News

What have Christians ever done for us?

by Solas

Published in Christian Today 15 April 2016

If the Church is supposed to be the ultimate apologetic for Christ (“all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another”), it seems as though the case for Christ is very weak! The general attitude is perhaps summed up best by the famous quote attributed to Mahatma Ghandi: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Never mind the fact that people who say this often know very little about Christ. It is an effective argument because it contains a grain of truth and because it means that the Christian message can be summarily dismissed on the basis that Christians are human! We are the victims of the ultimate ad hominem arguments. According to the Oxford English dictionary ad hom is: “(Of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining”. It really means to play the man, rather than the argument. “An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.” There you are trying to tell people about Jesus and you get hit with everything wrong that any Christian/Church is supposed to have done – whether it is last week’s subject ‘Christianity spread by violence‘ or the Spanish Inquisition, Westboro Baptist Church or of course that perennial favourite – Hitler.
I am astonished at how many atheists must have read Mein Kampf, given the number of times the quote about Hitler calling Jesus his Lord is used. The trouble is that for the vast majority this is all they have read (usually from another atheist blog/website). They have not read the book, they don’t know the context and history of the period and they know precious little about the life and thoughts of Adolf Hitler. This quote is enough for them (combined with the fact that he was baptised as a Catholic).
In this regard it is important to remember that a statement without a context just becomes a pretext for whatever particular prejudice we want to put forward. Christians of course can be as guilty of this as anyone else – I have read some incredible statements from Christians that are made without any supporting evidence other than “I read it somewhere”. The deathbed conversion of Charles Darwin is one such ‘urban myth’. But the trouble is that in this era of historical, religious and philosophical illiteracy, it is all too easy for people to surf the web and find ‘evidence’ for what they believed in the first place. It’s called confirmation bias.
But if you can it’s great to get people to do something really old fashioned – read and think. Once you begin to examine the evidence it is astonishing just how much influence for good Christianity has had on our society.
Do you remember this hilarious Monty Python sketch where John Cleese, acting as the leader of a Jewish liberation group, asks ‘what have the Romans ever done for us?”.

One of his followers mentions the aqueducts. The others go on to mention a long list of things which results in Cleese finally asking: ‘What have the Romans ever done for us – apart from sanitation, the roads, irrigation, medicine, education, public health, the wine, law and order, and peace!”
What have the Christians ever done for us? While we can list the faults of those who profess to be Christians who have done great harm, the good done in the name of Christ is quite astonishing. “The gospel not only converts the individual, but it changes society. On every mission field from the days of William Carey, the missionaries carried a real social gospel. They established standards of hygiene and purity, promoted industry, elevated womanhood, restrained anti-social customs, abolished cannibalism, human sacrifice and cruelty, organised famine relief, checked tribal wars, and changed the social structure of society.” (Samuel Zwemer, Professor of Missions at Princeton)
Education (every major European university was founded on Christian principles), social reform, medicine, democracy, the arts and modern science all owe much of their current existence to the teaching and ideas of the followers of Jesus Christ. That’s a bold claim but one I think that can be substantiated. Take, for example, the question of science. As many have recognised, rather than being suppressed by the Church, modern science stems from a theistic culture and indeed would have been impossible without the understanding that there was an ordered universe created by God. Strangely I find that faith in Christ and science go together, feeding off one another. “Far from belief in God being some sort of irrational leap of faith it is the most rational hypothesis there is; and perhaps it is the only plausible and sure foundation of the rationality of the universe that science presupposes.” (Keith Ward)
It’s not just science. What we consider ‘modern’ values such as equality, tolerance and freedom are the fruits of Christianity as well. In a fascinating and detailed book, Inventing the Individual, The Origins of Western Liberalism, Larry Siedentop argues that all of these ideals stemmed from the early and medieval Church. Vishnal Mangalwadi is an Indian who has written a compelling account (The Book that Made your World), of how the Bible has been formative in the development of modern Western society. When we ask the question, what did the Christians give to us, modern Western society should recognise that it is the foundation of everything. The question then becomes what happens when you lose the foundation? Will the walls come down and the roof fall in?
My own small nation of Scotland sent doctors, engineers, military men, politicians and missionaries all over the globe. For many the primary motivating factor was their Christian faith. We were one of the most literate and educationally advanced nations in the world, thanks largely to John Knox’s maxim that where there was a church there should be a school. I don’t think it is without significance that as Scotland has rapidly secularised, so we have rapidly dumbed down with one in five Scots now being functionally illiterate.
Speaking of education I went to the University of Edinburgh founded by the Church, funded by a welfare state established on Christian principles, to study history. One of my specialist subjects was on the English Civil War and as part of that I had to read a book by the Marxist historian Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down. I loved it and learned a great deal from it; although I disagreed with his pre-supposition that God had nothing to do with the tremendous social, political and economic changes at that time. In fact the Bible verse which provided the title of that book (Acts 17:6) has become a kind of theme verse for my own ministry in and through the church. Tolstoy in his agonising about society and how to transform mused that everyone seemed to think about changing society, no one thought about changing their own hearts. The radicalness of Christianity is that it changes society by changing people.
The fact is that from the time of Christ, his Church, with all its faults and imperfections, has fulfilled his mission. His work has continued and the world has been turned upside down.
Let me finish with one more story. History is not about memes, myths or Internet confirmation basis. It is about examining facts and primary sources. A woman called Traudl Junge wrote her story towards the end of her life. She made a fascinating comment about her boss:
“Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps it’s going too far to call them discussions, because he would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. ‘Science isn’t yet clear about the origins of humanity,’ he once said. ‘We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.”
Her boss was Adolf Hitler.
Sometimes when one reads, thinks and examines the evidence, it is possible to come to an understanding of truth in history. History is His story. The more you delve in, the more you understand, the more you see that history is a confirmation of the Bible’s basic teaching about God and man, and about the central figure of that history – the God man before whom everything is Before Christ and after whom everything is AD Anno Domini (the year of our Lord).

Did Christianity spread by violence?

by Solas

Published in Christian Today   

 

“These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also”
Acts 17:6

The life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus would have been useless to us unless we heard about it. Jesus ascending to heaven would just mean that he had gone. If, as looked highly likely, the early Church had been strangled at birth, then the past 2,000 years of Church history wouldn’t have happened and Jesus would have been just another Palestinian peasant executed by the brutal Roman Empire. The survival and growth of the Christian Church over the past 2,000 years is itself miraculous. When Christ said “I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”, he meant it. And he has been proved true.
But now you get hit with one of the biggest objections: ‘That’s all very well, and maybe Jesus is OK – but look at the Church!’
The instinct of many Christians is to immediately say: ‘Don’t look at the Church’. But the trouble is, Jesus says the opposite. He says that people will see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven. He says that all men will know that we are his disciples because of our love. And most astonishingly, he says that our relationship with the Triune God is the ultimate evidence of the Son being sent (John 17:21). So the neat escape clause of ‘Don’t look at us, look at Jesus’ doesn’t work. The Church is one of the great evidences for Jesus.
Our non-Christian friends (and many of our Christian friends) when they think of the history of the Church will immediately play a word association game. Church = the Crusades, the burning of witches, the Inquisition. The cultural supremacy of the atheistic mind-set in the 20th Century has resulted in a re-writing of history so that the narrative is one in which the Church is associated with these host of negatives. It is a caricature, but like all caricatures there is an element of truth within it and therefore even Christians have fallen into the trap of distancing ourselves from the history of the Church. Doubtless you have heard the line: ‘I like Jesus, but I don’t like the Church’. This is often said by people who don’t know either Jesus or the Church, but are just going by impression and feeling.
As a historian I love reading and thinking about history and would recommend strongly that you actually do read books and primary sources if possible, rather than just rely on Google and Wikipedia. In terms of reading I would like to recommend the excellent series by Nick Needham,2,000 Years of Christ’s Power and three superb books by Mike Reeves: The Breeze of the Centuries, The Unquenchable Flame and On Giants Shoulders.  These are general popular introductions.

The early Church

The second part of Luke’s two-part account of the early Church (his first being the Gospel of Luke) is known as the Acts of the Apostles. His introduction to that is fascinating: “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.” (Acts 1:1-2) You will note that he speaks of what Jesus began to do and to teach – the implication being that his teaching and doing continued after he ascended into heaven. The book of Acts records how the early Church was birthed, developed and grown, spreading from Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, to its ending with Paul’s house arrest in Rome. It is a fascinating story of courage, persecution, miracles, new churches and incredible growth. From the very beginning, the Christian Church has always been a missionary Church.
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus written less than 100 years after the death of Christ indicates one of the reasons why Christians had such an impact in the Roman Empire:
“The Christians are distinguished from other men, neither by country, nor language, nor the customs they observe. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as Barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the nations in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life…They marry as do all; they beget children, but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven.”(The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1)
A pagan writer, Lucian of Samosta, in AD 170 gave his reasons for the growth of Christianity: “The Christians you know, worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt of death and their voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.” Apart from the fact that Christians were prepared to die for their faith (note that they were not prepared to kill for their faith), this testimony reminds me of the words of Christ: ‘all men will know you are my disciples if you have love one for another”.

What is the Church?

Augustine said that he who does not have the Church for his mother cannot have God for his father. Which leads us to ask – what is the Church? It is the ecclesia. The called out assembly of the people of God. There are different understandings of just exactly how a church should be governed, and there are different understandings of secondary doctrines in terms of theology and doctrine, but I would argue that the Church of Jesus Christ is one through all the ages and is, as Christ himself taught, his bride. I realise it can get very confusing with all the different denominations and claims and counter-claims. For me, I don’t really have that much difficulty. God has preserved and kept his Church in many different forms and will continue to do so. In fact, it could be argued that the very flexibility of the Church and its ability to adapt to different cultures is one of the reasons it has continued to grow.
The key element, though, has to be that the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. He founds it, he is the cornerstone, and when she moves away from Christ she stops being the Church. Calvin summarised it well: “I am only saying that the blessed and happy state of the Church always had its foundation in the person of Christ.”
There is a basic simple point here: Christ is the foundation of the Church. Not nationality. Not class. Not priests, kings or queens. He is the foundation and the head. How much trouble would have been avoided if those that call themselves Christians and Churches had remembered and practiced this! Calvin also said: “In the church are mingled many hypocrites who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance.” Our atheist friends are very clever here – they mix and match two doctrines. Firstly, they agree with Jesus’ teaching about hypocrisy being one of the worst sins and gleefully point out the hypocrisies of many who claim the name of Christ. Then they put their own hypocritical doctrine of equality into the equation (hypocritical because they exclude themselves), and declare that it would not be right to condemn just one particular person or group – so lets condemn them all! If one Christian does something wrong, then all Christians are to be blamed. If one church gets something wrong then all are tainted. Guilt by association. If we point out that this is a shallow and superficial view and does not take into account either the Bible’s own teaching that all people including Christians are sinners and therefore of course Christians are going to do things that are wrong; nor the obvious observation that not every group that professes to be a church is a church, they protest ‘but who are you to judge?’. And thus in the name of being non-judgemental, they judge us all.
Of course there are going to be hypocrites and false churches but just because there is the false it does not exclude the real. Counterfeit banknotes only exist because real ones do. Counterfeit Christianity only exists because there is real Christianity. Sadly of course throughout history and still today there have been those who shame the name of Christ, by living lifes contrary to the faith they profess. This is even worse when it is church leaders who do so. Forgive me for citing Calvin again – “How often did Christ and his apostles foretell that pastors would pose the greatest dangers to the church?”

Did Christianity spread by violence?

