settle for people who just describe things as intellectually credible, or “morally superior” but actually go and test it yourself! SOLAS: Thanks so much for taking the time to tell us your story!
PB: Pleasure!
______________________________________________________
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/
http://www.johnlennox.org/
https://theweeflea.com/
Was Hitler a Christian? That may sound a ridiculous question, but it’s an accusation sometimes made by atheists. Does it stand up? In the latest SHORT ANSWERS video, David Robertson, an avid reader of history, checks it out.
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.
Why is apologetics so important? For those unfamiliar with apologetics, it might be helpful to define the term ‘apologetics’ before looking at why it’s important. Simply put, Christian apologetics is giving a reason or defence for the Christian faith.
There are two sub-disciplines of Christian apologetics: positive apologetics and negative apologetics. Positive apologetics involves giving an argument for Christianity. For example, giving arguments for God’s existence or the reliability of the Bible. Negative apologetics involves answering objections against Christianity. For example, answering the problem of evil.
When people ask me why we should engage in Christian apologetics, I have four broad responses: First, the Bible commands it.
Apologetics is not optional. Every follower of Christ is instructed to be an apologist. Let me give you a few verses to back this up. Probably the most often cited passage comes from the apostle Peter. He writes,
[I]n your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect. (1 Peter 3:15)
The apostle Paul says the same thing in a different way. He writes,
Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. (Colossians 4:5–6)
In my favourite passage on the subject, Paul says,
For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).
Paul also tells the church in Philippi that they are all partakers with him of grace, both in his imprisonment “and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel” (Philippians 1:7). Similarly, Jude says it was “necessary for him to write appealing to [his readers] to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
The Bible is clear. Yet, if you walked into most churches today and asked what they teach on apologetics, they would probably look at you like you had three heads. This is because apologetics is treated as if it’s an extra at best or an error at worst. Whether it’s apathy or animosity towards apologetics, both are often fuelled by anti-intellectualism.
As we’ve seen, God commands apologetics. Therefore, those who refuse to “make a defence” or “answer each person” are disobeying God’s command.
So, why do apologetics? Well, the Bible commands it. And that alone should be reason enough. But that’s not the only reason why we do apologetics. Second, the culture demands it.
The late philosopher and theologian Francis Schaeffer referred to apologetics as ‘pre-evangelism’. This is the idea that God uses well-reasoned answers and arguments as a springboard to the gospel of Jesus Christ. In his book Mere Apologetics, Oxford theologian Alister McGrath says, “Apologetics lays the ground for the invitation; evangelism extends it.”
For example, it makes no sense to talk about the Son of God—who communicates the word of God, and performs acts of God, and brings the salvation of God—unless there is a God. Apologetics lays the groundwork for belief in God through arguments and evidence.
In addition, the culture is deeply saturated in three dominant philosophies: relativism, pluralism, and naturalism. Relativism says there is no absolute truth. Religious pluralism says there is no exclusive truth in religion (all views are equally true). Naturalism says there is no supernatural truth.
Do you see a problem in doing evangelism in this cultural climate? We are presenting an absolute truth to a relativistic culture, an exclusivist message to a pluralistic culture, and a supernatural view to a naturalistic culture. It is no surprise that Christians are confronted with questions like, “How can Jesus be the only way?”, “Has science proven that miracles are impossible?” or “Who are you to force your morality on me?”. These questions grow out of the soil of a secular worldview. Apologetics responds to these questions at the worldview level.
Not only does the Bible command apologetics, but the culture also demands it. Third, the church needs it.
This fact cannot be overstated. We just looked at how apologetics is pre-evangelism to the culture. However, apologetics is also post-evangelism to the church. The challenges to faith don’t evaporate once you become a Christian. In fact, they intensify. This is where apologetics comes in.
