Skip to content

Category: apologetics

3

Published on 3 Comments on Genesis 1 and Science

Genesis-7It's difficult to think of any piece of literature as supportive of the modern scientific enterprise as Genesis 1. All the necessary foundations are in place:

1. Laws Up Above

The ancient Chinese had incredible technology but not science as we know it. Why? Because however great their minds were, they didn't conceive of the world operating similarly according to a Great Mind. They didn't think there were ever-present, always-applicable laws of nature that governed the universe. They went out into the world and tamed it through technology but they didn't seek to press into the deeper laws of the universe.

That's because they didn't have Genesis 1. They didn't believe that "In the beginning God" and that through his word an ordered cosmos is created which shows all the hallmarks of dependable regularities - seasons and spheres with boundaries and signs in the heavens, all going round and round - evening and morning, evening and morning.The God of Genesis 1 is a God prior to nature and beyond nature, therefore He gives us every reason to expect laws of nature. This is absolutely vital if you want to do science.

It's not uncommon to find scientists today expressing their doubts that a "Grand Unified Theory" of everything may be found. That's quite consistent. To believe in a grand unified theory sounds remarkably like Genesis 1, and who believes that anymore? But actually it's belief in the God of Genesis 1 that will engage you further with the scientific enterprise. Disbelief will make you give up the investigation prematurely.

2. A World Out There

The ancient Greeks were smart cookies. All philosophy is footnotes to Plato and all that. Philosophy, mathematics, art and literature were all spheres of excellence for the Greeks. Science? Not so much. Because science requires you to believe in a stable and predictable world out there that is open to investigation. Science occurs when you make repeatable observations and check your theories against the cold hard facts. But Greeks didn't believe in cold, hard facts. They believed in minds and reason and laws but not in empirical investigation. To study something for the Greeks meant a journey within the mind - not a venture out into the field. And so, no science.

But in Genesis 1 you have a genuinely concrete, genuinely real world. It's not this second-class excretion from the gods, it's positively willed by God, different to God (contingent not necessary) yet at the same time declared very good. It's the kind of place you can move out into and have dominion over. It is open to us. In fact we are told to fill it, order it, develop it. Science is not just enabled by Genesis 1, it's virtually commanded.

3. Minds In Here

If human minds are the product of mindless operations which only honour survival, not intelligence (the two are not at all synonymous), then why should we trust our minds to understand the laws up above and the world out there. If we are a part of the cosmos thrown up by the cosmos with no higher calling than to pass on our genes then why trust a brain that whirs away according to its own survival imperative?

If you really want to have confidence in scientific endeavour then turn to Genesis 1 where humanity are specially created in certain relationships with the Orderer above and the world out there. The image of God is on us and the command of God is to rule and fill the world. More than this, if humanity is created in God's image it is because we are destined in Christ (the Image) for face-to-face fellowship with God. If that is so then we can have every confidence that the human mind is indeed capable of grasping those things above, even as we are sent into the world out there.

Genesis 1 is very far from being anti-science. It gives us these three building blocks and every reason to believe that they will triangulate to yield fresh insights. If we turn from the Bible, what right do we have to expect rational order to the cosmos? What right do we have to expect a comprehensible universe? What right do we have to privilege the processes of these 3 pound blobs of grey matter between our ears? Actually, to turn from the Scriptures is to weaken science, not strengthen it.

The realities spoken of in Genesis 1 provide the scientific enterprise with its firmest possible foundations.

2

Published on 2 Comments on Preaching Judgement: Three Thoughts

writing on the wallRaising hell is either terrific fun (of the throwing-televisions-out-of-hotel-windows kind) or terrifically sobering. This is the sobering kind.

Here are three thoughts on speaking about judgement. These aren't the three most important things to say but they are the three things I think we're commonly getting wrong.

 

1) Our job is not to save God from the 'guilty' verdict.

So often I hear talks that seem to aim at getting God off of our "guilty" verdict rather than getting us off of His. If you aim at trying to save your hearers you'll present God righteously.  If you aim at justifying God, you'll save neither.

