Shouldn't I be doing something more important?

Here's a common scenario. You, a Christian, used to be busy in many front-line "ministries". You were teaching people the Bible, helping arrange events, talking to outsiders about Jesus, organising help for the poor, etcetera. But now you're not. You're a full-time parent. You spend almost all your time doing "dead-end" jobs like changing nappies, tidying mess, washing clothes, giving milk and then being too knackered to do anything else. Here comes a thought into your head - shouldn't you be doing some kind of "ministry"?

Chase those foolish thoughts away with some of these more accurate ones...

• Training the next generation is the most important ministry of all. One day your generation will be dead and buried! The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.
  
• Godly families are a main plank of God's plan to influence the world. Who is in a better position to serve the kingdom - someone hauled out of a lifetime of open sin, completely ignorant of the things of God - or someone taught by word and example day by day for years and years?
  
• God wants to teach me that his work is a long term, patient work. I used to think that long term meant 2 or 3 years!!! Boy, I'm learning!
  
• When I'm just "doing ministry" on and off, I can hide my secret sins and hope that they won't rub off on anyone. But little Johnny or Joanna see them all - which means I have to deal with them and get rid of them!
  
• So - this is what my mum/dad did for me! I never realised. How could I be so ungrateful? Truly God has been patient with me all these years.
  
• In our day godly families are so few and far between. God has given me the opportunity by his grace to be a shining light in this dark world. That's a privilege.
  
• These little ones will teach me what it means to "pray without ceasing".
  
• My little ones come to me as their parent with such trust and delight - even though I'm sinful. Doesn't my heavenly father want me to do the same?
  
• I never knew I was so proud. Since when was wiping bottoms beneath me? The one I serve came to the earth to serve sinners, even to the death of the cross. I'm just being asked to serve my own flesh and blood!
  
• How much I've learnt through being a parent. I had no idea what patience, self-sacrifice and the rest were like - and what I know now is that there's a huge way still to go! Thank you Lord for teaching me this, even through changing endless nappies.
  
• This little one knows nothing about the world, life or death. When I ministered to people out in the world I had to start by correcting all their mistaken ideas. God's given me the privilege of teaching this one right from the beginning!
  
• That little smile is a gift from God worth more than 1000 dirty nappies! Thank you Lord for letting me see it!
  
• These little ones will one day reflect me to the world. I can put on a face with others because it's only temporary. These ones though see all sides of me - and pick up my habits, good and bad. Their way in the world will in large part be a testimony to the effects of being with me for 20 years.
  
• God uses means. If he's going to bring the world into submission to the Lord Jesus, it's going to be through the service of holy men and women. If there are going to be holy men and women, they need to be taught and trained. The Lord has given me an opportunity to teach my little one to his glory.
  
• God doesn't give us tasks like this to mock us. If it's his will for little ones to be saved, then it's his will for little ones to be patiently instructed about the Lord Jesus, little by little, day by day. What greater privilege and responsibility than this, to teach the little ones?
  
• This task is so enormous - I need so much help. I cannot do this unless I look each day to Jesus.
  
• Nothing worth doing can be finished quickly. There's nothing more worthwhile than raising little ones in God's world to his glory - that's why it's such a huge task!
  
• God's given me a little church. Here I can teach, question, comfort explain, hold and hug, every day. This is my dear little flock, to care for. Here we can prove that God is worthy to be glorified in big things and in little. Here we can show that it's a delight to serve him whether worshipping as a family or flushing away filthy nappies. Thank you Lord!

And many more such thoughts! Feel free to pile them on in the comments.

The Rational Structure Of Reality - Summing Up

Well, I've found the attempt to make atheists justify some of their assumptions interesting. I am very grateful for the interaction and the opportunity it's giving me to find ways to express my case more clearly. The attempts in the comments to avoid having to justify the assumptions used by atheists have very quite creative - and mutually contradictory. One commenter denies that his assumptions carry any burden of proof; another tentatively suggests that survival-of-the-fittest might have the answer; another seeks to evade the challenge by denying that the genetic mutations leading up to man should be called "copying errors" and so don't undermine the assumption of his rationality; another seeks a get-out by arguing that life may after all have been created by aliens. This total confusion as to how to meet the challenge well illustrates the strength of the challenge itself.