There is no doubt that once the Apostle Paul was told to go west to Greece, rather than east to Asia, European and world history was changed. The world was turned upside down (Acts 17). When the Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity in 312, it marked the transformation of the Church from being a persecuted and much maligned minority to eventually becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire. We can argue about how much that was a good or bad thing, but from that point on for many European countries and for most of subsequent European history, Church and State were intertwined. This means that we run into a problem when we consider the whole question of whether the Church used violence. So, for example, were the Crusades primarily religious, political or economic? Did the Church burn witches, or was it councils and governments? We really need to find out the facts as well as the context of what is involved.
Many people seem to have the idea that the Church burnt or drowned millions of witches and that the Inquisition was responsible for death of hundreds of thousands more. But the nearest figures we have are that perhaps 40,000 women were killed as witches over a period of two hundred years – that is 200 per year over the whole of Europe. It is of course 200 too many, but still a different story to that which is often portrayed. As for the Inquisition, the last figures I saw suggested that there were 6,000 deaths over 500 years. That is horrendous and I would not attempt to justify or excuse it in the name of Christ, but again it is not quite the story that we are led to believe.
The trouble is that once the Church had political power, it became necessary if you wanted political power to belong to the Church. Then of course it becomes very difficult to distinguish between those who belong to the Church because they follow Jesus and those who belong to the Church because they want the power. And we must admit there are those who do have a false theology (i.e. Jesus wants us to burn heretics) who in their religious zeal cause a great deal of harm. Zeal without knowledge and love is always dangerous, but perhaps especially so when it is linked with religion. As Pope Benedict said: “The temptation to use power to secure the faith has risen again and again in varied forms throughout the centuries, and again faith has risked being suffocated in the embrace of power.”
Please don’t equate everything that is done in the name of Christ with Christ. But then some will ask: ‘Is that not having it both ways?’ When we see some of the good coming from Christianity we claim it, but when we see the bad, we disclaim it. Can I suggest that it is a little more nuanced than that? I accept fully that Christians and Churches, including me and mine, will do things that are wrong and even evil. I accept that because I see it, and also because I believe what Jesus says about the pervasiveness of human sinfulness. However I also accept that though we are still sinners, it is possible to know them by their fruits. Any work of God in a human being will demonstrate something of the fruit of the Spirit, and any church of Christ, will show something of the beauty of Christ – in the midst of all the sin and ugliness.
The Christian way is not about power but about the way of the cross – and every generation needs to learn that.

Where is Jesus now? And what is he doing?

by Solas

Published in Christian Today – 

It’s the week after Easter.
We repeat the joyous affirmation of faith. “Christ is risen. He is risen indeed.” In St Pete’s as we have some Greeks in our fellowship we always use the Greek version – “Christos Anesti...Alithos Anesti.” But then comes the question: OK, He is Risen. Where is he then? And it’s not just the question of an inquisitive child, it should be a question for every adult and for every Christian.
The Apostles’ Creed tells us – “On the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.”
So Jesus is in heaven. But where is that and what does it mean he ascended? It’s not just non-Christians who regard this as somewhat fanciful, many Christians struggle with this idea. Is the idea that Jesus was on earth and then went up into the heavens like a spaceman? Is this not something that clearly belongs to a past where they believed in a three-tiered universe – heaven above, hell below and earth in the middle? Are we not so much wiser now?
This question is all the more important to our non-Christian friends because Christians talk about knowing Christ, having a personal relationship with Jesus, talking to Christ, and wanting to introduce them to Jesus. Unless this is just spiritual code or mumbo jumbo we need to be able to say what it means. Surely it requires a real Jesus, with a real presence and not just ‘Jesus living in my heart’ (as a child that always made me think about some weird John Malkovich-style body!)
The key to this is the biblical teaching about the Ascension. I have been enormously helped in thinking about this by my book of the week this week, Gerrit Scott Dawson’s Jesus Ascended – the Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. I have unashamedly relied on it for much of what follows.

What is the ascension?

It is stated simply in at the end of Luke’s gospel –

When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshipped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God. (Luke 24 – NIV)

The Ascension seems such a strange doctrine. It’s hard enough to believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead. But the idea that he physically rose to heaven seems far-fetched. The usual liberal dismissal of this is expressed by
Bishop Richard Holloway who says “Jesus is not coming back. And the best way to honour him on his birthday is to look for him not in the skies, but in the streets of our own town.” That’s one solution: deny the Ascension happened and spiritualise its meaning so that it becomes all about us.
For those who actually believe the Bible and don’t just make up their own faith the teaching is quite clear. Two Greek words are used for Ascension. One talks about Christ ascending himself, reflecting the Old Testament’s Psalms of ascent (Ps 120-134), another talks about Christ being raised up. He was raised up. An early church statement of faith is expressed in Paul’s letter to Timothy:

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

There is the key. He was taken up in glory. He was taken up to glory. Again, what does that mean? “I’ve gotta home in gloryland that outshines the sun” – but where is gloryland? Where did Jesus go? Where is he now?

Where did Jesus Ascend to?

Heaven. The bible uses the term heaven or heavens in different ways. It can refer to the sky above, or the vast region of stars beyond our world, or another dimension altogether – the realm of God beyond all sense perception. The Ascension does not mean that Jesus is somewhere up there in the stars – where if only we could get a spacecraft which could travel far enough and quick enough we would be able to get to him. One of those ‘ignorant’ earlier Christians, John Calvin, put it clearly: “What? Do we place Christ midway among the spheres? Or do we build a cottage for him among planets? Heaven we regard as the magnificent palace of God far outstripping all this world’s fabric.”
Heaven is the place where God is. He is of course everywhere, but this universe has been tainted by sin and it is therefore not, in Moltmann’s phrase ‘totally pervaded by his glory’. Heaven is. To put it in modern terms, heaven is another universe. Out of this world, but nonetheless real.

What does the Ascension of Jesus tell us about Jesus?

Many Christians seem to think that the Ascension means the undoing of the incarnation. God became man in Jesus, and after Jesus ascended to heaven he became God again. CS Lewis observes: “We also in our heart of hearts, tend to slur over the risen manhood of Jesus to conceive him, after death, simply returning into deity, so that the resurrection would be no more than a reversal or undoing of the incarnation.”This is an enormous error. When Jesus became man he did not cease to be God, and when he ascended he did not cease to be man. He is still the God/Man and that has enormous practical consequences for us. Karl Barth said: “The son of God maintains our humanity to all eternity. It is a clothing which he does not put off. It is his temple which he does not leave. It is the form which he does not lose.” The dust of earth now sits on the throne of heaven.

What does it mean for us?

1) Jesus is not here

At least not in his body. He has gone. He is risen. We do not literally see his body, hear his voice or touch the holes in his hands. But that does not mean we cannot know him, hear him or be with him. We need to point out to our unbelieving friends that the argument ‘if only Jesus was here and I could see and hear him, then I would believe in him’ does not hold water. Why? Because most of the people who did see and hear Jesus did not believe in him. In fact many of them crucified him! They and we, need something more.

2) He has sent his Spirit

We have lost the human voice on earth and the presence of the physical body. But Christ still has a human voice and a physical body which we can communicate with. How? He sent his Spirit.
I have just become a granddad. The only problem is that my daughter is in Australia. I can’t just hop on a plane and go over and be physically with her. But through the wonders of modern technology I have seen my granddaughter, spoken to her and to my daughter. There is a sense in which the connection between the believer and Christ through the Holy Spirit is like the ultimate Skype call. The bible uses the idea of being ‘in Christ’ to describe the intimacy of the connection in such a way that it parallels the intimacy of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Just as Skype collapses the distance between here and Australia for some of our senses, so the Spirit collapses the distance between here and heaven so that we really are in Christ. When we sit at the Lord’s Table he really is there, when two or three gather he really is present. The Holy Spirit unites Christ and his Church in such a way, that although the ascended Lord is not everywhere, he is everywhere accessible.
Again to our unbelieving friends we point out that unless they are ‘born again/from above/of the Spirit’, they cannot even see the kingdom of God, never mind enter it. Becoming a Christian is not about adopting a way of life, religion or philosophy. It is about becoming connected to the living, risen, ascended Christ. Becoming part of his body. Knowing him, following him, serving him, loving him. It is the most dynamic and real of relationships.

3) Christ’s work continues

He is still actively our Prophet, Priest and King. He sends us his Word – the scriptures are the living, breathing, cutting voice of Christ to us today as much as they were when they were written. Christ’s work continues as priest. His sacrifice is finished but his work of intercession continues. Hebrews 4: “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”
We really can approach the throne of grace. It’s not just some inner mystical experience. This is for real! When we take communion, it’s not just a symbol, nor is it the literal physical body of Jesus – but He is really present. We are connected to the whole Christ and fed by the whole Christ.
He is our king. Whatever our circumstances, however powerful our enemies appear to be – Christ reigns over all. His kingdom will come. Ephesians 1: “I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.”

4) We have a glorious hope

“Our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” (Philippians 3 – NIV)

The Christian is always in the realm of the ‘now but not yet’. Christ reigns now, Christ is with us now, but there is more to come. There will come a day when our bodies will be renewed like his. We shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. This is not ‘pie in the sky when you die’ but ‘steak on your plate while you wait!’ It is because we are ‘in Christ’, it is because we know Christ the king, it is because we are assured of his return and ultimate victory that we can live in hope, serve the poor, weep with the broken, and share the Good News. We are now Christ’s body here on earth. He is our Head. We can do nothing without him. But we can do all things through him.
This is the wonder. The Spirit not only collapses distance, he also collapses time so that we connect with Christ in the past – we are with him on the Cross, Christ in the present and Christ in the future.
Some might say, that’s all very well but it sounds like high falutin’ theology… not much practical use. You are kidding! There is nothing more practical than this. Even in terms of evangelism and worship, when we are gathered together as the covenant community of Christ’s people, we need to know his presence in such a way that any unbeliever walking in falls down and says ‘truly God is among you’! This is only the foretaste, the first fruits. The best is yet to be. We long for his return, when everything shall be reconciled.
Maranatha. Even so come soon Lord Jesus.

The Ultimate Evidence: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

by Solas

Published in Christian Today – 

There was a fascinating response to my last article, on miracles. “You have asked what evidence atheists like myself would accept for the existence of God and I have been honest and told you that I don’t know,” wrote one person. “I do know it would have to miraculous on a level that challenges everything that I think I know or understand.” Step forward the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
At the Edinburgh book festival in 2010 Christopher Hitchens debated John Lennox. In concluding his speech, John Lennox mentioned the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. The moderator, John Humphreys, asked Christopher Hitchens to respond, indicating that he had five minutes. Hitchens barked: ‘I won’t need five minutes to respond to someone who believes in the resurrection.”
This is a standard tactic – equate people who believe in the resurrection with people who believe in a flat earth, Santa Claus and Scotland winning the World Cup, and you then don’t need to even think about, never mind examine the evidence.
The main objection to the resurrection is simple. Resurrections just don’t happen. But you need to stop there. We agree. Totally. That is the point. Resurrections don’t happen. If they did then the resurrection of Jesus would be no big deal. It would be a bit like me saying, Jesus is the Son of God because he recovered from illness.
Getting better is common. Getting resurrected is not. In the normal course of events resurrections do not happen. But the Bible is claiming that this is not the normal course of events. It is the ultimate extraordinary event. So instead of dismissing it we need to ask, what happened and what proof is there, before then going on to consider the implications.

What Happened?