 

2) We don't bring hell to the world, hell is here. We bring reality and then hope.

According to Romans 1, the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven. All that sinful humanity chooses is already hell-bent. This means that earth's vision of heaven is heaven's vision of hell. As we herald heaven's vision, we're not saying 'Ah, life is rosy now but the pit awaits.' We say 'Don't you realise how life is the pits now? Don't you realise we've already fallen? Don't you see where this thing is already heading? Don't you want a way out?' In this way we don't introduce hell to people who are otherwise living it up. We point to the hell in our hearts and the hell in our world and say "Hell is here and it needs nipping in the bud before it goes viral. But we know Someone who takes it seriously. Jesus can handle your hell and give you His heaven."

 

3) The quintessence of hell is not sin's recompense so much as mercy's refusal.

It's fairly common to do a 'reverse Godwin' when speaking of judgement. We begin with Hitler and the justice of judging him, then we work backwards towards less flagrant sinners... like ourselves. I wonder though if that frames everything in terms of degrees of just punishment, and while there's a place for that I think leaning too heavily on this will come a cropper in the face of eternity. (You can tell people 'temporal sins against an infinite God = eternal punishment, QED" but I've never seen it convince anyone.)

Luke 15 finishes with the bad boy in the feast and the good boy outside, with weeping and wailing and the angry gnashing of teeth. This is pretty much every way Jesus describes hell in Luke's Gospel, but the question comes: Why is he there? Because he's so bad? No, because he's so good - too good for this mercy meal. Why is he shut out of the feast? Because his father is so cruel? No he's so kind - too kind for this moralist who insists on justice.

In Luke 15 "justice forever" is the motto of hell's inmate, not its Jailer. If we let shared concepts of "justice" do all the heavy lifting on this question it frames God's ultimate posture towards the world in terms of law. But what of the "wrath of the Lamb"? The anger of the spurned Lover? Is there an evangelical (and not merely legal) preaching of hell? Or do we always come back to a law which the New Testament says has been fulfilled by Christ (the curse and all)?

Similarly I worry that an exclusive focus on the justice perspective obscures, not only the gospel character of God but also the mad mystery of human iniquity. As we hear of Matthew 25's goats, certainly we're meant to think that their punishment is fitting, right and even that there is a poetic justice to it all. But we're also meant to think 'That's insane! Goats: hell is not for you! It's for the devil and his angels. Why are you following him!? Why won't you turn and live, for who can take any pleasure in your perishing?!' God certainly doesn't (Ezekiel 18:30-32).

Our preaching of hell should lead to a gospel appeal from the depths of God's own heart, not an 'all-sewed-up' accounting for sin's recompense. That's what I mean by an evangelical (and not merely legal) account of hell.

If you want a terrific example of preaching hell, check out Steve Levy:

 

DOWNLOAD

2

Published on 2 Comments on Economics: Andrew Wilson and Vishal Mangalwadi

A great talk by Andrew Wilson on Economics:

Economics from Kings Church on Vimeo.

He identifies 3 false bogeymen: Profit, Credit and Inequality.

None of these are bad.

What's bad is: Greed, Laziness and Envy

The solution is: Generosity, Diligence and Thankfulness

These flow from the gospel of grace: all is a gift.

B1044largeIt put me in mind of Vishal Mangalwadi's excellent 'The Book That Made Your World'. Mangalwadi writes compellingly of how western culture has been decisively shaped by Christianity - from politics to philanthropy to science to medicine to economics.

On economics, he makes the point that ancient cultures only display or hoard their wealth. Investing wealth doesn't occur to ancient peoples. This is mainly because our default assumption is to consider the world as a closed system - there are finite resources that get whittled down with every act of consumption. Economics, to the natural mind, can only ever be a zero-sum game. If I want money, I'll go to war to get wealth. But if I win, you must lose. This is the natural mindset of fallen humanity.

Jesus comes to earth with a heavenly abundance. Because He is a gracious gift from the Father, the closed system of this world is opened out to a fullness that we don't deserve. The kingdoms of this world may go to war over a finite set of resources but the kingdom of heaven is the realm of a generous Father who knows how to give good gifts to His children. What's more these gifts, when passed on, multiply. The kingdom of Christ is a shining reality, spreading its goodness. It is a sowing reality, multiplying its life. It is an investing reality, sharing its gifts. (See my recent sermon from CCK on Shining, Sowing, Investing). And in the shining, sowing and investing there is exponential growth.

All of this overturns the tit-for-tat of the flesh. Christianity brings a vision of abundance to the world that released people from fear and beckoned them to risk in the cause of a growing kingdom. It brought a gracious dynamic to a people who were used to keeping themselves to themselves. And it commanded a people who had "freely received" to "freely give."

Add to this moral factors like: a large degree of honesty in Christendom without which financial systems cannot flourish.; the elimination of corruption; the dignity of man (which means we don't want slaves to do menial tasks, we invent machines to do it)...

And then, from the reformation onwards, add in a theology of vocation in every walk of life plus a 'Protestant work ethic' and you've got all the ingredients for a flourishing economy.

But take Christ and His kingdom out of the equation and you're only left with limited resources, limited hopes, tit-for-tat dynamics and fear, pride and envy calling the shots. Money doesn't make the world go round - it's the gospel that makes money go round.

For a taster of Vishal's stuff, here's a half hour race through the book:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-kMQONpM7U

12

Published on 12 Comments on The Place of Apologetics in Our Proclamation

I've been involved in a couple of discussions about apologetics with Tom Price from the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics. It began when David Meredith tweeted out this:

I enthusiastically retweeted it. Tom pushed back and we ended up having this discussion.

That got picked up by folks at Premier Christianity and so we wrote a couple of brief defenses of our positions. Now I didn't choose the wording of the "motion" and wish it had been different, but we ended up debating the proposition: "Apologetic sermons rarely work." My case for the affirmative begins like this:

Being 'anti-apologetics' is like being 'anti-good works'. Who could possibly be against good works? Well, every Protestant is – if those good works are placed on the wrong side of the line. Good works are great. But their proper place is on the far side of knowing Jesus.

Revelation is exactly parallel to salvation (John 17:3) – to know God is to be saved by him and vice versa. Therefore, just as we don’t work our way towards God (and get topped up by grace), so we don’t think our way towards God (and get topped up by revelation). The arrow must come all the way down. Gospel preaching, then, is not bottom-up philosophizing, it's top-down proclamation.

In hindsight I wish I'd stated in the clearest possible terms that what many consider to be "apologetics" is simply what I'd call thoughtful, responsive, contextualised evangelism. If all a person means by "apologetics" is simply answering people's questions then sign me up - I'm a keen apologist.

But the trouble is that apologetics has, unfortunately, become something else - something in addition to gospel proclamation. And wherever people want to make a case for another kind of proclamation other than a top-down declaration of God's word, then I take issue.

You can read the whole of my piece, Tom's defense and the lively comments thread HERE.

As a taster, here's my comment on Acts 17:

If you ask me Acts 17 is a classical apologist's one shot at a Scriptural example - and in it, Paul does the complete opposite. He babbles on about Jesus and the resurrection in the market place (*not* the most reasonable starting point for the Athenian philosophers!) When asked to step back and give the big picture he is very rude to them. He tells them how superstitious they are. He is incensed by their idolatry. He doesn't think "Ooo, look at all these potential stepping stones to truth faith." He thinks "Look at the ignorance." He makes fun of the fact they're so ignorant, they've even got an unknown god. So he tells them "The one thing you guys know is that you don't know God." Then he declares God to them in a way that is 180 degrees different to their understanding of God and the world (we live in his world, he doesn't live in ours, etc, etc). Yes he quotes their poets (I quote pop culture too!) but he quotes them *against* the prevailing cultural narrative. He then does an Adam and Christ christology (which none of them would have thought "reasonable"). Then he announces that they must all repent of their ignorance because God has raised this man from the dead. Says who? Where's your proof Paul? No that *is* Paul's proof. He announces the resurrection (without any supporting evidence whatsoever!) and expects them to repent. Some do! Others want to continue dialoguing - Paul doesn't seem interested at this point so he leaves.

