apologetics – Page 10 – Christ the Truth

The Protestant Grace Ethic

GlenFebruary 9, 2011Leave a comment

I’ve been listening to some thought-provoking lectures by Vishal Mangalwadi on how the bible has shaped the West. This one entitled, “Why Are Some Rich While Others Are So Poor” speaks of how traditional cultures have handled wealth. Those without the influence of the bible have only known two responses. Either you horde it or you display it. You either stock-pile it for a rainy day or you show-case it for prestige. In neither case will your economy grow.

But, in the west, Christians did this new thing – they re-invested it. Mangalwadi points to things like “the parable of the talents” or the injunction to “love thy neighbour” as giving Christians this new idea – to put wealth to work. He also points to the impact of the priesthood of all believers, releasing believers to work at all things “as unto the Lord.” This gives rise to the protestant work ethic and incredible wealth-creation.

I’m sure all those ideas should go into the mix. But I wonder whether the Protestant Grace Ethic needs to have a hearing here. The bible is always linking grace and money (see these examples in Ephesians for instance). It is the peculiar “idea” of the gospel that heavenly wealth comes down upon us not so that we may boast, nor that we might keep it to ourselves. (And not even that we should repay the Benefactor (some kind of spiritual feudalism?)). We are given an overabundance of undeserved grace in order that we might overflow. Isn't this the most fundamentally liberating "idea" to grace the West?

The Power of Vulnerability – TED Talk

GlenJanuary 25, 2011Leave a comment

[ted id=1042]

What Brene Brown says:

Connection is why we're here

But shame = fear of disconnection

Everyone has shame. The only people without shame have no capacity for empathy

No one wants to talk about shame but the less you talk about it, the more you have it

For connection to happen you have to be allowed to be seen

Those who are connected have a sense of worthiness, a strong sense of love and belonging

They exhibit these factors

Courage (wholeheartedness) to be imperfect

Compassion to be kind to themselves first and then to others

Connection as a result of authenticity. They let go of who they *should* be to be who they are.

Fully embraced vulnerability - what made them vulnerable made them beautiful

We numb vulnerability

We are the most in debt, obese, addicted and medicated cohort in US history

So we numb it

Trouble is, you cannot selectively numb emotion

We make the uncertain certain

This is what religion and politics have become

We perfect

We pretend - that what we do doesn't have an effect on people

What we need is to...

Let ourselves be seen

Love with our whole hearts

Practice gratitude, lean into joy

Believe I am enough

Inspiring stuff. Some apt observations. But let's think for a second. Isn't this an empirical researcher urging us to have metaphysical convictions. We need to believe certain things. And we need to believe them because they seem to work.

Isn't this basically "the power of positive thinking" dressed up a bit?

We want connection, we feel shame, but we need to open up nonetheless because that's what the wholehearted do, and we do so on the basis of the belief that we're worthy of love and belonging.

That last bit seems key for this whole thing to work. But where does it come from?

If I had 5 minutes to talk about vulnerability I think I'd want to take three looks at the cross:

Look 1: Here is the LORD of Glory crucified. Is vulnerability a fundamental value? You bet. Our God was dissected on full view of the world. His vulnerability is glorious. Our vulnerability is God-like.

Look 2: Here is where our sin takes us. And yes I said sin not just shame. We aren't just held back by 'fear of connection' but by dark hearts full of lust and murder. We do not deserve connection but cutting off. Without looking at things through this lens we dress the wound lightly. "Embracing mess and authenticity" sounds like a meaningful Saturday afternoon with college friends around Lattes. Not the diagnosis that can handle, for instance, the addictions Brown mentions.

Look 3: Here is the Lord's love for the dark-hearted. Unconditional, counter-conditional grace for the disconnected. Brown hopes we'll value ourselves first and then others. But deserved love is not the sort of love we're inclined to pass on. "I'm worth it" terminates on me. It's only grace that really spreads.