Jesus died. This is important for those who want to argue the swoon theory. This has been suggested at various points in history and is still favoured by some Muslims and others desperate to avoid the evidence for the resurrection. The myth is that Jesus didn’t die but nobody noticed. He was flogged, nailed to a cross for hours, stabbed in the side, covered in spices, wrapped in a shroud. But he revived, neatly folded up the grave clothes, rolled the stone away, overcame the Roman guards and walked away. Not really likely, is it?
One of the details in the Gospels is that the Roman soldiers did not break his legs because they saw he was already dead. These were men who had witnessed many executions and deaths and were fully aware of when someone had died. Is it likely that Jesus fooled them by going into some kind of comatose state and then revived himself?
He was buried. After his death on the cross a rich man called Joseph of Arimathea intervened and, aided by the Pharisee Nicodemeus, took the body of Jesus to his own cave tomb. They left the body there after sealing the tomb with a massive rock. The women who followed Jesus were watching from a distance because they wanted to follow the Jewish practice of dressing the body. But they did not do so immediately because night fell and it was the Sabbath. They determined to return on the Sunday to do the job. Meanwhile the Jewish Sanhedrin asked the Roman governor Pilate to put a guard on the tomb, which was then sealed.
On the Sunday, the first day of the week, the women (including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James) took the spices and went to the tomb, only to find that the stone had been rolled away, and the body gone. They were told by “men in clothes that gleamed like lightening” that Jesus was not there and that he had risen as he had said. They told the 11 disciples, who did not believe them, although Peter went to the tomb and saw the evidence of the grave clothes with no body in them. In the differing accounts we read that Mary spoke to Jesus, that Jesus turned up in a room with the disciples and that there were then various other resurrection appearances.
From that point on it was an essential part of the early Christian Church that it consisted of those who believed that Jesus had really risen from the dead. That is the assertion. That is what we believe today. We do not worship a dead Lord. We do not revere an honourable teacher from the past. We do not seek to keep ‘the spirit’ of a great leader alive in our midst. When we worship Jesus Christ we do so a living being. When I wrote Magnificent Obsession I was visited by an atheist friend who stated, “I am completely amazed, that you, an intelligent man, believe that Jesus is still alive…if that were true it changes everything.” Indeed it does.
But how do we prove it? The evidence for the resurrection has been well documented many times, from Morison’s Who Moved the Stone? to Lee Strobel’s The Case for Easter. If you are really serious about investigating this subject then NT Wright’s magnum opus The Resurrection of the Son of God is the recommended book for this week. The evidence we have consists of the following:

1. Eyewitness accounts: 

The Gospel accounts are not written as mythical accounts. They are written as historical accounts that were dependent on witnesses and must be judged as such.

2. The Empty Tomb: 

You can try all manner of theories to explain away the empty tomb but none of them work except the most obvious. Christ is risen.

3.The Resurrection appearances:

These are carefully listed. Christ appeared to the disciples by the Sea of Galilee, to more than 500 at one time, to James, at a meal before Pentecost and the Ascension. They were varied, physical, undramatic and unprecedented. It was the same Jesus but different. These were not collective hallucinations, or mass visions. That would be psychologically very difficult and still runs up against the problem of the empty tomb. They were not ghost appearances. I love the details for example in Luke 24:42-43: “They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.” Ghosts don’t eat broiled fish. It was far more than a symbol. A symbol does not eat broiled fish.

4. The Apostles’ testimony:

Another key question for me is, were the apostles liars? Does it make sense? The human heart is fickle, changes and is open to bribery. Only one of them would have to have gone against it, threatened with imprisonment, torture and death, and all would have been lost. But they didn’t. The beginning point for the apostles is the resurrection. They were prepared to, and did, die for that belief. Not because they were fanatics or deluded, but because it was true, and being true, it changed everything including their deaths. If Christ had not risen from the dead, and they knew it, then the whole game is completely changed. 1 Corinthians 15:17-19 says, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.”

So what?

Tim Keller at the Gospel Coalition conference in 2013 made an intriguing statement. Resurrection makes Christianity the most irritating religion on earth. Why is that? Because you can argue about ethics, doctrines, rituals until you are blue in the face – people are free to believe what they want, what does it matter? But the resurrection means everything is changed. If Christ is not raised Christians are to be pitied for wasting our lives. But if Christ is raised then it would be insane to ignore him and his claims.
Rob Bell writes: “So when the writers of the Bible talk about Jesus’s resurrection bringing new life to the world, they aren’t talking about a new concept. They’re talking about something that has always been true. It’s how the world works.”
But that is not how the world works. Stand on the hillside at the grave of a young man in the Scottish Highlands. The scenery is dramatic; the weather is bleak, cold and windswept. You have just buried that young man. The way the world works is, that is it. His body is in the grave and will rot. The Christian has a different hope. I stood at my father-in-law’s grave on the Island of Lewis with other mourners when I heard the minister say in casual conversation: “There is going to be some party here on the day of the resurrection!” I was astonished to hear such a traditional minister describe the resurrection in such terms, but he was right. In the words of the singer/songwriter Garth Hewitt: “May you live to dance on your own grave, May you live to boogie all night long.”
Another time I took the heartbroken parents of a 27-year-old friend who had died suddenly to the mortuary to identify his body. It was both distressing and incredible. His body was there, but he was not there. In the materialist worldview, that is it. But everything in our soul screams out, “No – that is not right.” Ecclesiastes 3:11 says: “He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” Like Job we declare: “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him – with my own eyes – I and not another. How my heart yearns within me” (Job 19:25-27).
The resurrection gives us a future and hope. It’s personal, certain and unimaginably wonderful. That is why Calvin declared: “Let us, however, consider this settled; that no one has made progress in the school of Christ who does not joyfully await the day of death and final resurrection” (Institutes, 3:10:5). And he urged us to reflect continually upon the resurrection: ‘”Accordingly, he alone has fully profited in the gospel who has accustomed himself to continual meditation upon the blessed resurrection” (Institutes, 3:25:1).
My atheist friend quoted at the beginning said that in order for him to believe, it would have to be miraculous on a level that challenges everything that he thinks he knows or understands. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is just that. “The resurrection, therefore, is the place to begin if you are looking for a satisfying faith on which to base your life. Do not waste a lot of time investigating every religion under the sun from animism to Hinduism. Examine the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus instead. If he is risen you need look no further” (Michael Green).
It also means that Jesus is who he says he is. It is the greatest evidence for Christ. He is Risen! May you come to know the Risen Christ. Happy Easter.

Understanding miracles: Does God break the laws of nature?

by Solas

Published in Christian Today – 

The scientist was adamant. “I don’t believe in God, because I have never met anyone healed in answer to prayer”. I was shocked. Not just because it seemed such a strange reason, but also because it was my first public speaking event, after being healed in answer to prayer. I ripped up my prepared speech shook his head and said “You have now!” before going on to tell my story.
I guess many people would say they would believe if they saw a real miracle. But is it that simple?
Firstly we need to define our terms.

What is a miracle?

The word can be used very lightly. It’s a miracle that you got out of bed today…it’s a miracle that your football team won (especially if they are Scottish). But that is not what we mean when we talk about a biblical miracle. CS Lewis, whose book Miracles is our apologetic book of the week, explains: “I use the word miracle to mean an interference with nature by a supernatural power.”

Could miracles actually happen?

The 17th-century philosopher Blaise Pascal declared: “It is not possible to have reasonable grounds for not believing in miracles.” The trouble is the pre-suppositions that one brings to the argument. If you pre-suppose there is no supernatural being then by definition there cannot be miracles. If, on the other hand, you accept the possibility of an almighty God, then miracles are not a problem. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it: “God, in his ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.”
At this point the argument could be over. The atheist who says there is no evidence for God, but cannot accept the evidence of miracles because there is no God to perform those miracles, needs a miracle to break out of this circular thinking. The religious person who just accepts that God works miracles finds themselves in the same circular argument and never the twain shall meet.
Is there a way out of this impasse? Yes.

Lewis argues that before you look at the historical evidence for miracles you have to determine philosophically whether they are possible at all. He accuses modern historians and Bible critics of having a cultural bias that precludes them from even allowing for the possibility.

GK Chesterton at work.

In Orthodoxy, GK Chesterton put it beautifully: “The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.”

So step one is accepting that miracles are possible. The question then becomes one of evidence.

Did Jesus do miracles?

The evidence for the miracles of Jesus is very strong.
First, we have the historical testimony of the Gospels themselves and the testimony of the early Church. There were many witnesses of these miracles, whether it was the feeding of the 5,000, the 500 who at one time saw the resurrected Christ, or the hundreds who were at the greatest funeral ever, that of Lazarus.
The man who is known as the first of the Christian apologists, Quadratus, addressed the Emperor Hadrian in the year 124 AD with these astonishing words: “Our Saviour’s works, moreover, were always present: for they were real, consisting of those who had been healed of their diseases, those who had been raised from the dead; who were not only seen while they were being healed and raised up, but were afterwards constantly present. Nor did they remain only during the sojourn of the Saviour on earth but also a considerable time after His departure; and indeed some of them have survived even down to our own times.”
The early Church Fathers were much clearer on this than some church leaders in the 20th century, who, following the fashion of the age, decided that everything could and should be explained in naturalistic terms. Thus Jesus feeding the 5,000 was really Jesus using a small boy to encourage everyone to share their hidden picnic lunches, Lazarus being raised from the dead was really him waking up from a deep coma, and Jesus walking on the water was actually him walking on a sandbank. But a Jesus who did not perform miracles, but only pretended that he did, would not be worth following.
We have then a logical possibility that an almighty God could perform miracles and historical testimony claiming many witnesses that this did happen. However, the biblical case for miracles goes beyond philosophy and history. It also has the ring of truth in terms of its purpose.

Why did Jesus do miracles?

“You are probably quite right in thinking you will never see a miracle done: you are probably equally right in thinking that there was a natural explanation of anything in your past life which seemed, at the first glance, to be ‘rum’ or ‘odd’. God does not shake miracles into nature at random as if from a pepper pot. They come on great occasions; they are found at the great junctions of history – not of political or social history, but of that spiritual history which cannot be fully known by man” (CS Lewis, Miracles).
Contrary to many people’s impressions, miracles are not commonplace in the Bible. They are clustered around Moses, Elijah and Elisha and Jesus. Miracles were signs to authenticate the messenger and usher in a new period of God’s revelation of himself.

The miraculous deeds of Jesus show us his identity, his kingdom and his character.

His identity, because as Peter told the Jews at Pentecost: “Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22).

His kingdom, because the signs of the Kingdom were done through him. When John the Baptist asked if he was the one who was to come, Jesus replied: “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the good news is preached to the poor” (Matthew 11:5).
And his character because they demonstrate his love – they were done for the good of people. At the feeding of the 5,000, “Jesus called his disciples to him and said, ‘I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.'”
I think it is important that most of the things Jesus did were not miracles. He did many ordinary and extraordinary things as well as miracles. The miracle of the incarnation and the virgin birth is seen more clearly in the fact that Jesus sawed wood, walked through villages and wept at funerals, than it is in the miraculous signs. The miracles were a sign of who He was. They were also a message that tells us about God. Not least that God is love. The greatest miracles of all is surely that Jesus came from the glory of heaven, emptied himself, became a servant, became ‘nothing’ and lived among us. I rejoice that Jesus showed his power as the Lord of creation by stilling the waves and calming the storm, I rejoice even more that He as the Creator became part of the creation, so that He could deal with the raging storm within, rescue us and restore fallen human beings to be the children of God.

Does he still do miracles?