If you're an apologetics-lover I'd say:

1) Make sure you understand what it is I'm opposing. I love, practice and completely endorse engaging with non-Christians and non-Christian world-views - I just want to make sure my "answering words" are gospel words. Click the apologetics tag here and see that for every post about rejecting bottom-up philosophizing there are five posts on positively engaging with culture, science, religion, atheism, the news, etc.

2) Realise I'm not at all "anti-reason". I just happen to think that the race of Adam is anti-reason. The word of the cross is the very definition of rationality - it's just that the wisdom of this world will never agree with it.

3) The Bible's verses about our hostile minds and the stark opposition of the gospel to human philosophy need to be faced with the utmost seriousness (e.g. Romans 1:20ff; 8:9; 1 Cor 1-3; 2 Cor 10:4-5; Eph 4:17-19; Col 2:8-9). Paul is ruling out something here. Make sure you're not doing the thing he's opposing.

4) If you're lifting high the name of Jesus, you are my brother/sister and I thank God for you. Be blessed.

3

Published on 3 Comments on Halloween – Mocking the Devil – Preaching the Word

When 10 of those asked me to do an evangelistic video for Halloween, I knew the dangers. Here are a couple of interviews I've done on the subject:

As I set about making the video I predicted a range of reactions reflecting the range of views on the subject.

When John Piper was asked about Halloween he summarized these varying approaches...

How to write something that satisfied all such groups?

Well, you can't. So I decided to write something for the friends of Christians - friends who would have little understanding of Halloween's origins or the gospel. That's the target audience. Therefore I'm not trying to convert Christians to 'trick or treating'. I am trying to engage trick-or-treaters (and their Facebooking parents) with the gospel.

Originally the video was going to be an animation with silhouetted figures playing the part of trick-or-treaters. We ran out of time for that and so decided to film it. On the day, I told the parents to bring children in whatever costumes they were comfortable with - a pirate or a spiderman would be perfect. I also brought some spare pumpkin costumes just in case. As it happened, the parents did a wonderful job on wardrobe and make-up as you can see.  And my videographer and soundtrack artist were incredibly good at evoking the mock-horror.

What we ended up with was a really quite scary first minute of film that went beyond what I'd imagined with words and a basic animation. But I'm glad for how the film has turned out. I think that initial impact grabs folks and hopefully pulls them into the gospel material. Remember - this is for non-Christians. Non-Christians.

So I want to make clear, my intention is not to open the doors for Christians to go trick-or-treating. I want to open the doors for trick-or-treaters to come to Christ!

Interestingly I've had complaints in the other direction too. One person so far has thought I'm too hard on paganism. I think they made some good points. They asked Why do we "mock" these spiritual beliefs (witches, paganism, etc)? Is it really Christian to mock? Would we similarly 'mock' Muslims or Hindus?  That complaint led to a really fruitful conversation. But I mention it just to say that the video is not at all trying to compromise with spiritual darkness but to unmask it.

Here's the bottom line for me: if you're not sold on the whole "mocking the darkness" angle (which I think is the true meaning of Halloween... see links below) then please don't get involved in Halloween just because we made a pretty video. I'm persuaded that Halloween can be engaged with positively, but if you're not persuaded then don't practice.

Romans 14:14 is the verse here:

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

Just cos I made it rhyme, doesn't mean I'm right. If you're a Christian wondering what your approach to Halloween will be this year, our video hasn't solved anything for you. You can't short-cut the reading, thinking and praying part.

If you want some pointers in the direction of Christian engagement with Halloween, James Jordan is my top tip on a starting place. Peter Dray has also written a great paper (delivered first as an evangelistic talk). The Oxford Concise Dictionary of the Christian Church has good entries on "All Saints Eve" and "All Saints Day" (which deny that ancient Christians simply adopted pagan practices). CS Lewis's introduction to the Screwtape Letters gives sound advice on neither thinking too highly nor too little of evil powers and gives a great defence of holy mockery. He quotes Luther:

“The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn.” (Martin Luther)

Alan Rudnick writes from an American perspective and Steve Utley from a British one. Michael Spencer and Anderson Rearick might be a step too far for some, but they're fascinating for showing how attitudes have changed on this issue.

If you're after a video for how Christians should engage Halloween, then check out Ed Drew's video. Our video is designed to reach non-Christians. And to that end I ask that you get busy sharing it this week. If we really want to oppose Satan then, as Luther says "Christians should face the devil with the Word of God."

 

9

Published on 9 Comments on Podcast: How should we think about apologetics?

DOWNLOAD

SUBSCRIBE

Barry, Nate and I talk apologetics. How do we co-ordinate faith and reason - revelation and philosophy? Our answers are vital if we are going to be faithful to the gospel.

Do get in touch if you have any comments, queries or objections. We'd love to hear from you.

And here's the hilarious Harry Hill take down of Brian Cox. Enjoy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nptDP35Tb0

Published on Leave a comment on Podcast: Remembering World War One

tep-podcastcover-1024x1024On this episode we talk about opportunities related to the WW1 centenary.

Recently David Bourne and Andy Johnston put on a wonderful event in Hailsham to mark the centenary of the First World War (see here). It was held at the Parish Church and it seemed like the whole town came out.

First Andy spoke of the causes of the war. Then David spoke of the course of the war. After a refreshments break and act of remembrance, I spoke about Jesus, the Prince of Peace. It was a very successful event generating wonderful gospel conversations afterwards.

Could you put on something similar where you are?

Here Andy Brinkley and I talk about the opportunities of this year and then listen to my 20 minute talk...

DOWNLOAD

SUBSCRIBE

For other resources concerning the WW1 celebrations:

https://www.10ofthose.com/products/12856/Remembrance-Day-Tract/

http://greaterlove.org.uk/

http://www.hopetogether.org.uk/greaterlove

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLwVwyrWQGw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO-AYxsEqIk&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZUcOCl9kbU&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gZ1Rtk__TE&feature=youtu.be

Download My Talk by itself

 

 

7

Published on 7 Comments on In Conversation with Paul Blackham about 321

An extra from Book by Book's "Job" studies.

Here Paul Blackham interviews me about 321 - a gospel outline. We discuss the necessity of Trinity (THREE), Adam and Christ (TWO) and Union with Christ (ONE) for our evangelism and why the local church is crucial for our mission to the world.

From 00:00 - 21:29 we talk about THREE
From 21:30 - 37:54 we talk about TWO
From 37:55 - 1:01:00 we talk about ONE and our evangelistic methods

And here's a bit of fun from the "Job" studies:

 

Published on Leave a comment on The People’s Republic of #1PUN

punEvery now and then I have a go at #1PUN on Twitter. It was started by Juan Pun as a daily joke competition held at 1pm GMT. There were judges, a points system, spreadsheets and everything.

Recently, without warning or explanation, Juan Pun stopped overseeing 1PUN. Now no-one tweets out the reminders, no-one is judging our efforts and there are no official winners. But 1PUN continues. It seems like it's as popular as ever. And, in a way, the scoring does happen, but in the way it's always happened on Twitter: via favourites and retweets. It's the People's Republic of #1PUN and it's working.

Let's think about religion and morality. Could it be that the People's Republic of #1PUN gives us a model for how morality works after the death of God? Perhaps God is like a heavenly Juan Pun - a made-up figure who has now retreated from the scene. To begin with, his absence was disconcerting, but after a bit, we've just gotten on with it. Now people act pretty much the same way they ever did except that, under the new regime, they don't receive authoritarian pronouncements from on high, they are simply judged by their equals. Approval and disapproval has been democratized and we've all just gotten on with life without any noticeable outbreaks of apocalyptic evil.

What do we think? Is it the same thing?

Well here's one response you could make:

"Yeah but... Watch out for the democratization of values. A nasty pocket of racist tweeters could get hold of the hashtag and flood it with bigoted "humour". In just that way, whole people groups could decide on a new direction for a culture's morality and there'd be nothing to say they were wrong."

 You could make that kind of argument. And there'd be truth to it. But I think we need to go deeper.

You see the analogy just doesn't hold. At all really. The triune God is not a heavenly Juan Pun trying to manage a little system within a much larger paradigm. The Father hasn't looked around at all the morality that's been going on and dreamt up a scoring system to administrate it. He is the Author of goodness, the Son is the Expression of goodness, the Spirit is the Perfecter of goodness. God is good - goodness itself.

The triune God does not relate to the world as Juan Pun to word-play but like Oscar Wilde to Algernon. In The Importance of Being Earnest, Algernon may be extremely funny while denying all knowledge of any authorship over his life. But on the deepest level, he cannot declare his independence from Wilde. He's only funny because of him.

We can deny God all we like. We can call him an out-dated construct but actually we are the constructs. And every concept we use - whether of goodness, truth, beauty, justice, even humour - is either borrowed capital or ultimately bankrupt. The people's republic of earth does not threaten the kingdom of heaven - actually it presupposes it. All the while there's a Father beckoning the world to something greater than abstract values like "goodness" - He's inviting us to Himself.

 

3

Published on 3 Comments on Apologetics According to Peter

apologetics2It's the verse from which the word "apologetics" comes. We are to give an "answer" (an apologia) to those who ask us about our hope.

Here it is:

1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always being prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that is in you."

Let's break it down:

But... The context from v14 is a suffering church - both the suffering and the church elements are crucial. 1 Peter is written to a bedraggled mob of asylum seekers who are nonetheless choice in the Father's eyes, purchased and possessed by Christ and sanctified by the Spirit (1:1-2; 2:11). They are suffering under the authorities (2:13ff); suffering at work (2:17ff); suffering in difficult marriages (3:1ff); etc.

In your hearts... "Apologetics" - as Peter defines it - is heart driven.

Set apart Christ as Lord... Here is the imperative of the verse ("being prepared" is an adjective subordinate to this command). The thing we must do is "sanctify"Christ as Lord. We must set Him apart as special in our hearts. We see Peter doing this throughout the letter - consistently calling Christ "precious" (1:19; 2:4,6,7). When our hearts prize Christ as precious, we are ready for apologetics.

Always being prepared... We are not always to be answering but we are always to be prepared. And it's a plural adjective. This suffering community as a whole is to be prepared. Together we are a priesthood (2:9) and this community consists of differently gifted people - some gifted to speak, others to serve (4:10-11). I believe every Christian should be able to put words to their faith, but don't forget the communal aspects - we rely on one another in our answering.

To give an answer... This word - apologia - speaks of responding. Someone else has started this, and the word 'apologia' intimates quite a formal, adversarial situation. (Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor 9:3; 2 Cor 7:11; Phil 1:7,16; 2 Tim 4:16)

To everyone who asks you... Again, "you" is in the plural. Many people feel guilty that they have never personally been asked about their hope. But in the church body your hopeful suffering belongs to me, just as my answering belongs to you. As a church our suffering with hope will be the apologetic to the world. You can reasonably expect that once or twice in your lifetime a non-Christian will ask you "How did you get through that suffering?" but more generally this verse is fulfilled in the ongoing life of a church where members, (speakers in particular) can say "a couple in our church recently suffered a miscarriage, but the hope of Jesus got them through."

To give the reason for the hope... What's prompting the question is an evident hope - not an evident reason. The thing that's obvious about the Christian is their hope. The thing that's not obvious is the reason - that's why they need to articulate the reason.

That is in you... Notice that the hope to be articulated is in the Christians. It's not in a text book, it's in them. This is the hope that has actually sustained the Christians through their suffering. Therefore equipping Christians apologetically is not about giving people "reasons" they had never considered before the apologist had trained them. Giving an apologia is about putting words to a hope that is already heart-felt and already life-shaping. 

Since this is so, a church living out 1 Peter 3:15 is a suffering congregation that prizes Christ as precious and clings to Him in future-looking hope. In this context they rely on one another to articulate such hope to all who ask.

This is what Peter means by apologetics. Is it what we mean?

 

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer