reason.cck.org.uk

For anyone who watches the news on a regular basis it seems like our world has a considerable amount wrong with it; pain and suffering seem to surround us on every side. Broadly speaking we find the roots of suffering in two places; due to the choices of fellow human beings, and natural disasters like that recently experienced in Haiti. We will have much to say on both of these in subsequent articles, but for now I intend to tackle the issue at hand. Does the very existence of suffering lead us to atheism; that is to conclude that there is in fact no God in control of this world that we inhabit?

Whether it has come from an emotional or intellectual source, I’m sure that anyone who has ever given any consideration to world events has felt a strong sense that ‘the world is not as it should be’. It somehow seems out of sync with a world that a loving God could have made. This is entirely normal and leads us to question how this could be.

18th century philosopher David Hume spoke for many when he summarised this argument:

‘Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?’

This sounds very convincing on face value doesn’t it? However, it makes a  considerable assumption in the process; that we are able to determine what good and evil are, quite independently of God.

The problem of defining good and evil

Former atheist CS Lewis realised the difficulties with this line of enquiry:

‘My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies…consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.’

In short, if we take God out of the equation then the idea of ‘evil’ becomes meaningless. Hume’s question falls apart.  If we assume that there is no God then there is no standard by which we can say that anything is objectively wrong. All we have is subjective preferences (for more on objective moral values click here).  As I mentioned earlier though, if we’re honest we all know that internal tug deep within us, that tells us ‘this is not how it should be’. ‘The world should be just, it should be fair’, and ‘people should not have to suffer’.

If we take God out of the equation then we have to accept that pain, suffering and evil are inevitable and are just part of our world, an inevitable by-product as part of naturalistic evolution. There is no reason why we should feel any sense that things OUGHT to be a particular way at all. We are just mistaken if we think that, it is just our senses messing with us.

Richard Dawkins summarises this rather depressing and hopeless viewpoint:

‘….some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.’

Is that all our lives are though? Pitiless indifference and purposeless? It seems to me we don’t live that way (for more on the origins of meaning, click here), we live as if there is purpose to our existence. As humans we even try to look for purpose in the midst of suffering. Why does it happen? This is something we will look at in the next article.

Conclusion:

Although at this stage we have not looked at why God may allow suffering, one thing is clear: the existence of evil in our world does not prove the absence of God, it merely makes us question why he allows such suffering. It only needs to be possible for God to have a good reason for allowing suffering and evil (even one that we may never know) for this argument to be defeated.

Tim Keller cites that it is almost universally accepted in academic philosophy circles that the argument from evil is not a good argument for atheism. It seems that one of the key reasons for this is that the very definition of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is so tied up with the need for a divine yardstick that the question becomes incoherent without God.  As a human race we feel a strong inner sense that the world ‘ought’ not to be this way,  that seems to transcend mere preference. This if anything seems to provide a stronger argument for God’s existence than his non-existence. Far from the universe being purposeless and indifferent, in a christian worldview it is possible to find great purpose even in pain and suffering, which we will look at in the next article.

Tweet This

In the final part of this trilogy of articles we will be considering what it means to be ‘a helper’ and whether all that we have discussed in the previous two articles is relevant today, or should this be adapted for cultural reasons?

To view the previous two articles on this subject please click here.

Specific role for women: Helper

When God created woman it is recorded that God said: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a helper fit for (or corresponding to) him’ (Genesis 2:18). The original Hebrew (the language the Old Testament is translated from) for ‘helper’ is ‘ezer kenegdo’ in Genesis 2:18 could literally be translated as ‘a helper as corresponding to/opposite him’ from ‘ezer’ (help), ‘ke-‘ (as, like), ‘neged’ (opposite, corresponding to), ‘-o’ (him). ‘A helper opposite and corresponding’ to Adam is a good translation.

Therefore Eve was not inferior to Adam. The fact that the word ‘help’ (ezer) is often used to refer to an action of God is interesting, and illustrates the fact that both male and female roles derive from God. For example:

‘And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth (Third member of the Trinity)’ (John 14:16-17)

The job title given to women is also used to describe a characteristic of God. It is critical to understand this, to be a helper is to do as God does; the role should be held in high esteem. Feminist theologian Phyllis Trible expounds this idea in her article Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies (See footnote below). Women are to ‘come along side’, engage with the life of the church and support a broad range of activities within the church, as mentioned in the first article.

But surely culture has changed now?

Many parts of the Bible were written within a cultural context in which women were considered second-class citizens. Some have argued, from this basis, that the Bible’s views on men and women correspond to the culture in which it was written, rather than be part of God’s revelation. The argument follows that we have now evolved into an increasingly tolerant and equal society, and therefore we should ignore those sections of the Bible that teach about the differences between the sexes. This argument has had great influence in both Christian and non-Christian circles.