The question now is, were miracles only for the Gospels? I take my clue from the historian, Luke, who in part two of his account of Christ (what we now know as the Acts of the Apostles) writes: “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach” (Acts 1:1). Note the word ‘began’. Jesus began his work and then when he was taken up to heaven, he continues his work through his Spirit working in and through his Church.
Now we need to be careful here. Not everything that claims to be a miracle done in the name of Jesus is. Right now you could switch on cable TV and find numerous Christian channels promising you a miracle. There is always some televangelist announcing that someone has grown his or her leg or been healed of a growth. Very few announce that they have had an amputated arm replaced or a dead person raised. Although there have even been exceptions to that – like Todd Bentley, who in the midst of his revival crusades announced that several people had been raised from the dead but that he was unable to provide verification because of ‘patient confidentiality’! I am not arguing for that degree of gullibility. But yes, I do believe that God still answers prayer and yes, sometimes these can be at the level of biblical miracles.
If you are like many people you will sometimes be tempted to think that if only God showed you a miracle then you would believe. I don’t think so. Jesus told the story of a rich man who lived in luxury every day and ignored a beggar named Lazarus. He died and in hell he pleaded with Abraham to send Lazarus (who was standing beside Abraham in heaven) to go and warn his brothers, to which Abraham responded: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.” The rich man thought that sending Lazarus would be better because he reckoned that if someone from the dead went to them they would repent. And yet Abraham’s reply was sobering: “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31). The bottom line is if you don’t believe what God says in His Word it is unlikely you will believe even if you see a miracle. As Pascal also said: “Miracles do not serve to convert, but to condemn.”
There is however one miracle which does serve to convert; the greatest miracle of all. Next week we will consider the miracle of the greatest day in history, the day when history was split in two – the day of the resurrection of Jesus. It’s the centre, heart and ultimate proof of the Christian faith. Christ IS alive!

What to say when someone says the Bible can’t be trusted

by Solas

By David Robertson

Published in Christian Today – 

“Did God really say…?”

“Show me the evidence for God and I will believe” is the claim of the unbeliever, quickly backed up with, “there is/can be no evidence which cannot be explained by science”. Last week we showed that far from science providing evidence against God, it points to him.
We also saw that Christians believe that God reveals himself in nature (which is subject to scientific investigation) but that that is not enough. At best it would leave us where some apologists too often do; mildly theistic/deistic. We end up with the Unmoved Mover, the Uncaused Cause, or the Unknowable Mind – useful for a philosophy course, but useless for life. ‘May the Force be with you’, might work as a movie sound bite, but it’s not really the life-changing dynamic that Christianity claims to be. So if God wants us to know him then surely he would reveal himself? Indeed.
My favourite response from last week was the atheist who tweeted: “If I were God I would make my existence obvious to all and would make it crystal clear what to do to be saved.” Bingo. Spot on. That is precisely what God has done. He has made his existence obvious to all and he has made it crystal clear what to do to be saved. God’s revelation? God’s answer? Jesus Christ. “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Hebrews 1:1-3, NIV).
But that just puts back the question – how do we know Jesus? Well, we have good news. We have the gospel. In fact, we have the four Gospels. And in them we are told of a Christ who says that the whole Old Testament concerns himself (Luke 24:27) and who appoints 12 Apostles (and Paul, ‘out of season’) who go on to write the rest of the New Testament. The key to understanding the Bible is that it is about Jesus. It is not primarily a book of morals, or a science text, or a collection of myths and fairy stories. It is the revelation of Jesus Christ. I love what Erasmus, the sixteenth-century scholar and Reformer, wrote: “the Bible will give Christ to you, in an intimacy so close that he would be less visible to you if he stood before your eyes”.
The devil is the Father of lies and so wants people to avoid the truth. His greatest concern is to keep people in darkness and prevent them coming into light. Given that Jesus is the light and that the word of God is light, it is no surprise that the devil’s greatest tactic is to darken, diffuse and cause us to doubt its trustworthiness. “Did God really say?” was the first temptation. And it continues to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks to Christian faith. Let’s consider five of the objections.

1. “The Bible was written by a bunch of illiterate desert goat herders.”

This is one of my favourites! Usually said by those chronological snobs who have never read the Bible and who have suspended their normal capacity for rational thought. How could illiterate people have written the Psalms, the magnificent poem of Job and the extraordinary thoughts of John chapter 1?

2. “The Bible was written centuries after the events described in it.”

This is usually said by those who have little knowledge of ancient history or textual criticism. There are existent today more than five thousand manuscripts with parts of the New Testament in them from the first four centuries – some as early as the 1st. The manuscript evidence for the NT is many times stronger than for any other ancient document. I would strongly recommend reading FF Bruce The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?  And Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.
In similar vein there are those who claim that the Bible is not unique, it’s just a rehash of Greek/Roman/Egyptian myths and legends. I suppose it’s not surprising that in the age of Wikipedia and Atheist memes, every Tom, Dick and Henrietta is an expert in the mythology of the ancient gods! The only way to deal with this is a) historical fact and b) humour. A great example of the latter is that from our friends at Lutheran Satire who deal wonderfully with the myth that the myth of Horus is the source of the Gospels.

3. “The Bible was only decided on at the Council of Nicaea in 325 BC

…and lots of other ‘gospels’ which spoke of women as apostles, Jesus as married and President Obama as the prophesied Messiah were removed.” (OK… I made that last one up, but then other people just made up the first two as well so I thought I would join in the fun!). The people who believe this are not only those who take their sources from their atheist friend’s blogs, but who have also actually read a book. Sadly, that book is the Da Vinci Code, which is to a history of the early Church as Star Trek is to a history of the Universe. Nicaea mainly dealt with the heresy of Arius who denied the divinity of Christ. It did not decide on the books of the Bible.

4. “The Bible is too difficult to understand and anyway it’s not relevant for today.”

This is usually said by those who remember the Bible being read in a soporific voice by a dull as dishwater vicar in a school assembly or RE class!
The Bible is an extraordinary book. In some places it’s remarkably clear and easy to understand, and yet there is also a depth which means that you can read it 1,000 times and still be finding new things within it. It really is the living and enduring Word of God. As for relevance, it is incredible how relevant the Bible actually is. I teach it every Sunday, often to people who know very little about it, and the most common comments I get are, “Wow, I didn’t know there was so much in the Bible,” (and not just because of the length of the sermons!) and “it’s incredible how relevant the Bible is to me and to our society today”. Ironically, it’s when those in the Church doubt that the Bible is adequate for today and then try to make relevant that it very quickly becomes an irrelevant reflection of their culture and prejudices, rather than the ever fresh revelation of God. Those of us who are Christians need to realise that if we add to the Bible (legalism) or take away from the Bible (liberalism), we are in effect pointing people away from the Christ we profess to follow.

5. “The Bible can’t be evidence for itself.” 

This, too, seems profound until you stop and think about it. It’s a bit like saying my wife cannot be evidence for herself. The Bible is evidence for itself. The four Gospels were not myths made up centuries after the events. They are historical accounts, telling us the story of Jesus and bringing us his life. Some scoffers seem to want YouTube clips of Jesus walking on water before they will accept any evidence! They demand that we have documented histories from the period that clearly prove the existence and miracles of Jesus. In a lecture at Cambridge I spoke about the testimony to Christ of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian, Tacitus. I was challenged in some of my statements by a man who really seemed to know what he was talking about. Because he did. He was a professor from the University of Jerusalem who specialised in ancient history and manuscripts. He pointed out that a Jewish peasant called Jesus was highly unlikely to feature in any history written by the cultural winners and elites of that time. The Bible is the best and most reliable evidence we have for Jesus.
But what about all the other ‘Holy Books’? Don’t they all claim the same thing, and should we not treat them all the same way? Actually many of them don’t, and yes we should treat them all the same way – at least in this. Read them. Think about them. Compare them. It’s astonishing how many people will say that the Bible and the Qur’an are effectively the same, who have read neither.
The truth is, however, that we do need the Spirit to work in our lives. I love what the Westminster Confession of Faith says about the necessity of the work of Spirit in order for us to understand:

1:V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

I guess the question to ask is: what does the Bible mean to you? For me, it is not an academic book yet is stretches my mind and makes me think unlike anything else I have ever read. It is not a self-help book yet it has been a greater help to me than anything else I know. It is not a religious book and yet it has led me to God. It is not a political book and yet it has shown me why our world is in such a mess. It is not a book of morals and yet it has helped me tot clarify right and wrong. In other words, the Bible is my food, meat and drink. I do not read, study or preach it as a ‘professional’ just doing my job. It is the Word of God. Through it, God speaks not only to me, but also to his Church and indeed to the whole world. People are “born again… through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23).
I once challenged a vociferous young atheist in Brighton, who told me that the Bible was all rubbish. Have you read it? No. Why not try? A month later he wrote to me. He had done it all wrong. He started at Genesis chapter 1, used the King James Version and had made it to chapter 38. But his response astonished me. “It scares me”, he declared, “it’s beginning to make sense”! It’s a very simple challenge. Ask people to read the Word of God, help them with one to one Gospel studies, and take them to church to hear the Word of God being proclaimed and explained. God’s word will never return to him empty. It is, after all, the word that brings life. God really did say. He really did speak. He still does. And as he speaks his word, it brings forth life.
This week’s recommended book: An oldie but goldie – JI Packer – Fundamentalism and the Word of God.

What to say when someone says, "Science has disproved God!"

by Solas

By David Robertson

Published in Christian Today – 

“Show me the evidence.”

Last week we looked at why this apparently reasonable request is difficult to answer because of pride (“I am capable of judging the evidence”) and prejudice (“there can be no evidence”). You can read the original article here.
The reaction was interesting, not least when it came to the question “What evidence for God would you accept?” Not one person who tweeted/blogged/e-mailed was able to say what evidence for God they would accept. It appears that people can accept plenty evidence against God, but there is nothing that they would accept as evidence for God, because such evidence can, and always will be, explained away.
Why is this? Perhaps the main cause is the perceived opposition between faith and science, expressed in the simplistic formula, “You have faith, I have science.” The belief that science and faith are opposed is one of those atheist myths that have grown so strong in popular culture that it is has become a major hindrance to sharing the gospel. Let me tell you a story.
A long time ago (about 20 years) in a land far away (Scotland) a nervous young minister (yours truly) knocked on a door that was answered by a rather rotund, middle-aged man.
“I’m from the local church”, said the minister.
“Hang on, I’ll get the wife,” came the response (because after all, in the world of the macho male only women and children are weak enough to need religion).
“No,” said the young minister,”you beard, me beard, we both man (this in a vain attempt to have an incarnational ministry).
“I don’t believe in God, I believe in science,” he countered.
“Oh – you a scientist?” “Nah.”
“You studied science?” “Nah.”
“You read science?” “Nah.”
“You know anything about science?” “Nah – I just believe in it.”
That may be a somewhat simplistic version, but it is a common belief among many. It is something that through media, popular culture and dumbed-down education, is now an accepted part of the zeitgeist.
And it’s completely wrong. It relies on a misunderstanding of both faith and science.

First, faith is not blind belief. 

Christians are not ‘people of faith’. We are people who have faith in Christ. And that faith is trust/belief based upon evidence – not despite or contrary to the evidence. In other words, Christianity is not something based upon blind faith that is in opposition to science. Instead it is something that is based upon evidence, including the evidence of science.
There is also a misunderstanding about what science is.

Science is a method, not a person or philosophy. 

“Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding,” as one definition has it. But it is a limited method. It is carried out by limited human beings and it is only concerned with the observable physical world. It cannot by definition tell us about the unobservable non-physical world. Therefore to use naturalistic science to attempt to prove of disprove a supernatural God is illogical.

Science is also morally neutral. 