Summarising the case

I think this one has probably run its course and should be tied up for now. I'd like to just summarise in a hopefully fresh and final way what atheism fails to do. Here's what I've been saying:

• The universe apparently has a rational structure. That is, we expect that there is a coherent system of truth "out there".
• Moreover, human beings are apparently rational beings - that is, they, unlike the lower animals, have the capacity to process, compare and contrast arguments and ideas, and to organise them.
• More than that, it seems that the two points above fit neatly together. Humans believe and act on the basis that they are in a position to explore and discover, using their rational faculties, the truth that is "out there". They have the necessary mental furniture to follow the clues and understand what reality is all about.

Those assumptions underlie basically all debates about reality. The Christian and the atheist come together to debate truth - using the above as an assumed starting point.

What I've sought to do is to shine the spotlight on these assumptions. They are, after all, part of the whole system of reality - the system which is to be explained either on the basis of Christianity or atheism (or something else, if someone else wants to come to the table). They're part of what needs accounting for. Before I'm going to respond to the atheist challenge "show us your evidence", I want to put an equal challenge to the atheist - show us how, on your grounds, we can know that we're even equipped to have this discussion to begin with?

I've been asking, "does Christianity or atheism explain these assumed facets of reality best?" Or to put it more sharply, "Is the Christian or the atheist actually justified in making these assumptions? Can their explanations of reality actually account for these assumptions, or do they just hang in the air or even contradict the position being argued for? Are atheists trying to build their system using materials that they stole from Christians?"

What I've argued, and my commenters have illustrated, is that atheism cannot account for the basic structure of rationality in the universe. How to connect it with the atheist story - that man is nothing more than the sum of his parts, no more than basic biology, the result of a long, undirected neo-Darwinian process of errors in copying DNA - is an entire mystery. How do we account for the universe and particularly man's rational composition, on the atheist basis? It's evident that atheism implies irrationality, not rationality - a universe of undirected chaos, not of ordered truth.

Making the pieces fit

Christianity, on the other hand, has a very simple and coherent explanation. If you accept as your presupposition the truth of the Bible, then the above phenomena all fall out quite easily:

• The universe is the handiwork of an immense rational mind: a vastly intelligent Creator God.
• Man, as part of that universe, is likewise created by God. Moreover, he is created as a unique and distinction creation: made in the image of God.
• As such, man also carries the characteristics of rationality. As God has created man to know and to enjoy his Maker, he has equipped him with the ability to seek him, find him and hold fellowship with him.
• Therefore, it's no surprise to find that the pieces fit. Man is the kind of creature who seeks and is able to find and process truth, precisely because he is created by God.

So, here we are. The Christian explanation of reality gives a coherent and simple explanation for the phenomena of rationality. The atheist one completely fails. Atheism cannot even explain why we should believe in our ability to discuss and debate ideas in the first place. Ergo, which of Christianity or atheism is, on this basis, the more likely to be an accurate explanation of reality? My commenters keep banging on about evidence - but it's in front of their noses. Every time they seek to employ the unaccounted for, on atheist assumptions tools of logic and reason to interact with me, they testify that they really do know what I'm talking about.

Most of today's campaigning atheists have been spent too much time drinking at the fountain of amateur-philosopher-cum-part-time-scientist Professor Richard Dawkins and his ilk. They have swallowed the philosophy that empirical and positivist proofs are the only valid types of proof. This philosophical belief of his (which isn't itself provable by positivism or empiricalism, and hence is self-refuting) wouldn't pass muster in a sophomore philosophy class. Nevertheless, it's pawned off by Dawkins onto his willing drones, who apparently fail to notice that Dawkins himself relies heavily on other types of philosophical proof in his own arguments.

Ho hum; we press on. Lined up for the near future, God-willing, is something which I think you'll find more accessible if you found the above a bit too abstract and philosophically deep. I want to start opening up the question "Can we be good without God?" Stay tuned!

Radical Islam's Threat to the Western World

Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, a former Muslim, is one of the most knowledgeable and recognised authorities on Islamic theology and practice in the world today.

Recently he spoke to "Focus on the Family" in the US on the theme "Radical Islam's Threat to the Western World". You can get the Internet audio stream from here:

Part one: http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000880.cfm

Part two: http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000881.cfm

Commentary on an interview with NT Wright (installment 3)

Here I'm seeking to explain some of the teaching of and controversy surrounding Tom Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham.

Part 1: http://mothwo.blogspot.com/2008/02/interview-with-n-t-wright-with.html

Part 2: http://mothwo.blogspot.com/2008/02/commentary-on-interview-with-nt-wright.html

Interview: http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/19/trevin-wax-interview-with-nt-wright-full-transcript/

The First Meaty Question: On The Gospel

Trevin Wax: Could you give us a brief definition of "the gospel"?

N.T. Wright: I could try taking a Pauline angle. When Paul talks about "the gospel," he means "the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world." Now, that's about as brief as you can do it.

An interesting follow-up question here would have been "and what did the other New Testament writers mean by 'the gospel'?". Wright's speciality in New Testament studies has been Pauline studies, though he has written very widely, including a popular-level commentary series over the whole New Testament. We'd have to go there to get his answer to this follow-up.

Look at his answer to the question very carefully, and analyse its structure. Its structure is no mistake - the answer very accurately reflects Wright's thought at large:

The gospel is, according to Wright, the good news that Jesus (who is crucified and risen) is Messiah (of Israel) and Lord (of the world). It is a essentially declaration about Jesus' person, and not so much about his work. Now, we do well to note that Wright includes the fact of Christ's death in identifying Jesus, and an exanded explanation of this is of course implied as necessary if we're going to expan Wright's definition into a full presentation or sermon. But the subsiduary placement of that concern is the thing to notice here. Wright doesn't deny Christ's sin-bearing death in the place of his people, or say that it's not related to the gospel - but he does say that the gospel's heart must be seen structurally in terms of Christ's Lordship, not his saving work at Calvary. The latter is a supporting component - both important and a necessary part of the scheme - but not the heart of the scheme. The gospel is not, according to Wright, fundamentally concerned with sin, wrath and atonement - but with the revelation of a person who is the Christ and King.

To spell out that this is exactly what Wright is saying, he expands his answer as follows:

The reason that's good news… In the Roman Empire, when a new emperor came to the throne, there'd obviously been a time of uncertainty. Somebody's just died. Is there going to be chaos? Is society going to collapse? Are we going to have pirates ruling the seas? Are we going to have no food to eat? And the good news is, we have an emperor and his name is such and such. So, we're going to have justice and peace and prosperity, and isn't that great?!

Now, of course, most people in the Roman Empire knew that was rubbish because it was just another old jumped-up aristocrat who was going to do the same as the other ones had done. But that was the rhetoric.

Paul slices straight in with the Isaianic message: Good news! God is becoming King and he is doing it through Jesus! And therefore, phew! God's justice, God's peace, God's world is going to be renewed.

Do you see what's happening here? The gospel is, according to Wright, essentially a proclamation modelled after a political type, akin to the announcement of a new Caesar. It follows from the character of the actual "new Caesar" in question - namely Jesus - that there's going to be a lot of good stuff to say about justice, peace and renewal. But that is all derivative, not fundamental.

Wright goes along this path because he has accepted the following as the "back story" of the New Testament: God's people are in a kind of exile, because they are suppressed by the Romans. God has made a covenant with them to promise them his covenant blessings. Whilst the Romans rule, those blessings aren't being enjoyed. Israel has failed to achieve what God needed for it. It now needs a Messiah to come and bring it to its rightful position.

That's all true in as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn't go far enough. There is a more ultimate and fundamental back-story which we need to read the New Testament against. It is the story of the fall and humanity in general in sin - not just Israel. All people everywhere are under the wrath of God, because they have sinned against him. They cannot enjoy fellowship with their maker until their sin is atoned for. Being unable to themselves, they need a Saviour who will make an effectual reconciliation between them and God.

I don't believe that Wright would deny any of what I've just said. He'd just say that it's not what Paul calls the gospel. He'd say that it was more Biblical to emphasise things the way he has, instead of the way that I, as a historic evangelical, have. That is, in fact, pretty much exactly what he does say in completing his answer to the question:

And in the middle of that, of course, it's good news for you and me. But that's the derivative from, or the corollary of the good news which is a message about Jesus that has a second-order effect on me and you and us. But the gospel is not itself about you are this sort of a person and this can happen to you . That's the result of the gospel rather than the gospel itself.

It's very clear in Romans. Romans 1:3-4: This is the gospel. It's the message about Jesus Christ descended from David, designated Son of God in power, and then Romans 1:16-17 which says very clearly: "I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation." That is, salvation is the result of the gospel, not the center of the gospel itself.

I'm not going to launch into a refutation of that statement now. I'm taking it that historic evangelicalism is correct, and that Wright is not one of the first people in church history to correctly describe the focus of the gospel. That can wait for another post, if I decide to argue that point. My point now is this: If Tom Wright's theology gains more wide acceptance, as it is doing in some particularly American circles where pastors are being trained, it will be disastrous. Wright's message fits in very well with a modern world which likes to relegate thoughts about God's holiness, wrath, human guilt and sinfulness. It fits comfortably with an agenda which treats these concerns just as one thing amongst many, and wants to also place political concerns (which for Wright includes socialist economics and environmentalism) at the same level, as just one amongst several issues of comparable importance. It fits dreadfully with the word of God and with authentic Christianity, which must insist that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross is primary, and that all other concerns are derivative from this. Jesus' Lordship is a redemptive Lordship - he purchased sinners through the blood of the cross, and insists that before we can have any other kind of dealings with God at all, we must come to the Father in repentance and faith, seeking and finding forgiveness. By all means let us seek to be Christians in the sphere of politics and in the sphere of looking after the created world - but before this, we must be Christians.

Wright's error is so devastating because it is so subtle (and so skillfully presented, with Wright's massive learning). You won't often hear Wright saying anything outrightly heretical. You'll just hear him de-emphasising the things that the gospel emphasises, and pulling into the foreground some of the things that the gospel implies, but puts further back. To my mind, this kind of error is worse. Open heresy that directly attacks the gospel is easy enough to spot and avoid. Subtle mistakes which undermine from within more easily catch out the undiscerning. That's why church leaders today need to understand Wright - and why he's wrong.

To be continued...

Making atheism justify its assumptions

My earlier post, "How not to argue with an atheist" (http://mothwo.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-not-to-argue-with-atheist.html) generated a couple of responses from two atheists, Justin and Samuel. Their replies have brought a good illustration of some of the points I was trying to make. Hence this post to draw some attention, hopefully to bring more clarity to anyone who was trying to follow what I was saying. The comments thread to read is here: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6097581429595233439&postID=8635448673055433548

Samuel and Justin both seem, from our discussion so far, to be complete newcomers to the idea that atheism should have to justify its own assumptions. Their responses thus far indicate that they have both taken completely for granted their own nature as logical, rational beings - and the idea that truth should be investigated and received on the basis of arguments based around proving propositional statements.

In other words, they have taken completely for granted that man is precisely the kind of being that the Bible says he is - made in the image of God, with intelligence and the scope for processing, discussing, accepting and rejecting of ideas. He's not just an ape whose only purpose is eating, sleeping and reproducing - he's made for higher things. He has a generally reliable reasoning faculty that reflects the perfect one of his Maker, and that should be used to think great thoughts, not just hunt for food and sex.

But hang on! This is the Christian set of assumptions. It's fine for me to behave as if rationality was handed down from heaven on a plate - because that's my position. For the atheist to do so, though, is serious inconsistency. Atheism's assumptions are that our thought processes are the result of millions of copying mistakes in DNA. Our reasoning faculties are just chemical machines, constructed through a long series of errors. On that basis, why should we trust it? Is it rational to trust the result of millions of mistakes? Shouldn't Justin and Samuel have to justify what they're doing before I let them do it - why should they get a free pass?

My correspondent Justin is continuing to stick to his guns. He tells me that I'm the one making the case for God, so I must prove it - and resolutely refuses to justify any of his own atheistic assumptions. The onus is on me - and we'll just shove the issues of why he, from an atheist point of view, should believe in logic, reason and rationality under the carpet. But from his point of view, this is just illogical. As there's as yet no reason offered as to why I should believe that Justin is a logical, reasonable being, it would be a bit silly of me to start offering him logical reasons. Shouldn't he have to justify his own assumptions? He wants to continue taking all the fruits that flow from his being created by God for granted - yet maintain that he isn't accountable to God for them. The only line of attempted justification for his own position so far is this: "Mine has been clearly demonstrated as correct through your avoidance of any real conversation by using word games to hide your lack of reasons to believe." Justin - come on - it's only schoolboy debates that are won by scoring points when your opponent makes (supposedly) bad arguments. Atheism needs just a little more justification than saying that theists are talking twaddle to explain how we come to be the rational thinkers that you say we are.

The interaction so far has well illustrated the point I started from - that atheists figure that the way to maintain their position is to award themselves a massive set of privileges. Theists will, they assert, have to justify all of their assumptions - but atheists get a free pass on theirs. When the debate is set up this way, it's no wonder that the atheists often walk off feeling smug that they didn't end up being convinced. They want to assume that logic works in an atheistic universe just like it would in a created one - but without explaining why. To fight God, they can't find any tools to use - apart from God's. Or in other words, the Bible is true; they have the knowledge of God, but wilfully suppress it (Romans 1:18ff).

The ten commandments for today

"The Ten Commandments for today:
Latest podcast series starts Monday (11th Feb 2008)
The Christian Institute podcast begins a new series on Monday on the Ten Commandments and their application for Christians today."

Here:

http://www.christian.org.uk/downloads/audio/podcast/mostpop_nov07.htm

This is a vital subject for Christians today to think clearly about.

Actual Justice

In this post I want to argue that Christianity is unique amongst the world religions, in that it alone makes provision for actual justice. That is, I want to argue that Christianity alone is just.

Guilt: Fact, not feelings

First of all I want to point out that moral guilt actually exists. We all have a conscience, which accurately testifies to the reality of good and evil, and tells us to chose one and avoid the other. Though this voice is routinely suppressed and distorted, it is only by a lot of effort that anyone can finally succeed in quieting the voice of conscience completely - at which point we call them a psychopath.

From the atheist point of view, our conscience is nothing more than biology, and the guilt which it speaks of is nothing more than an unwelcome or useful (depending on how the mood takes you) feeling. This, though, fails to take account of the realities of life. When I come home feeling grumpy and take out that grumpiness against my wife or children, my guilt is real. It's not just a feeling - I really have been bad, and really do deserve a just repayment for it. My conscience isn't telling lies when it unnerves and unsettles me and tells me that there is a standard - an "ought to, but have not" - that I didn't meet. The correct response isn't for me to say "you're just an artefact of evolution - I'm taking a happy pill to make you go away." The fact is, we really are guilty, and our consciences are telling us the truth. They are God's witnesses, to tell us that no matter how much we'd like to live life our own way, in fact their are certain standards that are actually binding upon us, like it or not.

What of justice?

There's a lot that we could do from here. We might point out that most of this guilt goes apparently unpunished. The children can learn to just tolerate grumpy dad - and to take a less trivial example, Hitler died before ever being tried, let alone convicted, in any human court. And from there we might discuss the reasons to believe in punishment after death.

The point I want to make today though is that the world's religions generally claim to bring some kind of forgiveness to the offender - they say that guilt can be taken away. Do this, or do that, and your offences can be treated as accounted for - nothing to pay, and your conscience can be quiet again.

I'd like to point out that in the case of all religions apart from Christianity, this forgiveness must be bogus. How so? Because nothing is actually done about the offence committed.

Conscience being God's witness to us, a main plank of its testimony is that our sin has been committed against God. Our wrongdoing isn't just that we offended society's values (German society was happy enough to tolerate the holocaust), or a personal moral code (because we often try to persuade ourselves that our consciences must be mistaken), but that we whilst living in our Maker's world have offended the moral purity of our Maker.

This means that if guilt is to be taken away, then we're not just talking about the removal of unwelcome feelings. We're talking about atonement - restitution. We're talking about something been done to repair the dishonour done to our Creator.

Where is the atonement?

It's when we being to think in this God-centred rather than man-centred way that we can see the hopeless inadequacy of the world's religions.

Islam sets before us the five pillars - making the Islamic confession of faith, prayer, fasting, almsgiving and a visit to Mecca. But how, exactly, does this make any kind of atonement for sin? There being a God, it's perfectly obvious that to trust him and to do good works are duties which are binding upon us in any case. To do them can do nothing to pay the price for our crimes - we owe them already! God's honour and majesty must be very small indeed if taking a trip to Saudi Arabia and going through a few other outward actions can make up for a lifetime's sin.

In a similar way, the popular kind of folk Christianity around tells us that trying to live a good life like Jesus ought to tip the scales in our favour. Put all the bad on this side, and all our good on that, and hopefully we'll make it - with a bit of help from the rituals of the church. Again, though, the inadequacy of this will be obvious to any person who has truly come to see the majesty of God. What are our pathetic little good deeds compared to the infinite offence against one so glorious? We ought to do good works in any case - how can the actual doing of a few of them make up for our evil deeds? This kind of "folk Christianity" is only a slightly more sophisticated version of the ancestor worship and animism of pagan tribes. The pagans offer dead animals to appease their god; the nominal Christian offers his few notes or coins in the collection plate - but in both cases, their god is far too small, and too easily pleased.

The death of Jesus Christ

This brings us to the heart of the matter. Jesus Christ actually deals with the real problem - with actual guilt. The real Christian message can explain how there can be real peace with God - because God himself provided a worthy atonement for evil deeds.

We're talking about the death of the Son of God. To the undiscerning eye it was a tragic accident - but to the onlooker who was taught in the teachings of the prophets who had gone before, it was the fulfilment of God's plan - the perfect match of what had been written down beforehand. A sufficient atonement for sin was provided when God's Son, though being completely pure and blameless, willing allowed himself to be punished upon the cross as if he had committed all the evil deeds of everyone who had trusted in him.

The Lord Jesus made an offering which was of infinite value, matching the infinite offence against his Father's majesty. His life had been characterised by perfect love towards God and man, and was perfectly pleasing to his Father. Now he offered himself to pay the price which other peoples' sins had deserved. He made an atonement!

Sufficient?

The nature of insufficient attempts to make up for our wrongdoing is that the work is never done. The Muslim can never stop doing his five pillars, because he's never sure that it's enough - his mind can supply no reasons why God should think that his performances so far have made up the lack, and so he must press on. And so the Roman Catholic must carry on going to mass, again and again, because he has no reason to ever believe that at last his sin has been fully accounted for by it. The pagan must offer his dead animals again, day after day and year after year.

The Christian, though, can rely upon a sufficient provision. Jesus Christ is not visiting the earth again in order to make another offering - because the one that he made was gloriously complete. Here is my confidence when the painful questions about my wrongdoing trouble me - that God has already received the offering of his Son, and raised him from the dead to prove it. I do not need to bring him any of my sin-stained efforts - because he's already received something from his Son with which he is perfectly satisfied; something received on my behalf.

Sufficient!

Christianity actually deals with guilt. God doesn't say "OK - I can overlook it all, it doesn't have to bother me." He says, "your guilt is real, and your ill-desert is infinite - but it has been provided for. I myself have made the provision, and so you never need trouble yourself over it again."

The Christian can have a quiet conscience, because God has done it all. Through the death of Jesus, God is able to be perfectly just and to receive all of those who trust Jesus for salvation. He does not have to choose - indeed, he could not - between being just or being forgiving. He is both. "That God might be just - and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26).

Real guilt - but a real provision for guilt. That's good news. It's my good news. Is it yours? So don't delay - trust in the friend of wrongdoers today. He never turned anyone away.