Arguably, the most important generation of the church is the next generation. Yet, all the research we have shows that approximately three in five young people disconnect from their church by the age of 15.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. In Judges 2:10, after Israel finally enters the Promised Land and Joshua dies, we read, “And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers. And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord or the work that he had done for Israel.” It took one generation to abandon God and turn to idols.
How do we help curb the next generation’s drift away from God? The answer is—yes, you guessed it—apologetics.
Lest you think this is merely the biased opinion of a professional apologist, consider the research of David Kinnaman—the president of Barna Research. In 2012, Christianity Today summarized Kinnaman’s findings into six reasons why young people leave the church. What’s interesting about the list is that each of the six reasons relates—in some degree—to apologetics. If the church would begin to take the life of the mind more seriously and equip its young people to understand and defend their faith, we could meet these challenges head on.
The church desperately needs apologetics because it helps to provide real responses to the reasons people leave the faith. Fourth, the results confirm it.
Apologetics works. That is, we have evidence of people coming to a knowledge of the truth through apologetics.
For instance, there are multiple occasions in Scripture where the disciples model the use of reason and evidence, and people are persuaded as a result.
For example, Acts 17 says Paul employed apologetics in Thessalonica. It reads:
Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. (Acts 17:1–4, NASB)
It was Paul’s custom—his routine—to reason with the people he spoke to. And as he reasoned from the Scriptures, he would appeal to evidence to make his case. Paul was doing apologetics. As a result, people were persuaded and followed Christ.
There are also many contemporary stories of people coming to know and trust God through apologetics. These include C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, J. Warner Wallace, Nabeel Qureshi, Abdu Murray, and many others.
Why bother with apologetics? Well, the Bible commands it, the culture demands it, the Church needs it, and the results confirm it. Taken individually, each reason should motivate us to engage in apologetics. However, taken all together, these provide a powerful apologetic for apologetics.
Tim Barnett writes for “Stand to Reason”, an apologetics ministry based in California. This article was first published by them here and is re-printed with permission.
“I’m back from a really exciting weekend of mission in Liverpool, working in partnership with a local church, called “The Lane”. It was a series of training and evangelism events which is exactly the kind of thing we love.
On the Friday night we kicked off with an event at the local golf club. One of the things we do at Solas is to encourage churches to use neutral spaces such as coffee shops, pubs or restaurants; but in this case the church had rented the local golf club. There were 85 people there for a dinner, about half of them were not Christians. They’d asked people to submit questions, and for about an hour after dinner, I engaged with people’s questions. It was everything from ‘God and Science’ to Hell, to suffering, all kinds of questions came.
There was a really good mixture of people there. At a table right in front of me there was a very enthusiastic atheist guy about my age, called Chris. He fired question, after question at me. He didn’t quite heckle, but very much raise his hand and interject into stuff. Actually it really worked, the audience really enjoyed the way that it became more of a dialogue. He came to speak to me afterwards about his personal story and why he had ended up in Atheism, having come from a very Catholic background.
Some of the other questions and conversations afterwards went to really good places. I was hugely encouraged that we had people signing up for the Alpha Course. That was the church’s goal, to use the event to promote Alpha, and now people are starting that journey; we trust towards Christ.
Then on the Saturday morning we did a training event. We love doing these training events for churches. This one was just half a morning, people came for 9:30AM, and we fed them breakfast, and then I had a couple of sessions with them. We were training them and helping them to think through how to answer some of the big questions of our age. We landed with a session on ‘how we can be sure that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened’.
Then on Sunday, I preached to the church of about 200 people. It’s been really encouraging to see this church growing. The pastor there, is an old friend of mine, and a few years ago it was a church of 60, now its around 200. They outgrew their church building and are now meeting in a local school. Now they are outgrowing the local school and are struggling with the question of where to move next! It’s exciting to see growth and exciting to see lots of young Christians and it was really good to be able to be part of that.
One of the things Solas loves to do is to partner with local churches. So if you are reading this, and you’d love to have Solas come and work with your church, in terms of reaching your community, or training folks to be more confident in their faith; do reach out to us, we will happily come to you!