It can tell us how to split the atom, but it cannot tell us whether it is better to build a bomb or a nuclear power station with that knowledge.
Despite this some atheists try to argue that science does or can explain everything. An example is the Oxford chemistry professor Peter Atkins who claimed that “science is omnipotent” and that science can account for everything. There is a wonderful answer to this from William Lane Craig in a debate he had with Atkins.

Craig points out that science cannot account for logical and mathematical truths, metaphysical truths (such as “there are other minds than my own”), ethical beliefs, aesthetic judgements (“the beautiful, like the good cannot be scientifically proven”) and that science itself cannot be justified entirely by the scientific method.
The trouble with Atkins position is that he just has a blind faith that one day science will be able to tell us everything. Instead of the ‘God of the gaps’ (where God is only used as an explanation for what we do not know, rather than the reason for what we do), Atkins has a ‘science of the gaps’. We don’t know but ‘science’ does. This is a common myth that we need to debunk.
The problem here is not with science as a method of discovering knowledge about the natural world, but with the philosophy of scientism (naturalism) that says that the natural world is the only world that can exist. Here we have to do a wee bit of philosophy – despite the fact that atheistic apologists like Dawkins and Hawking want us to avoid all philosophy.
AJ Ayer in the 1920’s wrote a book called Language, Truth and Logic which espoused a philosophy called Logical Positivism. What does that have to do with the man on the street today? Because, despite being debunked by most serious philosophers it is now the default philosophy of the common man. Logical positivism states that something can only be real or true if it can be empirically demonstrated to be true. So the ordinary Westerner will insist: “I would believe in God if I could see, touch, hear him.”
Note how we are back here to the demand for evidence – and of a particular type of evidence, that can be judged by our senses. The trouble is, as Ayer himself admitted in a BBC interview towards the end of his life, that logical positivism is nonsense because it is self-refuting. The statement that the only things that are true are those things that can be empirically demonstrated to be true, is itself unprovable, so by its own logic it cannot be true! The “man on the street” has locked himself into a worldview and a philosophy that is false and yet on the basis of that false way of thinking, rejects any evidence for God.
Enough of the heavy philosophy – important though it is. Given that science cannot explain everything and that naturalism is as much a ‘faith’ position as any other philosophy or religious system of thought,what can science tell us, and about what? For example, what about evolution? Richard Dawkins’s whole position can be boiled down to two main points. 1) Evolution is true and 2) because evolution is true there is no God.
It’s a position that seems to be widely accepted in popular culture. I was in a school yesterday where some of the pupils told me they did not believe in God, they believed in evolution – as though evolution were an alternative faith (which for some people it seems to be). And yet premise 2) does not automatically follow from premise 1). It is quite logical to believe that God used evolution to create. There are Christians who are young earth creationists, there are others who are old earth creationists, there are those who are theistic evolutionists, and there are some of us who just don’t know. Even if we grant that macroevolution is demonstrated beyond any doubt, that does not mean that there is no God.

But what about the evidence of science? Is it completely neutral? 

No. While a supernatural being cannot be absolutely proven by naturalistic methods alone, it is still the case that science points to, rather than away from, God. Yes, there are many scientists who are atheists, but that is as much because of their culture and background as it is because of their science.
There are also many Christians who are scientists. The observation of the natural is a pointer towards God. The heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19); there is no land where their speech is not heard. The Bible tells us that “what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20). The fine-tuning of the universe, the marvels of DNA, the consciousness of humanity are all pointers towards the God who made it all, along with many other ‘wonders’ of the natural world.
There are those of course who just simply deny that. Their faith (that there can be nothing beyond the ‘natural’) is so deeply ingrained that they are prepared to believe that it all came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing. This weeks recommended book is John Lennox’s God’s Undertaker – Has Science Buried God? In it Lennox concludes by asking: “Inevitably, of course, not only those of us who do science, but all of us, have to choose the presupposition with which we start. There are not many options – essentially just two. Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second.”

But what about Christian opposition to science? 

Do not all religious people oppose science? Are they not in competition as alternative explanations? Again this is so much part of the common mythology that the only way to deal with it is patiently, historically and factually. This week I was speaking at a University event and I was told that Christians had opposed every scientific advance. When asked to give an example the speaker said “the printing press”! I assume he had not heard of the first printing press, the Gutenberg press, used to print the Gutenberg Bible.
Christians welcome science because in the words of the greatest scientist, the Puritan Isaac Newton, God has two books, the book of general revelation, nature, and the book of special revelation, the Bible. They are complementary to one another, not opposed. In fact a case can be made that without a theistic understanding of the universe, science itself would have no reasonable foundation. Ultimately only those who believe in an ordered (created?) universe with scientific laws, can do science without compartmentalising.

So how can Christians deal with this deeply ingrained ‘defeater belief’?

We should think about and discuss these things. A superb resource for doing so is the wonderfully produced God Question series which is a balanced look at the whole subject from a wide variety of people (including prominent atheists) and gives a great opportunity for us to show that we are not scientific ignoramuses.
And we should encourage people to realise that science and faith in Christ are not opposed. Indeed the science onlyposition is one that is profoundly dark and depressing. Last week Stephen Hawking, a born and bred atheist, warned us that science will wipe out the planet. We have a far greater hope. We have a far greater and clearer vision. We see the sun with the eyes in our head, we see the Son through the eyes of our heart.
In the latest edition of The Dawkins Letters we included the testimony of Richard Morgan, who was an atheist participant in the Dawkins website, until he became enlightened. In reflecting upon this whole question of evidence, science and faith he observed: “I have my five senses and a brain that works in a particular way to process what my five senses pick up. But that doesn’t prove that anything that can’t be captured by my five senses doesn’t exist. If ever, in a science fiction journey, I came across a universe where living beings had 10 senses, well, I could only have half as much fun as they did.”
Richard then goes on to describe his conversion as he reflected on the words: “We can love Him, because He loved us first,” by giving the best description I have ever heard of the change becoming a Christian makes: ” As I considered my perception of life, the universe and everything, it was literally as if I had been looking at a two dimensional image in black and white, and in an instant everything became three dimensional and Technicolor!”
I will leave the final word with Richard: “It is so good to be loved, without having done anything to deserve it. It is so good to raise my eyes from the science laboratories and the books of philosophy and start to behold the glory of God. Science and philosophy are wonderful manifestations of the enormous capacities of the human mind. But the Word of God is Truth, and truth is what it took to set me free. My journey in faith begins”. What about yours?

What to say when someone asks for proof of God’s existence

by Solas

Want to explore this question in shorter form? Check out Solas Director Andy Bannister’s new 60 second videos on Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube.

“There isn’t enough evidence.”

It seems so reasonable. It’s what any sensible person would ask. Where is the evidence? Why should it be so difficult to believe in Christ?
Hard core atheism, the belief that there is no God (anti-theism), is difficult to defend, so the new softer, friendlier atheism defines itself as “we would believe in God if there was enough evidence”. Most of the atheists you will meet are in reality agnostics (no-knowledge). It seems reasonable and humble to admit that we do not know. This softer position says I do not know because there is not sufficient information. I can’t prove there is no God and you can’t prove there is. Provide me with the information and of course I would believe. This position is best summed up by Bertrand Russell’s statement that if he met God and was asked why he did not believe he would declare, “Because you did not provide enough evidence”.
Perhaps apathy is the predominant thought here. Many of your friends do not lie on their beds at night pondering the meaning of life and suffering from existential angst. They are far more concerned about the game they just watched, the bills they have to pay, and their next visit to the doctor. Normal life for them does not involve God.
So just as in the film Jerry Maguire, when Cuba Gooding Jnr asks Tom Cruise to “show me the money”, so our atheist/agnostic friends make this seemingly innocuous demand: “show me the evidence”. Even today I came across an atheist writer in a local newspaper, proudly asserting that we should not have Christian schools because we should only teach children facts based on evidence and Christianity is not based upon evidence. So how do we respond to this? Let’s talk about pride and prejudice.

Pride.

Behind this seemingly humble and reasonable request there is actually a vast amount of pride. The trouble is that the person making this claim assumes they are in the position of being able to judge the evidence. They assume they have the neutrality, intelligence and ability to assess whether there is a God or not. They have, in effect, positioned themselves as the judge of The Judge. “I will not believe in a God who does X, Y or Z”, is a common claim. So the first question I simply ask anyone who demands evidence, is why they think they have the capacity to judge any such evidence? You cannot see God without humility. It is only when we kneel at the cross, rather than flying over it at drone height, that we are able to see where love and mercy meet. That is why Bertrand Russell will not be standing on the Day of Judgement accusing God; he will be kneeling at the name of Jesus, astounded and ashamed that he was so blind.

Prejudice.

Very often, the person who demands evidence has already made a pre-judgement that there can be no such evidence. It’s a bit like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. No matter what you say, it is automatically dismissed, because it is perceived as being part of the conspiracy! I have often found that if you answer a particular problem, or provide a particular piece of evidence, the person you are answering immediately turns to something else and just avoids the issue. In order to overcome this prejudice and to avoid wasting a vast amount of time arguing about such vital issues as whether Noah walked to Australia to get kangaroos, I would simply suggest the following: ask anyone who demands evidence, what evidence is it that they would accept for God? Honest atheists like Richard Dawkins admit that there is almost nothing that would convince them of God. If a giant finger was to write in the sky, “I exist”, they would find some alternative way of explaining it. Anything other than believing in an almighty personal Creator.
When the Big Bang was proven and it became clear that the universe did indeed have a beginning, as the Bible stated, some atheists were so desperate to avoid the obvious implications that they refused at first to accept it (and afterwards quickly ran off to place their faith in the unproven multiverse theory). Their philosophy is what I call ABG-ism (Anything But God). It is not so much that they believe there is no evidence for God, but they are emotionally driven by their desire that there should be no evidence for God.

I was blind but now I see.

In reality the situation is even worse than that. When you ask people to believe and trust in God, it is like asking a blind person to admire the intricacies of the Mona Lisa. You are talking to dead stones and asking these stones to dance. You are calling out to those who are dead in sins and trespasses, to come to life. It’s enough to make any self-respecting evangelist, preacher, Christian give up in despair. Except for those who know their God and his Bible! Because the Bible itself tells us that the word of God will not return to him empty, and that the Holy Spirit takes the word and enables the blind to see and the dead to live. The word preached and lived in the Dunamis (power) of the Spirit is dynamite!

Does this mean that there is no room for evidence?

Of course not! The Holy Spirit always uses means. He usually addresses the heart through the mind, not the other way round. Therefore we should patiently present all the evidence that he gives us with the prayerful desire that he will take this and work in the lives of those we deal with. For most people, coming to faith in Christ is not a Damascus road experience. It is not one gigantic leap up Mount Improbable, but rather an evolving faith over a period of time, with the Holy Spirit using a number of factors, including evidence, experience, the Bible, coincidence, friends, foes and family.
I often tell people that they should use the motto of The X-Files – ‘the truth is out there’. An intelligent agnostic is someone who seeks that truth. A loving Christian is someone who seeks to present that truth. At the end of The Dawkins Letters I presented my 10 different reasons for believing that Christianity is true. The creation, the human mind and spirit, the moral law, beauty, religion, experience, history, the church, the Bible, and Jesus. Why not make your own list?
In today’s Christian world we are blessed with a significant number of books that intelligently, attractively and insightfully present the evidence for Jesus Christ. My recommended book this week is Josh McDowell’s New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. It’s lengthy, but it contains a wealth of information.
Christians who seek to present the good news of Jesus Christ will be prayerful, loving people who are saturated with the word of God and who know how to present it in the context of a culture which is deaf, dumb and blind to that word. If we do so, we will not just be presenting the evidence, we will be the evidence.

SET EDUCATION FREE

by Solas

It’s time to stand against atheist agenda and regain the vision for education in Europe.  BY DAVID ROBERTSON 

The former British prime minister, Tony Blair, once issued the mantra “education, education, education”. At least he recognised how important the subject is. In this he was echoing the priorities of John Knox who declared that where there was a church, there should be a school, thereby laying the foundation for an education system that was the envy of the world.  
As a result, Scotland became known as the land of the people of the book, and exported engineers, military leaders, politicians, doctors, teachers and missionaries all over the world. And it was not just Scotland – everywhere Christianity spread in Europe, it brought education. The Reformation resulted in the establishment of universities and schools wherever it was successful. But how things have changed.    
The current narrative is that it is now religion that is holding back education and that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be religious. We have moved to a situation where education is seen as a means to get rid of religion, and where state education systems are increasingly being used to indoctrinate children into a liberal secular humanism and to socially engineer children for their future roles in society. Education is now seen as the primary means to advance an atheistic secularist agenda.     
In Birmingham, England, concern was rightly expressed at how some Islamic groups were using the state education system as a “Trojan Horse” to inculcate Islamist ideology within society. But we are missing the bigger picture. A relatively small group of elitist secularists are also using the education system as a Trojan Horse to inculcate their ideology upon an unsuspecting populace. The results are catastrophic, at least in my country, Scotland.   

“A relatively small group of elitist secularists are … using the education system as a Trojan Horse to inculcate their ideology upon an unsuspecting populace. The results are catastrophic …” 

All is not well in Scotland’s education system. There is a real and well-founded concern about declining standards, lack of aspiration and above all, a kind of educational apartheid which means that if you are rich enough you can either send your child to a private school (as do one-third of parents in Edinburgh) or buy a house in the catchment area of a “good” school. The lack of parental involvement, the remodelling of schools into centres for social engineering rather than education, the low morale amongst many teachers, and the obsession of politicians with figures and targets, are all indications of a struggling system. 
What has gone wrong?  AA Hodge, the former principal of Princeton Seminary, gave a fascinating lecture to women’s groups in the 1880s that helps us understand. “The tendency [of those who promote public education] is to hold that this system must be altogether secular,” said Hodge. “The atheistic doctrine is gaining currency, even among professed Christians and even among some bewildered Christian ministers, that an education provided by the common government should be entirely emptied of all religious character … it is capable of exact demonstration that if every party in the State has the right of excluding from the public schools whatever he does not believe to be true, then he that believes most must give way to him that believes least, and then he that believes least must give way to him that believes absolutely nothing, no matter in how small a minority the atheists or the agnostics may be. It is self-evident that on this scheme, if it is consistently and persistently carried out in all parts of the country, the United States system of national popular education will be the most efficient and widespread instrument for the propagation of Atheism [naturalism, humanism, etc.] which the world has ever seen.” 
Hodge’s warning was true for the United States of the 19th century. It has come true in the Europe of the 21st. Under the guise of secularism and “equality” the education system is being used to indoctrinate children into an atheistic worldview.    
Recently, I visited fourth-year students at a local high school, in order to speak about science and Christianity. The pupils were openly aggressive (apart from a couple of Muslims and one Christian) suggesting that only ignorant people believed in God, and that was just because of their culture and family. When I asked how many of them had parents who believed – or friends, or teachers – they all responded that there was virtually no one. They did not see the irony of their claiming that belief only came from culture, family, education, when it was clear that their unbelief came from just precisely that. It was not a product of reasoned thought, evaluating evidence or reflecting on different worldviews. They had been indoctrinated in such an effective way that they did not see that they had been indoctrinated!  
And make no mistake. This is what the fundamentalist atheist secularists such as Richard Dawkins are doing. This is a battle. It used to be thought that children were born with a “tabula rasa”, a blank slate. Whilst the notion that people are born atheist is still an argument you will hear in more ignorant circles online, most psychologists accept this is not the case. Indeed, Dawkins cites Dorothy Kelman who argues that children are born creationists and need to be educated out of it. He also argues that bringing up children in a particular faith can be worse than child sexual abuse. “Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing up the child Catholic in the first place” – a claim he made in front of an audience of Dublin intellectuals that was greeted with loud applause.  
Dawkins then goes on to cite with approval, the psychologist Nicholas Humphreys: “Children, I’ll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas – no matter who those other people are … So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or to lock them in a dungeon.”   

The notion that keeping children away from religion will somehow save the world is a fanciful one which ignores logic, common sense and human history. As regards the latter, I am reminded of an asylum seeker in the Netherlands whom I met a few years ago. She was an educated doctor from Azerbaijan who had experienced the horrors of religious ethnic cleansing, having been forced from her country by Muslim fundamentalists. You would expect that having experienced the evil effects of some religion she would have been supportive of Dawkins’ point of view. But when I discussed it with her she completely disagreed.   
“We spent 70 years,” she told me, “70 years when we were not allowed to be taught about God. We lived in an atheist state where only atheism was taught.  They even tried to ban God from our homes.” The results were all too clearly seen in the atheist Soviet Union. The philosophy, presuppositions and ideas of fundamentalist atheistic secularism have been tried and found wanting.  
 
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
There is no reason why we just have to accept the atheistic secularist agenda as the default one. Perhaps we need to go the human rights route? The United Nations Charter on Human Rights declares, in Article 26, that “everyone has the right to education” and that “education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages”. It also states, as an absolute principle, that “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”.  
The European Convention on Human Rights Protocol 1 Article 2, states “in the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and teaching, the state shall respect the rights of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.  
Christians need to stand for this human right. Not just for our children and ourselves, but for all the people of Europe. In some areas, of course, this is already happening. In the Netherlands, for example, there are three main education sectors: state, religious and non-denominational independent. More than two-thirds of government-funded schools are independent, most of them Catholic or Protestant. In order to receive such funding these schools must have more than 260 pupils, have licensed teachers, and cover an agreed curriculum and standards. Why could such a system not exist in other countries? In this respect the Dutch churches have remained far truer to their heritage than many other European churches.  
It is important to note that Christians are not just concerned with protecting our own children. We want to serve the poor. If churches were allowed to return to the vision of John Knox (where there is a church, there should be a school), then a huge army of volunteers and resources would be unleashed for the good of all, not just the privileged few. Christians build and support schools. Atheistic secularists take them over, cuckoo like.
 

“It is important to note that Christians are not just concerned with protecting our own children. We want to serve the poor… Christians build and support schools. Atheistic secularists take them over, cuckoo like.” 

One example of faith-based schools helping rather than hindering the poor is seen in the Catholic system in Scotland. Anthony Finn, professor in education at the University of Glasgow, examined 99 school inspection reports between 2012 and 2014. He found that 51 per cent of inspection outcomes in Catholic schools were rated “excellent” or “very good”. This compared with 30 per cent in non-denominational schools. While 36 per cent of inspections in non-denominational schools were graded “weak” or “unsatisfactory”, in Catholic schools the figure was 13 per cent. Many of these schools were in socially deprived areas.  
But is this not a recipe for division? No – it is an argument for diversity. Those who argue for a state-imposed uniformity really want a one-size-fits-all education, just as long as it is their size. They want to exclude Christianity from the classroom and thus use the education system to impose their own particular doctrines. The results are proving devastating.    
“Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education”(Bertrand Russell). A limited education which is more about preparing people for jobs and social engineering, is leading to an increasingly dumbed-down society. Instead of tolerance, diversity of views, and people being allowed to question, our Western educational establishments are being taken over by an authoritarian, feelings-based irrationality that seeks to squash any dissent from the doctrines of its faith (the first of which is that it is not a faith and does not have any doctrines!). It is as though some mixture of Brave New World and 1984 is being used to create a workforce that dare not question the new all-powerful Liberal establishment. The Australian comedian Neel Kolhatkar sums it up brilliantly in his Youtube clip entitled “Modern Educayshun”

I do not want a Stalinist system which bans Christianity from school and home.  Nor do I want an American secularist model that leaves the wealthy and middle class to send their children to private schools (often based on Christian principles) whilst often allowing the poor to rot in an under-funded state system based on a poor philosophy of education. Teaching children on the basis of Christian principles of love, mutual respect, inquiry, truth and justice is not abuse. Denying children the opportunity to a decent education because of the bias of your philosophy – that is abuse.  

“Teaching children on the basis of Christian principles of love, mutual respect, inquiry, truth and justice is not abuse. Denying children the opportunity to a decent education because of the bias of your philosophy – that is abuse.”  

An open education system, where Christianity has its full rights in the post-modern marketplace, would be of great benefit to the whole of Europe. But will the fundamentalist ideology of the secular humanists even contemplate allowing it?  
We call upon the governments of Europe to recognise the value of Christian education, to establish a voucher system or equivalent, and to come out of the corporatism of the mid-20th century, into the progressive enlightenment of the 21st. Set education free and give parents real choice.  
We also call upon the churches to start taking education seriously again. To pray, think, act, invest resources and look for the highest quality education for all. It’s time for Christians in Europe to regain the Christian vision for education in Europe, as explained by Vishnal Mangelwadi in The Book That Made Your World: “In the absence of a coherent worldview, secular education is fragmenting knowledge. Unrelated bits of information give no basis to grasp a vision like Comenius’s to change the world through education. The secular university knows no Messiah that promises a kingdom to the poor, the weak, the sick and the sorrowing destitute.”  

 
Note: The 2013 Solas Conference was on the role of Christianity in Education.  Mike Reeves, Sinclair Ferguson, Luc Brussiere and I all gave talks on various aspects of education. You can find out more about these talks on the Solas website: solas-cpc.org  
 

David Bowie’s death, grief, and the frustration of a society that has nothing to offer the lonely

by Solas

David Bowie
It was a shock. Of course it was. Make your coffee, switch on the radio and you hearLife on Mars on Radio 4. What had happened? Had Bowie died? Indeed he had. An unconventional celebrity life, with an unconventional celebrity death. In this age of social media, gossip columns and photographers desperate for that one image, it is astonishing that David Bowie had cancer for 18 months and it never once got into the media. No one – apart from close friends and family – knew. He did something really unusual for a modern celebrity. He died privately.

Bowie Bingo

 But now everyone wants to have their say. I played Twitter Bingo that morning. David Cameron – check. Nicola Sturgeon – check. Media stars – check. Church leaders – check. It wasn’t long before I had a full house. Even the Vatican got in on the act – its newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, paid tribute.

“One might even say that, beyond the apparent excesses, the legacy of David Bowie… is enclosed in its own sort of personal sobriety, expressed even in the lean physique, almost threadlike.”

I’m sure that many people were genuine in their tributes and did feel a real sorrow. Others may just have been playing the game; saying something for the sake of being seen to say something and show that they ‘cared’. God alone knows. I suspect the wall-to-wall coverage combined with the political, religious and cultural leaders’ interest was largely because those who are now in charge grew up with David Bowie as part of the soundtrack of their life. And to lose that is a sorrow.

Heaven 

But what really interested and saddened me was the number of spokespeople who made comments about him being in heaven. I hadn’t realised that so many of the great and good believed in heaven – and surely they would not be lying to us? Or just using heaven as an excuse to make a corny pun about ‘starman’ now looking down on us? And that set me thinking – what do we really think about heaven? I thought that in this naturalistic, materialist world we could be all grown up and just say, “He’s gone, he had a good life, did a lot of daft things, did a lot of good things, we will miss him, but he’s gone”. I haven’t checked but I almost expected Richard Dawkins to tweet, “He’s gone. There is nothing left of him but his music and family. He’s not in heaven”. But it appears that in popular culture, we still cannot face up to the nihilist existentialism of atheistic naturalism. It seems that the Bible was right about eternity being in our hearts.