Firstly, does the Bible really assert inequality between the sexes? It is true that the Bible was written in a patriarchal society, but in contrast, the Biblical view of men and women was highly innovative in its day because of its inherent respect for women (John 4:1-26, Galatians 3:28). The Bible clashed with the culture of its day on these issues; it did not reflect it.

It is also true that the Bible is often descriptive, instead of prescriptive. For example, the Bible records events that involve slavery and war. The fact that the Bible records these happenings does not mean that the Bible endorses those things, but rather that they were common occurrences in those times (and now). Therefore, for some evils, it is true that the Bible mentions them and treats them as existent; however, they exist because of a result of human choice. As such, before humanity chose to reject God, evil did not exist. We find, in comparison to war and slavery, that the complementary nature (and thus differences) between the sexes were part of God’s creational standard at the beginning. In other words, the differences between men and women are good, and were not a product of human choice or culture. It is only a distortion of these roles as enforced by centuries of heavy-handed patriarchy that has encouraged us to throw the baby out with the bath water; to reject our differences and equate the concept of gender distinctions with sexism. This is also supported by the Bible; when discussing the role of women in the church, Paul appeals to creation rather than culture (1 Timothy 2 11-14).

Does this mean that men have a superior role than women in the church?

To place different value and worth on one role above another; to elevate one as being ‘better’ than the other, is to make a critical, and potentially dangerous, mistake. This is an understandable result of interpreting the Bible through the lens of our western secular thinking. However, it does not take into consideration the fact that equality does not necessitate men and women being identical and indistinguishable. The emphasis in biblical teaching is on the equality of men and women, and their equal standing before God. The functions given them by God, though important, are of a lesser concern, and are based on love and mutual servanthood. A man who is an elder, or even a married man, may be considered, and correctly so, to have an authority not open to women, but biblical relationships are build on our mutual equality, and therefore that authority should be a means by which to honour women, not to rule them. Likewise, the exercise of authority within the church should not produce power struggle, or hierarchy that benefits only those who are in eldership; but rather, a social structure that is designed to better care for all members of the Church. This follows Jesus’ view of leadership, namely a commission to serve others and not to be served.

Further reading supporting the view represented in this article:

1. Piper, John., Grudem, Wayne., (Editors), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Crossway books,1991

2. Audio Talk: ‘Isn’t the Bible sexist and out of date?’, Amy Orr-Ewing: http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/isnt-the-bible-sexist-and-out-of-date.htm

3. James, Sharon., An Overview of Feminist Theology: http://www.theologynetwork.org/studying-theologyrs/an-overview-of-feminist-theology.htm

4. One of the main websites containing many articles supporting Complementarianism: http://www.cbmw.org/Articles

5. Peterman, Eric., Galatians 3:28 and Evangelical Egalitarianism: http://www.valleybiblefellowship.org/papers/galatians%203,28%20and%20evangelical%20egalitarianism.htm

6. Heck, D, V., The Philosophy of Women’s Ministry in the Local Church: http://www.grace4u.org/Topical/WomeninMinisty.htm

For articles on Egalitarianism:

1. One of the main websites that contains many articles supporting egalitarianism: http://www.cbeinternational.org/

2. Pierce, Ronald., Clarity, Charity and Confrontation in the Evangelical Gender Debate: http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/322pierce.html

3. Moore, Russell., After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5209O.pdf

Feminist theology:

1. Young, Sally., Is Judith Butler’s approach to gender politics an improvement on previous form of feminism?: http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-b-e1htm

2. Fiorenza, Elisabeth., ABSTRACT: http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/sf1.html and http://www.theology.ie/theologians/schuessler.htm

3. Trible, Phyllis., Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies, http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1281

Tweet This

In our previous article on this subject from December 2009, the Christian view of men and women was discussed, and their equal standing before God and each other. In the next two articles the nature and relationship between spiritual and functional equality will be developed; this article focussing on the role of men. Within the evangelical church today people take different theological positions on this matter, generally falling into two camps; Complementarianism (Often called Subordinationism by those opposed) and Egalitarianism. The objective of this text is not to create an in-depth comparative study between the two (if you wish to research the topics, I have supplied links at the end of Part 3), but to present a coherent summary of the biblical teaching regarding the role of men, considering the relevant biblical passages in context historically, and within the Bible as a whole.

Governing the church

There are some distinctive roles that women and men have been given as gender-specific. The Bible teaches that men only should be church ‘elders’, ‘governors’ or the like (Christians call them by different names). The most obvious passage of scripture supporting male eldership is 1 Timothy 2: 8-15. As I have mentioned in my previous article, the basis for gender distinction and differing roles derives from the Godhead. It is a profound thing, that such diversity of roles and equality of status exist within the Godhead, and the differences between us, as equal human beings, should likewise be celebrated.

In light of this, it should not be surprising that there are differences between the sexes. One such difference in role identified in scripture is that certain men have been given the task of caring for the church as leaders. As church governors, elders should be serving the church, not creating a dictatorship. The roles and hierarchy within the Godhead are not the result of a power struggle, and neither should it be so in the church, as Jesus says:

‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles (non-Jews) lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ (Mark 10:42-45)

It should also be noted: men in general are not to be leading the church, only those men that have been given that responsibility. For example, a man who is not an elder would not have the right to exercise authority over other men or women in the congregation, just because of his gender.

Women and leadership

Conversely, women are not prevented from all leadership capacities on the basis of 1 Timothy 2: 8-15, for that assumption would contradict other passages that affirm women leaders, for example: Romans 16: 3-4, 6, 12, Acts 18: 24-26, Luke 1: 46-56. In Romans 16: 1-2 a woman called Phoebe is commended by Paul to the church in Rome, he says that she is a Patron of the church. A Patron is a person who supports another person or institution financially, or through other types of service. Phoebe is recognised as a woman who served the church in this way, and as a result became a notable figure, worthy of recognition.

Another role available to women from the time of the early church up until this day have become Deaconesses. A Deacon is a church leader, who helped the elders care for the congregation and the poor. Extra biblical historical records support the institution of Deaconesses, as Pliny the Younger (Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor A.D. 112) writes as an opponent of early Christianity to the Emperor concerning the correct inflictions appropriate for Christians:

‘. . . This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, who they (Christians) called deaconesses . . .’ (Translation found in: Strobel, Lee The Case or Christ, Zondervan, 1998, Chapter 4, pp. 83-84)

Within Marriage

Likewise, within marriage men and women have different roles. The man is to love and serve his wife as Christ loves and serves the church (Ephesians 5:25-30). This type of leadership is very different from the common understanding of male ‘headship’, and it is due to this misconception that the roles of men and women in the church today have been so devastatingly misunderstood. This type of leadership should be governed by a love like that which Christ showed the church, a love that caused him to give up his life for her.

Some have argued, such as feminist theologians Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Phyllis Trible and Sallie McFague, that this social structure leads inevitably to men ruling their wives as if they were their property. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in the past (see Part 3 next week, subheading: but surely culture has changed now?). Men have used their position as ‘protector’, ‘servant’ and ‘leader’, and distorted it to become ‘ruler’ and ‘dictator’. However in such circumstances the man is in direct violation of scripture and it would be the duty of the church leaders to remind him of his biblical responsibilities. The misconception and misuse of the male role has consequently led to the dismissal of any kind of ‘traditional’ views of men. Although heavy-handed patriarchy should be challenged, the Biblical teaching on men reveals a type of leadership that should honour, respect and love women in a way that does not inhibit them, but rather, promote them.

In the next article, I will look at the role of women and discuss whether or not the differences between the sexes are inherent or culturally manipulated.

To view the first article in this series click here.

Tweet This

Bad Experience?

This is a commonly asked question, which often betrays a pre-supposition: having to go to church is tantamount to a life sentence in prison. Many people like the idea of a personal connection with God, but that’s my experience, right? What does my spirituality have to do with a load of other strangers?

There may be many reasons that you could think that. It could be that you were brought up going to a church which frankly made joining a crown green bowling club seem exciting (I can relate!!). It might be that you had a bad experience with some Christians before, that left you feeling hurt or rejected. Does this mean you should reject church for good?

In our modern day cynicism, alot of people get very scared about the idea of leadership; what does it mean that people are ‘in authority’ over me? That may trouble us – what will these people ask of me, they may want my time, talents and money? I can understand some of these concerns but whatever your experience (or lack of one) we need to take a look at what the bible says, rather than allowing our feelings or 1 or 2 previous bad experiences set our course instead.

Being a Christian

I need to be very clear at the outset that going to church does not make you a Christian, in the same way that being sat in a pub does not make me a pint of lager. We don’t just become a Christian by association, but we need to recognise our need to respond to Jesus individually. He has laid down his life, to pay off our debt to God. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we become Christians because of a free gift that God has given us, through Jesus Christ. We do not contribute anything to God’s favour by coming along to church, or any other perceived good behaviour. It is unmerited favour, there is nothing we can do to get God to love us anymore than he does already! You need to make that choice to accept Christ’s work done on your behalf though (Romans 10:9).

Find out more about what it means to become a Christian here.

The Body of Christ

Despite the fact that a relationship with God is something to be enjoyed and accepted on a personal level, we are actually part of something much greater than this. 1 Peter 2:5 teaches us that we are ‘living stones’ as part of God’s house. Some of you may have been brought up to think that the church is the old looking building that people meet in. It really isn’t, it’s the people that God has brought into relationship with him. 1 Peter 2:9-10 reminds us that God is bringing together a people for himself, to bring glory to his name. You are a part of this!

God has made us all as different individuals with different talents. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul reasons that we are like different parts of the same body, with skills to use. If parts of the body like an eye or a foot are missing then the body does not function to its fullest effect. Whatever gifts you have been given by God (You may not even know what yours is yet) as a church body we need your gift to become a stronger and more mature church like God wants us to be. Don’t deceive yourself, you have something to offer and it really matters. Whether you walk into a church which looks slick and is running amazingly, or a small one, God has particular things for you to do.

