2. No electricity for two days.
3. Bureaucratic nightmares getting seemingly endless official documents.
Must remember Romans 8:28! Come back tomorrow!
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Saturday, 26 April 2008
Courtship, dating, marriage
The young people here in Nairobi held a conference on courtship, dating and marriage today.
I was very encouraged by their seriousness, and that they could all see that the present contemporary way, where everyone goes on a series of "marriage-lite" dating adventures, and tries a little here and a little there could not be right. Marriage is intended to be a complete and exclusive union of one man and one woman for life. There is not meant to be a prior series of others who in your past you gave a little bit of yourself too before finally settling down. The guarding of the purity of marriage should also mean a jealous guarding of the purity of before marriage - and that purity can be compromised in multitudes of ways other than just fornication.
In England, I was accustomed to young Christians, even seriously godly ones, having little idea about what would be a God-honouring way to go about seeking a spouse. Mostly, they were just assuming that you should do what everyone else does, except not have full intercourse until the wedding day. Can that be the only real difference between godly people and the ungodly in a radically anti-Christian society? Shouldn't there be something more? Can it really be that the UK's turning from God has made no real changes to how we go about one of the most important decisions of all - seeking a spouse?
A trio of recommended books. Go search for them on Amazon if you want to think and be challenged further: 1) Josh Harris, "I kissed dating goodbye" 2) Josh Harris, Boy Meets Girl, 3) Douglas Wilson, Her Hand in Marriage.
I was very encouraged by their seriousness, and that they could all see that the present contemporary way, where everyone goes on a series of "marriage-lite" dating adventures, and tries a little here and a little there could not be right. Marriage is intended to be a complete and exclusive union of one man and one woman for life. There is not meant to be a prior series of others who in your past you gave a little bit of yourself too before finally settling down. The guarding of the purity of marriage should also mean a jealous guarding of the purity of before marriage - and that purity can be compromised in multitudes of ways other than just fornication.
In England, I was accustomed to young Christians, even seriously godly ones, having little idea about what would be a God-honouring way to go about seeking a spouse. Mostly, they were just assuming that you should do what everyone else does, except not have full intercourse until the wedding day. Can that be the only real difference between godly people and the ungodly in a radically anti-Christian society? Shouldn't there be something more? Can it really be that the UK's turning from God has made no real changes to how we go about one of the most important decisions of all - seeking a spouse?
A trio of recommended books. Go search for them on Amazon if you want to think and be challenged further: 1) Josh Harris, "I kissed dating goodbye" 2) Josh Harris, Boy Meets Girl, 3) Douglas Wilson, Her Hand in Marriage.
Encouraging words
“The resurrection . . . sharply defines what it must mean to have faith in Christ. Because Christ has been raised from the dead, we are not putting our faith in merely a historical event but in a living, death conquering, and reigning Savior. Our faith is based on something in the past, but it is placed in One who is very much alive today. Notice how the apostle Paul speaks of faith in terms of a living Christ: ‘I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’ (Galatians 2:20). Paul is living by faith in the living Christ. And he prays that this would be our normative Christian experience: ‘that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith’ (Ephesians 3:16-17).”
- John Ensor, The Great Work of the Gospel (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2006), 102.
“He laid his right hand on me, saying, ‘Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the Living One; and I was dead, and look! I am alive forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and Hades’” (Revelation 1:17-18).
Literally, Jesus says, ‘Stop being afraid..’ Why? Because Jesus Christ has walked into the gaping jaws of the greatest enemy there is. On the cross he let all the powers that threaten to undo us have their unrestrained way with him. He let death take him captive. And then he burst out of the prison and carried away the prison keys!”
- Darrell W. Johnson, Discipleship on the Edge (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 2004), 47-48.
“Though he be the great God, yet he has, as it were, brought himself down to be upon a level with you, so as to become man as you are that he might not only be your Lord, but your brother, and that he might be the more fit to be a companion for such a worm of the dust.
This is one end of Christ’s taking upon him man’s nature, that his people might be under advantages for a more familiar converse with him than the infinite distance of the divine nature would allow of.”
- Jonathan Edwards, “The Excellency of Christ”
All gleaned from "Of First Importance".
Friday, 25 April 2008
Must science stick to methodological materialism?
Today's campaigning atheists are revisionists when it comes to explaining what science is, and how science works. That is, their theories and confident exclamations bear no real resemblance to the beliefs and practices of the fathers of modern science. They are instead after-the-fact just-so stories made up to support the atheist case.
One area in which this is particularly true is when atheists proclaim that "the scientific method is methodological naturalism". By that, they mean that science must always assume in advance that all causes and effects in the world that can be investigated are material causes and effects. Science must assume at the outset that the world is a closed system, entirely physical in its make-up - no supernatural, no divine design, intervention or intention in nature, no body-soul duality, etcetera. At the very least, it must say that these very ideas lie outside the realm of science and science cannot legitimately discuss them.
The fathers of modern science, and very many actual scientists as opposed to campaigning atheists-cum-scientists, believed quite the opposite. They assumed at the outset that the physical universe was the product of an orderly mind and designed with a deliberate purpose. This is what makes the idea of scientific investigation rational - we believe that there's something there to investigate, not just random chaos. It was in Christian Europe that modern science arose, amongst European Christians and those retaining the Christian assumptions. The universe was believed to be comprehensible by human minds, because human minds were thought to be made in the image of the divine mind responsible for the universe.
There is some overlap between saying "we expect an orderly world" and the concept of "methodological naturalism", because the latter expects things to work in a cause-and-effect way. Nevertheless, the only reason to adopt the concept of methodological naturalism is because we already hold to a concept of philosophical naturalism - i.e. because of our religious position. Otherwise, it is simply an unprovable philosophical bias that has no more right than any other to dictate what science can and can't do. To exclude certain concepts and explanations in advance is not science at all, much less the essential essence of science - it is religion.
I think it's enough for now to point out that certain sciences would be entirely ruined were they to actually stick to this rule. When an archaeologist digs up some pots and necklaces, what does he deduce? Should he be forbidden, in advance, from even considering that this might have something to do with intelligent human activity? Must he be forced to either choose the option of coming up with an entirely natural explanation for their formation, or being left to say "as of yet we don't know, and must be humble until we get more data"? Unless we've lost our minds, it's obvious that this rule if applied at all would be the very death of archaeology. Archaeology begins with the assumption that such artefacts are prima facie evidence of human activity, until proved otherwise. In other words, it assumes the very opposite of what the atheists say is the very essence of science. That tells you all you need to know.
One area in which this is particularly true is when atheists proclaim that "the scientific method is methodological naturalism". By that, they mean that science must always assume in advance that all causes and effects in the world that can be investigated are material causes and effects. Science must assume at the outset that the world is a closed system, entirely physical in its make-up - no supernatural, no divine design, intervention or intention in nature, no body-soul duality, etcetera. At the very least, it must say that these very ideas lie outside the realm of science and science cannot legitimately discuss them.
The fathers of modern science, and very many actual scientists as opposed to campaigning atheists-cum-scientists, believed quite the opposite. They assumed at the outset that the physical universe was the product of an orderly mind and designed with a deliberate purpose. This is what makes the idea of scientific investigation rational - we believe that there's something there to investigate, not just random chaos. It was in Christian Europe that modern science arose, amongst European Christians and those retaining the Christian assumptions. The universe was believed to be comprehensible by human minds, because human minds were thought to be made in the image of the divine mind responsible for the universe.
There is some overlap between saying "we expect an orderly world" and the concept of "methodological naturalism", because the latter expects things to work in a cause-and-effect way. Nevertheless, the only reason to adopt the concept of methodological naturalism is because we already hold to a concept of philosophical naturalism - i.e. because of our religious position. Otherwise, it is simply an unprovable philosophical bias that has no more right than any other to dictate what science can and can't do. To exclude certain concepts and explanations in advance is not science at all, much less the essential essence of science - it is religion.
I think it's enough for now to point out that certain sciences would be entirely ruined were they to actually stick to this rule. When an archaeologist digs up some pots and necklaces, what does he deduce? Should he be forbidden, in advance, from even considering that this might have something to do with intelligent human activity? Must he be forced to either choose the option of coming up with an entirely natural explanation for their formation, or being left to say "as of yet we don't know, and must be humble until we get more data"? Unless we've lost our minds, it's obvious that this rule if applied at all would be the very death of archaeology. Archaeology begins with the assumption that such artefacts are prima facie evidence of human activity, until proved otherwise. In other words, it assumes the very opposite of what the atheists say is the very essence of science. That tells you all you need to know.
The Bible And Democracy (Part 4)
Previous posts: one, two, three
What does the Bible have to say about the merits of different systems of government? This, after all, is the key question. The way I hear democracy being spoken about in our society, we would think that it had been handed down from heaven on a plate. Should Christians agree with this way of thinking? Is it indeed endorsed by God in this way?
God's word is a fully sufficient revelation of the mind of God, for all that we need to know to please him in all things and avoid sin. It doesn't tell us which brand of toothpaste to buy, because that in itself is a question of no moral significance. It does, though, contain sufficient information for us to know what kind of service God requires in every legitimate area of human life. "All scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for rebuke, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished for all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Government is very definitely a legitimate area of human life. "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained by God ... Render to all therefore what is due to them: taxes to whom taxes are due, custom to whom custom ..." (Romans 13:1-8). Who was Paul thinking of in particular in that passage? The government, of course - to which other "higher power" do we pay taxes? God's spokesmen, then, asserted that governments derive their authority from God.
Human government is part of God's order for the world. Anarchy is utterly contrary to God's being and will. God is a God of order and a God of authority. There is authority within the Godhead; the Son, though co-equal with the Father, willingly and joyfully submits to his will. God's being is in perfectly harmony throughout. Authority was part of the order God created from the beginning; there was a difference between the unfallen man and the unfallen woman. Both were equal in bearing the image of God, but as there has always been authority within the Godhead, so God made the man responsible for the woman and gave him authority to bear the duties accompanying that responsibility (1 Corinthians 11:7-8, 1 Timothy 2:12). More than that, Adam was made responsible as a head for the entire human race. It was not because Eve sinned that the world was cursed - it was because he was (Romans 5:12-21). God has ordained that different individuals will hold different levels of authority in his world.
A small aside: If government flows from God, and is essential to the created world, then some popular theories of government cannot be true. Government cannot be by the necessary consent of the people. Eve did not vote for Adam, and you did not choose your father - God placed you under their authority. Government is not a social contract; it is a divine imposition.
Having established that government is a topic which the Bible is concerned with - it is not an arbitrary human invention and that we are justified in asking the question "what does the Bible say about democracy?" - we can now start looking more into the details.
To be continued...
What does the Bible have to say about the merits of different systems of government? This, after all, is the key question. The way I hear democracy being spoken about in our society, we would think that it had been handed down from heaven on a plate. Should Christians agree with this way of thinking? Is it indeed endorsed by God in this way?
God's word is a fully sufficient revelation of the mind of God, for all that we need to know to please him in all things and avoid sin. It doesn't tell us which brand of toothpaste to buy, because that in itself is a question of no moral significance. It does, though, contain sufficient information for us to know what kind of service God requires in every legitimate area of human life. "All scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for rebuke, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished for all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Government is very definitely a legitimate area of human life. "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained by God ... Render to all therefore what is due to them: taxes to whom taxes are due, custom to whom custom ..." (Romans 13:1-8). Who was Paul thinking of in particular in that passage? The government, of course - to which other "higher power" do we pay taxes? God's spokesmen, then, asserted that governments derive their authority from God.
Human government is part of God's order for the world. Anarchy is utterly contrary to God's being and will. God is a God of order and a God of authority. There is authority within the Godhead; the Son, though co-equal with the Father, willingly and joyfully submits to his will. God's being is in perfectly harmony throughout. Authority was part of the order God created from the beginning; there was a difference between the unfallen man and the unfallen woman. Both were equal in bearing the image of God, but as there has always been authority within the Godhead, so God made the man responsible for the woman and gave him authority to bear the duties accompanying that responsibility (1 Corinthians 11:7-8, 1 Timothy 2:12). More than that, Adam was made responsible as a head for the entire human race. It was not because Eve sinned that the world was cursed - it was because he was (Romans 5:12-21). God has ordained that different individuals will hold different levels of authority in his world.
A small aside: If government flows from God, and is essential to the created world, then some popular theories of government cannot be true. Government cannot be by the necessary consent of the people. Eve did not vote for Adam, and you did not choose your father - God placed you under their authority. Government is not a social contract; it is a divine imposition.
Having established that government is a topic which the Bible is concerned with - it is not an arbitrary human invention and that we are justified in asking the question "what does the Bible say about democracy?" - we can now start looking more into the details.
To be continued...
Thursday, 24 April 2008
The I-word
You surely worked out that the answer to Monday's question was...
Amongst all the blaming of "male relatives", "the Saudi establishment", "the government", etcetera, the BBC report in question (whether following the lead of the organisation "Human Rights Watch" or not, I don't know) somehow, somehow, somehow managed to not even question as to whether Saudi women being denied their human dignity and treated by as children might be something to do with their Islamic beliefs. Inexplicably, the BBC managed to not even mention Islam at all in the article.
On the same day the BBC also ran a story about how Islamic scholars were proclaiming Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, was rightly proclaimed by the Koran as the centre of the world. Yet the Koran didn't even get a footnote in the explanation of why Saudi women are treated as second class citizens. Go figure...
Amongst all the blaming of "male relatives", "the Saudi establishment", "the government", etcetera, the BBC report in question (whether following the lead of the organisation "Human Rights Watch" or not, I don't know) somehow, somehow, somehow managed to not even question as to whether Saudi women being denied their human dignity and treated by as children might be something to do with their Islamic beliefs. Inexplicably, the BBC managed to not even mention Islam at all in the article.
On the same day the BBC also ran a story about how Islamic scholars were proclaiming Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, was rightly proclaimed by the Koran as the centre of the world. Yet the Koran didn't even get a footnote in the explanation of why Saudi women are treated as second class citizens. Go figure...
Patrick Sookhdeo on Islam in Britain
Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo is a leading authority on Islam and movements within present day Islam.
Christian TV internet provider Premier TV features an interview with Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director of Barnabas Fund, in "Off the Shelf" with Victoria Laurence. The interview discusses Patrick Sookhdeo's new book "Faith, Power and Territory" and focuses on the issue of Islam in Britain today and how it will impact British society now and in the future.Link here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