“I have seen the burden God has laid on men. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end”
Ecclesiastes 3:10-11

So those who were happily singing “Imagine there’s no heaven” a few months ago are now telling everyone that David Bowie is in this heaven that they imagine does not exist? And those who want to say something nice and believe that everyone goes to heaven, think that Bowie is up there along with Lemmy, Hendrix and of course Stalin, Hitler and Jack the Ripper. That is, after all, the logic of their position. And again I have not looked, but I am sure that in the bloggersphere somewhere, there are some ‘Christians’ who are taking the opportunity to tell everyone he is in hell and how as a bisexual rock star drug addict he is a warning to us all. And there will be those who are writing about how he was converted on his deathbed and they can tell this because of a) something Bowie said, b) a dream they had or c) a very reliable source, a friend of a friend, who is ‘in the know’.

Sorrow

All I can say is that I feel a real and frustrating sorrow. Let me explain. Bowie, like most human beings was a complex man, who experienced many changes in his life. For example he moved from being gay/bisexual to being heterosexual. In an interview with Tony Parsons in Arena magazine in 1993 he said, “In the States, towards the end of the Seventies, I think the gay body was pretty hostile towards me because I didn’t seem to be supporting the gay movement in any kind of way. And I was sad about that. Because I had come to the realisation that I was pretty much heterosexual”.
He cannot just be simply pigeonholed according to what we want to be true. I didn’t know David Bowie and I am in no position to pass any judgement upon him. I do think he was a musical genius and much of his music was also part of the soundtrack of my early life. But the sorrow comes from what I heard him express, and the pathetic solutions offered to him by a society that he helped create.

Believer?

Firstly, there is no doubt that he was not an atheist. He said so. In that interview with Tony Parsons he explained why he had said the Lord’s Prayer at the Freddy Mercury tribute concert. “In rock music, especially in the performance arena, there is no room for prayer, but I think that so many of the songs people write are prayers. A lot of my songs seem to be prayers for unity within myself. On a personal level, I have an undying belief in God’s existence. For me it is unquestionable.”
Incidentally, I personally found that moment of saying the Lord’s Prayer absolutely extraordinary. It was so unexpected and somewhat surreal. Did Bowie not realise it was a public ‘secular’ event? How dare he bring religion into it! Did he not care how many people he would offend? Probably not.

Does this mean that we can claim him as a card-carrying Christian? Not at all. As far as I know he never professed to be one. But like all intelligent and creative people, he did show a great interest in the Bible, in Jesus Christ and in the great questions that Christ is the answer to. In his 1993 Album, The Buddha of Suburbia he wrote the following lines in the song, Sex and the Church:

Though the idea of compassion
Is said to be
The union of Christ
And his bride, the Christian
It’s all very puzzling.

All the Lonely People

The most poignant moment in the Parsons interview was when Bowie explained his collapse into drugs, sex and despair by saying,

“I felt totally, absolutely alone. And I probably was alone because I pretty much had abandoned God.”

And that is where the frustration part of the sorrow comes. Because Bowie himself was clearly a seeker. He recognised that the ‘hole within’ would not be filled by ‘sex and drugs and rock ‘n’roll’. He needed to know that there is “a way back to God, from the dark paths of sin, there’s a door that is open and you may go in; at Calvary’s Cross is where you begin, when you come as a sinner to Jesus”. A society that has itself abandoned God has nothing to offer the person who is lonely because they feel they have abandoned God.
I mourn for David Bowie. As I mourn for ‘all the lonely people’, whose need for fulfilment, forgiveness, faith and a future can only be met by Christ.
Bowie’s last album, Blackstar, realised this month, has a poignancy about it that is painful. Especially this from the song Lazarus:

Look up here, I’m in heaven
I’ve got scars that can’t be seen
I’ve got drama, can’t be stolen
Everybody knows me now.

Life to the Living 

Bowie is gone. I know not where. Who knows what happened in the last years, months and moments of his life? We mourn his passing. Let the dead bury their dead. Meanwhile our task is to bring Life to the living. Let us bring the Good News to those who are lonely because they feel they have abandoned God, that He has not abandoned them.

 

David RobertsonDavid Robertson

Director, Solas Centre for Public Christianity

 

MEDIA LINKS

Christian Today
The Herald
The Scotsman

Challenging the Dominant Narrative

by Solas
GAVIN MATTHEWS talks to acclaimed Christian apologist ALISTER MCGRATH about his new book, Inventing the Universe.

Tell us about Inventing the Universe. What is it about, why did you write it, and who is it for? 
 I wrote it because I wanted to explain the kind of journey I made from being an atheist who thought that science explained everything, to being a Christian who sees science as filling in parts of a picture, but who sees that there is a bigger picture as well. So I am writing this for anyone who is interested in the whole area of science and faith, particularly for scientists who are Christians who want to articulate the way they think more clearly, or for other people who just want to know that there are ways of holding science and faith together.  
 
Something of an intellectual autobiography as well, then? 
Well, it is actually, yes! I’m saying that over a 40-year period, this is what I have come to think. This is what I have found my way towards, and if it helps others, I’ll be delighted! 
 
In the book you refer to the “warfare model” of Science versus Christianity. Why do you think that it has come to dominate the public discourse, and created such a problem for allowing Christian apologetics to gain a fair hearing? 
I think it’s become a defining narrative or our culture. In part, because it has been propagated by a media who tend to just repeat what everyone’s said in the past. But more importantly, I think New Atheism has made this conflict narrative normative. I think that when you have very influential cultural figures supporting this, it’s quite difficult to break that stranglehold. And so we need to tell a different story and show that it makes more sense and that it’s much more exciting and attractive. 

 
How can we help people to hear Christian apologetics when their ‘plausibility structure’ has already told them that what we are saying is irrelevant?  
Well what I think you need to do is to say, ‘look, here is a narrative which has been suppressed. Here is a way of thinking that people are trying to drown out’. They find it threatening, they find it challenging, and we need to say that they may not like it but they’ve got to hear it. They owe it to us to give us a hearing. I think that is something we need to say. CS Lewis, in his sermon The Weight of Glory, says that the dominant narrative in our culture is, ‘what you see is what you get’, and he says we have been ‘entranced’ by that, and we need to break that spell! And then he says the way of breaking a spell is by casting a better spell. What he means is presenting Christianity in an attractive, intelligible and an imaginatively compelling way, so that people stop and say, ‘we’ve got to think about this’. And we haven’t done that very well. 
 
And the media is captured by the conflict model, which prevents people like you being heard at the public level, I suppose?  
It’s become the dominant media narrative. Charles Taylor’s book, The Secular Age, talks about how this happens. The difficulty is that once a narrative takes root, anyone who contradicts it is seen as being irrational. And Taylor says that once that mindset develops it’s very hard to break it. We’ve got to see ourselves as a counter-culture, a fifth-column, (or something like that). We are subversives who are challenging the dominant narrative, firstly because it’s wrong, but secondly, because we’re pressing a much more meaningful and exciting narrative.  
 
And your book is doing that? 
Well, it’s a small step in that direction. Scholarship disproved this ‘conflict narrative’ a generation ago, but it’s taken ages for it to filter through to the media, who keep on repeating this old-fashioned, outdated approach.  
 
The book made a lot of scientific ideas accessible to a non-scientist like me, which I found exciting. 
Well, it is written for a general audience, although I think scientists will particularly like it. I’ve just been debating a leading British humanist and physicist, and actually we had an incredibly civil and interesting conversation, because basically my science is right! That makes it much harder for atheists to write it off. If you do that, it gets a really good conversation underway.  
 
Interesting that you were speaking to a physicist. Is it harder to be a biologist who is a believer than a physicist?   
I think the answer is ‘yes’, and that’s partly because if you think of someone like Richard Dawkins, biology has been ‘weaponised’, whereas physics has not. If anything, physics is going in the other direction. Physics is generally supportive of a theistic worldview. Biology, precisely because (if it’s interpreted in a certain way) seems to be anti-theistic, it is being seized upon and made into the weapon of choice by those who want to continue the conflict narrative and offer an atheist apologetic.  
 
The idea of ‘multiple maps’ is important in the book. What are they? 
What I mean is, science gives us one bit of the big picture – religion gives us another bit. We want to see the whole, and that means we need to recognise that science is going to tell us some things, but not others. You can approach things from only one perspective but that’s simply unacceptable because you leave out massive things like the issue of meaning, the issue of value and so on. The idea of ‘multiple maps’ ensures that you have a full palate of colours to do justice to the richness of the world, our experience and so on.  
 
So ‘multiple maps’ challenges Christian fundamentalists, too? 
Absolutely! What they’re doing is locking themselves into a very small area and are not able to dialogue with anyone beyond that. The method I’m adopting is a wonderful platform for apologetics because it is saying, ‘look, we can talk and have a very good conversation’. Christianity has a marvellous contribution to make, it cannot be ridiculed, it cannot be ignored; there is something very significant here which needs to be heard.  
 
If ‘multiple maps’ are an important idea in the book, ‘scientism’ seems to be the major target. What do you mean by ‘scientism’? 
Scientism is a non-scientific viewpoint which says that science answers all meaningful questions. So, science tells us what the meaning of life is, it tells us what is good and what is bad. Sam Harris, in his book The Moral Landscape, takes that line. My point is simply that this is an abuse of science! Science is science, you’ve got to make sure that you respect it, not convert it into something else. When science is done properly it has limits, and that is the best way of preserving its identity, its integrity. I am protesting strongly against those scientists who exaggerate the explanatory capacity of science. 
 
So why does scientism persist? 
It’s partly a power play because some scientists feel threatened by cultural developments which they see as marginalising themselves. But the real answer goes back to that conflict narrative. It sees intellectual history as a trajectory from the dark ages, to a modern, enlightenment period in which reason and science are the drivers of progress. Therefore, science is the guarantor of rationality and progress, and anything else, such as religion, is seen as backward and unhelpful. However, that is a worldview, not an empirical observation. That is the imposition of a worldview which science is being ‘weaponised’ to consolidate.  
 
You write books faster than I can read them. Where is your research taking you next?  
I get excited by things and love writing about them! Well, the next big book is going to be about human nature. It is going to be looking at scientific, cultural, and philosophical insights, and argue that there is a big problem in the naive enlightenment view of humanity, which still dominates Western culture, but there’s a better way of looking at it. It will be very sympathetic towards traditional Christian ideas of ‘The Image of God’ and sin and so on. So it will be absolutely rigorous, but at the same time it will bring a perspective which often isn’t heard. There is a major discussion underway right now about human nature that is essential to many political, social, and religious debates. It will be published around Easter 2017. 
 

 
Alister McGrath is the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University, and Fellow of Harris Manchester College, Oxford. He is the author of many academic and theological works, as well as the bestselling The Dawkins Delusion and his acclaimed CS Lewis – A Life. 
 
 

Inventing the Universe, by Alister McGrath, is printed by Hodder and Stoughton and is available from leading bookstores and online, for £20. 

5 really bad reasons Christians avoid apologetics

by Solas

Published in Christian Today – 

Congratulations. You passed the first hurdle. Having seen the word ‘apologetics’ in the title, you still managed to read this far! To put it mildly, apologetics has a bad image. Indeed, such a bad image that at Solas we prefer to use the term ‘persuasive evangelism’ because apologetics either carries the notion of saying sorry for being a Christian, or of some male geeky nerd pontificating on the teleological argument. Like all caricatures there is some element of truth in this, but it is overall grossly unfair. It’s time to rescue apologetics from this particular cul-de-sac and instead realise the usefulness of the apologia (defence) of the Gospel, in proclaiming the Good News in today’s needy world. So lets look at some of the objections that stop Christians even considering apologetics in the first place.