__________________
PS: (From the editor) The local church were encouraged and added the following to Andy’s report:
“I would recommend Andy Bannister to any church that is interested in engaging with some of the more challenging issues of our day. He has the ability to combine serious philosophical argument with a winsome, friendly and humorous style. He is a very gifted communicator both in the answering searching questions and in preaching ‘the word’”: Nick Johnson, Pastor, “The Lane”, Liverpool.
Shortlisted for the 2018 Man Booker prize, The Overstory stands apart from most other contemporary novels. The first surprise is that it doesn’t centre around people and their problems; the second that it is fundamentally evangelistic. By that I don’t mean that it is a Christian book (far from it, in fact), rather that it aims to convict readers and change their thinking and lives. The message that it proclaims on every page are that trees are complex “social beings with memory and agency” (1) , which deserve our reverence.
It might be a shock to you to learn that trees communicate with each other. It certainly was to me, and if I hadn’t stumbled upon this fact a couple of months ago when turning on the radio (you can hear about it here) , I might have dismissed The Overstory as fictional whimsy. But this, or at least the bare bones of it is genuine science. The root systems of trees in forests send messages to each other, appearing to collaborate and share resources. Above the ground, trees learn to recognise danger and then to anticipate it. Or maybe something like that – it’s hard to write about this without using anthropomorphic language.
But the trees aren’t the main characters in The Overstory, though they are its point. Instead the book begins with eight separate stories, revealing to us nine characters who have significant relationships with trees. One inherits a book of photos of the same chestnut tree, taken a month apart over decades. Another has a father who teaches her everyday about the forest. Another has his life saved when he falls from an aeroplane onto a banyan tree. Yet another hears ancient voices telling her to rescue trees. These lives become gradually intertwined into a narrative centred on eco-activism, a seemingly doomed fight to save ancient US woodland.
The book is long. 500 pages of unremitting present tense action and powerful description. I was taken with it and found it hard to put down, but ultimately it is frustrating. Powers’ aim “to resurrect a very old form of tree consciousness, a religion of attention and accommodation, a pantheism of sorts”(2) failed to convince me stylistically as well as philosophically. There is no debate or nuance in this book, despite the careful sentences, colourful vocabulary and genuinely interesting ideas. All the activists are good, all those who would chop down trees bad. For fiction to work, above all else characters need to be credible and complex, but these were not.
So why did has it done so well? I think because it speaks into our world dominated by dismal evolutionary materialism, with a call to awe and purposeful action focused on a massively important theme. Like today’s veganism and identity politics, it offers something which looks like immediate virtue but is an ultimate dead-end. Nature can lower the blood pressure, but it can’t teach us right from wrong. Whilst pantheism might look noble, it comes close to nihilism; human life matters little from the perspective of a tree.
There is a challenge for Christians here then. Are we prepared to honour the creator of trees by truly caring for His complex, beautiful creation? More than others we should be filled with wonder at nature (Psalm 8), as it testifies to an even greater beauty. More than others we should be ready to reduce our consumption so that we steward God’s resources for the good of all, for we know of His love for all he has made (Psalm 145).
Sarah Allen is a wife, mother, student and teacher. She lives in Huddersfield with husband, a decreasing number of children and her dog.
_______________
1.Los Angeles Review of Books, Interview with Robert Powers https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/heres-to-unsuicide-an-interview-with-richard-powers/#!
2.Idem.
“Why would I take Christianity seriously when Christians are so divided?” The disunity of Christians often deters people from taking the message of Jesus seriously: so in the latest SHORT ANSWERS video, we take a careful look at this common question.
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.