Become sharp

Christian life was never meant to be lived out on your own as we are reminded in scripture (Hebrews 10:25). We need other believers to spur us on in our faith, and to become mature people who know and are passionate about Jesus.

Wayne Rooney is a supremely gifted footballer as an individual, but ultimately he plays for Manchester United and England. This is where his true identity as a footballer is found, within a team context. He could play in his own garden, doing keep me ups but he is hardly fulfilling his purpose. How much more he accomplishes when together as part of a team; he wins Champions League trophies, Premier Leagues, FA Cup’s and (hopefully!!) the World Cup. How true this is for us as Christians too. Our spiritual experience is enormously impoverished by isolating ourself from our church family.

I’ve been a Christian for 21 years at the time of writing this and I’m still learning how incredible the God I know is. It really is a lifelong exploit and joy! I have needed other Christians to keep on spurring me on and sharpening me (Proverbs 27:17) along the way. Likewise, these Christians will need you to spur them on, just like you need them too. Conversely, when I have rejected time with other Christians I have seen this passion start to fade, and become a very faded and passive version of what God has made to be. My thinking becomes worldly, and my life becomes totally predictable. That is not a full life that Jesus saved you for.

Church -The passion of Jesus

Jesus is the most passionate person in the universe about the local church. He said ‘I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it’. In Ephesians 5, we hear that as a corporate body of believers we have become the bride of Christ. Now if you’re a bloke this may sound a bit weird, it may seem like you need to be a girl to appreciate this, but the point is that Jesus died for a people, not just an individual and he is building something significant to testify about him to the world. God wants to show off his different works of art to the world (Eph 2:10) in the form of church, a vast collection of redeemed lives to a broken world.

American Pastor Bill Hybels summarises this vision superbly:

‘I believe that the local church is the hope of the world…If they get it and get on with it, churches can become the redemptive centres that Jesus intended them to be. Dynamic teaching, creative worship, deep community, effective evangelism, and joyful service will combine to …strengthen families, transform communities and change the world.’

God is passionate about building his church, all over the world. It isn’t perfect, there are problems, but he is totally 100% committed to churches built on a foundation of Jesus. It follows that if you are a Christian you too would look to follow Jesus’ teaching, to build his church and make his name famous in the area where you live.

This is not an optional extra for those that are extra keen. We all belong in the local church. This is where we will thrive. It might be that you’ve been away from church for a season, I warmly invite you to consider checking out a good bible believing, Jesus-worshipping church in your area and quickly commit to one.

Looking for a church?

Based in Brighton, like to visit CCK? click here

We belong to the New Frontiers family of churches based all over the world.

There are many other good bible believing churches which are part of the Evangelical Alliance:

Tweet This

Mulled cider & Love actually

In the last few weeks I have (like everyone else) been preparing for Christmas, and been doing my best to avoid going into Brighton. I have been enjoying that wonderful phenomenon known as online shopping, or more specifically Amazon.com. My wife Jac has also started to fill our home with those classic Christmas tunes again, Band Aid, Mariah Carey and others.

Christmas is a time of year that is associated with many different things for different people. It is often thought of as time to spend with our families and close loves ones. Many others will also crack out ‘Love actually’ on DVD yet again, have a few glasses of mulled wine (or cider ideally), and of course buy one another presents, some of which will no doubt be subtly making there way onto ebay in early January. If any of my family are reading, don’t worry I wouldn’t dream of it!

For others, Christmas may be a time that some will dread for a number of reasons. The struggle to fund sufficient presents, awkward conversations within a fractured family, keeping up appearances for a few days with distant relatives and for some, acute loneliness. Is this as good as we can hope for?

Where does Jesus fit in?

In recent years it may seem surprising that in what is often considered a more secular culture, there have been a number of songs recorded about Jesus by artists such as U2, The Killers, Green Day, Kanye West, REM and even Marilyn Manson. Whatever you think of him, Jesus still occupies a central part of our culture.

Jesus was a remarkable man, and according to a recent survey taken in June 2009 (published in The Daily Telegraph) around 33% of the UK population, say he is the dead person that they would most want to meet, ahead of figures such as Princess Diana, Marilyn Monroe, Shakespeare and Einstein. However, he is more than just a famous dead man. Jesus made some startling claims while he was on earth, he claimed to be God and not just to be a good human moral teacher. As the author CS Lewis writes, ‘he didn’t leave that option open to us, he didn’t intend to.’

Christmas celebrates the time when God put his plan of redemption for the world into action. Jesus voluntarily left behind the glory of heaven, to become a servant for humankind, a sacrifice and a substitute for the wrong we’ve done. As humans we’ve been made as relational people, to experience the joy of love. This love is wonderfully experienced in our personal relationships with one another, but there is an ultimate one that we have been made for, with our creator.

