"A great many problems in the debate between theology and geology can be resolved if we reject theistic evolution and biblical neo-catastrophism... by rejecting theistic evolution we reject faulty theology... [and] by rejecting neo-catastrophism we reject faulty science." Davis A Young
Less than 200 years ago, Christians were well-represented and respected in scientific circles, and 50 years ago were well on the way to recovering from the fall-out from the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and “Descent of Man” nearly 100 years earlier. However, within the last 40 years Young Earth Creationists have jettisoned the notion of a flat earth, but resurrected many of their old unscientific or pseudo-scientific ideas (and invented some new ones), thereby presenting many with a stumbling block on their potential journey to faith.
So it is that many are handed an easy, ready-made, excuse for failing to consider the implications of the facts of the life, words, acts, death, and empty tomb of Jesus; by the strict, and unnecessarily literal, interpretation of some parts of the Bible.
In addition to realising that “age is not the issue”, it is important to appreciate the fact that the Bible is not a scientific or historical textbook. Furthermore, no single part of it should be used in isolation as a means of defending or denouncing any particular world-view, or in defiance of observed reality. The Bible should be rightly considered as a divinely-inspired work, comprised of 66 different books, written over thousands of years, and penned by a variety of different human authors: It is comprised of many different literary styles; allegorical stories, morality tales, poems, songs, letters, diaries, prophecies, as well as the documentary-style texts. Therefore Christians can claim, with considerable justification, that the Bible should be viewed as “a history of revelation and a revelation of history”.
However, the Bible does not set out to define How things are, but rather Why they are: Some things are within the domain of scientific endeavour, and others are not. In amongst the text of every part of the Bible you can find seeds of truth (if you are willing to look and/or able to see). Possibly the most famous example is to be found in the very first sentence of the Bible: “In the beginning God created…” But there are also passages in the Bible that point to the following:
that everything on the surface of the Earth originates from interstellar dust in space - "...for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust." (Psalm 103:14);
that the Earth was at first just covered in water - "...the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters." (Genesis 1:2); and
that the first land emerged from beneath the waves in the form of volcanic islands - "...[God] set the earth on its foundations... [He] covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains, but at [His] rebuke the waters fled..." (Psalm 104:5-7).
In these respects (and many others) it was truly “way ahead of its time”. Therefore, I believe that the statement...“In the beginning God created…” still confronts cosmologists today with the same truth and potency it did when first perceived some 5000 years ago.
Monday, September 1, 2008
What About Charles Darwin?
“He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from the beginning to the end.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
So what about that great bugbear of Evangelical Christians – Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution? Darwin made many observations of the natural world around him, but he never actually observed evolution taking place or, by way of experimentation, caused it to happen. Instead, he merely collected a great deal of circumstantial evidence that appeared to indicate a trend towards the increasing complexity of organisms with time. However, the fact that moths or finches can and do change in order to adapt to changes in their environment, or the fact that there are obvious structural similarities in a variety of apparently dissimilar organisms, does not prove that we all evolved, by chance, from some kind of protein-rich, primordial chemical soup, as a result of a bolt of lightning (or whatever).
Furthermore, after publication of Darwin's theories, nearly 100 years elapsed before scientists came up with any physical evidence that advantageous mutations could be inherited (although generally mutations are not normally passed-on (i.e. inherited)). Nevertheless, the transformation of, say, a fish into a frog is something else entirely and, apart form the fact that such an event cannot possibly be observed or repeated, it is very difficult to see how it could biologically or physiologically happen. Furthermore, if evolution must be conceived as an unguided process, as Professor Richard Dawkins conceded in his seminal book “The Blind Watchmaker”, then how can it possibly initiate or propagate any process that could lead to the eventual development of something as superbly fit for purpose as the human eye?
Despite all of this, it seems that if anyone dares to question the orthodox view (that Darwin must have been right) they are automatically branded as a crank, when in fact there are huge problems with explaining the mechanics of how any actual evolutionary process could work. Michael Denton, in his book “Evolution – A Theory in Crisis” (1986), provides just such an analysis: Here we have a well-respected microbiologist who is willing to put his head above the parapet to point out that there are immense difficulties in explaining the mechanics of any evolutionary process, Darwinian or otherwise. That being the case, it is just emotional blackmail on the part of the majority that maintains the status quo. In fact, the assumption that Darwin must have been right because we can’t come up with any sound, “scientific” alternative, is somewhat reminiscent of the Hans Christian Anderson tale of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”.