I have to confess to being a bit of a history nerd. Having spent several years studying it, accumulated countless books and an insatiable reading habit, I find the past utterly absorbing. It’s common to hear politics, ethics, education, nationalism or multiculturalism being described as ‘battlegrounds of ideas’, but historians are equally aware that our view of the past is every bit as contentious. We are all aware of “Black History Month”, which has grown steadily in significance, as the once accepted racism which erased Black people from our historical consciousness has been steadily rejected. Historians once looked for great themes and great men (yes, it was usually just men!); but many these days look for “usable pasts”; which are often little more than selective trawls for evidence with which to weaponise history for contemporary polemics.
Religious history, has of course been subject to both these trends. Biographies of saints and martyrs have been produced to stir the devotions of the faithful; while the memory of atrocities committed in the name of “belief a“, are kept alive by the adherents of “belief b“.
What we make of the history of the church, is then something of great importance, and not just for history geeks like me. How the history of Christianity is handled is a significant marker in the current battle of ideas. Of course some Christians want to paint a picture of unbridled progress and blessing; while some atheists, such as the late Christopher Hitchens, wish to portray every aspect of the church’s record as being fundamentally malign. Perhaps only the foolish, unwary or brave would step into this vast field of two millenia of contention! Certainly the aim of presenting a fair and balanced picture of the church’s moral and ethical record, which is neither a Hitchensesque hatchet-job or a hagiographical series of ‘lives of the saints’, is a bold one. However, this is exactly what CPX (The Centre for Public Christianity in Australia) have done, in a 90 minute film entitled “For The Love of God: How The Church is Both Better And Worse Than You Ever Imagined”. Fearing the worst, I watched this film with some trepidation, but they have really pulled it off, it is a great piece of work.
Bonhoeffer’s House
Filmed with high quality production values, CPX presenters John Dickson, Justine Toh and Simon Smart, are recorded in locations around the world, where Christians have made an impact for good or ill; and assessed the history. They tell stories such as massacres in the Crusades perpetrated on innocent Muslims in the name of Christianity, to Martin Luther King Jr’s noble quest for Civil Rights; from Christian failures to oppose Nazism, to roots of Western charity and philanthropy in the early church even as it was persecuted by Roman Emperors. The story telling is enhanced by dramatic readings of historical texts, and segments of academics discussing and assessing the meaning of these stories.
Wonderfully put together, well-researched, and presented in a lively style, the film itself is compelling viewing. The analysis is fascinating too; as they seek to assess where the church has gone wrong and where it has made a contribution. John Lennox, the noted Christian professor of Mathematics at Oxford describes the ‘shame’ of some of the things done in his native Northern Ireland in the name of Christianity. On the other hand Rowan Williams explores the way in which many disputes driven by other factors, (such as land, power, or resources) have gained a religious veneer or justification; but were not inherently caused by clashes of belief.
The treatment of Colonialism is quite remarkable. Coming from Australia the film begins with the damage done to Aboriginal people by the white settlers, who brought everything from land-seizures to new diseases to Australia; sometimes justified in Christian terms. Yet, they also show that it was Christians who almost uniquely rejected a racist hierarchy of races, because they couldn’t accept social-Darwinism, because their faith told them that all people were made in the image of God. Likewise the role of William Carey in India is examined, and not just in terms of his exemplary work in education, and development. His long campaign against ‘Sati’ (widow-burning) can be seen as either imposing western values on India; or as a bold step towards the equality of the sexes, and thoroughly in line with the idea that basic human rights are universal, not allocated by the powerful; or awarded in response to capacity or contribution. This, likewise is an idea which only became embedded in western culture when Christian ethics replaced Greco-Roman morality in which things such an infanticide were almost de rigueur.
Robert Woodberry’s thesis that Protestant missionaries have left a massively positive contribution towards social and economic flourishing in virtually every context in which they operated, is also given a well-deserved hearing.