The key doesn’t fit the lock

As people we often talk of a sense of emptiness that there is in our lives, in our quest for meaning and purpose. We try many different things for satisfaction, even good things and try to squeeze them into ultimate things. The key does not fit the lock though. Consider the way that we try to define ourselves and find security and our identity in relationships, friendships, money, musicianship, a sportsman, a lover. None of these things are bad in and of themselves, but they were not designed to be the supreme definition of our lives. How could they? All of these things will come and go, they fade over time. There is only one thing that is truly unfading and will satisfy us completely, found in Jesus Christ.

We are out of sync with God, because we have all gone against him in our lives. We have elected ourselves as the decision maker, the purpose creator and the rock upon which all other things must be built around. This is what the bible calls sin, falling short of his perfect standard, in word, thought and action. The consequence is that we are separated from our perfect holy creator, and because God is just, he can’t just overlook our errors like some modern parents do with a spoilt child. Action needed to be taken.

Descending: God comes to us

Christmas celebrates God coming among us, in the first stage of his mission which would be completed at Easter with Christ’s death and glorious resurrection. He took upon himself the sin of the world, because we can’t earn our way to God. We couldn’t do enough good works and karma to achieve the necessary 100% perfect standard. Religion teaches us to try and ascend to God, Christianity teaches that God descended to us. This is crucial.

Jesus came to earth so that we could experience reconciliation. Jesus is in the business of mending relationships, firstly our relationship with God, but also our relationships with others.

We live in a world full of broken and wounded people who need to experience reconciliation with family members, neighbours and former friends. This is possible only when we see that through Christ justice was accomplished on the cross, sin was paid for, grudges can be dropped, forgiveness can be extended.

Conclusion

More than 2000 years ago, the God-man Jesus Christ came and dirtied himself by getting involved in human culture. He showed that he is not a distant God who created the universe and left it to chance. The incarnation of Christ is the central point of human history. We date our history around him, and history has never been the same since.

Today, consider the impact that the birth of Christ could have on your life. Whatever your situation this year, there is one who knows your every need, who restores relationships, and gives you a complete and unshakeable identity because of his love and compassion for you. He has made himself accessible, will you respond?

If you want to know more, why not come to our Christmas service.

Tweet This

Surely one of the most misunderstood things in the UK today is what it means to become a Christian. Because of the confused culture that we live in, I will need to start by dispelling a few myths about what it doesn’t mean along the way!

So simple

One of the amazing things about the Christian message is that it is so simple that even young children are able to understand it for themselves. This is one of the major stumbling blocks for so many people; that becoming a Christian requires a real sense of humility to accept it. We live in times where generally we like to have felt that we have earned whatever we get in life. If we have got a beautiful wife, it’s because we are sufficiently good looking, powerful or wealthy enough to attract them. If we have got a good mark in exams or coursework, it’s because we have been competent enough to achieve it. In essence we like the idea that things work on a system of ‘karma’.

The big story

However, the values of Christianity are quite different. The grand story of the Bible  goes like this: In the beginning God was intimately involved in the creation of the universe, and looked upon it and saw that it was good. He was thrilled, in much the same way that we are on one of the amazing nights where we gaze up at the skies and are in awe of what we see. He fashioned men and women in his image to come and steward the earth.

However, it was at this point that the first man and woman (Adam & Eve) were tempted to go against God and they decided to disobey God in their desire to become equal to God, and having autonomy and power themselves. When they committed this offence, they put a barrier between themselves and God.

Like Father like son

As the human race has gone on, things have not changed. As our forefather Adam set the precedent for how we would behave. The bible says that we are all individually inclined to go our own way, to want to be God ourselves, and to be the judge for how we want to live our life. Romans 3:23 says the very sobering words. ‘For all have fallen short of the glory of God’.  In short, we find ourselves in a mess and separated from the very creator who we were made for relationship with.

Around 100 years ago, The Times newspaper invited a number of key thinkers and philosophers of the time to write essays on the question ‘What’s wrong with the world?’.  One man’s response was short, very short in fact: ‘Dear Sirs, I am, Sincerely yours, G.K. Chesterton’. There is something very refreshing about this witty yet deeply truthful response.

In 21st century Western culture we want to blame almost everything on other people; we may laugh when we hear the latest ridiculous lawsuit filed against a company ‘for eating cheese that was so cheesy it caused mental distress’, but we tend to pass the buck often whether its our family upbringing or some other circumstance. We need to face up to the truth: we are guilty of doing wrong.

Jesus enters the arena

I’m so glad that wasn’t the end of the story and that God didn’t just leave us stranded in our guilt and shame. Jesus Christ the second member of the Trinity, came down to earth and entered human history, that is God-in-human skin. He added humanity to his divinity. He left the glory of his heavenly throne, not to be served by us, but to serve us. How remarkable is that!

Having lived a relatively low key life, he went on to teach the most phenomenal and radical teaching, and healed many. Thirty-three short years on from his birth he was to be brutally crucified. The worst thing was to happen in history; the death of the Son of God. Who could have thought this terrible evil and injustice upon an innocent man could become such a liberating truth for us?

Grace triumphs

This is, remarkably, exactly the way that God chose to demonstrate his justice and his love for us. Jesus on the cross took the penalty for all of our guilt, for both the things that we did which we shouldn’t have done, and the things we should have done that we didn’t do. For every time that we spoke out in a hateful way against a friend or family member, and for every time we didn’t walk across to help a stranger in need.  All of these events, although they were sins against the people involved were sins against him.

Becoming a Christian means recognising this simple fact, and knowing that karma will not be enough to deal with it. The U2 singer Bono rightly acknowledges the following:

“I’d be in big trouble if karma was going to finally be my judge. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.”

Like him or loathe him, this is an interesting admission from a man who has done much to try and make the world a better place, more than most. Yet he knows its not enough!

We can’t pay our way back into a relationship with God, the price is way too high. The only man who was in credit with God, Jesus, paid it all for us. The question is will we accept this free gift of Grace?

God’s grace was given to us, because of the exchange that took place. Jesus took all of our sin on the cross, and then three days later he rose again to show that he had conquered this evil and even death ultimately! We now have the opportunity to know God personally in this life, and we will spend eternity with him in heaven too.

Conclusion

So becoming a Christian does not mean we are British, that we went to church when we were younger. It doesn’t mean we are a good person, in fact it means recognising that we are not good enough. We are all in the same boat, whether we’ve been raised going to church or not, we were all cut off from God, but we all have equal opportunity to accept what Jesus did for us on the cross and to know God personally.

Romans 10:9 says the following:

If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

If you know that you’re at this point where you are ready to go for it and accept Jesus into your life, then its worth speaking to a friend who you know has a personal relationship with Jesus, and come along to a good lively bible believing church, who will be able to help you develop your relationship with God further. If you’re in Brighton, we’d be delighted to have you along at CCK. For further information, click here.

Tweet This

If you consider yourself a sceptic about Christianity or a Christian who is looking for honest answers to some of the toughest questions, then this book was quite simply written for you. Tim Keller is a pastor in New York, who has put into writing the kinds of questions that he is asked on a regular basis about Christianity such as ‘ How can a good God allow suffering?’, ‘Hasn’t science disproved Christianity?’ and ‘How can a loving God send people to hell?’

In this book, Keller takes an unusual approach to defending Christianity, in that he essentially divides the book into two. The first half is dedicated to answering objections that are often raised against Christianity, but in the second half of the book he somewhat changes his approach. Many people often believe that the burden of proof is on Christians to show why they believe in ideas that go beyond mere naturalistic thinking. However, Keller shows very clearly through philosophy, literature and reasoning that there are in fact many assumptions made in atheistic and agnostic worldviews in practice; such as when we consider the origins of moral values, and indeed meaning in life, amongst other things that are a significant problem.

Tim Keller manages to come across as thoughtful and persuasive while maintaining an intellectually credible yet accessible work.  Overall, I would suggest that this book is a must-read for anyone, whether you consider yourself a person of faith or not. This will challenge many of your pre-suppositions to the core.

Tweet This

There has been a lot of speculation (and prediction in some cases) about the exact day when Jesus would come back to the world. For instance, Nostradamus predicted that “from the sky will come a great King of Terror” in 1999. This was interpreted by some as a prophecy about the second coming of Jesus. When this did not occur, some of his followers claimed that Jesus was conceived in 1998, born in 1999, and is currently living on Earth as a reincarnated person.

How do we know Jesus will return?

In all 4 of the Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) in the Bible, Jesus says that he will come again and bring in His Kingdom.

The apostle Paul, in his letter to the church in Thessalonica, Greece, writes,

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thess 4:16-17)

When will he return?

Interesting, Paul then adds:

Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. (1 Thess 5:1-3)

Evidently, the question of Jesus’ return plagued people nearly 2 millennia ago!

Paul’s response is in tune with what Jesus had said a few decades earlier before He returned to His Father.

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.” (Matt 24;36, 42-44)

Put simply, Jesus could return today! Are you ready for His return? Have you put your faith and trust in him?

Tweet This

The Genesis account describes how Adam and Eve disobeyed God at the instigation of a snake. Could this be interpreted to suggest that God had made a mistake in his creation? A mistake that would have devastating implications for humanity. The fact that the snake spoke should be noted, and suggests an alternative understanding of the event. There was nothing created in the seven days or eras apart from humans that could speak. The only beings that could were created before the earth was formed, that is, the angels. In fact, throughout the Bible ‘snake’ has been representative of Satan or the Devil (Rev: 12:9, 20:2). Satan is an angel who envied God’s power, tried to usurp the throne of God, and who was thus thrown out of heaven.

Did God ‘put’ the snake in the Garden of Eden?

The Bible does not explain systematically, like a textbook, the events of the Fall (when Adam and Eve turned against God after the snake tempted them). We have the narrative of the first few chapters of Genesis describing Satan as a ’snake’ who incited Eve to disobey God. It seems to be suggested in the text that the snake was a created creature like any other animal, so in one respect God did ‘put’ the snake in Eden. Yet, no normal, natural snake speaks. This factor combined with other scripture passages using ‘snake’ as refernce for the Devil suggests that the snake was influenced by another supernatural entity.

The omnipotence of God

Did God ‘put’ Satan in the Garden of Eden? I have mentioned above that the Bible does not give exhaustive detail on this point. The other passages, apart from the opening chapters of Genesis, that refer to the fall of Satan are Isaiah 14:4-21, Ezekiel 28:1-17. These two sections of text are poetical and have more than one meaning. As such there are things that we can know about how and why Satan (the snake) was in the Garden of Eden, but there are aspects of the event that we cannot discover from scripture. Yet scripture is clear on this point: God never intiates evil. Instead this has always been a result of the choices made by the created: angels and humans (James 1:13-14). The Bible provides records of God’s actions in history. It is not written as a theology essay, explaining who God is and how he acts in detailed academic exposition. Nevertheless, within the records of the Bible , God’s sovereignty is displayed very clearly, in so-far-as nothing happens that is outside of God’s control. This includes the snake’s presence in the Garden of Eden.

God’s providence

Does the above mean that God is somehow to blame for the Fall of man? Was it God’s mistake? Within a human context, if someone has complete control over another, the one who is subject to the other has no power to initiate free action. Therefore the one who is in control must ultimately take responsibility for any action taken by the one who is subject. The image that comes to mind is a puppeteer in control of the strings. This is not an analogy that can be transfered to the God of the Bible and his relation to humanity. God is beyond us, and therefore his actions cannot be equated to that of a human, and his ultimate control does not negate our free action. God is at the same time distinct from his creation, and working through it. Human action is very real and effective, therefore each human is accountable for what he/she does.

Human free will and God’s providence are not opposed to each other. Many times the Bible represents a scenario where a human freely chooses to act, but the Bible declares that God ultimately governed the outcome of the event (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28, Luke 22:22, Matt 18:7). Therefore there is a paradox which is represented – humans act and choose freely, and are therefore accountable, but God works his purposes in and through the willing free actions of humans. Thus God cannot ever be accused of causing the Fall; humanity chose to reject God, and Satan decided to incite us. We remain accountable.

For a more detailed exposition read: Grudem, Wayne Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Chapter 16: God’s Providence.

But did God make the ‘mistake’ of not preventing the Fall?

Firstly, because we are beings that are made in the image of God we have the freedom to choose, as I have outlined above. Therefore when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God they had to take responsibility for it. The highest human virtue is love. Part of the essence of love is choice. We need to be free to choose in order to love; and we need to be free to choose in order to do evil. The Fall was caused by our choice to reject God’s governace over our lives.

Secondly, however, God knew that the snake would incite Eve; could he not have stopped it, as he is all powerful? Simply: yes, but realistically, this is a question that is very difficult to answer because it requires information that humanly we do not possess. Such as, God’s thoughts and eternal intentions. How can God not prevent evil and be not partly to blame? I will let Calvin’s words serve as an answer, because he expresses it so well: ‘Let those for whom this seems harsh consider for a little while how bearable their squeamishness is in refusing a thing attested by clear Scriptual proofs because it exceeds their mental capacity’ (Calvin, John. Institutes). The point is this: If God has all the attributes we expect of him he is far beyond our capacity to intellegibly dissect. Paradoxically, however, at the very moment that humanity betrayed God’s law, which he foreknew, God also knew the extremes to which he would go to save humanity from the results of the Fall. This is the very irony of the question: why did God not prevent this evil for our sakes? A result of evil entering creation was the suffering God knew he would undergo for us. The Bible tells us that it is because of his great love for us.

God’s plan

From the beginning God had a plan to save people from the Fall, to totally and ultimately defeat evil through the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who willingly went to the cross to suffer in our place because of our rejection of God. At the Fall, when God is cursing the snake he said this: ‘I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring, he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heal’ (Genesis 3:15). This is a promise that Satan and evil will be trampled under the feet of one man – Jesus Christ.

For more information on Genesis 3:15 see: http://biblescripture.net/First.html

Further Reading

1. Wright, Christopher J H, The God I Don’t Understand, Zondervan, 2008, Chapter 1, 2, 3.

2. Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Inter-Varsity Press, 1994, Chapter 16

Tweet This

There is a famous scene found in a paragraph from the great atheist existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre’s novel Nausea that almost perfectly sums up the dilemma of modern man.  Here the book’s protagonist, Roquentin, spends most of his days living out a humdrum existence – frequenting coffee shops, the public library and just general aimless wandering, all the while attempting to write a book.  Throughout much of the narrative he is frequently struck by feelings of intense nausea that unexpectedly well up within him – mostly they are caused by the various inanimate objects he observes (i.e. a pebble, a newspaper page etc.).

Sartre & Roquentin

One evening, after having dinner at a restaurant and being overcome by an especially intense bout of nausea, he goes for a walk and ends up sitting on a park bench under a chestnut tree, where, in a sort of epiphany moment, he comes to the realization of why he has been afflicted with such sickness.  In essence Roquentin realizes that all of existence is completely meaningless and every object that exists has no reason for doing so.

All life is meaningless?

His nausea was actually the unconscious realization that those objects had no actual reason for existing – the trees, the pebbles, the park bench and even himself.  His contemplation of suicide only served to highlight the fact that death was just as pointless, or ’superfluous’, as life, as existence.  This realization was, for Sartre, the fundamental absurdity at the heart of the cosmos – that everything that does exist should do so for no reason, and that existence and non-existence are equally as meaningless.

Similarly, another famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote an oft-quoted line in his essay A Free Man’s Worship:

‘That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.’

Meaningless but purposeful – a contradiction?

Yet, despite such pessimistic views of the ultimate nature of existence, both Sartre and Russell lived what seemed to be immensely full and productive lives – both wrote prolifically and were highly esteemed philosophers in their day, with a continuing influence on the academy years after their deaths.  Both were also active in many of the political and social issues of their time, from Sartre’s activity in the French Resistance of World War II to Russell’s championing of the poor and vulnerable of society.

In a similar way, we can see that many atheists, agnostics etc. can and do live full, meaningful and productive lives – they have successful careers, family and friends, as well as being involved in many pressing social issues.  Indeed they can, and often do, live life as fully as any religious believer and, perhaps in many cases, take hold of such aspects of life with even more enthusiasm.  Yet the paradox remains that, when pressed into the deeper meaning of existence, it appears that most atheists and agnostics have as similar a nihilistic view of meaning and purpose as do Russell and Sartre.

An Inconsistent Worldview

This kind of schizophrenia was famously described by Francis Schaeffer as a ‘two-story existence’, where people live their lives like a kind of two floored building.  On the one hand people no longer believe in a higher power or deity to guide them and give any intrinsic meaning to their existence (call that intrinsic meaning the lower story or ‘the basement’ where the foundations are).  On the other, however, they carry on with their day-to-day lives as if it had all the meaning of just such a fact – everything they do is done as if it really meant something in the grand scheme of existence (call this the upper story or ‘living room’ area).  The problem is when, if ever, they go downstairs to the basement that floor is completely empty and the structure that holds it all together is frail and wasting away.  In other words there is no real foundation for the beliefs and actions that constitute many people’s existence – but as long as they don’t go down into the basement and scrutinize the basis of their lives it can be easily ignored.

Does consistency matter?

But is there anything wrong with living as if life had value while, ultimately, holding that it actually doesn’t?  After all should atheists have such a consistency between their beliefs and their actions? Perhaps an atheist could suggest here that such a consistency is of no real virtue because if life has no ultimate meaning then living with such a consistency is equally as pointless as living with an inconsistency.  But if this is the case then it must also be acknowledged that there is no objective difference between, to borrow an illustration from Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland, a man who spends his entire life playing tiddlywinks or a Mother Theresa who devotes her life to helping the poor and needy.  Both lives are equally as pointless.  But can anyone really and truly believe such a thing?  This is the practical impossibility of atheism.

Humanism – Self-delusion

Sartre himself attempted to overcome the inherent meaninglessness of existence by inspiring a great existential project for humans to create their own meaning in the face of a cosmos devoid of purpose.  This is what the word ‘existentialism’ ultimately derives from – that ‘existence’ comes before ‘essence’ – that human beings create their own meaning and purpose through the way they live their lives (or the way they ‘exist’) and the choices they make, as opposed to some fixed essence of being which gives them a preordained purpose to life.  The obvious contradiction here is with Sartre’s own admittance in Nausea that every action we do and every action we choose is just as pointless as that which we choose not to do instead.  In other words Sartre’s project, and the project of modern atheistic humanism in general, is nothing but a grand act of self-delusion.

Indeed it seems that when confronted with ultimate reality the atheist cannot but admit that human life, qualitatively speaking, is no different from that of a dog – and perhaps the dog’s existence is actually more desirable as it has no true capacity for self-reflection and abstract thought and cannot come to this realization of the inherent meaninglessness of its existence.

Solomon and Nihilism?

The writer of the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes made this point almost three thousand years ago:

“The fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All come from the dust and all return to the dust” (Eccl. 3:19-20).

Indeed the writer of the book, which reads more like a modern existentialist tract than a book of the Bible, passes judgment on all the world has to offer to provide some kind of meaning in the face of meaninglessness: pleasure, wealth, fame, honour etc. etc..  His verdict on all these things is simple: “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (1:2).  For him a life that ends in death and has no God and no immortality is sheer absurdity.

Why not check out Reason:Live?

This Sunday @CCK, Brighton.

For more details click here.

Tweet This