1. Apologetics is just for nerdy geeks.

There is an image problem. It appears as though unless one has a PhD from a top university, apologetics is best left alone. It is for the brain boxes, the people who like to think academically and who enjoy nothing more than to sit down with a glass of wine and a couple of books on Descartes and Derrida. While you have nothing against those who are so inclined (and gifted), you like to be more practical/spiritual/prayerful. But this is to create a false dichotomy. All of us are made in the image of God, and all of us therefore are Logos – we have minds and we are expected to use them. None of us are expected to believe without some evidence. God addresses the heart through the mind, not vice versa.
My simple way of putting this is: if you cannot answer the questions of a 12-year-old, you won’t be able to answer anyone’s questions; but if you can, then you can answer anyone’s! The hardest questions I have ever been asked haven’t come from journalists at The Times or the keyboard warriors of the New Fundamentalist Atheists, but rather from the young thinking teenager whose questions are for real. Not to think about them is to disrespect and despise them. Apologetics is for all!

2. Apologetics is too negative.

It’s not so much that people think apologetics is about apologising for Christianity (I’m sorry for the Crusades, the Inquisition, Westboro Baptist and Ned Flanders, as though I were responsible for them all!), but rather that, in either of its main forms, it is considered negative. On the one hand being ‘defensive’ comes across as though we perceive ourselves as constantly under attack; on the other if we go on the offence, we are perceived as being offensive. It’s a lose/lose situation. Sometimes, however, we need to remember that we live in the real world, where stating a ‘negative’ can be a good thing. “Don’t drink that liquid because it’s poison” may be a negative statement, but it’s kind of a crucial one! But the apologia of the Good News is not about defending something which needs our help, it’s about proclaiming it in a world which desperately needs it, while not understanding that desperate need.
CH Spurgeon once quipped,“Defend the Bible? I would as soon defend a lion!” Apologetics is not about defending God, or apologising for him – it’s about letting the lion loose. It’s proclamation!

3. Apologetics is not spiritual – it’s man centred, and not biblical.

This is something I hear from all quarters. “Do you think you can persuade people? Does God need your arguments? All you need is love. Just be nice to people. Let them come to church and hear our praise. Let us go to them and show them how nice we are, and they will want to become like us!” Or the big one – “it’s the work of the Holy Spirit”. Who is going to disagree with that latter statement? But do these same people then say that preaching, prayer, mercy ministries, and social action are all useless? No? Why not? Are they too not the work of the Holy Spirit? The fact is that the Holy Spirit uses means – and that includes apologetics. Most people are not struck down on the road to Damascus, the train to Derby or the plane to Denver. They come to an appreciation of the truth through a variety of experiences. Defending and explaining the Gospel, (apologetics) is just simply one tool that the Spirit uses. How dare we say that we don’t need it?!

4. Apologetics is not evangelism – it’s for the Church.

This is an interesting one, because the way that apologetics is often done makes it seem as though it is for the Church. Many of the responses to Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion appear not to attempt to reach out to the many non-Christians who are now thinking about God, the Bible and the Church, but rather to assure the author’s own tribe that their man was on the ball, and that they did not need to worry about the ravings of this godless heathen. Right now, apologetics in the US is perceived as something particularly necessary to protect the young of the church from the ever-increasing atheistic secularism.
While I think it is good to give Christians ‘reasons to believe’, it is not the primary purpose of apologetics. If people are already Christians and know Christ, why would they need reasons? Is Christ not the greatest reason? What they do need is a greater knowledge of Christ and his Word, and an understanding of the contemporary world and the many lies that the devil tells people, so that they can ‘always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have’ (1 Peter 3:15). Evangelism without apologetics is like fish and chips without the fish – the substance is missing!

5. Apologetics doesn’t work.

In the all-pervasive, quick fix culture in which we live, it appears as though apologetics doesn’t work. At least that is what I am constantly told. You don’t hold an alter call at the end of an apologetics talk. Communicating the good news is like sowing the good seed, you first plough the ground, then sow the seed and eventually (after God gives the increase) you reap the fruit. The trouble is that most evangelism as currently practised seems to be about the latter. I have found that patiently working away, dealing with the defeater beliefs, challenging the misconceptions and prejudices, and telling people about Jesus is like a constant dripping. It eventually brings fruit. We may not get the glory, but then we should not want it. The glory is Christ’s, whatever our particular function. Without apologetics, evangelism does not work.
A defeater belief is something that someone has which prevents them even considering the good news of Jesus Christ. These come in various forms, ‘science has disproved religion’, ‘religion is the cause of all evil’, ‘there are too many gods to choose from’ etc. Over the next few weeks I am going to be writing on the basic ‘defeater’ beliefs that people have.
Each week I will also recommend a book that will be helpful for you if you wish to develop this further. We begin with the absolutely magnificent Fool’s Talk by Os Guinness. This is the best apologia for apologetics, and the best example of how to do it, that I have ever read. When I grow up I want to be like Os! The Bible, in an unerring prophecy of the forthcoming desktop publishing, tells us that ‘of making many books there is no end and much study wearies the body’ (Ecclesiastes 12:12). With thousands of Christian books published every year we need to be discerning. Fool’s Talk is a diamond in the rough – and well worth ‘wearying the body’ in order to study!
From Os’ book I leave you with a wonderful prayer he cites from the late, great John Stott: “I pray earnestly that God will raise up today a new generation of Christian apologists or Christian communicators, who will combine an absolute loyalty to the biblical Gospel and an unwavering confidence in the power of the Spirit with a deep and sensitive understanding of the contemporary alternatives to the Gospel.” And all God’s people said – Amen!

CULTURAL VANDALISM

by Solas

Removing religious education from schools condemns our children to ignorance about a key dimension of human life. 

By JOHN DICKSON

IF a devout group of naysayers get their way there will come a time, soon, when there won’t be any  sympathetic religious instruction in our schools. It’s time for those who know the positive benefits of  religious education — the parents, teachers, and principals — to speak up before a dreadful decision to cut programmes across Europe is made.

None of us wants our children proselytised. That’s a given, and religious education programmes should never be set up to convert anyone. At the same time we do want our kids to learn a bit about the story of the Bible, the life and teaching of Jesus, and the ethics that shaped much of our world. To deny children this is to deprive them of their own cultural backstory.

I speak as a Christian but I am sure my Jewish, Muslim, Baha’i, Hindu, and Buddhist neighbours will be able to read my argument through their own lens. Few things are more culturally influential than religion.

The main arguments against sympathetic religious education miss the mark. Some of the naysayers cite anecdotes of kids going home to mum in tears after a scripture teacher’s insensitive remark about sin, or their denial of Santa, or because a piece of literature was handed out that does drift into proselytising. This can, and should, easily be fixed with better protocols and training.

Others climb the secular high-horse and intone about the separation of church and state as if we were living in the United States. But much of Europe’s roots lie in a more sensible “soft” secularism: Religion should neither be imposed nor excluded. Well-conducted religious education programmes reflect this balance perfectly. It is available but voluntary, and ethics classes offer an excellent alternative.

Others suggest religious education creates divisions. After all, it has the word “religion” in it. But there’s no evidence of that. It isn’t even intuitive. Dividing students into school houses, sports teams, grades, reading levels, boys and girls, and religious education tracks, is perfectly normal and healthy. These kids will grow up in a society that includes people of all faiths and none. Shouldn’t they learn to navigate the vibrant differences of our pluralistic society? Religious education has an added built-in safety mechanism, since each religion’s curriculum teaches respect for all.

Finally, some anti-religious education campaigners propose what they call a“neutral’’ approach where the teacher, rather than volunteers, takes kids through all of the world religions as part of the curriculum. It sounds plausible but in reality is unworkable. With everything else teachers have to know and do, they are never going to be able to understand the Bible as well as, say, the middle-aged mum from the local church who’s been reading scripture for decades. And that’s just the Christian text. Imagine insisting teachers learn the vast intellectual traditions of the Talmud, the Upanishads, the Tripitaka, the Quran and Hadiths.​

Religion is one of the most significant features of culture through the ages and parents should be able to allow their kids to give it a sympathetic hearing in a trusted environment. 

Dr. John Dickson
Author, historian and founding director of the Centre for Public Christianity in Sydney. A version of this article first appeared in the Daily Telegraph (Sydney).

WHY WE NEED THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON

by Solas

True knowledge arises from a deep contemplation of the wonders of creation.
BY DAVE BOOKLESS

Today’s environmental problems are so complex they often seen intractable. To tackle them, we not only need politics and economics, science and technology. We also need great wisdom to move towards a more sustainable and just world. But where can we find it? 
King Solomon was renowned for his wisdom. In response to God’s astonishing offer, “Ask for whatever you want me to give you,” he could have requested security, prosperity, health or happiness. Instead, he chose wisdom. As a result, “God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore”.  
Today, we tend to think of wisdom as primarily self-knowledge and understanding of human society. While Solomon could judge human dilemmas wisely (as in the famous example of the two women who both claimed a baby was theirs) the heart of his wisdom lay elsewhere. 
Ellen Davis, professor of Bible and Practical Theology at Duke Divinity School in the United States, writing about Proverbs, says “wisdom means holding two things together: discerning knowledge of the world plus obedience to God”. Christians are familiar with the second of these from the familiar biblical adage: “The fear [reverent awe] of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7, Psalm 111:10), but what about “discerning knowledge” of the natural world? 
According to 1 Kings 4:33-34, Solomon was a dedicated naturalist: “He spoke about plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also spoke about animals and birds, reptiles and fish. From all nations people came to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.” At the heart of the wisdom of Solomon was close, detailed observation of the flora and fauna of the ancient Near East. Just as Jesus instructed his followers to become botanists and ornithologists in order to live worry-free lives, so Solomon’s wisdom was rooted not in books or philosophical discussion but in deep immersion in God’s works. 
Throughout Christian history there are examples of those who took Solomon’s path of natural wisdom. The Desert Fathers and the early Celtic saints combined meditating on God’s revelation in nature and scripture. Francis of Assisi embodied a Christocentric spirituality that recognised other creatures as fellow members of the community of creation. John Ray, Gilbert White and William Carey are among many others whose wisdom arose from a deep contemplation of the wonders of God’s world. 
Today, we need to recover this kind of wisdom. Outdoor field studies should be a part of the educational curriculum for every young person. Studying ecology and wildlife to a professional level needs to be affirmed as a holy and important Christian calling. However, studying nature cannot be left to scientists alone. What is required for wisdom is not only the detached rational enquiry of science but also the immersed, meditative contemplation of artists and poets. 
“It is regrettable that the church has in the last three centuries largely lost sight of the fact that ‘nature wisdom’ is indispensable to an accurate estimation of the proper human role in God’s creation,” says Professor Davis. “Perhaps the time has at last come for the revival of this branch of theology.” In an increasingly globalised, virtual and digital world, all who would seek wisdom need a close attention to their environment. Getting to know the local species and habitats should be part of worship and godly wisdom for every Christian.  
We cannot understand God’s character and purposes without looking at what God has made. We cannot understand what it means to be human unless we know how ecosystems function and how we belong within them. Jesus humorously pointed out that wayside flowers were better dressed than even King Solomon.  
We cannot find wisdom second-hand by reading books by wise people. We find wisdom by seeking God and by getting to know our place, within the places that God has placed us. 
 

Dave Bookless is Advisor for Theology and Churches for A Rocha International (www.arocha.org) 
@dave_bookless