Equally fascinating was the (perhaps not immediately obvious) subject of character. The weight of evidence that the ancients, despite all their philosophical sophistication, saw humility as despicable; was very well explained. The Christian view of the cross of Christ. the humiliated God, was radically counter cultural; and leads directly to so many of the values which we in ‘the West’ assume are universal, but actually are rooted in Christianity. Finally the filmakers ask us to examine the record of the church, as it stands up against the teachings of Jesus Christ himself. The obvious point that Jesus’ ethical teaching commands great respect isn’t laboured, but rather what is observed is that where the church has stuck to his words and example, it has been beautiful; but where it has veered off into contemporary cultures, it has looked ugly. Central to this discussion is Jesus’ charge to his people to “love their enemies”. This main thesis is explored through a charming musical metaphor, which I won’t explain, but will leave you to enjoy in the film.
The film can be viewed as a single 90 minute “Cinema Cut” or in several shorter episodes; 1) War and Peace, 2) Rights and Wrongs, 3) Rich and Poor, 4) Power and Humility. It can be rented or purchased online, for streaming or by buying the DVD from https://www.publicchristianity.org/fortheloveofgod/ from where free clips, and study guides for groups or schools can also be downloaded. This honest film leaves little room either for Christian triumphalism on one hand, or mud-slinging anti-Christian polemics on the other. In that sense, CPX have done a remarkable job in opening up a sensible discussion in which the very real contributions of Christian ethics, and Jesus’ teaching can be seen alongside many of the sins of the church. As such the film will perhaps contain surprises for people on both sides of that debate. There is some uneasy viewing for Christians, especially on the Crusades and the Nazis; while some secularists will be alarmed at the extent to which so many of the values we celebrate in the western liberal tradition have distinctly Christian roots, and were pioneered in history by Christians. Furthermore, many of them are grounded in Christian beliefs, and sustained by them, and are indeed inseparable from them. CPX are to be congratulated on the way in which they have stepped so nimbly across this historical minefield, and produced such a stimulating, thought-provoking film, which is both visually stunning and academically rigorous.
Towards the end of last year, Solas’ Andy Bannister was invited onto Cameron Stout’s radio show “Moved by Music“, which goes out on Radio Orkney. Cameron gained a lot of a publicity when he won the Reality TV series, “Big Brother”, before returning to his native island. Every week, Cameron invites his guests on to chose tracks and discuss their choices. Andy’s choices included Sammy Horner (Friend of Sinners), Kate Rusby (Falling), Tim Neufeld & The Glory Boys (I am Yours). The conversation was wide ranging and explored The Bible, Jesus, Evangelism, Islam, Scotland, Solas, Church, Grace and Works, Tribalism, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist – Book, Meaning and Purpose!
Hear the whole show here: enjoy!
In the run-up to Christmas, I spoke at Glasgow Cathedral for the joint Carol Service of Glasgow Caledonian and Glasgow Strathclyde University Christian Unions. It was a fantastic event in an amazing location, with hundreds and hundreds of people in the packed Cathedral. Lots of the students had invited non-Christian friends. University carol services offer great evangelistic opportunities, and the students really made the most of it in Glasgow.
It was a beautiful evening of carols and Christmas music and then I spoke for about half an hour, on the topic of “the perfect gift”. I looked at the qualities of the perfect Christmas gift which are that it is personal (it reflects your relationship with that person), practical (it’s actually usable, not something that they are going to just throw in a cupboard and never use again), it’s paid for (you don’t want to be paying it off on your credit card for the next year). Then of course I segued to the gospel showing that God’s gift that first Christmas was personal (it was God come in the flesh, it was Immanuel – God with us), practical because it dealt with our need for forgiveness, reconciliation, and our sin being dealt with. Of course, it was also paid for, because you can’t understand Christmas without also looking at Easter, which is the price that Jesus paid for us. It was a huge privilege to share that message with the students. A couple of weeks later I received a lovely e-mail from the CU saying that they felt it had gone well, and that it touched lots of people, and led to many useful conversations afterwards. I’m back there to do a mission week, for the University in 2019, so it was a good kind of set up for that.
_________________
The leaders of the Strathclyde and Glasgow Caledonian University CU’s added their own comments to Andy’s report.
It was great event, Andy spoke well and the gospel was clearly portrayed to everyone, as far as I know we’ve had at least 10 people respond which makes it all worth it! We’re going through a time of real growth at Caley CU with people hearing and responding to the gospel, students are genuinely interested in what we have to tell them and the Carol service is always one of the best ways to do this! Thank you for your support for us and with this event, it is hugely appreciated!
-Callum, President of Glasgow Caledonian Christian Union
The Carol Service was fantastic, we were so encouraged. Andy spoke very well, exactly the tone we were looking for and incredibly engaging. There were a few responses from people who were interesting in finding out more, so we are just praying that the Lord will bless them as they pursue that. It’s made us really excited for Andy coming to speak at our Events Week next year!
-Kirsty, Vice-President, Strathclyde University Christian Union
In a world in which people seem ever more divided, how can we find a way to disagree without resorting to hatred, hostility, or even violence? Solas Director, Andy Bannister, explores how the radical message at the heart of the Christian faith offers a powerful basis — and in Jesus, a powerful model — for how we can respond with compassion and kindness to those who are are utterly different to us.
SHORTANSWERS 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.
Like many people who grow up going to church, I completely dropped out when I was 14. I was glad to have Sundays free to do whatever I wanted.
Around this time I started my GCSE courses at school and I remember thinking a lot at that time about the question of suffering; specifically, how can a loving God allow suffering? However, it didn’t stop there, I concluded that I hoped there wasn’t a God, and I got very angry and passionate about this. How could a God do this to the world?, I kept asking. This angry scepticism was my ideology throughout my final 4 years of school. Along with my beliefs, my lifestyle changed too. I was no longer the good little Christian boy, and thought the best things in life were drinking and having a good time with my mates.
This didn’t stop at school, in fact it got more and more extreme at university. I found myself over 300 miles from home, where no one knew me, and where I had the opportunity to be whoever I wanted to be. So, I started University at Dundee, studying Philosophy and Politics. Thinking about the existence of life whilst going out and drinking most nights turned out to be a dangerous combination.
‘Freshers week’ was a blur, waking up at 3 and drinking at 10, a week of getting to know as many people as possible and living the life that I wanted to. So why did I hate it? By the end of that year I hated what I had become, something didn’t seem right.
I survived first semester, and had convinced myself that I was happy but that was not the case. I remember one specific night especially vividly. Now imagine this, Dundee at 4am in the morning on a Thursday, you’re walking back to your flat on a cold day by yourself, trying to remember the names of the people that you met that night, still trying to be someone you know you’re not, feeling completely alone. In other words, I was utterly depressed. I remember crying on the side of the road, not wanting to go to bed, to wake up and repeat the same day over again.
Walking 25 minutes home for a cheap lunch or spending £3 on a meal deal was about the biggest decision I’d had to make at in first year at University! One Thursday I was having that same debate in my head during a break between lectures. It was refreshers week at the Student Union, so every society were handing out leaflets about their events. Someone handed me one from the Christian Union, offering a free lunch to listen to some guy speak about God for 20 minutes. ‘What’s the worst that can happen?’ I thought as I headed to the room. The topic was on how a loving God can allow suffering, the very question that I wrestled with years ago. It was a question that I thought was completely unanswerable. Now I can’t relate to you exactly what the man (Solas’ very own Andy Bannister!) said but I remember clearly being hooked almost from the beginning, as he talked about God as a loving Father, not forcing his children to love him but wanting them to. He also quoted a famous nihilist philosopher supporting God. This completely threw me, it changed everything I thought was true.
I didn’t become a Christian immediately after that, but it was the start of a journey to knowing God. I met up with a guy from the Christian Union every week from then until I left Dundee for the summer. Together we talked about Christ, read The Gospel of John together (Uncover John) and became good friends. I remember one of the first times we met up I asked him something that I couldn’t understand. I asked him why God would want to love and save me, a sinner; someone who actively hated Him! He told me about Paul, a man in the Bible who persecuted Christians chosen by Christ, but then became a Christian himself! We looked at some of his words in Romans 7 v24-25, ‘What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!’.
Its not been an easy journey to come to know Jesus, but its completely changed my life since that talk. The most important thing in the world has become the most important thing in my life. God has changed everything I do through his love. I’m not saying living as a Christian is easy, you will be challenged by people, by groups in society, by suffering, by conflict, through problems in work and with family. But we know that through it all, our God the saviour of the unworthy, who gave his life for the wretched, is with us always.
It was really interesting to see how many people there in that audience were searching spiritually. Lots of people have figured out that atheism doesn’t really work but they are not convinced that religion really works either, and so are very, very open. We see this wherever we go, on university campuses or in coffee shop events, or even here at places like National Geographic, in some ways the ‘high-temple’ of scientific naturalism. You’ll know that if you read National Geographic Magazine or watch their TV shows that many there think that evolution is the only game in town. But it was great to speak to a group of people who really were looking for something more and it was an incredible opportunity to present the gospel.
Tim Barnett writes for “Stand to Reason”, an apologetics ministry based in California. This article was first published by them 
Perhaps only the foolish, unwary or brave would step into this vast field of two millenia of contention! Certainly the aim of presenting a fair and balanced picture of the church’s moral and ethical record, which is neither a Hitchensesque hatchet-job or a hagiographical series of ‘lives of the saints’, is a bold one. However, this is exactly what CPX (The Centre for Public Christianity in Australia) have done, in a 90 minute film entitled “For The Love of God: How The Church is Both Better And Worse Than You Ever Imagined”. Fearing the worst, I watched this film with some trepidation, but they have really pulled it off, it is a great piece of work.
Finally the filmakers ask us to examine the record of the church, as it stands up against the teachings of Jesus Christ himself. The obvious point that Jesus’ ethical teaching commands great respect isn’t laboured, but rather what is observed is that where the church has stuck to his words and example, it has been beautiful; but where it has veered off into contemporary cultures, it has looked ugly. Central to this discussion is Jesus’ charge to his people to “love their enemies”. This main thesis is explored through a charming musical metaphor, which I won’t explain, but will leave you to enjoy in the film.
This honest film leaves little room either for Christian triumphalism on one hand, or mud-slinging anti-Christian polemics on the other. In that sense, CPX have done a remarkable job in opening up a sensible discussion in which the very real contributions of Christian ethics, and Jesus’ teaching can be seen alongside many of the sins of the church. As such the film will perhaps contain surprises for people on both sides of that debate. There is some uneasy viewing for Christians, especially on the Crusades and the Nazis; while some secularists will be alarmed at the extent to which so many of the values we celebrate in the western liberal tradition have distinctly Christian roots, and were pioneered in history by Christians. Furthermore, many of them are grounded in Christian beliefs, and sustained by them, and are indeed inseparable from them.
CPX are to be congratulated on the way in which they have stepped so nimbly across this historical minefield, and produced such a stimulating, thought-provoking film, which is both visually stunning and academically rigorous.
In the run-up to Christmas, I spoke at Glasgow Cathedral for the joint Carol Service of Glasgow Caledonian and Glasgow Strathclyde University Christian Unions. It was a fantastic event in an amazing location, with hundreds and hundreds of people in the packed Cathedral. Lots of the students had invited non-Christian friends. University carol services offer great evangelistic opportunities, and the students really made the most of it in Glasgow.
It was a huge privilege to share that message with the students. A couple of weeks later I received a lovely e-mail from the CU saying that they felt it had gone well, and that it touched lots of people, and led to many useful conversations afterwards. I’m back there to do a mission week, for the University in 2019, so it was a good kind of set up for that.
