the agnostic, the atheist and the Christian

Today I went to the debate between Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins at Oxford’s Sheldonian Theatre chaired by former Priest, now agnostic philsopher, Sir Anthony Kenny.

 

Richard Dawkins began the debate by saying he sang the first part of a hymn in the shower this morning “It is a thing most wonderful, almost too wonderful to be” saying that the hymn went downhill after that point! Of course it doesn’t continue with an ode to the wonder of natural selection but rather to the wonder that the creator God broke into creation and saved his rebellious children (I did think that the Archbishop missed a good opportunity to talk about revelation and the cross).

It is a thing most wonderful
Almost too wonderful to be
That God’s own Son should come from heaven
And die to save a child like me!

It was a very amicable debate which concentrated on some complexities related to the origin of the universe and issues relating to matters of evolution.  Some of this was quite technical and obtuse.  Both men spoke passionately about the wonder and marvel of the natural world, although one praised evolution the other praised a creator!

Rowan Willians made some good points about human consciousness and the eternity of the soul, which were quite persuasive.  Overall though discussion was rather obscure and not entirely satisfying.

Having said that, all credit to Dr Williams for being prepared to engage in the discussion and all three men took some of the heat out of the debate.

King’s Cross by Tim Keller – a review

King’s Cross, by Tim Keller (Hodder & Stoughton 2011)

Reviewed by Simon Vibert

     Tim Keller has been criticised (or complimented) depending on which way you look at it) as being a better speaker than a writer (note the conversation surrounding Reason for God in Newsweek magazine and Tim’s own response http://www.newsweek.com/2008/02/09/the-smart-shepherd.html; http://www.edstetzer.com/2008/02/tim_keller_on_evolution_and_ot.html).  In fact, this criticism does not apply to King’s Cross.  For sure, this book started life as Bible expositions in Mark’s Gospel – and you can “hear” Tim speaking all the way through – but it has been turned into very readable and edifying prose.

 The book received a surprising and insightful boost from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, at the July 2011 General Synod meeting inYork:

 The American Presbyterian writer Timothy Keller has recently published a book on Mark’s gospel, entitled King’s Cross.  It is a vividly written and often very moving presentation of the great themes of the gospel (and incidentally offers a forceful defence of substitutionary language for the atonement that might give second thoughts to some who find this difficult); but perhaps its simplest and most dominant insight is that Christianity is not advice but news. (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2122/archbishop-of-canterburys-presidential-address-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/)

 King’s Cross divides neatly into the two recognisable halves of Mark’s Gospel – Part One: “The King” (Mark 1-10); Part Two: “The Cross” (Mark 11-16).  The book is a combination of winsome apologetical summons and affectionate (in all senses of that word) appeal to everyday human experience.  Chapter titles such as “The Dance”, “The Waiting”, “The Stain”, “The Feast” etc are surprising and enticing titles for a series of Bible talks. He credits CS Lewis as his favourite author (p.6) and it is not hard to see why Tim is often labelled as “a C. S. Lewis for the 21st century, a high-profile Christian apologist who can make orthodox belief not just palatable but necessary.” (Newsweek article).  He tells the Gospel story in a way which resonates with the human quest for a meaningful narrative for life.

 There are other big themes which are part of Tim’s “Gospel-centred” approach to Christian ministry, such as, the chapter “The Rest”.  He shows that Jesus came to earth to bring about the end of Religion as we know it:

 “Righteous” people believe they can “heal themselves,” make themselves right with God by being good and moral.  They don’t feel the need for a soul-physician, someone who intervenes and does what they can’t do themselves…Because the Lord of the Sabbath said, “It is finished,” we can rest from religion – forever. (p47)

 He also interacts with William Vanstone’s interesting book The Phenomenology of Love indicating that we all seek true, unconditional love, but are incapable of giving it.  But, ironically, in meeting Jesus we are enabled to need less and give more.  Why is that?

 If your agenda is the end, then Jesus is just the means; you are using him.  But if Jesus is the King, you cannot make him a means to your end. (p106f.).

 The strong evangelistic/apologetic appeal is evident throughout the book.  Alongside Mere Christianity this is the kind of book which I would give to a thinking non-Christian today.  For example

 [Jesus] is both the rest and the storm, both the victim and the wielder of the flaming sword, and you must accept him or reject him on the basis of both.  Either you’ll have to kill him or you’ll have to crown him.  The one thing you can’t do is just say, “What an interesting guy.”  Those teachers of the law who began to plot to kill Jesus at the end of this episode in the temple – they may have been dead wrong about him, but their reaction makes perfect sense. (p162).

 His death on the cross is simply explained as Jesus drinking the cup of God’s wrath (the poisoned chalice) so that we don’t need to; and as going under the sword, bearing our punishment in our place.

 I join the Archbishop of Canterbury in highly recommending this book.  When Tim comes to Oxford to lead the OICCU mission next year I trust and hope he will do what he has said all preachers need to do, and that which this book exemplifies:

 To be a great preacher, one needs to be tri-perspectival in their exegesis. That is, they need to be committed to the exegesis of the Bible, the exegesis of our culture, and the exegesis of the human heart. Some preachers claim that if you exegete the Bible properly, you don’t need to bother yourself with the exegesis of our culture or the human heart. The problem with this view, however, is that the Bible itself exhorts us to apply Biblical norms to both our lives and to our world… But no preacher has consistently taught me how to do all three in the context of every sermon more so than Tim Keller. His balanced attention to all three forms of exegesis makes him very unique, in my opinion. (http://www.joshharris.com/2008/08/tim_keller.php)

 Note

More on Tim Keller’s preaching in my book Excellence in Preaching published by IVP UK, September 2011.

Sharia Law and Archbishop’s Apologies

I have to say, I have a lot of sympathy for the predicament the Archbishop of Canterbury has found himself in as he used his General Synod opening address to apologise for comments leading to the press reporting of his statements about Sharia Law.  His lecture on Islam and English Law in the Royal Courts of Justice 10 days ago was followed by a BBC interview.  Note what he actually said at the interview: 

“It seem unavoidable and, indeed, as a matter of fact, certain provision of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law. So it’s not as if we’re bringing in an alien and rival system.”

“Nobody in their right mind, I think, would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states — the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women, as well.”

My humble observations are threefold:

1.  The Media is generally inflamatory in its reporting of these events and obfuscates rather promotes healthy discussion.  The “red rag headlines” in the Tabloid Press were quite alarmist, and even the Times’ headline was “Archbishop of Canterbury argues for Islamic Law in Britain”.  To be on the receiving end of partial and inflamatory press reporting is painful and I don’t wish that on anyone. 

2. Rowan Williams told the General Synod in London last week that he had expressed his words “clumsily”.  He said: “I must take any responsibility for any unclarity.”  I think that the standing ovation at General Synod was a reflection of the affection that many feel for his humble openness.  But as one who has read quite a bit of Dr Williams’ writings, I confess that, despite his obvious brilliance, he is very difficult to read and often open to misundertsanding.  Whilst he is a liberal in the best sense of the word (i.e. he is equally charitible to conservative evangelicals as well as everyone else, unlike many other liberals!), his theology, nevertheless is liberal.  I have to say that I feel that he would be better in Academia than as the leader of the already fragmenting Anglican Communion.

3. Finally, surely, for all the attempt to start a debate about the place of Muslims in British Society, and his nuancing of the “clumsy” comment, Dr Willliams is wrong!  We have a law of the land which must apply equally to all, irrespective of religious convictions.  Moreover, Protestant believers have always worked hard to see the law of the land reformed under God’s word so it is more accurately reflective of a nation that is shaped by biblical convictions about God.  It is for that reason that the Apostle Paul writes:

Romans 13:1-3
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.  2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.  3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

We need leadership which give us clarity and conviction about Christian issues in a Nation that is still dominantly, albeit nominally, Christian.

Christmas – A Tall Story? Unwrapping the myth and keeping the Christmas present

The Baby and the Bathwater… 

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has stirred up the blog sites this week.

He claims that much of the traditional Christian story is myth rather than history.  Lots of what he says is true.  In fact, the letter column of yesterday’s Times (20th December 2007) includes one by Revd Dr Anthony Carr with which I pretty much agree:

I understood and accepted much of what Dr Rowan Williams said about the Christmas story. I would, however, take issue with him on belief in the virginal conception. I use this word deliberately rather than the Virgin Birth because they are two different things.

Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church hold the teaching that the virginal conception is central to their teaching about the nature of Christ and of humankind. Belief in the fall of man means that all people are born with that fallen nature. If Jesus was born of natural parents he could not become the perfect sacrifice for humankind because he, God, would be also tainted with sin, which would be impossible. Rather he took on himself human nature by going through the process of a supernatural conception and a natural birth through the womb of Mary. The whole nature of Christ is changed if belief in the supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit is rejected, and it also makes mockery of the Creeds.

In my adult life I have developed a huge dislike for Father Christmas, which I guess may be why he no longer puts satsumas in the stocking at the end of my bed!  My main problem is that, as a child, he and God the Father got completely scrambled together in my thinking.  They both appeared at Christmas time.  They both had long flowing beards and had apparently lived for ever.  They both rewarded the good with pressies.

The corruption of grace, however, was that, however bad I had been I never got a lump of coal in my stocking and he always came up with the goods, thanking me for his mince pie and sherry, mysteriously in my father’s handwriting!

Separating myth from fact is important.  But at the same time, let’s not lose the historic facts which are absolutely intergral to the Christian faith.  If Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin, lived as a sinless man, died on the cross to atone for our sins and rose again on the third day victorious, we are, as the Apostle Paul aptly said in a hopeless situation.  But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.  18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.  19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.  20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:12-22)

The main thing that is at stake here is whether the Bible is to be trusted as a reliable record of Jesus’ life and mission. 

Anglican mainstream reports the Bishop of Rochester saying at a Cathedral Carol service yesterday  “Down the ages of faith lots of stories have grown up around Christmas. This can be good because it helps people to celebrate the festival. This is true of the music at Christmas, and the great art about the nativity. But Christmas is not just a story. It is solemn and serious. It is about God being with us, God speaking to us and God saving us. The reason that Christmas remains popular even in secular society, is that for a while we see the benign heart of the universe.”  (http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/)

So, what is the moral of this story?  By all means, let’s unwrap the Christmas myths which have overlain the Christmas story.  But in doing so, let’s not lose the real Christmas presence, He who came in history to be our salvation.  Wouldn’t it be good if people read the eyewitness accounts of that first Christmas in the four Gospels?  We need to dispel many popular myths about Christmas without losing the Chist.  To fail to do so would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater!