Monday, 13 October 2014

Why I believe the Death Penalty is wrong, based on Jesus' teaching


Jesus stated in Nazareth, in one of His first recorded public addresses:

"He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor"

This is a little like a "Mission Statement", and, crucially, it states He has come "to proclaim freedom for the prisoners". It doesn't state, "freedom for those wrongly imprisoned", but freedom for prisoners, indiscriminately, rightly or wrongly imprisoned, no matter what they did, no matter what they deserve.

It doesn't mean freedom in the sense of just letting people out randomly - for what freedom is a life of crime and desperation? It means freedom in both a physical and an emotional sense, a freedom to be accepted, loved, and find new, transformational hope in a future of goodness God has for them. It means our primary aim in 'criminal justice' systems ought to be to rehabilitate and reform offenders, which can happen to anyone by God's grace, and thus proclaim true 'freedom' to them.

This is a primary reason why the idea of the death penalty is such an absolute travesty, flying in the face of the grace Jesus proclaims. It may seem obvious, but killing someone is NOT proclaiming freedom to them. Putting a prisoner to death does NOT fulfill Jesus' mission to "proclaim freedom for the prisoners". This is not a difficult question to answer; it is categorically true that killing someone is not the same as proclaiming freedom to them... Rather, it's utterly giving up on them in the worst way possible. Inhumane prison conditions, maltreatment, or torture, also do not proclaim this freedom. All these seem to be failures of love, rejections of grace, and, I believe, frankly, insults to the Gospel.

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life." (1 Timothy 1:15-16)

If Christ Jesus came into the world to "save sinners", even the "worst", what is our business ending their lives? What is our business cutting off their opportunity to receive Jesus' salvation? To use an analogy, since when did blowing up a lifeboat full of people count as a legitimate way of "saving" them? 

No-one is too corrupt to change. The example of Saul shows this definitively - why else did God choose him? It was for the "very reason" that he was the "worst of sinners" that God chose him. As such, without a doubt, no-one is beyond the reach of God's love and potential for a new life, no matter how many mistakes they have made. We must put this into practice, and not insult God's transformational grace by killing people before they have a chance to reform.

In such a way (and for many other ethical reasons), I am utterly and wholeheartedly opposed to the Death Penalty.


Friday, 26 September 2014

You are Beautiful to God



In 2010, a staggering 4,867 American young people, aged 10-24 years, took their own lives. This makes a harrowing average of 13 people for each day of the year.

This terrible statistic makes suicide in the USA the second leading cause of death for this age group (after "Unintentional injury"), over twice as many as malignant cancer (2,081) and four times as many as heart disease (1,145). [1]  Moreover, if you went into an American high school, and asked a hundred 14-17 year olds, statistically 16 would have seriously considered taking their life, 13 would have made a plan and 8 actually attempted. [2]

Shockingly, in 2008, the BBC reported research indicating that, if you were to go into a secondary school and ask a group of 100 girls aged 11-19, statistically around 33 of them will probably have attempted self-harm at some point. It's an issue for both genders too, with it being 22 boys out of the same size group. Out of the 33 girls, 24 of them have probably attempted cutting themselves, 15 punching themselves, 4 deliberately burning themselves, and 3 intentionally poisoning themselves. The study then excludes those who self-harm but haven't wanted to tell anyone, making rates potentially even higher. [3]

To say these are harrowing statistics is an understatement. Why is this happening? Why do young people want to deliberately injure and even end their lives? Indeed, adolescence is a difficult time due to hormonal and physical changes, but the sheer horror of how many are involved cannot rationally or reasonably be explained by this alone. It's not as though it's an anomaly or a rare occurrence - with the horrific rates quoted above, a third of girls deliberately injuring themselves, and one in six young people seriously considering suicide, it seems more and more as though something really is severely wrong...

Sunday, 20 July 2014

Rejoicing in Christ in the midst of sorrow...

“…weeping may remain for a night, but rejoicing comes in the morning.”

Do you know how our nights seem ridiculously long in the winter, here in the UK? For some, it gets dark even before they finish work! If you have a lie in, it seems almost as though the whole of the day has gone, and that you’ve become nocturnal.

Yet spare a thought for people living 66o north and further of the equator, above the so-called Arctic circle around the very north of Canada, Russia and Greenland. For them, there is a time in the winter of the year when the sun never rises, due to the tilt of the earth and its position around the sun. There is always twilight in the day, never full daylight. At most, there may be just a distant glow of the sun at the horizon during the daytime.

Yet it varies on location. The light gradually gets even dimmer the closer to the North Pole you get, and, at a point, there is almost complete darkness. And we thought that our winters were dark and gloomy!

 “…weeping may remain for a night, but rejoicing comes in the morning.”


Saturday, 14 June 2014

Why God is far, far, far better than the Church often makes Him out to be...

Above: Christians at a 2013 Gay pride event, seeking to affirm and show love to people who've often had bad experiences of Christians. Their positivity deeply warms my heart.
The Church has made mistakes, big mistakes. When I say “big”, I mean absolutely horrendous. When I say “absolutely horrendous”, I mean out-of-this-world, spectacularly and unspeakably atrociously disastrously dreadful abuses of power. Why do I say this? It’s because it is extremely common for a person (understandably so) to equate the behaviour of Christians, or of the established church, with the way God is. We look at the Church and assume that, “Well, that’s how people who at least are trying to follow God are behaving, so that’s what God must be like” What I shall argue is that this assumption, although one can see how it comes about, just simply is not true. God is not like the Church, and this is something which I personally am over the moon about!

What do I mean by the “Church”? This must be carefully defined, as it’s commonly misunderstood. First of all, I’m not talking here about a building called a “church” which people hold services in – we’re thinking of something far larger in scale. The word “church” may also refer to a particular group of Christians – yet, again, we’re thinking of more than this. What I mean here by the “Church” is neither technical nor complex – it is “the sum total of every single Christian who is alive now and who has ever lived”. Notice, to distinguish this from other definitions, “Church” is capitalised. Effectively, thus, the “Church” is all the Christians in the world put together.

Properly understood, then, this idea of “Church” is not, and I repeat this emphatically, it is not and never has been merely a building, neither a group of people who gather in this building, neither a group of people who regularly go to services, neither a human institution, neither an organisation run by an archbishop nor any other authority figure. It is not Roman Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox, nor Methodist or Baptist or Quaker or “fundy” (!) or any label or denomination – these may be groups or stereotypes people have created within it, but not what defines it. It is simply a group of people, a very large group of people for that matter, people fundamentally the same as everyone else, human beings with bodies, thoughts and emotions, strengths and weaknesses, gifts and faults, desires and dislikes, opinions and disagreements.

I say all this as a Christian, a follower of Jesus, myself, and as part of the Church I know for certain that I have weaknesses, faults, disappointments, failures, all of which I wish and long to be better but acknowledge freely that they are there. Why are they there? They are there because I am human. They are there because I am not perfect. Most importantly, I am not God (and, wow, how glad I am that I am not!)

That is the thing about the Church. It is a group of people. More specifically, it is a group of human beings, with all the mistakes and failures that come with them. Most importantly, it is not God and neither will it ever be. This may seem like an obvious statement, but it is absolutely critical to remember. The Church is a group of human beings, like everyone else, because God is the sort of person who does not show preference to people who are respected by others as being particularly “heroic” or “brave” or “kind”. God cares for and is interested in every single person equally, without distinction or exception. It is a because of this that God is willing to accept absolutely anyone, literally anyone, whatever their past, from torturing dictators and mass-murdering psychopaths to the most compassionate nurse or occupational therapist or transformational social reformer who could be conceived of. God is all-inclusive – and this is the amazing thing about Him. He doesn’t require people to become perfect to be accepted by Him, but simply and amazingly accepts them just as they are, if they so wish for that, with all their faults and weaknesses.

This means we shouldn’t be surprised at all that the Church has faults, because it’s simply a group of human beings. These human beings, like everyone, have faults, but also like everyone, they are human beings whom God wants to include despite their faults. These human beings, individually, are not God. Neither, collectively, are they God, nor are they right now a good representation of the way He is. No, the Church is broken, divided, and full of faults – but that’s exactly what God chose to accept, because He longs to include everyone.

God loves the Church, as He loves all people. However, He certainly does not love everything the Church does. Thankfully, God’s love is unconditional, so it is not reduced or mitigated by people’s mistakes and failure. As Abigail Van Buren critically stated, “The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.” It is full of people who are imperfect, because no person is perfect. However, God still sees them as perfectly, beautifully worthy of love, and desires the Church to be a place in which people can change for the better. This is not forced, however, as God (unlike the Church, which has, unfortunately, often been tragically mistaken) never bullies or brainwashes a person, instead leaving them to make their own choice. This means that, although change in a person is not always immediate, it is totally free and done in their freedom and right consent. People are not yet the finished product – they are, much more accurately, works in progress. The life of every single person, in this way, is a masterpiece in progress.

In this way, God is perfect, even though the Church at the moment is so imperfect. In this way we cannot look to the Church to show us how God is, because this simply will give completely the wrong picture. Instead, to see the radical, incredible, heartfelt, utterly pure love that God has, we can look to statements such as:

“God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.” (1 John 4:16b)

“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13)

“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.” (1 John 3:16a)

“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.” (1 John 4:7)

Humans often prioritise the popular. God loves and longs to include all people equally, considering no person better than another.

Humans demonise those they think are ‘unworthy’ or ‘criminals’ or ‘terrorists’. God doesn’t care for background, loving and forgiving and longing to include all people equally.

Humans insist upon groups and labels such as Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical. God couldn’t care less for these, totally disregarding these and considering all people as equally precious in His eyes.

Humans wave around banners saying hurtful (and frankly pathetic) statements such as, “God hates fags”. God loves all, which means literally all, people infinitely, without qualification or distinction, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, financial status, political affiliation, doctrinal system, or any other means people find to discriminate.

No matter how much the Church fails, love and pure love is truly the nature of God. God is, was and always will be completely and incredible full of compassion, willing to die for anyone. This remains no matter how badly people represent Him.

Thursday, 5 June 2014

The Gospel through Eminem?

"Have you ever loved someone so much, you'd give an arm for? Not the expression, no, literally give an arm for?"



Yesterday, I discovered this video, and watched it and looked at the lyrics and was amazed - I'd not really heard much Eminem before, but knew he was controversial and intense in his style a lot of the time. However, this song I found incredible meaningful and incredibly full of love - it portrays a message of hope for a better future that I found actually inspiring. More than that, believe it or not, I'd say that many parallels can be drawn with it and the message of hope Jesus gave. Anyway, here's my take on it...

1) The intimate, loving relationship between him and his daughter is touchingly powerful:

"I keep having this dream,
I'm pushin' Hailie on the swing"


Eminem's love for his daughter is a incredibly significant theme, which  is developed throughout the song, such as in his mentioning of him playing with his daughter Hailie on the swing, with her favourite thing to do with him being the 'underdog' (pushing the swing high enough for him to be able to run under it). This special father-daughter love for swinging is mentioned throughout the song, and the 'underdog' is shown later in the video, in Eminem's vision of the reconciled family.

There's also the "tiny necklace locket" Hailie gives him as he leaves, with her picture in it; she tells him, "This'll keep you safe Daddy, take it with you" - a wonderfully innocent, childlike sentiment which by its mention shows him that it deeply moved him. In addition, the "Number One Dad" coin she gives him at the concert which he is seen with later, whether it was meant or not, was again clearly something he treasures. 

Even though this is portrayed as being part of a dream, these are such intimate items and intimate memories, the personal sort of memories a close "Daddy" figure shares with his daughter, showing the love he has for his daughter, the love that makes him regret not feeling he was there for her. 

This, it could be said, begins to parallel another love, a love which is similarly intimate and personal - God's love. Paul writes in Romans 8:15 that God does not want us to, "receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear", meaning God does not want or seek people's worship motivated by terror and fear, but instead loves us in the same way a father loves their daughter or son, to the extent that we can refer to God as, “Abba! Father!” The words used for "Father" and the "Abba" were both highly personal and intimate ways of referring to God in Jesus' day, showing God, likewise,  desires such a personal and close relationship with people, because, just as Eminem has deep affection for his daughter, God loves them with intimate, deep affection. As early church thinker Augustine wrote, 
"God loves each of us as if there were only one of us." 
He loves on an individual level, each and every one of the people on the planet, you, me, and even people who committed atrocities such as Adolf Hitler, because it's so powerful it has no limit, no exception, unconditionally, as a mother or father's love is.

2) Eminem's love for his daughter Hailie is so wonderfully powerful that he's do anything for her:
"Have you ever loved someone so much,
        you'd give an arm for?
Not the expression, no, literally give an arm for?
When they know they're your heart..."
This 'literally give an arm for' could be interpreted both in that he has tattoos of his daughter on his arm (indicating how permanent and central she is to his life, even referred to as his very "heart" itself), and in that he would do anything for her, which is amazing to think... In this, he seems to touch on the epitomisation of the love of a father here - self-sacrificial, genuinely felt, unforced and unconditional love.

This all brings to mind the love of the figure described in some of the deeply lamenting opening lines of the Flyleaf song, "Circle":
"Circle encircles the earth
Chance and choice break his heart
His innocent arm moves to save me and I am spared
His beautiful arm
        is bloody and cut off
His heart ripped out to show me he loved me"
I can't help but be reminded, both by Eminem and Flyleaf, of the love of Jesus sacrificing His life in a torturous death on the cross here as an amazing parallel here. In Jesus' own words at the last meal He has before death with His closest friends, "This is my body, which is given for you." (Luke 22:19) Jesus, in passionate, true love for others, freely gave His body and whole life to bring people to the joy they were made for, which is the highest form of love which can ever be shown.

3) His desire to protect her is also so poignant- he never wants anyone to harm her:
"And you know you were their armour
And you will destroy anyone who would try to harm her"
"Then turn right around in that
song and tell her you love her"
His love for her also means that he wants to protect her so strongly from anyone who would harm her - referring to himself as "armour" and having intense anger at anyone who would want to harm her, to the extent that he'd want to "destroy" them - portraying an incredible intensity of righteous anger, but one based on love for her.

This protective anger, based on love, again just in me seems to parallel the passion of God's love incredibly. God's love is certainly not emotionless - and this can be seen in the fact that God has such incredible desire to protect and care for people that He is made angry, in the righteous indignation sense, by things that harm and cause pain.

The idea of God's anger (often referred to as God's "wrath") in my view is often totally misunderstood - God is not some person who is constantly filled with rage and trying to find any excuse to condemn humanity - to the contrary, we see God saying in Ezekiel 18, "I have no pleasure in the death of anyone." This is referred to, reiterated and insisted upon again and again - just take a look at Ezekial 18:23, Ezekial 33:11, 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 as a few examples... Like the perfect defense lawyer, God very clearly desires no person to ever be condemned to any form of judgement!

In fact, the poetic psalm-writer in Psalm 145 writes that God is, "gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love". In fact, in 1 John 4:16 we see the incredible statement that, "God is love" - God is not simply a bit loving, or mostly loving, but utterly, completely, wholeheartedly, absolutely, without condition and exception, loving. "God is love" means that God is so completely loving that He is the very definition and paradigm and epitome of love itself - in that, if we want to have a reference point, someone we can point to when describing the true and fundamental meaning of love, God gives that. And this is, unlike what the Church has unfortunately often portrayed, is not for a select few, but for absolutely everyone, no condition or limit or exception. Christians very often get this wrong - but thankfully God is not defined by our mistaken ideas and misconceptions about Him. Instead, as thinker Jerry Bridges insisted:
"God’s unfailing love for us is an objective fact affirmed over and over in the Scriptures. It is true whether we believe it or not. Our doubts do not destroy God’s love, nor does our faith create it. It originates in the very nature of God"
God loves us no matter what we think or how badly we portray Him, as Christians unfortunately have done very badly both in the history of the church and in recent times. Thankfully, God is far more wonderful than people make Him out to be!

Why then is there ever this idea of God's anger? This is where the Eminem rap line comes in - he is angry at the idea of anyone ever harming his daughter Hailie - not out of any selfish emotion, but simply because he loves her that much - that he'd never want to see her harmed. Similarly, God's anger is not separate to, neither is it in opposition to, His love, but instead is as a result of love - God becomes angry, it seems to me, because He sees harm coming to those He loves (which is everyone!), because He never wants to see any person harmed or condemned. God's anger is there because He loves, and, just as Eminem's anger shows his love for his daughter, God's anger actually shows His love for us.

4) This love drives him to a vision of hope, moving out of the nightmare of being alienated from his family, wanting to "wake up" and be reconciled to them all, including his ex-wife Kim Mathers

"That's when I wake up, alarm clock's ringin',
there's birds singin'"
This song and video has, in my view, an incredible emphasis on reconciliation. Eminem appears to be fighting against his alter-ego named "Slim Shady", the rap performer whose celebrity status has driven him away from his family (and his daughter who even piled up boxes to stop him leaving). The reference in verse 3 to the gun, and him shouting "Die Shady!" before apparently killing himself with it, I initially took to refer to suicide, but it seems to be more complicated, and hopeful, than that. He seems to express a longing in this song to end the things which have alienated him from his family (represented by Slim Shady, whose reflection he smashes). He longs for the family he could have had, even considering Kim's biological daughter, whom she had with another person after their marriage broke down, Whitney Laine Scott (referred to as Hailie's "little sister" in the song), as his own daughter. The dream he's having seems to represent the parts of his life he wants to be gone, resenting that, while he desires to protect Hailie, he has often become the very one who has caused pain to her, while him waking up (after leaving behind the alter-ego) represents the life he actually ultimately seeks. 

Once again, this parallels very interestingly the idea of leaving behind an old life for the hope of a new, better one, turning away from past endeavours (obsession with fame and popularity) which seemed attractive at the time but which brought dissatisfaction, to a better state of mind, involving being a good parent for Hailie, Whitney and Kim. This is the simple meaning of the concept of "repentance" in Jesus' teaching - it's not some complicated, ritualised process, but just the idea of turning from an old life to a new one, one which follows Jesus as the only One who can truly satisfy the human longing for something more. People are built to be in relationship (as in Eminem's family), but other areas of life can unfortunately alienate us from relationships, including our relationship with God. Such alienation and distance brings, as it did with Eminem, frustration, dissatisfaction and regret, with his daughter being the means through whom he realised this. This is why restoration of relationship, and therefore human fulfilment and human flourishing, is God's desire, because in love He desires to see people flourish and reach their true potential by being in positive relationship with others and with Him.
I walk right up to Kim and kiss her
Tell her I miss her
This idealistic vision near the end of the video is incredible, given all that the singer's been through, and gives a message of hope in all the darkness. This is the future Eminem genuinely longs for - he longs for reconciliation and the intimate family times he misses, with both Hailie and Whitney playing happily on the swings with both Kim and him, without resentment, division or sadness. The whole purpose of the song seems to be to leave behind the "Slim Shady" persona for the sake of a better, more fulfilling future with his family. Eminem's true heart is revealed as genuinely wanting to care for and help others, and even a hint of a personal faith is implied at 2:11 in the video, where Eminem crosses himself, almost as though to indicate he believes that, in some way, God is able to provide something positive to the situation. Elsewhere, moreover, he has expressed an interest in the idea of God, interestingly stating, "I definitely pray a lot more than I used to. I don't feel like I'm crazy wacky religious. But I do believe in God, and I do pray" (quoted by the secular website Hollowverse).

He definitely does not fit stereotypes Christians or anyone else would seek to place him in. What is clear, however, is that he is a real human being with an incredible heart and a genuine longing to hope and be loved.


"The Return of the Prodigal Son"
(J. Tissot)
This hopeful vision involves reconciliation with those he's been alienated from, and peace and acceptance not based on music quality, but simply unconditionally loved. What's striking about this, is that this sense of reconciliation is exactly what we see in Jesus' parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32) - the son asks to have his inheritance to be able to move away, his father lets him, and when he's got nothing left due to spending it all, he decides to return, worried his father might not accept him again. But, to his delight, the father doesn't just accept him, but he runs when he's still far off to greet him, and holds a feast to celebrate his return. In this, both the son, and even more so the father, long for reconciliation - just as Eminem in this vision longs for reconciliation. With God it's not simply a vision or idealistic utopia, however, but a real, wonderful possibility - God longs for people to be close to Him, and reconciled with one another, and can make this happen.

In all this, the message of Jesus is so often misunderstood - it's not a set of moral criteria or hurdles or rules someone must fulfill to be accepted by God. It's not that we have to earn something for an angry, far-off idea of God. It's not for a select group of individuals, or for just an 'exclusive club' of people. Far from it, it is the message that God loves and thus desires relationship with all people, all without distinction and without exception, no matter gender, race, background, past history, criminal record, ability, religion, sexual orientation, political view or anything else someone could use to discriminate.

God longs for reconciliation, because He knows people will find true, lasting joy, once this is found - something which Eminem seems to have realised in this song. It's something He'll never force upon us, but if we so choose, God is infinitely glad to accept us and rejoices us to be close to Him, because He loves us. As Romans 10:9-13 wonderfully says, all we need to do is ask, as God is able to do everything else.

I end this with the lyrics of Katy Perry's song, "Unconditionally" - because to me this seems to capture so profoundly true unconditional nature of God's love:
Unconditional, unconditionally
I will love you unconditionally
There is no fear now
Let go and just be free
I will love you unconditionally

Come just as you are to me
Don't need apologies
Know that you are worthy
I'll take your bad days with your good
Walk through the storm I would
I do it all because I love you
I love you

Acceptance is the key to be
To be truly free
Will you do the same for me?


Sunday, 6 April 2014

Freedom from Doubts about Salvation

I was at rock bottom – I just felt so lost, so hopeless – I felt as though nothing I could do could make me clean, could make me good enough for God. I felt the sting of one of my deepest fears – rejection. My faith was at a point that I had absolutely no doubt in God and Jesus and the fact He died for the world. The part which just would not connect for me was that He did this not just for everyone else, but actually for me. I was absolutely doubting, not that God is true, not that the Gospel is true, but that my salvation is true.

I was terrified that I had got it wrong – absolutely terrified that God, after everything, was going to reject me on the Last Day and send me to hell, and could not quench this fear inside me. How could God accept me? My mind and emotions were all over the place. I kept doing what I knew to be wrong even though I was desperate not to. I was terrified whenever anyone asked, “Are you sure  you are a Christian?”, because I so desperately wanted to be in God’s Kingdom, and so desperate to be reassured by God that He accepts me.

I had an absolute fear of rejection, which I think began with my parents’ separation when I was 16 – which, I suppose, took my feeling of security away in long-term human relationships. From this point, I became almost obsessed that my friends would just at any point, arbitrarily and randomly reject me. I just was terrified of exclusion, from anything, from a social group, from a relationship, and most of all from God’s Kingdom.

I couldn’t bear the idea of being in a place and people judging me and talking behind my back about me – excluding me even though I was so desperate to be amongst them. At the same time, I saw other people who were being excluded from friendships, people who weren’t taken seriously, whose lives were almost treated as though they’re worth less than others. People whose deepest longings were to be accepted, but just were not.

I felt like this to both people and, worst of all, to God. I could not bear the pain of exclusion… I cried out at night, desperately crying for salvation, hoping no human could hear as they’d think I’d broken down, as it was so absolutely extremely desperate. I hated myself, I hated that I couldn’t feel content and included by God – I felt as though something inside me just was holding me back from God; I couldn’t get rid of it.

At worse times, I would feel overwhelmingly like the anger at myself couldn’t be expressed by shouts and weeping, so would hit my head and arm, as nothing else felt sufficient to express the emotion. There have been points more recently in which my shame and failure have felt so terrible that I just don’t trust God to give me a fresh start, as I really want to, and I felt so angry at myself. Without God, I was nothing, and couldn’t cope for a single minute without being in His light and salvation.

Yet, one night, when in a worship service at Cliff College, one of my dear friends felt as though they had a word from God to tell me. The verse was Galatians 5:1:

“For freedom Christ has set us free.”

Christ has set us free – Christ has set us free. Set me free! His explanation, and God working in me, began to finally create the idea that God didn’t want me to feel as though I would never be good enough, but wanted to reassure me that He wants me to stop worrying, because He accepted me already.

Other people reassured me that God had a plan and purpose for me – something which I had never heard to the extent that it almost moved me to tears. Before this, when I was in my late teens, and someone had told me directly for the first time, “God loves you, Elliot”, I almost broke down to weep as I did not even know what to do with such a wonderful piece of information.

I am now utterly reassured now that, in spite of all the negative ideas I’ve had, God is not an exclusive God. God does not talk behind our backs. God does not show favourites based on who’s least shy or most ‘cool’ or anything – He has no favourites. God is not like people. God’s relationship with you will never stop, not like my parents’ marriage stopped, not like relationships in the world are so sporadic and insecure.

This is the message I want to convey this morning, these verses from Romans 10 which reassure me so much:

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

No one who believes in him will be put to shame.”

For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

God does not want us to wallow in self-pity, or in fear – perfect love, which is what God has and always had, never has fear. Call out to Him, and He will save you. He loves you, every single person here. How I wish I’d known that when I was 16! He is your perfect Father, perfect friend, who will never dream of excluding you – even if all your friends seem to hate and ridicule and gossip about you – He will never let you go, not even one bit. With Him, you are so secure, so safe, in a relationship that will never end.

“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” This is so reassuring! All we need to do is ask, and God will set us free! We can trust Him! I realised my issue was not with God not accepting me, but more that I wasn’t accepting this acceptance for myself. We can know He accepts us, clean and free from our pain and our shame and our past and our inadequacy, no matter how much we think we fail people and how much we hate ourselves – God still loves us, still cares, still accepts us.

I still struggle with trusting in this now, but I am infinitely reassured that, no matter who excludes me, or rejects me, God will NEVER reject me – He is the friend who will never even dream of rejecting you, or leaving you, or forsaking you. God is not some figure who is trying to find fault with you to reject you, but He sent His very Son to die for us because He couldn’t bear to see us far from Him. He loves you, and longs to accept you and for you to know that He reaches out His hand for us to take, and will never take it away and will never give up on us.

No matter how rubbish we feel, no matter how much we fail, no matter how much we fear rejection, God will never, ever reject us. He wants us to live with Him free from fear, free from the pain of exclusion and rejection, and then, inspired by this, to include and not reject people ourselves. He won’t reject even a wretch like me.

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost, but now I'm found.
'Twas blind, but now I see.

And He rejoices He created every single person in this building – He longs for you to know His acceptance – and I would just love to spread that message this morning. God loves to accept you, and will never reject you. No question about it. This is why the Good News is so wonderful – it’s about God’s acceptance. I pray for freedom for all those who fear, for freedom to know God’s glad and loving acceptance of them, for every single person. 

Wednesday, 10 October 2012

Expressions of God's Beauty - Wonderful Music

Greetings and kind wishes to all! :-) I've been wanting to do this for a while now... but here is a list of a few videos of examples of some songs and pieces of music that are particularly significant to me. Being a Christian may have its difficulties, but it also has the potential to be the source of utterly incredible rejoicing, a glimpse of which can be seen through music. It's so much more than just discussions about philosophy and apologetics, although these indeed have their place in order to benefit others; it's a wholly changed lifestyle, able to be filled with peace and hope. I hope that some of these, many of which are a a very different style from more traditional church music, are a blessing to those who hear, and give a glimpse of the wondrous hope God offers in Jesus...

I certainly wasn't the producer of any of the below songs or videos (they're far better than anything that I could make!); credit for them goes to the artists themselves. Also, this list might continue to grow in the future! I hope they are a blessing to anyone who listens! :-)

Wednesday, 18 July 2012

Formulating a Rationally Acceptable Christian Worldview

A model of Creation, God's love and interaction with us, and the Gospel, and responses to questions

In reply to a very kind blogger, who is looking into some of the ideas of Christianity's and other worldviews, I decided to respond to a few of the questions seen on the variety of issues that they have been discussing. This includes giving a little of my view on God as Creator, the meaning of Genesis and the 'image of God', and the idea of God using evolution as a tool, as well as God's love and the idea of why God's seeking of worship and prayer are expressions of altruistic love for humanity. In addition, a possible understanding of God's overall plan for reality is presented, together with its relation to the Gospel and the Atonement, before presenting a brief case for the rationality of the Christian worldview. As such, this post discusses a variety of issues.

Doing this is not meant to be in any way dogmatic: I am not asking readers to agree with everything that I have written below. Instead, I seek to provide a possible work-in-progress, non-exhaustive model, which is open to amendments and additions as necessary, for some of the basic truths about the Christian worldview, in order to present it as a rationally acceptable option. The word 'model' is used in a similar sense to the way it is in physics, biology or chemistry; it is a systematic formulation of some (not all) of the basic truths of a Christian worldview, which is designed be a good explanation for the data available. The word 'model' does not imply that what I have given below is somehow exemplary; the word model is being used in the sense of a possible systematic formulation, not in the sense of being an ideal. This systematic formulation is then designed to give a brief coherent Christian worldview which is (after any necessary modifications are made) reasonable, well-evidenced and thus rationally acceptable.

First of all, and this is very important, I must emphasise that we, as Christians, are all imperfect, and often portray a very bad image of what God is actually like; I would like to apologise, as I am often just another bad example, on behalf of us all. Thankfully, however, the actual truth of God's nature does not depend on what Christians believe about Him – no solely human theologian has grasped much more than a glimpse of God's love and compassion – which I, for one, am very relieved about indeed!

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

Common misconceptions about Moral Arguments

Common misconceptions about the statement “Objective morality cannot be grounded without a transcendent reality”

The idea of morality finding no 'grounding' without a transcendent reality (i.e. a reality that is more than just the natural, physical world, such as that which is postulated by theism) depends on what 'grounding' refers to. Defining it correctly changes the meaning of the statement drastically; I suggest that 'grounded' could be defined as 'made objectively true'. 'Objectively true' then refers to the idea that to say something like 'racism is wrong' is to make a statement about reality, which can be considered either 'true' or 'false' for all times and places, independent of what any contingent, physical mind believes about the matter. To say a moral maxim such as 'racism is wrong' is 'objectively true', is to say that it is true in the same way that the statement 'the moon exists' is true.

The statement above is frequently misunderstood. To clarify it, we shall explore some misconceptions about the idea; below are a few responses to these misconceptions about the meaning of the idea that truly objective morality cannot be grounded in a naturalistic worldview, which is one that denies the existence of a transcendent reality and hence any value independent of intelligent, physical minds. Looking at such misconceptions should help focus what the statement actually is referring to.

In short, this statement argues that, if morality is 'objective', this requires the existence of a reality that transcends physical reality, since physical reality itself is by nature indifferent about matters of morality. As has been observed from the time of Hume, one cannot arbitrarily move from a factual 'is' statement about an indifferent aspect of reality (such as the colour of a rock) to a prescriptive 'ought' statement pertaining to what a person 'ought' to do in a given situation. This is especially the case if we insist, as part of the definition of 'objectivity' (as has been done above), that such a statement must be independent of all human minds (or minds of any other species, for that matter). In other words, morality cannot be truly objective if this physical world is all there is.

The statement: “Objective morality cannot be grounded without a transcendent reality”

Misconception #1: “This statement is arguing that a non-theist cannot be moral.”

This is certainly not what this statement claims; non-theists certainly can, and do, perform countless highly virtuous, loving and compassionate acts. The statement is arguing philosophically about the nature of ethics itself (meta-ethics), and what this nature implies about reality itself. It is not judging the actual morality of any individual or any group of people; in fact, this is totally irrelevant to the statement.

Misconception #2: “This statement is arguing that a non-theist cannot be motivated to be moral”

Again, this is not what the statement claims. In a psychological sense, there are plenty of legitimate motivations for a non-theist individual to perform kind, compassionate and loving acts, as would be expected if the Christian conception of the creation of humankind in God's image is accurate. The statement is referring to the nature of ethics itself, not about psychology or motivation. It is not judging any person or group of people on their motivations or intentions.

Misconception #3: “This statement is arguing that a non-theist cannot know what is moral”

This misconception assumes that 'grounding' refers to 'knowledge of moral values', where, again, this is not the claim of the statement. 'Grounding' refers to the nature of moral values themselves, how they are 'grounded' in reality (how they relate to reality, and in what sense they 'exist') not how we know what these moral values are. There is no denial that a non-theist can know what is moral and immoral to a full extent. Indeed, this would be expected on the Christian worldview. It is not a question of epistemology (knowing), but of ontology (existing, being).

See more >>

Monday, 4 June 2012

Support petition to release persecuted Alex Aan - get to 10,000 votes!

I believe that we ought to support and work for the rights and good of all people, regardless of belief, both Christian and non-Christian, since all without exception are loved by God, and His love is unconditional, I wanted to make this post calling out for support an individual named Alex Aan in Indonesia who, due to his atheist beliefs (which he posted on Facebook and testified to when questioned), has been beaten and imprisoned, and could face 6 years in prison unless pressure is put upon the government to release him.

I wished to support this case in particular, for example, to demonstrate that God's heart is against such injustice, and hence we as Christians ought to be similarly against it, along with all such discrimination, whether it be against Christians such as Asia Bibi (see earlier article), Muslims or atheists, including those whom society deems as criminals. No person ought to be excluded.

More information about this case is presented, for example, on Persecution.org, a Christian organisation: http://www.persecution.org/2012/06/01/struggle-for-religious-freedom-in-indonesia-unites-christians-atheists/

Please spread the word about supporting the case, remembering to emphasize God's unconditional love for Alex and those, Christian and non-Christian, who are supporting his case.


Thanks to everyone! Best wishes to you all! :-)

Tuesday, 29 May 2012

Agnostic to Christian ... aided by "The God Delusion" (!) and first-hand miracles...

A wonderful friend who I know has recently written a book of two parts ('The New Theology'): the first ('Comic Divinity') documents his disillusionment with various expressions of Christianity, while the second ('Death and Resurrection') documents how he returned to Christianity with new and refreshed fervour and steadfastness from being an Agnostic (wanting to be Atheist).

 He's quoted a section of this on his blog 'Tea and Gunpowder' specifically about the role in his returning to Christianity of reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins and miracles he experienced when he was younger, where a badly sprained arm was (despite his not expecting it to) spontaneously healed and a prophesy he received turned out to be 'scarily' accurate. Even though he, at one point, desperately wanted to, he was not able to rationally deny that these events seemed to point to a transcendent personal Being... 

See the amazing story of a wonderful person here at his blog...

http://jthargreaves.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/dog-delusion.html


Thursday, 12 April 2012

Another new video - "God's amazing love in Jesus Christ"!

Quite a few videos recently, but here's one I decided to put together... with encouraging Bible verses on a background of some good videos and Holst's "Jupiter" (modified!)...

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."

(Revelation 3:20)



I made this video to encourage others about the breadth and steadfast nature of God's love for all people without exception, unconditionally, without limit, without favouritism, expressed through Him reaching out to us, knocking on the door to our hearts through Jesus Christ. There is no darkness in Him; he shines through the darkness of the world, guiding us back home where He waits, looking continually to the horizon for our return, ready to embrace and welcome and celebrate our safe homecoming. Jesus' arms are wide out to us on the cross; He has come to us, if we would only put our trust in Him, calling out to Him who is ready to forgive and reconcile us.

"If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ... for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." "

(Romans 10:9,13)

Thank you for watching! I hope that people find it encouraging!

Credits:

Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Amazing music video by Jenny and Tyler - "Song For You"

God fully reaches out to us, desperately seeking His children to return safely home....

I thought that this song by Jenny and Tyler, together with the video, basically sums up the Gospel message, which is that, despite humankind's stubbornness and thirst for independence from God (like the prodigal son in Jesus' parable seeking to leave home), God calls to us, reaching out to us and eagerly willing us to come back to Him. We see how He does not force people back, but gives them the opportunity to turn back of their own accord (as in the parable), encouraging them through little signs day by day, which we may not even notice, or even ignore.

We see also how bright the future is with God (which is why He lovingly calls people back to Himself), as symbolized by the yellow field, both in assurance and hope for the present and wonderful life for the future; one of the most touching parts for me is the amazing, fatherly declaration that,  "I will never harm you. So come!" God has opened up the channel to Himself through trust in Jesus Christ, desperately loving us and wanting us to abide in His joy, and reaching out to us with outstretched arm, if we would but accept His hand so that He could pull us back onto our feet...

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptqTZSUt56E&feature=plcp&context=C4b5197dVDvjVQa1PpcFOwsRwhXBhhoeNlwSzarMvd7pa6tfKgmzA%3D

Sunday, 29 January 2012

The Wonderful Joy of the Good News - "Gospel Canon"

Here are some reflections on God's welcoming love and mercy to all Creation in this simple video, outlining the Good News (Gospel) of God's love, and the basis by which anyone can accept its message. The video uses a background theme tune of a new Canon-like piece of music (very similar to a round, where one part repeats another, one after the other) using the chords (but possibly a different key) of Pachelbel's Canon and new melody. 

Thank you for watching! I hope that people find it encouraging!

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcDZcHHPCv8


Tuesday, 17 January 2012

God's love and our love - 1 Corinthians 13

Maria Skobtsova was a Russian nun, whose residence took in Jews over the second world war to help in their hiding and escape from the Gestapo. This had some success until the house was shut and a number of people, including her, were arrested and sent to concentration camps. At Ravensbruck concentration camp, she spent two and a half years, during which the guards began to refer to her as, 'that wonderful Russian nun' and many saw God's love through her. Then, on Holy Saturday in 1945, as people were lined up for so-called bathing, she took the place in line of a terrified Jewish women, and died in the gas chambers, to save the life of another.

What do we mean by, 'love'? Unfortunately, like usual, the answer isn't particularly simple; when we are called to love all people, love is being used in a different, but not necessarily less powerful, sense to that in a marriage, for example. To clarify this, let's turn to four ancient Greek conceptions of 'love', as seen in C. S. Lewis' 'The Four Loves':

Firstly, so-called 'Storge' refers to the affection felt for someone whom you are familiar with, and the affection felt between family members.

The second concept, 'Phileo', is slightly different – it refers to the affection of true friendship that rises above friendship solely for selfish benefit, where individuals mutually enjoy each others' characters and genuinely care for their well-being.

The third concept, 'Eros', refers to the powerful forces of romantic love and attraction.

However, the forth, and last, concept, 'Agape', refers to unconditional, self-giving, selfless, outward, charitable and unconditional love. It is this love that is chosen rather than simply felt, and which never fails regardless of any change in the one who is being loved, and which is referred to in our passage, 1 Corinthians 13. It is the highest form of love, being God's love to always will the good of others, regardless of their appreciation, a form of love that is seldom glimpsed in human existence but is eternally part of God's nature.

Hence, with such a magnificent conception of love, we are challenged by these 13 verses to consider our attitude to other people, and our attitude to God's love. These verses apply firstly to ourselves, arguing that love is not simply good, but categorically required for true service of God, since, otherwise, we 'gain nothing'. We also see the emphasis on intention and attitude rather than the exterior act, so that each situation is judged individually, and the required agape love mindset is something which can be practised and developed, like a musical instrument.
However, a loving intention is not merely a moral and good motive; in fact, as written in 1 John, 'God is love'. Agape love is the moral paradigm, the height of moral perfection, the centre of the first and second greatest commandments.

We are called to love our friends, our neighbours, our rivals, our competitors, and even our enemies. We are called to follow the 'most excellent way'. We are called to be patient with each other, to work deeds of kindness, to be humble and not prideful, to be content with others having what we don't have, to honour others, to remain calm, to be selfless, to love the truth and goodness, to forgive unconditionally, to protect the weak, to always have hope, and to never give up on others.

Indeed, how far I, for one, have to go to even begin fulfilling the challenge presented in this passage! Yet, wonderfully, we can look back to the paradigm of moral greatness, of perfect agape love, God Himself, and His unconditional love for us, and be glad and secure. We need to keep faith trusting in Him, so that He can transform us from the inside, hope in His promises, and to continue propagating a true attitude of agape love.

This brings us onto the second challenge of this passage: as well as applying it to our imperfect selves, we can see all the descriptions of agape love applying to the Epitome of love Himself, God. What we are challenged to be in this passage, God already is: His love never fails, enduring forever (as the Psalmist declares), and He perseveres with us. God is love, and God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. God has full agape love, having moral perfection, and hence does nothing not in line with maximal love.

However, it must be emphasised, that, unlike other forms of love such as eros and storge, this agape love is anything but, 'fluffy'. God's agape is an active, powerful, passionate love, which will not tolerate injustice. It is love that despises evil whilst always desiring the good of the offender. It is love which has righteous wrath at hatred, misery and suffering, and which is prepared to discipline an offender for their own good. It is love that will not sit back and do nothing; it is a love that will experience terrifying crucifixion for the sake of a lost sheep. God's love can be severe, but it is infinite, and always ultimately for the good of the individual experiencing it.

We can, hence, trust always in God's love to work the good, even if it's through difficult means; we can rejoice and never despair, for we see that the agape that God is always perseveres with us and will never fail, or abandon us, and will protect us from falling. We can cast ourselves unto God, not for an easy ride, but for a difficult journey to an infinitely rich destination.

It is in response to God's intense care for us that we are moved to worship, and that we are moved to love others, and love Him, through our kindnesses to one another. We are challenged to consider our lives, and how they measure up to the standard of agape love which our Father in heaven upholds.

Saturday, 12 November 2011

Defeating the “Problem of Evil”

The problem – intellectual and emotional – of why what we call 'evil' exists is age-old, and an issue that every human being, whether atheist or Christian, ultimately is confronted with. Philosophically and intellectually, it seems to be fairly easily overcome (as I will hopefully try to explain below) in a Christian worldview, but pastorally and emotionally, it can be a terrible struggle for us all, from atheist to devout Christian. My argument would then be that the Christian worldview, in fact, provides both a much more hopeful answer and decent solution to the pastoral issue, as well as coping intellectually with the problem.

We can start with the intellectual response, where we can split the 'problem' into three forms: logical, evidential and emotional/pastoral:

Friday, 2 September 2011

Save Asia Bibi from death sentence and continued imprisonment!

Sign the petition - www.callformercy.com

This is off-topic to Christian apologetics, but I thought that it is a very worthwhile cause and petition, inspired by Christiana Szymanski's "Christian Witness Under Fire" blog at http://cwuf.blogspot.com/ (her associated Christian apologetics blog, "In Defense of the Christian Faith" is at http://defendchristianfaith.blogspot.com/)

The Pakistani woman Asia Bibi was arrested on June 19, 2009, on charges of blasphemy after a discussion at work where she had replied to defend her Christian position to the women who were talking to her. After trial, she was sentenced to death by a judge on November 8, 2010, fined $1,190 (US) and given 7 days to appeal. The appeal was promptly made, and the results from the Lahore High Court are not yet decided; Asia remains in prison whilst her fate is determined.

Urgent action is needed to save Asia from the death sentence and from continued imprisonment, as well as protection if she is freed; she would probably then seek asylum in another country.

Please sign the petition above! Also, please spread the word to others!

There are other ways to help, including contacting Pakistani officials and Asia Bibi herself (information is at http://cwuf.blogspot.com/2011/07/update-on-asia-bibi.html). Please, if you do send anything, be very careful to not be antagonistic or in any way disrespectful, or to discuss politics or Islam or the blasphemy law itself etc., in order to not make things worse; please focus on the point, which is the freedom of Asia Bibi.

Also, I would just like to emphasise that some Muslims are also opposed to the blasphemy laws, and they are spoken out against in this article (as an example): http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-10/edit-page/28365726_1_islamic-abusive-language-blasphemy

Thanks to everyone!

Monday, 8 August 2011

An in-depth Cosmological Argument from Contingency

Using many ideas derived from other authors, the following (long post) defends the premises of a version of the Cosmological Argument from Contingency based on Dr. William Lane Craig, with slight alteration:

Wednesday, 3 August 2011

The Resurrection ... the Best Historical Explanation!

I think that the evidence for the resurrection is often underestimated. A case for the resurrection can be made using mainly a few facts that the significant majority of scholars (atheist to Christian) agree upon, even if we take the Gospels and Paul’s letters as historical sources rather than presuming inspired content:

1) Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross (as evidenced by Tacitus, Josephus and Paul, amongst others)

2) The disciples, subsequent to the resurrection, had experiences which they sincerely believed to be those of the risen Jesus (as seen in the early creed contained in 1 Corinthians 15)

3) James, Jesus’ brother, who is recorded as being a sceptic in the Gospels (where the criterion of embarrassment supports the authenticity of this) became a Christian, and the persecutor Paul, after experiencing what he sincerely believed to be the risen Jesus, became a devoted preacher of Christianity.

The above have general scholarly consensus (as compiled by research of large numbers of qualified scholars by Dr. Gary Habermas), and so can be used as the ‘building blocks’ of any explanation, naturalistic or otherwise, to explain them. Then, we can use the following historical criteria, which are important to help moderate explanations that are posited:

Explanatory power – can the explanation explain the evidence easily, without forcing it to fit?

Explanatory scope – can the explanation explain all the known data?

Ad hoc assumptions – are there any assumptions with no evidence whatsoever that must be made?

Plausibility – is the explanation plausible in itself?

One popular objection is that Jesus didn’t actually die, and so ‘woke up’ after being crucified and somehow managed to walk back from the place of burial to the disciples and convince them that He had been raised to life. This ‘swoon hypothesis’ can be widely rejected. It utterly fails the plausibility criterion, for starters, because, apart from the friends recorded by the historian Josephus (who were removed from crucifixion early, and a few of them died as a result of this regardless despite good medical care), just about no-one survived crucifixion, let alone burial, let alone examination by Roman soldiers for signs of life. Even if Jesus had, however, He in no way would have been able to escape from the tomb, fight any guards present, walk to find the disciples (without being spotted by anyone as covered in blood), and then convince them of resurrection, without any professional medical attention. This is especially evident with James, being a sceptic who became a Christian. Hence, this idea lacks plausibility, and explanatory power (without forcing the facts to fit). It also lacks scope, not fitting the many resurrection appearances, not accounting for Jesus after this point (where would He have gone after He found the disciples?), and certainly not fitting Paul’s conversion. Jesus’ survival is also an ad hoc assumption.

Another objection is hallucination, which could be postulated to be schizoid personality disorder. This is then assumed to somehow affect the vast majority (which is both implausible and not very well evidenced) of the disciples so that they are all subjected to such experiences. They would also have to have been convinced that they were bodily hallucinations rather than the traditional idea of disembodied spirits in order to declare ‘resurrection’ out of the blue. This runs into many problems: it is inherently implausible, given the ancient creed’s account (from 1 Corinthians 15) of many people having experiences simultaneously (500 people are mentioned at one stage), even given this (or any other) disorder. It does not account well for James’ conversion (from a sceptic), who would have doubted such experiences had they happened to others, and requires postulating a different condition to explain Paul’s conversion (another assumption).

It also fails to account for the success of the early Christian movement (even though its followers were few), compared to other, similar movements, without making more ad hoc assumptions. The mutation in Jewish teaching about the resurrection (i.e. different ideas about how it happened to people) from the diversity of approaches prior to Jesus’ death to a singular, bodily approach is also not accounted for by this hypothesis. Also, with the evidence for the empty tomb (which is supported by the fact that the early Church was able to thrive near Jerusalem), this approach becomes even less useful. Hence, it seems that hallucination hypotheses have poor explanatory power (forcing the facts to fit) as well as very little explanatory scope, especially with the evidence for the empty tomb.

In stark contrast to the above, the resurrection hypothesis has explanatory scope and explanatory power that instantly explains all the facts (together with many others) with absolutely no forcing. Due to the other theistic arguments, which at very least increase the plausibility of God’s existence, the plausibility (by God’s intervention, not by natural means, as the latter would not be plausible) is sufficient and it contains few non-evidenced assumptions, because of these other arguments for God’s existence.

Therefore, we are within our historical warrant to conclude that the best historical explanation for the consensus of facts is the Resurrection Hypothesis.

More in-depth analysis of the Resurrection case: http://defendchristianfaith.blogspot.co.uk/p/following-is-list-of-all-posts-in.html
 

The Failiure of the 'Swoon' hypothesis (i.e. that Jesus only passed out)

Death by crucifixion was just about certain (especially for victims spending hours on the cross), and then there is the extra filter of Roman officials checking for signs of life (and, no doubt, taking action if they found any), and, regardless of this all, a partially dead Jesus, with extensive injuries, would not have been able to a) escape from any tomb (where rolling a stone across the entrance was a customary burial method), b) defeat guards (if any), c) walk to find the disciples without collapsing, d) remain undiscovered by anyone else when walking (including any guards at the entrance to the city) while wearing grave clothes, possibly still covered in blood, and heavily limping and e) find the disciples (they moved from house to house).

Even if He did all this, a partially dead Jesus, pale, injured and weak, would not be able to convince them of ‘glorious’ resurrection (at most, they would have preached His miraculous survival, not return from death, since this would be much less embarrassing, as crucifixion was thought to be a sign of being ‘cursed’, and, in addition, Jewish disciples, especially with a committed rabbi such as Jesus, would certainly be concerned with truth). This is especially the case for Jesus’ sceptical brother James and any other sceptical disciples (i.e. Thomas); in addition, this conjecture does nothing to explain the conversion of the persecutor Paul, who had an experience at a completely different time to the other disciples.

Jesus would have required medical attention, and the disciples most probably would not have wanted to preach, as this would mean that they would probably be searched (and the ill Jesus possibly found), and Jesus would need to somehow remain secret throughout the whole of the rest of His life (if He died, this would show the disciples that He had not been resurrected). Otherwise, if Jesus survived, He would have probably started preaching again to reveal the event to more people. In addition, to assert that a partially dead Jesus would have at all wanted the preaching of resurrection, given the remarks about honesty made in the lifetime (He would have, at most, wanted preaching about survival, given the 9th commandment prohibiting false testimony) is not plausible.

As an example of how weak this ‘swoon’ hypothesis actually is, we can consider David Strauss (who vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection), who also tore apart the ‘swoon’ hypothesis:

It is impossible that a being who had stolen half dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill and wanting medical treatment... could have given the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of life: an impression that lay at the bottom of their future ministry." (David Strauss, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis )


In regard to the above, in reference to mainstream, qualified and professional scholars, the ‘swoon’ hypothesis has been largely abandoned, with the theologian Albert Schweitzer not referring to any “convinced proponents” of the swoon hypothesis after the year of 1838 (which is 3 years after David Strauss’ criticism of this hypothesis) (http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm#_ednref
8, endnote IX)

Thursday, 21 July 2011

Christianity passes the Outsider Test For Faith with Flying Colours!

It seems to me that Christianity passes the Outsider Test For Faith (OTF), where a person steps 'outside' their worldview and examines it rationally from that position, with ‘flying colours’!

Quote from John W. Loftus (proponent of the OTF):

“That Christians object to taking the Outsider Test for Faith only confirms it doesn't look good for their faith. For if Christianity passed the OTF with flying colors Christians would be arguing on behalf of it and pressing that case at every step along the way.”

To answer this generalisation: a) I do not object to taking it, b) I don't think that it looks bad on the Christian worldview, c) It passes with 'flying colours' and d) It's a shame that more people haven't used this for some people who have become atheists for less-than-rational reasons, and that more people haven't defended the Christian worldview along the lines of the OTF.
 
As for myself, I am a Christian (specifically, to counter stereotypes, Christian evolutionist, Christian feminist and believer in universal reconciliation), and I do not believe that this "Outsider Test For Faith" poses any real challenge, or even necessarily conveys a bad image, to the Christian worldview if properly considered. I would like to have some atheists properly examining their worldviews, based on informed evidence, by this method!

By the Christian "worldview" (in contrast to the atheist "worldview") I mean the outlook on reality that we have, our fundamental presuppositions and commitments to ideas; all people have their own 'worldview'. By 'Christian', in this case for clarity, I refer to worldviews possessing the following characteristics (these are the basics - a Christian may have many ideas built on these - but these, in my opinion, are the foundations for categorising a worldview as 'Christian'):

1. God, as the intelligent Mind behind the universe, exists
2. God brought about the creation of the universe
3. God is benevolent, and chooses to be involved in human matters
4. Jesus is the Son of God, and God having chosen to take on human form
5. Jesus is the Christ (anointed from God)
6. Jesus was raised from death to life by God after crucifixion
7. God is able to sustain for other beings life subsequent to physical death

To show this, I, as a Christian, can adopt a hypothetical agnosticism, where I imagine that in fact I start out not knowing if these facts are true. Agnosticism is chosen because it is 'outside' both the atheistic worldviews and the theistic worldviews. Then, a case for the above 7 points can be built from the bottom up, without any reference to the inspiration of Scripture (which I haven't included as an absolute foundation; it seems to me that a person can still be a Christian if they don't concede the inspiration of the Bible, although I disagree with this approach) or prior Christian assumptions. Below is a very quick outline of what forms of arguments can be used for each point:

1) Evolutionary argument against naturalism (showing that rational discourse fits better into a theistic worldview),
Design of the fundamental principles of physics (e.g. the very presence at all of the very specific strong force, or gravity, as well as fine-tuning and the mathematical nature of physical equations, especially if there is a multiverse and thus even more complexity),
Cosmological argument from contingency (i.e. non-necessity of any of the contents of the universe, which points to a metaphysically necessary Mind on whom they are contingent on, especially given Godel's theorem),
Transcendental argument (where the logical basis of the universe (and the universal nature of the very laws of logic), independent of human minds and the existence of matter, points to the providence of a transcendent Mind)
(amongst other examples)

2) The points in (1) contribute to this, together with evidence of the Big Bang, and evolution, that show some degree of development that can take the form of God's action.

3) The historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (also supporting (1) and (2), and is made more plausible by the arguments in (1)) points to an affirmation of Jesus' teachings, centred on love: this is the strongest argument for this aspect of God's nature.
The moral argument that bases objective moral principles in the metaphysical necessity of God (not arbitrary, because they are based in God's loving nature), supports the idea of God's benevolence, since such principles far, far, surpass egoism, and they did not have to develop at all (i.e. the evolutionary origins of such moral principles to which I concede, through the intervention of God, did not HAVE to occur).
The ‘Problem of evil’ is an overall weak argument; firstly, it only argues against God’s goodness, and can say nothing about His existence. Secondly, it fails at this because it presumes a moral standard, and thus assumes that we understand the moral standard, which would require the assumption of God’s goodness to start with. Thirdly, even not taking this second point, given universal reconciliation (which seems to be the teaching of St Paul), treating humans as ends in themselves, God could easily have good reasons for allowing evil, as a consequence of free will, in order to bring about eternal happiness for every single person.
The human potential to have religious experience, which did not have to be the case, brings about largely positive and sometimes very dramatic results and points to God’s benevolence.
The human potential to have very vivid and largely positive NDEs (which, by the fact that this faculty exists at all to produce such experiences, suspiciously seems to correspond with a potential for life after death, and its positive nature supports God’s benevolance)

4), 5) and 6) can be established by the excellent case for Jesus' resurrection (made more plausible by the arguments in (1), and which should not be excluded without reason as a possibility, especially given reports of miraculous activity (and the vivid nature of NDEs) in recent years), from the minimal facts, changes in teaching from Judaism, many disciples' transformation based on something which they would have explicitly know to be false, and a suspicious lack of convincing historical evidence against the resurrection, as well as a multitude of other evidence.
This can be linked with historical evidence for the activity of the early Church, and by treating biblical documents as at least partially reliable historical documents to support (4) and (5).

7) is supported by (6) and the human potential for NDE, as well as just being a logical consequence of (3) combined with God’s power.

Let me say here that this CERTAINLY is not an all-inclusive list, but these points here give an example on how Christianity can certainly pass the OTF from a 'bottom up' perspective from agnosticism. Many will have heard lots of these arguments before, but properly thought-out and articulated versions of them not afflicted by 'straw man' assumptions are actually very powerful, and certainly enough for a Christian to pass the OTF. In light of this, the OTF could even be used to support Christianity.

To the contrary, it seems to me that, in stark contrast to the, in my view, pass 'with flying colours' of the Christian worldview, the atheist (stepping into the agnosticism viewpoint), has few comparably good arguments that a) don't make silent theistic assumptions, b) don't set up a 'straw man' form of Christianity and c) doesn't just act as an 'atheism of the gaps', feeding on where particular theologians may not have explained things fully enough.





Lookup a word or passage in the Bible



BibleGateway.com
Include this form on your page