Darwin’s theory of natural selection (not evolution) starts out from the basic assumption that different species were not the result of separate acts of creation by God. This was the point on which Darwin and many others disagreed with the established Church of their time and, having decided this to be the case, they set about “proving” this to be true, by finding observable “evidence” to back up their theories. Many would say Darwin’s was one of the greatest scientific minds to ever grace the planet. However, zealous supporters - and virulent opponents alike - often seem determined not to let the facts of his life and work get in the way of what they have decided is the significance - or danger - of his observations on the workings of nature. It is therefore crucially important to see Darwin as a product of his time; a turbulent period of widespread social and economic upheaval. Adrian Desmond and James Moore did just that in an excellent biography of Darwin, published by Penguin in 1991.
In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, England was comprised of a highly-structured society with a much smaller population than today. Therefore, far more than it is today, the nation’s wealth was concentrated in the hands of a very wealthy elite. Power was similarly concentrated, with property ownership being the qualification for having the vote. Despite the highly destructive efforts of King Henry VIII, the Church had remained an incredibly powerful landowner and key part of the Establishment. The Church was therefore heavily implicated in the maintenance of the status quo by those who wanted to bring about reforms. Whereas, for those who feared the consequences of the revolutionary changes and civil unrest which seemed to be happening elsewhere in the world, the Church was the last line of defence against anarchy. Therefore, in the mid-nineteenth century evolution was an idea whose time had come: Many atheist and anti-establishment figures in the scientific community pounced on Darwin’s ideas, and they rapidly became accepted as fact.
So what about that great bugbear of Evangelical Christians – Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution? Darwin made many observations of the natural world around him, but he never actually observed evolution taking place or, by way of experimentation, caused it to happen. Instead, he merely collected a great deal of circumstantial evidence that appeared to indicate a trend towards the increasing complexity of organisms with time. However, the fact that moths or finches can and do change in order to adapt to changes in their environment, or the fact that there are obvious structural similarities in a variety of apparently dissimilar organisms, does not prove that we all evolved, by chance, from some kind of protein-rich, primordial chemical soup, as a result of a bolt of lightning (or whatever).
Furthermore, after publication of Darwin's theories, nearly 100 years elapsed before scientists came up with any physical evidence that advantageous mutations could be inherited (although generally mutations are not normally passed-on (i.e. inherited)). Nevertheless, the transformation of, say, a fish into a frog is something else entirely and, apart form the fact that such an event cannot possibly be observed or repeated, it is very difficult to see how it could biologically or physiologically happen. Furthermore, if evolution must be conceived as an unguided process, as Professor Richard Dawkins conceded in his seminal book “The Blind Watchmaker”, then how can it possibly initiate or propagate any process that could lead to the eventual development of something as superbly fit for purpose as the human eye?
Despite all of this, it seems that if anyone dares to question the orthodox view (that Darwin must have been right) they are automatically branded as a crank, when in fact there are huge problems with explaining the mechanics of how any actual evolutionary process could work. Michael Denton, in his book “Evolution – A Theory in Crisis” (1986), provides just such an analysis: Here we have a well-respected microbiologist who is willing to put his head above the parapet to point out that there are immense difficulties in explaining the mechanics of any evolutionary process, Darwinian or otherwise. That being the case, it is just emotional blackmail on the part of the majority that maintains the status quo. In fact, the assumption that Darwin must have been right because we can’t come up with any sound, “scientific” alternative, is somewhat reminiscent of the Hans Christian Anderson tale of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”.
Darwin’s theory of natural selection (not evolution) starts out from the basic assumption that different species were not the result of separate acts of creation by God. This was the point on which Darwin and many others disagreed with the established Church of their time and, having decided this to be the case, they set about “proving” this to be true, by finding observable “evidence” to back up their theories. Many would say Darwin’s was one of the greatest scientific minds to ever grace the planet. However, zealous supporters - and virulent opponents alike - often seem determined not to let the facts of his life and work get in the way of what they have decided is the significance - or danger - of his observations on the workings of nature. It is therefore crucially important to see Darwin as a product of his time; a turbulent period of widespread social and economic upheaval. Adrian Desmond and James Moore did just that in an excellent biography of Darwin, published by Penguin in 1991.
In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, England was comprised of a highly-structured society with a much smaller population than today. Therefore, far more than it is today, the nation’s wealth was concentrated in the hands of a very wealthy elite. Power was similarly concentrated, with property ownership being the qualification for having the vote. Despite the highly destructive efforts of King Henry VIII, the Church had remained an incredibly powerful landowner and key part of the Establishment. The Church was therefore heavily implicated in the maintenance of the status quo by those who wanted to bring about reforms. Whereas, for those who feared the consequences of the revolutionary changes and civil unrest which seemed to be happening elsewhere in the world, the Church was the last line of defence against anarchy. Therefore, in the mid-nineteenth century evolution was an idea whose time had come: Many atheist and anti-establishment figures in the scientific community pounced on Darwin’s ideas, and they rapidly became accepted as fact.
Evolution - Fact or Theory?
"Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies
Because of a keenly inquisitive mind - and perhaps a slightly rebellious nature - Darwin, in the pursuance of his theories on the origins and workings of nature, set himself on a collision course with the Establishment. In retrospect, it seems probable that his mysterious - and undiagnosed - chronic stomach illness, which dogged his whole life, may have been induced by the stress of knowing the size of the time-bomb on which he was sitting. He prevaricated for over twenty years and - fearful of the backlash from the Church and the Establishment - his life’s work was very nearly pre-empted by the work of others; most especially Alfred Wallace.
Many philosophers and politicians have tried to build on Darwin’s ideas (sometimes with disastrous results), such as Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler and, some would say, Lady Thatcher. Similarly, many mainstream and respectable scientists have attempted to take Darwin's ideas and apply them to all sorts of other areas of science, just as Darwin borrowed form the sociologists of his day.
There are many well-respected scientists today who, although by no means Christians, are willing to concede that no theory of evolution is without its problems; Michael Denton being just one example. All do, however, accept the evidence from the (fragmentary) fossil record for there having been a tendency for (generally) increasing complexity in life-forms with time. This often seems to come remarkably close to a belief in “a series of creative events” throughout geological history. However, there are also many scientists who are firmly agnostic; those who accept there are many questions that science cannot answer for us, and for whom it is OK to say, “We don’t know”.
However, whatever else evolutionary theory may do, it does not - and cannot - explain the origin of the universe, or the origin of life within it.
In fact, the list of cosmic coincidences required for our existence in the universe is so long that it prompted Stephen Hawking to remark that "the odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous." Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson went further, and said: "The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming."
This paradox is sometimes dealt with by reliance upon the anthropic principle, i.e. "we are here because the universe is the way it is, therefore the fact we are here is not surprising." However, this clever sounding truism, barely disguises the fact that the we're very lucky the universe even lasted long enough for planets capable of supporting life to emerge from the "fall-out" of the big bang itself.
In the end, although science should be the objective pursuit of knowledge; and theology the intuitive pursuit of truth, if we want to be truly objective, all that is required of us is to admit that we don’t have - and cannot expect to have - all the answers.
Because of a keenly inquisitive mind - and perhaps a slightly rebellious nature - Darwin, in the pursuance of his theories on the origins and workings of nature, set himself on a collision course with the Establishment. In retrospect, it seems probable that his mysterious - and undiagnosed - chronic stomach illness, which dogged his whole life, may have been induced by the stress of knowing the size of the time-bomb on which he was sitting. He prevaricated for over twenty years and - fearful of the backlash from the Church and the Establishment - his life’s work was very nearly pre-empted by the work of others; most especially Alfred Wallace.
Many philosophers and politicians have tried to build on Darwin’s ideas (sometimes with disastrous results), such as Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler and, some would say, Lady Thatcher. Similarly, many mainstream and respectable scientists have attempted to take Darwin's ideas and apply them to all sorts of other areas of science, just as Darwin borrowed form the sociologists of his day.
There are many well-respected scientists today who, although by no means Christians, are willing to concede that no theory of evolution is without its problems; Michael Denton being just one example. All do, however, accept the evidence from the (fragmentary) fossil record for there having been a tendency for (generally) increasing complexity in life-forms with time. This often seems to come remarkably close to a belief in “a series of creative events” throughout geological history. However, there are also many scientists who are firmly agnostic; those who accept there are many questions that science cannot answer for us, and for whom it is OK to say, “We don’t know”.
However, whatever else evolutionary theory may do, it does not - and cannot - explain the origin of the universe, or the origin of life within it.
In fact, the list of cosmic coincidences required for our existence in the universe is so long that it prompted Stephen Hawking to remark that "the odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous." Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson went further, and said: "The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming."
This paradox is sometimes dealt with by reliance upon the anthropic principle, i.e. "we are here because the universe is the way it is, therefore the fact we are here is not surprising." However, this clever sounding truism, barely disguises the fact that the we're very lucky the universe even lasted long enough for planets capable of supporting life to emerge from the "fall-out" of the big bang itself.
In the end, although science should be the objective pursuit of knowledge; and theology the intuitive pursuit of truth, if we want to be truly objective, all that is required of us is to admit that we don’t have - and cannot expect to have - all the answers.
The Philosophy of Jesus
"Having a clear faith... is often labelled today as a fundamentalism. ...
Whereas relativism... looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's
standards." Pope Benedict XVI
Relativism pervades every aspect of our thinking; it is the rejection of any notion of absolute truth, or absolute right or wrong. Upon objective examination, most eastern religions and modern philosophies can be seen to have this philosophy at their core. It may be found in the Yin and the Yang of the ancient Chinese, or in the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre.
However, before going any further down this philosophical road, I believe it is important to mention that the Jesus of the Bible rejected this world-view when he said things like “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life…” and, let’s be clear, no 4th Century fanatic put these words in His mouth; it was precisely this sort of statement that got Jesus “into trouble” with the religious authorities of His day, and led to his execution by the Roman Occupiers: When brought before the Roman Governor of Judea, Jesus said “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me”, to which Pilate responded “What is truth?”. You can easily imagine the cynical or even sarcastic tone of his voice, but this is indeed, the biggest question of all – and sitting on the fence all your life is just not good enough and – anyway - it is a very precarious position in which to remain.
Many Christians may not be ashamed to admit that, were it not for Jesus they would sometimes find it hard to believe in God (even though the Bible says that evidence for God is all around us). Nevertheless, saying such a thing may not be so much of an admission of weakness, but of this spiritual blindness. Most importantly, however, it highlights the importance of objectively assessing the claims of Jesus and responding to them (rather than side-stepping them) if one wants to reach a position of true enlightenment.
Having said all that, some readers may be inclined to say “How can you ask me to be objective, or to consider what you say to be objective, when it is quite clear you have already decided what you think?” But, surely, atheists are guilty of the same sort of prejudice; in that many have decided what they want to believe, and have then found satisfying evidence to back up their position...
Someone once questioned why Voltaire, the famous French atheist, took off his hat as a mark of respect when a funeral procession went by, to which Voltaire was heard to respond, "Although God and I are not on speaking terms, we can still acknowledge each other..."
That is truly a sad, self-inflicted, and unnecessary predicament in which to be.
Whereas relativism... looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's
standards." Pope Benedict XVI
Relativism pervades every aspect of our thinking; it is the rejection of any notion of absolute truth, or absolute right or wrong. Upon objective examination, most eastern religions and modern philosophies can be seen to have this philosophy at their core. It may be found in the Yin and the Yang of the ancient Chinese, or in the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre.
