Is Christianity exclusive?

Next meeting: Mon 3 August 2009
Topic: Is Christianity exclusive?

Here's a blog entry from a minister in Seattle, that might help us to get started:

This summer our church is doing a series called "Theological Cliffs"* whereby we delve into some of the more controversial doctrines of famous theologians like CS Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Simone Weill, and others. The Lewis controversy resides in his doctrine of salvation, specifically the question of "What must a person do to be saved?" In particular, Lewis' position is provocative to evangelicals because of some veiled hints in The Great Divorce that everyone might be saved, and because of the following quote from The Last Battle in his "Chronicles of Narnia" series.

In this story, a soldier goes through something analagous to the doorway of death. The soldier has served a god named Tash all his life, and he comes upon the great Lion named Aslan, who represents Christ...
'In a narrow place between two rocks there came to me a great lion. The speed of him like an ostrich, and the size of him was an elephant's; his hair was like pure gold and the brightness of his eyes, like gold that is liquid in the furnace. In beauty he surpassed anything that was in the world, even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust in the desert. Then I fell at his feet and though, surely this is the hour of death, for the lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the lion and die than to be king of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, "Son, thou art welcome."
But I said, "Alas, Lord I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash."
He answered, "Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me."
Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, "Lord is it true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash art one?"
The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, "It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services that thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed accepted. Dost thou understand, child?"
I said, "Lord, thou knowest how much I understand." But I also said (for the truth constrained me), "Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days."
"Beloved" said the Glorous One, "unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly, for all find what they truly seek."'

1. What is Lewis saying? Is he really teaching universalism?

2. What are the implications of what he's saying when it comes to evangelism?

3. Can what he's saying be correlated to what Jesus said in John 14:6?

And here are a couple of comments left by others:

1.
I think it's a lazy mistake to assume that universalism of salvation is the same thing as saying that "all paths lead to God." Those are two different things.

In this story he's clear that there is one true God and that there is one true path toward him. Followers of Tash are NOT on the path of Aslan. The very thought that these paths are the same obviously makes Aslan quite angry.

But at the same time, the one true God/Aslan still maintains the right to save whomever he will. God is not artificially constrained by the circumstances of creation or the choices of people. (Isn't that the definition of grace, anyway?)

So, good job, CS Lewis for showing us that it might be possible to affirm that there is one God and one true religion - and yet even so, that the one true God may choose to be the savior of all.

"That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe" (1 Timothy 4:10).

2.
Lewis' thoughts are quite compelling. If not leaning toward universalism, he definitely seems to be cautioning believers about being too concerned with who is 'in' and who is 'out'.

...

A universalist way of thinking about Christianity would definitely change the role of evangelism, but would not eliminate it. Instead, the message of outreach would have to do with the way of Christ being the best possible way of living. It would probably also emphasize our role in helping usher the Kingdom of God into this world through the movement of following Christ.


So, some food for thought. See you all on the 3rd...

[* Sounds a bit like the Hard Questions Group :-) ]

Next meeting: Monday 25 May 2009

Venue: Wanda & Jonathan's, 111 Koolang Road, Green Point
Topic: Sharing our stories (Part 1?)

Future date: 15 June

Next meeting: Wed, 13 May 7.30pm

Venue: Geoff & Sue's - 26 Lake St, North Avoca
Topic: Does God really reward strong faith, and. if so, why?
Background: The Bible is full of references to the importance of faith (e.g. basically the whole of the book of Hebrews): Jesus rebuked those of little faith (e.g. Matt 6:30) and praised those with great faith (e.g. Matt 8:10). But why? For example, why should the Roman Centurion mentioned in Matthew 8 (and Luke 7) have had so much faith in an itinerant Jewish preacher he'd probably never met before and had probably had only heard second- or third-hand stories about? I'm sure we're all familiar with the kind of Christian who says they're absolutely rock-solid in their faith. Such people usually believe the Bible literally (or think they do, anyway). In one way, I admire such people, but I also can't help thinking it's a kind of arrogance - the same kind of arrogance that atheists like Richard Dawkins have.

Future dates: 25 May, 15 June

Pascal's wager applied to climate change (Part 2)

My previous post was, in a way, too simplified, by asking only whether or not climate change is real. Either climate change is real or it is not. If it is real, then it is either caused (and can be affected by) human activity or it isn't. If human activity does have an effect on the climate, then either drastically reducing carbon emissions is the only way climate change could be halted or reversed, or else other, less drastic methods would be sufficient. So, here's the new grid:

Action	A. If climate change is real and is caused by human activity and can only be reversed or halted by drastically reducing CO2 emissions	B. If climate change is real and is caused by human activity but can be reversed or halted by a variety of less drastic methods	C. If climate change is real but is NOT caused by human activity	D. If the climate is not changing
1. Do nothing	Global disaster	Global disaster	(Eventual but inevitable) global disaster	No change
2. Use a variety of less drastic methods to reduce our environmental impact	Global disaster (perhaps delayed slightly)	(Hopefully) disaster averted, or reduced Pollution reduced	(Eventual but inevitable) global disaster Pollution reduced	Pollution reduced
3. Drastically reduce CO2 emissions (+ other methods)	(Hopefully) disaster averted, or reduced Possible economic hardship.	Pollution reduced Some unnecessary spending	(Eventual but inevitable) global disaster Pollution reduced Some unnecessary spending	Pollution reduced Some unnecessary spending Some unnecessary fear

See also my responses to Bruce's comments >

Is Pascal's wager appropriate?

