Some of the Reformed Baptists in Kenya have launched a new magazine to try to reach potential leaders who are hungry for Bible teaching. You can download and read it for free online here: http://www.rebmik.org
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Friday, 29 January 2010
Hear the rumble of the mad-man
Richard Dawkins has his latest in the Times - "Hear the rumble of Christian hypocrisy". His points are many and all over the map. The main one appears to be that Christian theology is inherently a glorification of meaningless retribution - a furious God who delights to inflict unnecessary punishment. This is accompanied by scores of other asides showing how really, really angry the thought of God makes Dawkins. Revealing.
Dawkins' arguments make me think of a mad-man climbing into a ring with a heavyweight boxer. Because the mad man runs around furiously, throwing punches everywhere with rapid-fire, eventually you suppose one must hit. In just a few paragraphs, Dawkins goes over much of the whole map of Christian theology with great bravado - surely one of those punches connected?
In reality, the real boxer would just tip-toe around for a few seconds as he got a good look at the mad-man, and then lean forward with one mighty, all-sufficient knockout blow, and the mad-man thuds onto the mat with no likelihood of getting up.
All that Dawkins writes is predicated on what comes at the opening. According to him, no other explanation is needed for the Haitian earthquake other than the physical explanation. Two tectonic plates bumped and ground over each other; result, earthquake. That's it. As Dawkins says, "a force of nature, sin-free and indifferent to sin, unpremeditated, unmotivated, supremely unconcerned with human affairs or human misery."
That's the logical outcome of Dawkins' own atheism. The world is self-contained, and physical explanations not only describe what happens, but are also entirely sufficient to account for what happens. No ideas of personal agency should be sought. This is not the way that anyone deals with the events of their own life, though, or indeed how Dawkins does. "Yes, officer, I know that he's dead, and that the autopsy shows cyanide poisoning. But this is all just the outworking of chemical laws. Cyanide is fatal, so he died - why look for another explanation? No need to arrest me."
The problem with Dawkin's position is that, according to him, human beings are also a part of nature. Thus, they are constrained by the same laws as the rest of nature. We evolved ultimately from impersonal matter, according to fixed biological principles. Hence Dawkin's own screed in the Times is not something to take seriously - it's just the law-bound outworking of his own biochemistry. All the ranting about hypocrisy and other moral crimes is not to be treated as meaningful; it's only what the natural principles at work within him made him do.
For Dawkins to impute wickedness to the personal intentionality of Christians who disagree with either him or Pat Robertson (which I do) is no more or less rational than for Christians to impute any particular activity within the world to God's personal intentionality. Dawkins is self-refuting. If we use his own measure, he's not to be taken seriously. His thoughts aren't meaningful; they're just what nature enforced upon him. Tip-toe, tip-toe, tip-toe.... THUD.
Dawkins' arguments make me think of a mad-man climbing into a ring with a heavyweight boxer. Because the mad man runs around furiously, throwing punches everywhere with rapid-fire, eventually you suppose one must hit. In just a few paragraphs, Dawkins goes over much of the whole map of Christian theology with great bravado - surely one of those punches connected?
In reality, the real boxer would just tip-toe around for a few seconds as he got a good look at the mad-man, and then lean forward with one mighty, all-sufficient knockout blow, and the mad-man thuds onto the mat with no likelihood of getting up.
All that Dawkins writes is predicated on what comes at the opening. According to him, no other explanation is needed for the Haitian earthquake other than the physical explanation. Two tectonic plates bumped and ground over each other; result, earthquake. That's it. As Dawkins says, "a force of nature, sin-free and indifferent to sin, unpremeditated, unmotivated, supremely unconcerned with human affairs or human misery."
That's the logical outcome of Dawkins' own atheism. The world is self-contained, and physical explanations not only describe what happens, but are also entirely sufficient to account for what happens. No ideas of personal agency should be sought. This is not the way that anyone deals with the events of their own life, though, or indeed how Dawkins does. "Yes, officer, I know that he's dead, and that the autopsy shows cyanide poisoning. But this is all just the outworking of chemical laws. Cyanide is fatal, so he died - why look for another explanation? No need to arrest me."
The problem with Dawkin's position is that, according to him, human beings are also a part of nature. Thus, they are constrained by the same laws as the rest of nature. We evolved ultimately from impersonal matter, according to fixed biological principles. Hence Dawkin's own screed in the Times is not something to take seriously - it's just the law-bound outworking of his own biochemistry. All the ranting about hypocrisy and other moral crimes is not to be treated as meaningful; it's only what the natural principles at work within him made him do.
For Dawkins to impute wickedness to the personal intentionality of Christians who disagree with either him or Pat Robertson (which I do) is no more or less rational than for Christians to impute any particular activity within the world to God's personal intentionality. Dawkins is self-refuting. If we use his own measure, he's not to be taken seriously. His thoughts aren't meaningful; they're just what nature enforced upon him. Tip-toe, tip-toe, tip-toe.... THUD.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Ordinary Day At Office 1, Marathoning Missionary 0
I wasn't totally ready for today. Up at 5.30am for Heathrow airport on Monday, then flight to Kenya, arriving finally at our hosts the other side of Nairobi past 11pm local time; the next day, a long bus journey (all with small kids!) up to Eldoret. Just time to unload, unpack, print off, pack again, in time for today: rising at 3.10 a.m. UK time in order to be teaching Galatians at theological college at 5.10 a.m. Explaining the north and south Galatian hypotheses at just after 6 a.m. is a new experience. The marathon didn't finish me off, but this nearly did - lunchtime I just walked into the staff room, rested my head on the table, and feel asleep!
Hopefully my body-clock will be more in sync next week. It's all for Christ, and he is worthy. This is not a complaint. It's a fantastic privilege to travel across the world and have these opportunities. It's a different life to many Christians, but actually precisely the same in the big issue: the only question that really matters is "will I moan and grow discouraged, or will I remember what Jesus has done for me and press on?"
Hopefully my body-clock will be more in sync next week. It's all for Christ, and he is worthy. This is not a complaint. It's a fantastic privilege to travel across the world and have these opportunities. It's a different life to many Christians, but actually precisely the same in the big issue: the only question that really matters is "will I moan and grow discouraged, or will I remember what Jesus has done for me and press on?"
Saturday, 23 January 2010
Marathon: Ouch!
My blog gets encumbered with my occasional running notes, because I haven't got a better place to put them yet!
Today I ran the Portland (Dorset) coastal trail marathon (http://www.endurancelife.com). This means lots of steep climbing and descending - some bits quite technical and tricky - and on the exposed coast mostly. This was my 2nd marathon (the first was a road marathon in 2007). Great day, lots of fun, especially so because lots of family were there too. It didn't start so well; I woke coughing at 4.49a.m., and when I eventually turned on the light to get up I found there was a power cut which also meant there was no heating - Brrrr! The briefing took a long time and I had to queue for the toilet, which also meant I set off having done no stretches and was beginning to feel as if my cold had spread out of nose/throat into my head at large. But on the plus side, the weather was basically perfect for January: mild, no rain and as little wind as you can get when running on the channel coast. My Runner's Knee from 5 weeks ago (the last run of more than 7 miles) did not make an appearance, and the trail running kit all worked really well.
After coming off Chesil Beach
The first mile includes a 500ft climb. Not too long later there's one so steep that I did it hands-and-knees when coming up the second time. The course is the half-marathon course done twice, each of which is basically a lap of the "Island" of Portland in Dorset (including round Portland Bill at the tip), and then 1.5 miles on Chesil Beach. 200 entrants. Chesil Beach is excrutiating - it's large pebbles which give way under foot; very heavy going, and murder for your quads. After coming round the first time (2 hrs 15 mins), I thought I had bitten off too much by not entering the half marathon. But gratifyingly those around me were now slowing down too. After the first 3 miles of settling down, I was overtaking someone each mile or so - but from half-way someone was overtaking me about every 400 metres until I stopped the rot!
When 20 miles came I felt pretty finished; this is at Portland Bill and precedes 4 miles of climbing, the first of which is steep. It was refreshing to see so many beefy looking men reduced to staggering - it wasn't just me the first-timer! Once I'd got up the first mile (and through the mud-bath-like bits of the next section where running seemed pointless; as bad as Chesil Beach it was so sticky!), I resorted to running 0.2 miles and walking 0.1 in repetitions. Eventually I got up to running (well, jogging) continually again; then came Chesil Beach. Here, the method of 0.1 running/0.1 walking meant that nobody overtook me on the section, and I overtook about 5 or so; they were running less! One of my support party did comment that they had tried and it was really hard/painful work running on the beach, and that was without running 23 miles beforehand!
Chesil Beach - how your quads feel after this is indescribable... first time, 16 miles to go!
After that second encounter with the beach, there was only perhaps 0.5 miles towards Weymouth, then the turn around and about a mile back to the event HQ/finish line. Adrenaline and will-power (please please let me finish asap!) was enough to run this all the way. And eventually, the finish line:
About to finish
26.88 miles by my watch - the organisers do say that their courses can go over the 26.22 standard. All in all, it took me 5:06:33. I thought I might be near 4:30, but I had not appreciated just how gruelling such a marathon is. The results aren't out yet; this would have got me 66th last year though I'm not sure if there were 200 starters then like this year. The winner was in an awesome 3:27 - 7:42 minutes/mile is one thing on flat roads, but with huge climbs, twisty-turny technical sections and Chesil Beach it's pretty amazing.
Great day. I'm not sure I'd have entered if I'd known what a big step up it was from a road marathon, but as I finished it of course I'm really glad I did - a unique experience and fun to share with the family.
As you'd expect, marathon running is another of the great proofs of the reality of God. Ontological argument, teleological argument, marathological argument, 1 2 3. No species that could have evolved on a Darwinian basis would seek personal challenges to stretch himself, taking it on "because it's there". Running round in large circles has no point in itself. Neither is the ability to do such things of any particular value for surviving as the fittest - the couch potatoes live and breed just as much as the hill-runners. Trail marathoning is an activity exclusively for human beings made in God's image. And it was thrilling to enjoy his creation whilst doing so - especially seeing the vast ocean, the dark clouds and the intrusions of bright light through them. This was all in the first few miles, of course. After that my brain was not processing much more than "Mmmm, Lucozade." :-)
Today I ran the Portland (Dorset) coastal trail marathon (http://www.endurancelife.com). This means lots of steep climbing and descending - some bits quite technical and tricky - and on the exposed coast mostly. This was my 2nd marathon (the first was a road marathon in 2007). Great day, lots of fun, especially so because lots of family were there too. It didn't start so well; I woke coughing at 4.49a.m., and when I eventually turned on the light to get up I found there was a power cut which also meant there was no heating - Brrrr! The briefing took a long time and I had to queue for the toilet, which also meant I set off having done no stretches and was beginning to feel as if my cold had spread out of nose/throat into my head at large. But on the plus side, the weather was basically perfect for January: mild, no rain and as little wind as you can get when running on the channel coast. My Runner's Knee from 5 weeks ago (the last run of more than 7 miles) did not make an appearance, and the trail running kit all worked really well.
After coming off Chesil BeachThe first mile includes a 500ft climb. Not too long later there's one so steep that I did it hands-and-knees when coming up the second time. The course is the half-marathon course done twice, each of which is basically a lap of the "Island" of Portland in Dorset (including round Portland Bill at the tip), and then 1.5 miles on Chesil Beach. 200 entrants. Chesil Beach is excrutiating - it's large pebbles which give way under foot; very heavy going, and murder for your quads. After coming round the first time (2 hrs 15 mins), I thought I had bitten off too much by not entering the half marathon. But gratifyingly those around me were now slowing down too. After the first 3 miles of settling down, I was overtaking someone each mile or so - but from half-way someone was overtaking me about every 400 metres until I stopped the rot!
When 20 miles came I felt pretty finished; this is at Portland Bill and precedes 4 miles of climbing, the first of which is steep. It was refreshing to see so many beefy looking men reduced to staggering - it wasn't just me the first-timer! Once I'd got up the first mile (and through the mud-bath-like bits of the next section where running seemed pointless; as bad as Chesil Beach it was so sticky!), I resorted to running 0.2 miles and walking 0.1 in repetitions. Eventually I got up to running (well, jogging) continually again; then came Chesil Beach. Here, the method of 0.1 running/0.1 walking meant that nobody overtook me on the section, and I overtook about 5 or so; they were running less! One of my support party did comment that they had tried and it was really hard/painful work running on the beach, and that was without running 23 miles beforehand!
Chesil Beach - how your quads feel after this is indescribable... first time, 16 miles to go!After that second encounter with the beach, there was only perhaps 0.5 miles towards Weymouth, then the turn around and about a mile back to the event HQ/finish line. Adrenaline and will-power (please please let me finish asap!) was enough to run this all the way. And eventually, the finish line:
About to finish26.88 miles by my watch - the organisers do say that their courses can go over the 26.22 standard. All in all, it took me 5:06:33. I thought I might be near 4:30, but I had not appreciated just how gruelling such a marathon is. The results aren't out yet; this would have got me 66th last year though I'm not sure if there were 200 starters then like this year. The winner was in an awesome 3:27 - 7:42 minutes/mile is one thing on flat roads, but with huge climbs, twisty-turny technical sections and Chesil Beach it's pretty amazing.
Great day. I'm not sure I'd have entered if I'd known what a big step up it was from a road marathon, but as I finished it of course I'm really glad I did - a unique experience and fun to share with the family.
As you'd expect, marathon running is another of the great proofs of the reality of God. Ontological argument, teleological argument, marathological argument, 1 2 3. No species that could have evolved on a Darwinian basis would seek personal challenges to stretch himself, taking it on "because it's there". Running round in large circles has no point in itself. Neither is the ability to do such things of any particular value for surviving as the fittest - the couch potatoes live and breed just as much as the hill-runners. Trail marathoning is an activity exclusively for human beings made in God's image. And it was thrilling to enjoy his creation whilst doing so - especially seeing the vast ocean, the dark clouds and the intrusions of bright light through them. This was all in the first few miles, of course. After that my brain was not processing much more than "Mmmm, Lucozade." :-)
Tomorrow...
Tomorrow I hope to run a trail marathon, this one:
http://www.endurancelife.com/event.asp?series=29&location=77
I injured my knee 5 weeks ago but I think it's recovered, though I haven't done any runs beyond 7 miles since then. The weather and whether I'm going down with a cold are the main concerns - it rained a lot and was foggy today and visibility was down to the other side of the road!
Blog news - there's a widget in the top right on the website now that should allow you to receive new blog posts by e-mail, if you'd like that.
http://www.endurancelife.com/event.asp?series=29&location=77
I injured my knee 5 weeks ago but I think it's recovered, though I haven't done any runs beyond 7 miles since then. The weather and whether I'm going down with a cold are the main concerns - it rained a lot and was foggy today and visibility was down to the other side of the road!
Blog news - there's a widget in the top right on the website now that should allow you to receive new blog posts by e-mail, if you'd like that.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
The reason for natural evil
On the BBC news website right now, one of the most read stories is on the question "Why does God allow natural disasters?".
In it, a philosopher surveys various options and possible answers. Amongst which, he somehow neglects any mention of any option that involves the Christian doctrine of the Fall. As in, the answer on pages 1, 2 and 3 of the Bible - the book that shaped the foundations of our civilisation. Sigh. Why we want to consider that option anyway? Typical BBC.... line up a panel of "different views", but make sure that the Judeo-Christian one is either not heard or represented by someone who is stitched up as the fruit-cake (in this case the former). Though perhaps now ignorance of Biblical thinking is so widespread that it was not intentional this time - who knows?
Why does God allow natural disasters? Because man rebelled against him, and God's curse on mankind included a curse on the creation. All men sinned when Adam did, because he had been appointed our federal head. This entails that we cannot say that natural disasters come upon people who are more evil than others. They can come upon all mankind, because all mankind was "in Adam".
The good news is that Christ's redemptive work is also cosmic in its scope - and those who are "in Christ" by a covenant not only have to suffer the effects of Adam's ruinous choice, but also receive all the benefits of Christ's perfect righteousness in his life and death. Thus the Bible promises us that when he winds it all up, there will be a curse no more.
Natural disasters are a confirmation that all is not well in the world. People inevitably ask "why does God allow..." because natural disasters have the inevitable effect of making us think of our Maker. They are a huge red flag that there's a big problem between us and him. In that sense, they can have a positive effect - as long as we look in the right place for the answers; not in philosophy, but in the person and the work of Jesus Christ.
In it, a philosopher surveys various options and possible answers. Amongst which, he somehow neglects any mention of any option that involves the Christian doctrine of the Fall. As in, the answer on pages 1, 2 and 3 of the Bible - the book that shaped the foundations of our civilisation. Sigh. Why we want to consider that option anyway? Typical BBC.... line up a panel of "different views", but make sure that the Judeo-Christian one is either not heard or represented by someone who is stitched up as the fruit-cake (in this case the former). Though perhaps now ignorance of Biblical thinking is so widespread that it was not intentional this time - who knows?
Why does God allow natural disasters? Because man rebelled against him, and God's curse on mankind included a curse on the creation. All men sinned when Adam did, because he had been appointed our federal head. This entails that we cannot say that natural disasters come upon people who are more evil than others. They can come upon all mankind, because all mankind was "in Adam".
The good news is that Christ's redemptive work is also cosmic in its scope - and those who are "in Christ" by a covenant not only have to suffer the effects of Adam's ruinous choice, but also receive all the benefits of Christ's perfect righteousness in his life and death. Thus the Bible promises us that when he winds it all up, there will be a curse no more.
Natural disasters are a confirmation that all is not well in the world. People inevitably ask "why does God allow..." because natural disasters have the inevitable effect of making us think of our Maker. They are a huge red flag that there's a big problem between us and him. In that sense, they can have a positive effect - as long as we look in the right place for the answers; not in philosophy, but in the person and the work of Jesus Christ.
Ed Balls on smacking
There's a story on the BBC news website right now about the exemption whereby some schools, if open for less than 12.5 hours a week, are not covered by the government's ban on smacking in its own schools - which was later extended to cover private schools also. (Creep, creep - always the clever politician's way with unpopular measures - do it slowly).
Ed Balls, the relevant government minister, has made a statement that goes far beyond the issue at hand, however:
The words "or learning setting" also send chills down my spine given that Balls has been targetting home education lately, seeking to hand various parental rights over to the state.
But my main points here would be this: I don't believe there's any rational argument against physical punishment of children which doesn't ultimately apply against any punishment of children. And then again, if it applies to any punishment of children, likewise it does to grown-ups. Punishment inherently is painful in some sense, otherwise it is not punishment. And all the arguments made that physical punishments are wrong have their point in the pain, not in the physicality of the pain. If infliction of physical pain is automatically "abuse" as it is here caricatured, then why not any other form of pain and hence any other punishment? The division is arbitrary.
The anti-smacking arguments prove too much. In my opinion smacking is much kinder than pyschological forms of punishment which leave lingering unpleasantness. An explanation of the crime that the child can understand and see the wrong in, an explanation that wrong should be punished, a quick smack, a cuddle and then back to joyful learning and play - that's all it has to be. The real problem is that this implies ideas about justice, crime and punishment that the secular mind does not like and that's why they want to get rid of it. Yes, some parents might go too far - but "thin end of the wedge" arguments make appallingly bad law. Shall we ban all knives from your home and kitchen because some people use them for murder? Ban cars because there exist bad drivers?
The problem with stigmatising the "kind smack" as described above as "abusing" children is not simply that it drags a simple smack into the category of child abuse and makes it look bad. It's also that it trivialises real child abuse. We know little children who really have been abused in horrific ways. For Mr. Balls to lump what they've suffered in the same category as a loving tap on the wrist is a gigantic insult, and a belittling of the real horrors they have endured.
Ed Balls, the relevant government minister, has made a statement that goes far beyond the issue at hand, however:
"The use of physical punishment against any child is wrong; it is outside the law and is not fair to children. I do not think that we should tolerate any use of physical punishment in any school or learning setting in which trusted adults are supposed to be looking after children, not abusing them."These two sentences are a catalogue of non-sequitors and straw men. But I'm also wondering at the context - the physical punishment of children in the UK is not outside the law, but specifically allowed (with the proviso that no lasting mark must be left).
The words "or learning setting" also send chills down my spine given that Balls has been targetting home education lately, seeking to hand various parental rights over to the state.
But my main points here would be this: I don't believe there's any rational argument against physical punishment of children which doesn't ultimately apply against any punishment of children. And then again, if it applies to any punishment of children, likewise it does to grown-ups. Punishment inherently is painful in some sense, otherwise it is not punishment. And all the arguments made that physical punishments are wrong have their point in the pain, not in the physicality of the pain. If infliction of physical pain is automatically "abuse" as it is here caricatured, then why not any other form of pain and hence any other punishment? The division is arbitrary.
The anti-smacking arguments prove too much. In my opinion smacking is much kinder than pyschological forms of punishment which leave lingering unpleasantness. An explanation of the crime that the child can understand and see the wrong in, an explanation that wrong should be punished, a quick smack, a cuddle and then back to joyful learning and play - that's all it has to be. The real problem is that this implies ideas about justice, crime and punishment that the secular mind does not like and that's why they want to get rid of it. Yes, some parents might go too far - but "thin end of the wedge" arguments make appallingly bad law. Shall we ban all knives from your home and kitchen because some people use them for murder? Ban cars because there exist bad drivers?
The problem with stigmatising the "kind smack" as described above as "abusing" children is not simply that it drags a simple smack into the category of child abuse and makes it look bad. It's also that it trivialises real child abuse. We know little children who really have been abused in horrific ways. For Mr. Balls to lump what they've suffered in the same category as a loving tap on the wrist is a gigantic insult, and a belittling of the real horrors they have endured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