Religion hijacking the word… and the world

GlenDecember 13, 2010Leave a comment

Here Richard Dawkins makes the case for being steeped 'to some extent' in the King James Bible. If we don't know the KJV we are 'in some small way barbarian.' But he ends by saying:

it is important that religion should not be allowed to hijack this cultural resource.

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej1auSuVM-M&feature=player_embedded"]

Notch it up as another Dickie Dawkins classic. But before we laugh and point, let's make sure there aren't three fingers pointing back.

You see, because he's talking about the bible the stupidity of his position is obvious. Of course it's ridiculous to view the bible as first a cultural resource that religion then hijacks. Any fool knows that the bible is originally, purposefully and most meaningfully a religious text (or if you don't like 'religious', say 'spiritual' or 'theological' or even 'Christian'). It is evident (but not to Dawkins) that the essence of the bible is appreciated only when it's treated according to its true theological nature. And that to read it through atheistic lenses is the real hijacking.

But Dawkins' inability to appreciate the bible according to its true nature is only one more example of his inability to appreciate the world according to its true nature. The whole atheistic project follows exactly the same line. It says that everything is most ultimately a physical, chemical, biological, historical or cultural artefact, let's not allow 'religion' to hijack it. But to pretend you are honouring the world by treating it non-theologically is just as ridiculous as pretending to honour the Word by treating it non-theologically.

The only reason we don't see its foolishness is because we have, to some extent, bought the double-decker atheistic approach. When it comes to the world around us we pretty much assume along with the atheists that there are brute facts that are perfectly understood in non-theological terms and that we then work with this raw data to make our theological (or atheistical) pronouncements. And even if we do dare to wear some theological lenses to view the world, we have a slight guilty feeling that maybe we are hijacking a properly non-theological reality.

But no. You've got to begin by treating the Word theologically. And you've got to begin by treating the world theologically. And it's best you do so in that order.

It's those who fail to see the world according to its essentially theological character who hijack it.

Questions of Faith – YouTubed

GlenDecember 4, 2010February 2, 2014Leave a comment

Question of Faith Video and Round-up

GlenNovember 30, 2010Leave a comment

They've posted up the video of last week's panel discussion. Download video here. Original page here.

(If you don't have Windows Media Player (eg if you have a Mac) you can download VLC Player and paste in this URL: http://www.eastbournelive.org.uk/faithforum2010.wmv)

We didn't know the questions in advance and we were given 90 seconds each, so this was my off-the-cuff effort. There are a few things I'd say differently now and next time I'll remember to sit on my hands, but... here it is.

UPDATE: Here are my answers as short youtube videos.

The questions were as follows (you can fast-forward to my answers at the times given below):

If a believer thinks their faith has a monopoly on the whole truth how can they respect any other?
My answer 4:57

Should there be Bishops in a reformed House of Lord?
My answer 11:50

Do the Adherents of your faith represent your faith accurately to the world?
My answer: 26:00

How can we know God?
My answer: 31:16 (I pick up on the Muslim panelist’s comment that “we know God through God.”)

In inter-faith discussions, do you think there is a danger of slipping into a subtle form of intolerance i.e. to think that there are no real differences and that what you believe is just another way of expressing what I believe?
My answer: 46:43

In the past 4 decades we have seen great change in the faith structure of Britain with major immigration to the UK. From the faith perspective, can and how can serious conflict be avoided in the next 50 years?
My answer: 51:00

Do faith schools encourage greater tolerance and understanding between faith communities or are they more divisive?
My answer: 1:03:40

What is your faith’s view of women?
My answer: 1:19:05

What is your faith's view of other religions?
My answer: 1:23:58

Answers on youtube.

Some other questions I've been considering recently are here:

Is homosexuality wrong? What is your position on gay marriage?

How should ‘faith schools’ be treated in a multi-cultural, multi-faith society?

Should there be blasphemy laws? Who should they protect?

Can there be a place for Sharia law in our multi-cultural society?

What common ground do you share with the other panelists?

Does your faith community represent your faith well?

How do we avoid war when the religions just can’t agree?

How do we avoid the dangers of religious extremists?