However, before going any further down this philosophical road, I believe it is important to mention that the Jesus of the Bible rejected this world-view when he said things like “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life…” and, let’s be clear, no 4th Century fanatic put these words in His mouth; it was precisely this sort of statement that got Jesus “into trouble” with the religious authorities of His day, and led to his execution by the Roman Occupiers: When brought before the Roman Governor of Judea, Jesus said “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me”, to which Pilate responded “What is truth?”. You can easily imagine the cynical or even sarcastic tone of his voice, but this is indeed, the biggest question of all – and sitting on the fence all your life is just not good enough and – anyway - it is a very precarious position in which to remain.
Many Christians may not be ashamed to admit that, were it not for Jesus they would sometimes find it hard to believe in God (even though the Bible says that evidence for God is all around us). Nevertheless, saying such a thing may not be so much of an admission of weakness, but of this spiritual blindness. Most importantly, however, it highlights the importance of objectively assessing the claims of Jesus and responding to them (rather than side-stepping them) if one wants to reach a position of true enlightenment.
Having said all that, some readers may be inclined to say “How can you ask me to be objective, or to consider what you say to be objective, when it is quite clear you have already decided what you think?” But, surely, atheists are guilty of the same sort of prejudice; in that many have decided what they want to believe, and have then found satisfying evidence to back up their position...
Someone once questioned why Voltaire, the famous French atheist, took off his hat as a mark of respect when a funeral procession went by, to which Voltaire was heard to respond, "Although God and I are not on speaking terms, we can still acknowledge each other..."
That is truly a sad, self-inflicted, and unnecessary predicament in which to be.
Prophecy or Pie in the Sky?
(Jesus said) "When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed... Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines..." (Mark 13:7-8)
Jesus' earliest followers were not only convinced that he had defeated death (mainly because His tomb was empty); they also believed He would come back again one day (mainly because He said He would)...
“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on the level of a man who says he’s a poached egg, or else he would be the devil of hell; you must make your choice. Either this was and is God, or else a madman, or something worse. You can shut him up as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But please don’t come up with any patronising nonsense about his being a great moral teacher. He hasn’t left that option open to us. He didn’t intend to.” C.S. Lewis ("Mere Christianity")
But Jesus is on record as having made a variety of other remarkable prophecies (as if predicting your own death and resurrection is not remarkable enough...), but I want to focus particularly on those issues that never seem to be very far from our news headlines these days; climate change, natural disasters, wars and famines, and so on.
I have often heard Jesus' prophecy of the increase of such things discounted by the argument that global satellite communications and the media revolution we have witnessed over the last 100 years, mean that we just can’t escape hearing about such events. Well, that may be true, but is it not also true to say that God must have known we would “invent” all this wonderful modern technology? Therefore, He knew his prophecy would come true. It’s a bit of a circular argument, but is nonetheless hard to counter.
So where does climate change fit into this argument? Well, some scientists argue that we’re heading for an Ice Age, many more fear the spectre of looming Global Warming. What seems almost certain is that the Earth’s climate is becoming more erratic and dominated by extremes of hot, cold, wet and dry. In the opinion of many, mankind’s activities are to blame. Well, can you guess, God knew we’d do that too! However, if that is too simplistic for you, try this:
Geologists have long realised that the Earth is unique amongst the planets in our Solar System. In recent years the realisation of just how unique our home planet may be has left many agnostic astrophysicists amazed! The vastness of the Universe is mind-boggling (only a very BIG God could have created it). Despite this, some Cosmologists say that we may yet be alone in it. That would truly make the Earth very rare indeed! Back on Earth though, geologists have now suggested that our climate and the processes that cause earthquakes are very closely linked: Instability in one will cause instability in the other.
So, it’s official! The increasing frequency of earthquakes is real, not imagined, and it is not a by-product of the fact that we live in an age of globalised communications!
Jesus' earliest followers were not only convinced that he had defeated death (mainly because His tomb was empty); they also believed He would come back again one day (mainly because He said He would)...
“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on the level of a man who says he’s a poached egg, or else he would be the devil of hell; you must make your choice. Either this was and is God, or else a madman, or something worse. You can shut him up as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But please don’t come up with any patronising nonsense about his being a great moral teacher. He hasn’t left that option open to us. He didn’t intend to.” C.S. Lewis ("Mere Christianity")
But Jesus is on record as having made a variety of other remarkable prophecies (as if predicting your own death and resurrection is not remarkable enough...), but I want to focus particularly on those issues that never seem to be very far from our news headlines these days; climate change, natural disasters, wars and famines, and so on.
I have often heard Jesus' prophecy of the increase of such things discounted by the argument that global satellite communications and the media revolution we have witnessed over the last 100 years, mean that we just can’t escape hearing about such events. Well, that may be true, but is it not also true to say that God must have known we would “invent” all this wonderful modern technology? Therefore, He knew his prophecy would come true. It’s a bit of a circular argument, but is nonetheless hard to counter.
So where does climate change fit into this argument? Well, some scientists argue that we’re heading for an Ice Age, many more fear the spectre of looming Global Warming. What seems almost certain is that the Earth’s climate is becoming more erratic and dominated by extremes of hot, cold, wet and dry. In the opinion of many, mankind’s activities are to blame. Well, can you guess, God knew we’d do that too! However, if that is too simplistic for you, try this:
Geologists have long realised that the Earth is unique amongst the planets in our Solar System. In recent years the realisation of just how unique our home planet may be has left many agnostic astrophysicists amazed! The vastness of the Universe is mind-boggling (only a very BIG God could have created it). Despite this, some Cosmologists say that we may yet be alone in it. That would truly make the Earth very rare indeed! Back on Earth though, geologists have now suggested that our climate and the processes that cause earthquakes are very closely linked: Instability in one will cause instability in the other.
So, it’s official! The increasing frequency of earthquakes is real, not imagined, and it is not a by-product of the fact that we live in an age of globalised communications!
Are you a Man or a Motor Car?
"If all the people that fell asleep in church were laid end-to end...
they would be a lot more comfortable." Abraham Lincoln
Going to Church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a motor car. However, as those of us with cars can testify, a car needs routine maintenance, re-fuelling and regular servicing, in order to keep it running smoothly. Your relationship with God is no different!
However, recent opinion polls suggested that the vast majority of the population believe in God (or admit, at any rate, to praying to somebody or something…). People were asked the questions “Do you believe in God?” and “Do you believe in prayer?” But, even if the majority answered “Yes” to either question, they certainly aren’t filling the pews on a Sunday morning. They aren’t even filling the comfortable but stackable chairs in the more evangelical and modern churches.
Some may feel church is irrelevant to them, but for many, I suspect, they just feel it is unnecessary. Many people (especially in hospital for example) answer the question “What religion are you?” by saying “Oh, I’m C of E”, in much the same way that some might say “I’m Aquarius, what sign are you?”…
True, going to Church doesn’t make you a Christian - any more than going to a garage makes you a motor car. But, if that is a challenge to all of those of us that do go to Church - what about all those that don’t?
Well, I think we can all think of some common excuses… “Churches are full of people who think they’re better than the rest of us!” This really is sad to hear, because to say it, is to turn the Truth on its head: Many Christians go to church precisely because they realise they are no better than anyone else, as St Paul put it: “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory [glorious standards] of God.” (Romans 3:23).
What about… “Oh, churches are just full of hypocrites!” This too is sad because it betrays the fact that many Sunday churchgoers manage to get through life without allowing their faith to impact the other 6/7ths of their week in any positive way - unlike Jesus: Jesus managed to impress everyone he met, and he changed many lives as a result. However, as someone once said: “…the churches are not full of hypocrites, there’s room for plenty more!”…
they would be a lot more comfortable." Abraham Lincoln
Going to Church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a motor car. However, as those of us with cars can testify, a car needs routine maintenance, re-fuelling and regular servicing, in order to keep it running smoothly. Your relationship with God is no different!
However, recent opinion polls suggested that the vast majority of the population believe in God (or admit, at any rate, to praying to somebody or something…). People were asked the questions “Do you believe in God?” and “Do you believe in prayer?” But, even if the majority answered “Yes” to either question, they certainly aren’t filling the pews on a Sunday morning. They aren’t even filling the comfortable but stackable chairs in the more evangelical and modern churches.
Some may feel church is irrelevant to them, but for many, I suspect, they just feel it is unnecessary. Many people (especially in hospital for example) answer the question “What religion are you?” by saying “Oh, I’m C of E”, in much the same way that some might say “I’m Aquarius, what sign are you?”…
True, going to Church doesn’t make you a Christian - any more than going to a garage makes you a motor car. But, if that is a challenge to all of those of us that do go to Church - what about all those that don’t?
Well, I think we can all think of some common excuses… “Churches are full of people who think they’re better than the rest of us!” This really is sad to hear, because to say it, is to turn the Truth on its head: Many Christians go to church precisely because they realise they are no better than anyone else, as St Paul put it: “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory [glorious standards] of God.” (Romans 3:23).
What about… “Oh, churches are just full of hypocrites!” This too is sad because it betrays the fact that many Sunday churchgoers manage to get through life without allowing their faith to impact the other 6/7ths of their week in any positive way - unlike Jesus: Jesus managed to impress everyone he met, and he changed many lives as a result. However, as someone once said: “…the churches are not full of hypocrites, there’s room for plenty more!”…
An Antidote to Religion
“... if Christ has not been raised [from death], our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.” (I Corinthians 15:14-15).
Self-awareness and religious belief are commonly accepted as being the things that mark us human beings out as different from the rest of the creatures with whom we share this planet.
However, I feel Douglas Adams' invention of the Babel Fish is a sad reflection of the fact that men are willing to put their faith in all sorts of things, but not in God. However, I believe this is also evidence of a more general spiritual hunger in the heart of mankind referred to in Ecclesiastes 3:11 (see the Origin of Species page herein).
Whether or not you accept the above premise, all the world's religions are, in essence, different people's ideas about how best to please God, Allah, Brahmin, the Ultimate Reality (call him/her/it what you will...). However, if that is the case, then, whereas many sceptics would say that Christianity is just St Paul's ideas about how to "live a godly life" (i.e. try and make sure God is happy with you) - the truth of the matter is that, using the above definition, Christianity is not a religion, it is, in fact, God's antidote to religion...
The central message of the first disciples of Jesus (of whom St Paul later became the greatest exponent) was that all man's attempts to make himself acceptable to God were doomed to fail, but that the God of the Jews had intervened in human history, as promised, to solve the insolvable problem...
To those who had turned away from the Roman gods (many of which are the entirely bogus base of astrology and horoscopes today) and turned instead to Christ, the apostle Paul said “…it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
In Douglas Adams' "Hitch-Hiker's Guide" books, the answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?" was supposedly "42", but for Christians the answer is to be found in the life (and death) of Jesus who shared our humanity...
“...so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death – that is the devil – and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.” (Hebrews 2:14-15).
Self-awareness and religious belief are commonly accepted as being the things that mark us human beings out as different from the rest of the creatures with whom we share this planet.
However, I feel Douglas Adams' invention of the Babel Fish is a sad reflection of the fact that men are willing to put their faith in all sorts of things, but not in God. However, I believe this is also evidence of a more general spiritual hunger in the heart of mankind referred to in Ecclesiastes 3:11 (see the Origin of Species page herein).
Whether or not you accept the above premise, all the world's religions are, in essence, different people's ideas about how best to please God, Allah, Brahmin, the Ultimate Reality (call him/her/it what you will...). However, if that is the case, then, whereas many sceptics would say that Christianity is just St Paul's ideas about how to "live a godly life" (i.e. try and make sure God is happy with you) - the truth of the matter is that, using the above definition, Christianity is not a religion, it is, in fact, God's antidote to religion...
The central message of the first disciples of Jesus (of whom St Paul later became the greatest exponent) was that all man's attempts to make himself acceptable to God were doomed to fail, but that the God of the Jews had intervened in human history, as promised, to solve the insolvable problem...
To those who had turned away from the Roman gods (many of which are the entirely bogus base of astrology and horoscopes today) and turned instead to Christ, the apostle Paul said “…it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
In Douglas Adams' "Hitch-Hiker's Guide" books, the answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?" was supposedly "42", but for Christians the answer is to be found in the life (and death) of Jesus who shared our humanity...
“...so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death – that is the devil – and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.” (Hebrews 2:14-15).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