The problem with Pascal's wager is that its set up is for a binary probability ie an either or situation. But there is a bias in the way this one has been set in that it is a choice between nothing and a single choice on climate change which is to reduce pollution or carbon emissions.

But another choice is to take actions to mitigate the impacts of climate change such as developing foods that can grow in elevated temperatures and other coping mechanisms. Pascal's wager then can't determine which of two strategies should be pursued.

I have to admit to being in the sceptic camp. My main problem is the news that is emerging that the rates of loss of ice exceed the models. This means that the models are misspecified in some way or miscalibrated. In the first instance it may mean that carbon emissions are not the only thing driving this and if that contention is correct then we may be putting all our eggs in one basket if we adopt a politically correct approach of dismissing sceptics outright and just focus on carbon emissions instead of refining our understanding. Ironically Pascal's wager really is about not committing to a belief, but relying on probability.

A much stronger argument is that there are other benefits to reducing pollution that are unrelated to climate change and that the first steps on this road are relatively cheap to pursue. I wouldn't be an economist if I didn't want us to look at the costs and benefits and optimise for a fuller model of how the economy and the environment interact.

It's a debate where a little knowledge may be a dangerous thing and climate change populist thinking is an act of faith not of science. As such it potentially sets up similar anomolies to what we see in the genetically modified foods debate where the same people who oppose GM foods often simultaneously support stem cell research on embryos.

Is it easier to be populist than to tackle the Hard Questions>

The Great Climate Change Debate

There is no shortage of people stating with confidence that climate change is real and that, unless we act quickly and decisively, the world is headed for a disaster from which we cannot recover. On the other hand, it is not at all hard to find those who resist that view, either sceptically (claiming that the evidence is inconclusive) or categorically (claiming that there is no real evidence at all). And the interesting thing is that both sides seem to be able to find scientists who support them. So, what are we to believe and, more importantly, what are we to do?

Many people approach the argument by piling up evidence, in the form of scientific articles, or even to quote statistics in the form of the numbers of articles or scientists on each side, as if the matter could be decided simply by taking a vote. Of course the qualifications and reputation of each writer or speaker presenting evidence, and drawing conclusions from that evidence, are crucial to deciding how much attention we should pay. But even that is hard to determine. Usually all we have to go by is that person’s “celebrity status” (think David Suzuki, Al Gore or Tim Flannery). Furthermore, in many cases our position is largely determined before we examine any evidence or arguments, based on broader political and ideological beliefs.

So, perhaps the solution is for all of us to take university courses in climatology and then reserve our judgements until we reach at least doctoral level and are able to examine – and understand – the evidence on our own. Alternatively, we could use basic critical reasoning skills, combined with whatever information and understanding is available to us now.

Firstly, we need to state the issue clearly and precisely. The question is not “Is climate change real?” Rather, “Is human activity making a noticeable, and detrimental, effect on the earth’s climate?” If the climate were indeed changing but it turned out that it was part of a the same natural cycle that caused the last ice age, then, while it would be unfortunate, there would be no need to drastically change our behaviour with respect to carbon emissions.

Pascal’s wager
The 18th century French philosopher, Blaise Pascal, made an interesting contribution to the philosophical debate of the time about the existence of God. He looked, not at the evidence, but the consequences of believing, or not believing. Pascal presented four possibilities, based on whether or not God existed and whether or not one believed. If God existed and you didn’t believe in Him, then you would be punished with eternal damnation. If God existed and you did believe, then you would be rewarded with eternal life in heaven. If you believed in “God” but it turned out that no such being existed, your piety would have been “wasted”, but on the other hand, there would be neither reward nor damnation after death. Finally, if you were an atheist and it turned out you were right (i.e. there was no God), you would have simply lived your life for yourself and death would be final, as expected.

So, in a similar vein, let us assume for the sake of the argument, that support for both sides of the debate are equal, that there is a 50% chance that human activity does (or does not) cause climate change. That gives us the following four possibilities:

Action	A. If human activity causes climate change	B. If human activity doesn't cause climate change
1. Do nothing	Global disaster	No change
2. Do something (reduce CO2 emissions, etc.)	(Hopefully) disaster averted, or reduced	Pollution reduced Some unnecessary spending Some unnecessary fear

Thus, even if climatologists were more or less equally divided in their opinions, even if the evidence were truly inconclusive (not just the normal , scientific less-than-100% certainty), the relative consequences would be massively unequal. The two negatives, indicated in cells A1 and B2 above, are: nothing less than catastrophic on the one hand, and uncomfortable and inconvenient on the other.

I think the choice is clear.

The next three meetings (until 6 April)

• Mon 23 February. Topic: The significance of the wedding at Cana, in particular the role of Mary
• Mon 16 March
• Mon 6 April. Passover meal