Questions of Faith 8

GlenNovember 30, 2010Leave a comment

And another thing...

How do we avoid the dangers of religious extremists?

.....................................................................................................................

Why should we worry about religious extremism? What is dangerous about the phrase "religious extremism"? The dangerous part is not the "extremism" - the danger lies in which religion we're speaking of.

No-one was afraid of the religious extremism of Mother Teresa. No-one is afraid of the religious extremism of the Amish. There's a worldwide network of cells that meet to devote themselves ever more fully to their religious fundamentals - they're called Quakers. No-one is afraid of them. Why? Because it all depends on what your fundamentals are. It all depends on which religion it is your are pursuing to extremes.

If you put Jesus Christ at the centre and truly pursue Him fanatically and to extremes it ought to produce communities of radically loving, radically other-centred people. The more you become like Christ the more you are likely to die for your enemies.

Of course this is not true of all religions. Neither is it true of all worldviews considered more broadly. Some religions have been founded by those who have killed their enemies (rather than been killed by them). To pursue these to extremes will indeed lead to war. By the same token, naturalism taken to extremes is incredibly dangerous. It is a short step from "the stongest do survive" to "the strongest should survive." It's a step we've seen taken by extremists last century, and the body count was the highest the world has ever seen.

It's not the "extremism" that matters. Pursuing something to extremes can be wonderful for this world. Christians giving their lives to the world in Jesus' name have made an incredible impact for good. Don't fear 'extremism.' Fear the religions and worldviews that can't be pursued extremely. And for my money, that's all of them, except for Jesus.

Questions of Faith 7

GlenNovember 25, 2010Leave a comment

More hindsight...

How do we avoid war when the religions just can't agree?

......................................................................................................................

There is a popular myth in our culture that religions are dangerous and full of extremists and that we must flee from faith claims into the warm and peaceful embrace of secularism. Don't believe the lie. There's nothing necessarily violent about faith commitments. And there's nothing neutral about secularism. It has it's own faith commitments that are just as liable to produce warfare.

The 20th century was the murder century. More people died violently in that century than all previous centuries combined. And the great majority were at the hands of atheistically driven regimes. If we want to avoid war, let's think twice before fleeing "the religious" to take refuge in "the secular."

The common denominator in all wars is not God, it's man. So the real question to ask after the murder century is not "How can you believe in God?" The real question to ask is "How can anyone believe in man?" And yet secularism asks us to place supreme confidence in man.

I don't have any such confidence. My hope for peace is in the Prince of Peace. He is One who used His power not to lord it over us but to serve and bless us, to bleed and die for us. He was One who refused to pick up the sword but instead was thrust through in order to reconcile His enemies. He is our only hope for peace.

Questions of Faith 6

GlenNovember 25, 2010Leave a comment

There's nothing like hindsight. Here's how I wish I answered one of the questions...

Does your faith community represent your faith well?

........................................................................................................

No faith community represents themselves very well. Just tune into Sky's religious channels to see that!

But for the Christian there's a very easy test you can apply to see whether they're representing their beliefs - Do they look like Jesus? If they don't, then they're not representing Christianity, no matter how much they might claim to be Christian.

But Jesus does give the world permission to judge Christianity by looking at His followers. That's a scary prospect for Christians but it's true. Jesus says "By this will all people know that you are my disciples if you love one another." The quality of Christian love on display to the world will witness to Jesus. So how does our faith community show the love of Jesus in Eastbourne?

In Eastbourne there are 70 congregations, averaging around 125 members. In addition there are 26 specialist agencies run by Christians helping people with unemployment, debt, homelessness, elderly care, Beachy Head Chaplaincy, Street Pastors, St Vincent de Paul, etc, etc. Every week in Eastbourne, Christians run 372 activities for the community! 372! The council couldn't even begin to provide that kind of service to the community. This is not bible studies and parish council meetings and Christian stuff for Christians. This is activities run for the community to which everyone is invited regardless of faith or lifestyle. To run these 372 mid-week activities we give 2200 volunteer hours per week. Again, this is not about Christians serving Christians, it's Christians serving the community. And this is just one little town in one little corner of the British Isles. Around the world the story is repeated again and again, the risen Jesus living His other-centred life in believers all over the globe.

The church is the one organisation that exists for the benefit of its non-members. We are church for the world. And in this way we represent our Lord Jesus who lives and works not for Himself, but does everything for us.

A Question of Faith – it all went so quickly…

GlenNovember 24, 2010Leave a comment

Peter Owen Jones seems so at home with this newfangled technology called ""a camera"". Must be all that BBC training. I, on the other hand, seem utterly bemused by it all.

So anyway, just come back from Question of Faith. Thanks for all your help and prayers.

Reflecting with an older wiser Christian afterwards, we noticed that the watchword of the night was "tolerance." This was the Absolute Good and that which no-one dare speak against. But interestingly, my friend made the point that the history of religious toleration was very different to how we use the word today. So, for instance, the Act of Toleration in 1689 was the granting of liberties by a strong majority to a weak minority (the non-confromists). It was not, as it is assumed to mean today, the decision of equals to get along together.

I think that's a fascinating point. True tolerance is a strong incumbent majority who nonetheless accommodate themselves and stoop to serve the weak. The truly Tolerant One is the Lord Jesus who makes Himself Servant of all. And He wouldn't be more tolerant if He stopped insisting on being Lord. He can be Lord and the most tolerant all at once (when tolerance is properly understood).

Anyway, that's one reflection.

My answers were as Twitter-like as I could make them. We got 90 seconds maximum, so there's not a great deal that can be said. I had the very best questions from some teenagers who came up to me at the end of the evening. They appeared to be with their mother. There was no pussy-footing with the teens: "So you think the other panelists are going to hell?" etc, etc. It was definitely the most fruitful time of the evening. At one point I tried to make fun of the omni-being of philosophy: "You know that nonsense they teach in religious education, 'God is omniscient, omnipotent, omniverous, ambidextrous'." They laugh nervously. I think it's because I'm deliciously drole. Then the woman introduces herself: "Hi, I'm their RE teacher..." Oh.

The evening was video'd and will be up on the web in a week or so. I'll link to it when it's available.

Once again, thanks! :)

Questions of Faith 5

GlenNovember 24, 2010Leave a comment

Continued from here.

What common ground do you share with the other panelists?

..................................................................................................

Two years ago if anyone wanted to understand the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, they would never think of starting with their commonalities. The best way to understand Conservatism is on its own terms, as a distinct entity. And the best way to understand the Liberal Democrats is to treat it as its own political party with its own philosophy and aims. To begin by asking about common ground will not help you to grasp the true essence of either, but only lead to a superficial understanding.

Now that the two parties are in Coalition it's possible to look at common ground and to see that there are many ways they can work together fruitfully. But you don't begin with common ground.

In the same way, the best way to understand the faiths we represent is not to begin with common ground but to treat us quite distinctly and according to our own ways of understanding. That's not to say that we can't pull together - Coalition style - on a number of issues. But it is to guard against having a shallow and superficial understanding of these faiths. Don't start with the commonalities - treat each on its own terms.

The common ground which I believe exists between each member of this panel and indeed each member of the audience is a reality that not everyone will acknowledge. But it is no less firm as common ground because of that. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ loves and has bled and died for each one of you and longs to draw you into the very life and love of God. Therefore I don't just have respect for you or tolerance for your position. I love you and I know the love that Christ has for each of you whether you know it or not. Jesus loves you and He loves me. That's common ground between me and everyone I meet and it helps me to treat each person not simply with 'respect' or 'dignity' but with heart-felt love and compassion.

I believe what we need in a multi-cultural, multi-faith society is not simply "respect" or "tolerance" (such milky words!). We need love. Even love for enemies. We need the kind of love that Jesus embodies and offers freely to all. Therefore I believe Jesus Christ is our greatest hope for a united society and is the most firm common ground possible - even if right now you're not aware of it.

................................................................................................................

Comments gladly received...