Hard Questions Group

Is Christianity exclusive?

2009-06-18T18:51:00.008+10:00

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

2009-05-21T23:39:00.001+10:00

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

2009-04-18T16:38:00.001+10:00

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)

2009-03-04T08:45:00.006+11:00

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

Is Pascal's wager appropriate?

2009-02-28T11:59:00.002+11:00

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

2009-02-27T23:50:00.005+11:00

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)

2009-02-11T23:16:00.002+11:00

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

Visit to the Art Gallery

2008-11-06T12:44:00.001+11:00

Date: Wed 12 November 2008
Time: From 5.30pm
Place: Meet near the Information Desk, ground level
To see the Monet and the Impressionists exhibition

October meeting

2008-10-06T11:30:00.001+11:00

Date

Tuesday, 7 October 2008 7.30pm

Topic

Was Jesus really born of a virgin? Does it matter?

Who'll bring what

Arthur: mains 1
Wanda & Jonathan: mains 2: Greek salad
Bruce: wine
Geoff & Sue: dessert

My reflections on the HQG: past, present and future

2007-12-03T20:29:00.000+11:00

I originally joined the HQG because I wanted reassurance that it was OK to have questions, even doubts, about fundamental principles of the Christian faith. I didn't really expect that any of these questions would be answered definitively or once and for all, and nor has it happened. I can say, however, that while I still perceive some contradictions in my beliefs, I feel that I am a little closer to resolving them. I have struggled at times with the sense that my main motivation for wanting this group has been intellectual pride, and that I should just accept things more on faith without necessarily trying to understand them intellectually (1 Cor 3:18-19 "If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a 'fool' so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight."). On the other hand, I definitely don't believe that one should accept an idea only if the evidence and/or arguments for it are watertight. (In fact, this is impossible: if one rejects - or doesn't yet accept - a certain proposition, then by default an alternative one will be accepted, at least provisionally. In practice, there is no such thing as "pure agnoticism".)

I keep going to HQG partly for the same reason that I joined, and partly because of you other members. I get encouraged, not just by your words and ideas but by your lives, by your commitment to being Christ in this world and to each other.

Some ideas for the future:
I would like to map out our meetings (on a three-weekly cycle) preferably a year in advance. Of course, if something were to come up that made it impossible for one of us to attend, we would firstly try another day in the same week and then a week earlier or later. But such a one-off rescheduling would not affect the following meeting dates. I prefer a three-weekly (or possibly a fortnightly) frequency to a weekly one because I don't ever want to think to myself, "Oh no, it's HQG again!" and because meeting once a month might be a bit too infrequent. I also think three weeks is a good length of time for reflection on ideas between meetings.

As well as tackling some of the questions we haven't discussed yet (particularly the virgin birth and the sexism of the Bible and the church), I think it would be valuable to revisit some of the questions we've already discussed. I would like to start by revising what "answers" we came up with before (even taking notes) and then seeing if we have any new insights. Topics such as:

The authority of the Bible as the 'inspired Word of God'
The atonement
Hell
Free will
Other religions
The nature of Christian experience / putting God first in our daily lives

Piety, Study, Action [Cursillo]

2007-10-15T15:01:00.000+10:00

[Posted on behalf of Bruce]

I have scanned the "Cursillo Card" for the discussion part of their small group meetings. As discussed last time when Rod talked about personal accountability we thought we would give this a try and I will lead us through it.

The attached gives some questions to think about if you get a chance and remember we don't all need to respond to all of the questions - or indeed any.

PIETY: GROWING IN HOLINESS

"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection." - Philippians 3:10

What has helped me grow closer to Christ this week?

Uplifting experiences
Moments of challenge and struggle
Other special times

When have I been most aware of Christ's presence this week?

STUDY

"Be transformed by the renewing of your minds. so that you may discern what is the will of God." - Romans 12:2

What have I read, seen, heard or reflected upon this week that has helped me...

to grow closer to Christ
to understand His purpose for my life
to understand my environments so that they can effectively be transformed for Christ

Through...
Bible study, home groups, other study,
Spiritual books or magazines,
Audio-visual media,
Interactions with other people.

ACTION: SHARING YOUR FAITH

"Go therefore and make disciples... " - Matthew 28:19
"Just as the Son of Man came, not to be served but to... serve..." - Matthew 20:28

In which areas am I seeking to serve Christ?
Have I shared Christ's love with another this week?
What action did not work out as I had hoped or planned, and what have I learnt?
What action have I planned for this week?
What can we do to spread Christ's love?

[As a PDF]

A spectator's guide to world religions

2007-09-30T17:02:00.000+10:00

I've just posted a short review of this book (which Arthur and Annabel gave me) on my blog, "Some thoughts about...".

Meeting: Mon 1 Oct 2007

2007-09-26T23:27:00.000+10:00

7pm (for a meal)

Topic

"What ultimately, is each of our respective responses to the Cross? Do we see ourselves as believers? If so, how is that expressed in our daily lives?" (topic suggested by Rod)

Further explanation by Rod: "This is the natural follow-on from our recent sessions in which we have tried to understand precisely how the Cross may have be effective in 'saving' us. I raise this question because for me, there has been a major shift in how I see faith now, compared with how I saw faith when the group started. When the group started, I was probably at a point where I would have said that I was not sure if I was a believer. I had many doubts and questions about pretty much everything, including how the Cross could possibly be effective. I feel very differently now. The abiding hard question for me has become, "What is my response to the Cross, and how is that worked out my daily life?"

Who'll bring what

Bruce: mains (Beef Vindaloo)
Arthur: wine
Nina & Rod: accompaniment to mains
Wanda & Jonathan: dessert

Emotions

2007-08-15T09:49:00.000+10:00

Thanks for the discussion last night. Here are the bible quotations that I was reading from (which seem to indicate that the bible doesn't have a water-tight model of the distinctions between "heart", "spirit", "mind" and "soul" that many modern Christians have):

Lk 19:41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it.

Php 1:3 I thank my God every time I remember you.
1:4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy... 1:7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me. 1:8 God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.

Rom 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

"heart": 793 references - inc.

Mt 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Mt 6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Mt 9:2 ... Jesus ... said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."

Mt 13:15 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'
-- heart || understanding

Mt 22:37 Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."

Lk 24:32 They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"
-- heart (emotion) || spiritual conviction?

Rom 10:10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
-- heart || faith?

Gal 4:6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
-- heart || spirit?

Heb 10:15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 10:16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
-- heart || mind? obedience to God's will

1Jn 3:21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God ...
-- heart || conscience?

1Jn 5:10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart.
-- heart || faith?

"spirit": 533 references - inc.:

Ps 32:2 Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit.

Ps 34:18 The LORD is close to the broken-hearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.
-- spirit || emotions?

Ps 51:10 Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
-- spirit || heart?

Ps 51:12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
-- will || spirit?

Ps 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
-- spirit || heart?

Pro 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. 16:19 Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud.

Eccl 7:9 Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools.
-- spirit || emotions?

Lam 1:16 "This is why I weep and my eyes overflow with tears. No one is near to comfort me, no one to restore my spirit.

Mt 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Lk 1:46 And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord 1:47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour...
-- soul || spirit?

Jn 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Jn 11:33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 11:34 "Where have you laid him?" he asked.
"Come and see, Lord," they replied. 11:35 Jesus wept.
-- emotion || spirit?

Rom 8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
-- spirit || faith, conviction

1Cor 2:10b The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 2:12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 2:15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 2:16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
-- spirit || thinking?

1 Cor 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 14:15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
-- spirit is NOT mind?

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-- soul is NOT spirit?

Jas 2:26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
-- "spirit" = spark of life

Next meeting: Tue 14 Aug 2007

2007-08-13T09:23:00.000+10:00

Hi,

I hope everyone's remembered that the next meeting is tomorrow (Tuesday) night, 8pm?

I think the topic is still "TBA". So, unless someone has a counter-suggestion, I'd like to go with Arthur's idea to do a follow-up from Michael Corbett-Jones' talk at the men's breakfast on 28 July, "Real men don't cry". If it were to be expressed as a hard question, it might go something like this:

"We are often taught that we should not rely on emotions as a guide to our spiritual state, but isn't that unavoidable? After all, what else do we have to go on?"

Perhaps between now and tomorrow night, we could each think of some related questions, and maybe even some possible answers?

Cheers,
Jonathan

Three strands of faith

2007-07-22T10:35:00.000+10:00

In the last meeting (17 Jul 07), I mentioned how CS Lewis put forward the idea that the existence of God was supported by certain human phenomena, including the sense of the numinous and universal morality. Here is an abridged retelling of Lewis' argument, adapted from The Problem of Pain, chapter 1:

"If God were good, he would want to make his creatures perfectly happy.
And if God were almighty, he would be able to do whatever he wanted.
Therefore, God lacks either goodness ... or he lacks power ... or he lacks both."

This, in a nutshell, is the problem of suffering. Notice that it starts with God and the character of God. In other words, if I were an atheist - or only believed in an impersonal "life-force" type of god - suffering wouldn't be a problem, at least not philosophically.

Imagine asking an atheist "Why don't you believe in God?" and getting a reply like this:

"Look at the universe. The vast majority of it is virtually empty space. The stars, planets and other objects which move in this space are so few, and so small in comparison with the space itself, that, even if we knew that every planet was full of perfectly happy creatures, it would still be hard to believe that life and happiness were more than just a by-product of whatever made the universe.

"As yet, there is no evidence of life existing on any planet other than Earth. And Earth itself existed without life for millions of years and will probably exist for millions more after life has left it. And what is life like - while it lasts? It's arranged in such a way that all forms of it can only live by preying on one another. In the lower forms, this process only involves death, but in the higher forms, there is a quality called 'consciousness' that allows it to be accompanied by pain. The creatures cause pain by being born, and live by inflicting pain, and in pain they mostly die. In the most complex of all the creatures - human beings - still another quality appears, which we call 'reason'. This enables them to anticipate their own pain (which means that pain is preceded with acute mental suffering) and to anticipate their own death, even though they long for permanence. Reason also allows human beings, by building clever machines, to inflict a lot more pain than they otherwise could have on each another, and on other creatures, an ability they have exploited to the full. In fact, the history of human beings is mostly a record of crime, war, disease and terror, with just enough happiness intermingled to give them, while it lasts, a fear of losing it and, when it's lost, the poignant misery of remembering it.

"Every now and then humans improve their condition a little and what we call 'civilisation' appears. But all civilisations pass away and, even while they remain, they inflict peculiar sufferings of their own. No-one would dispute that this is true of our own, western civilisation; our civilisation will probably also pass away like all its predecessors. But, even if it doesn't, what then? The human race is doomed. All stories will come to nothing; all human life will turn out to have just been a transitory and senseless contortion on the idiotic face of matter.

"If you ask me to believe that this is the work of a kind and all-powerful spirit, I'd say that all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Either there is no spirit behind the universe, or else there's a spirit indifferent to good and evil, or else an evil spirit."

If the universe is that bad, or even half as bad as that, how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator? Perhaps people are foolish, but surely not that foolish. Thinking about the universe, as revealed by experience, and as described by our hypothetical atheist, can never have been the cause of religion; religion must have come from a different source, and held onto despite this experience.

In all developed religion we find three strands or elements, and in Christianity one more. The first of these is what is known as the experience of the Numinous. To explain what I mean by that, imagine that you were alone in a room and you were told "There is a tiger in the next room", what would you feel? Fear?

Now imagine you were told "There is a ghost in the next room", and you believed it, what would you feel? Fear, again? Yes, but it would be a different kind of fear. It wouldn't be based on the knowledge of danger, because after all you're not really afraid of what a ghost might do to you, but just because it's a ghost. It's "uncanny", rather than dangerous, and we can call the special kind of fear it produces, "dread".

So far, so good. Now imagine being told, "There's a mighty spirit in the room", and you believed it. Now your feelings would be even less like the mere fear of danger. You'd feel wonder, and a kind of shrinking - a sense of inadequacy to cope with such a visitor, as though you needed to surrender, prostrate, before it. We could describe this feeling as "awe" and the thing, or person, which excites it as "the Numinous".

Now, there's no doubt that humans, from a very long time ago, began to believe that the universe was haunted by spirits. We can't say that these spirits were always regarded with numinous awe. There could have been a time when people regarded these spirits just as dangerous, and felt towards them just as they felt about tigers. What we can say, however, is that the numinous experience exists now and that we can trace it back a long, long way.

The earliest people almost certainly believed in things which would excite this feeling in us if we believed in them, so it's likely that numinous awe is as old as humanity itself. But we needn't be too concerned about dates. The important thing is that, somehow or other, it has come into existence, is widespread, and has managed to survive the growth of knowledge and of civilisation.

Now this awe is not the result of an inference from the visible universe. You can't argue from mere danger to the uncanny, still less to the fully Numinous. You might say it seems very natural that early people, being surrounded by real dangers - and therefore frightened - should invent the uncanny and the Numinous. In a sense it is, but why? Does it seem natural because you share human nature with your remote ancestors, and you can imagine yourself reacting to danger, and solitude, in the same way? This reaction is certainly "natural" in the sense of being in tune with human nature. But it's not in the least "natural" in the sense that the idea of the uncanny or the Numinous is somehow contained in the idea of the dangerous. After all, how could being aware of danger, or the risk of injury and death, give the slightest inkling of ghostly dread or numinous awe to anyone who didn't already understand them? You see, when someone goes from physical fear to dread and awe, they make a sheer jump.

Most attempts to explain the Numinous actually presuppose it - as though it were in fact already explained, like when anthropologists say it comes from fear of the dead, without explaining why dead people (certainly the least dangerous kind of people!) should have attracted this peculiar feeling in the first place. No, dread and awe are in a different dimension to physical fear. They are like an interpretation of the universe, or maybe an impression of it. No factual description of any human environment could include the uncanny or the Numinous or even hint at them. It would be like trying to explain what we mean by 'beauty' to a creature with no aesthetic sense. There'd be no point listing the qualities of a beautiful object; that's not where the beauty resides. In the same way, the Numinous can't be found directly in physical world.

In fact, there seem to be only two views we can hold about numinous awe: Either it's just a twist of the human mind, corresponding to nothing objective and serving no biological purpose (yet, strangely, showing no tendency to disappear from the human mind, especially in poets, philosophers and saints). Or else, it's a direct experience of the supernatural, in which case it should really be called "revelation".

It's time to make an important distinction: The Numinous is not the same as the Good (in a moral sense), and someone overwhelmed by awe is likely, if left to themselves, to think that what they're in awe of, is "beyond good and evil". This brings us to the second strand or element in religion: Everyone, throughout history and today, acknowledges some kind of morality. In other words, when someone thinks about certain proposed actions, they experience something which can either be expressed by the words "I should" or "I shouldn't". This experience is like awe in one way, because you can't deduce it logically from the environment or your physical experiences. You can shuffle "I want to..." and "I am forced to..." and "It would be a good idea if I..." and "I dare not..." as long as you like without getting out of them the slightest hint of "should" or "shouldn't".

Morality, like numinous awe, is a sheer jump; it goes beyond anything that can be "given" in the facts of experience. And it has one characteristic that's too remarkable to be ignored, and that is this: Moral codes may differ from culture to culture - although fundamentally not nearly as much as is often claimed - but they all agree in one thing: they prescribe behaviour that even their adherents fail to practise. In other words, all people stand condemned, not by an external moral code, but by their own, and therefore all people are conscious of guilt.

So, the second element in religion is the consciousness, not just of a moral law, but of a moral law that is at the same time approved and yet disobeyed. This consciousness is not an inference from the facts of experience; if we didn't bring it to our experience, we wouldn't be able to find it there. It's either an illusion that can't be explained, or else - again - revelation.

The moral experience and the numinous experience are so far from being the same that they can exist for quite long periods of time without making any contact. In many forms of Paganism, the worship of the gods and the ethical discussions of the philosophers had very little to do with each other. A particular stage in religious development occurs when people bring these two stands together: when the numinous power they feel awe towards, is made the guardian of the morality they feel obliged to keep. Once again, this can seem very "natural" to us. What could be more natural than for an ancient man, say, haunted by awe and by guilt, to think that the power that awes him is the authority that condemns his guilt? And indeed it is natural to humanity. But it's not at all obvious. The actual behaviour of the universe that the Numinous seems to haunt, is nothing like the behaviour that morality demands of us. After all, the universe seems wasteful, ruthless and unjust; but morality expects exactly the opposite qualities of us.

Well, how did the Numinous and morality come together in religion? Is it a kind of wish fulfilment? Hardly. After all, whose wishes does it fulfil? Why would anyone want the Law, whose authority is already unsupportable, armed with the incalculable claims of the Numinous? Of all the jumps that humanity has taken in its religious history, this is definitely the most surprising. It is not unnatural that many sections of the human race refused it; non-moral religion and non-religious morality existed, and still exist.

A third strand, or element in religion is an event in history. There was a man, a Jew, who claimed to be, or to be the son of, or to be "one with", the Something who is both the numinous haunter of the universe and the giver of the moral law. This claim is so shocking - a paradox, or even a horror, which we can easily be lulled into taking too lightly - that only three views of this man are possible. Either he was a raving lunatic, or he was a dangerous liar, or else he was, and is, exactly who he said he was. There's no fourth way. If the evidence shows that the first two possibilities are unacceptable, you must agree with the last. And if you do that, everything else that is claimed by Christians becomes credible: that this man was killed, and yet was brought to life again, that his death and resurrection - in some way that we can never really comprehend - has brought about a real change to our relationship with this "awesome" and "righteous" God, a change in our favour.

If we ask whether the universe as we see it looks like the work of a wise and good Creator or like the outcome of chance, indifference, or malevolence, we are leaving out from the very start all the relevant factors in the religious problem. Christianity is not the conclusion of some philosophical debate on the origins of the universe; it's a catastrophic, historical event following the long spiritual preparation of humanity that I have already described. It's not a system into which we have to fit the awkward fact of suffering; it is, itself, one of the awkward facts which have to be fitted into any system we make. In a way, it creates, rather than solves, the problem of suffering. Because, as I said at the beginning, suffering wouldn't be a problem unless, side by side with our daily experience of a world full of suffering, we had received what we believe to be a good assurance that ultimate reality is righteous and loving.

There's nothing that forces us to accept this assurance. Humanity may rebel at any and every stage of religious development. This might be against human nature, but not against logic. You can close their eyes against the Numinous - if you are prepared to part company with half the great poets and prophets, with your own childhood, and with the richness and depth of uninhibited experience. You could think of the moral law as an illusion, and so cut yourself off from the common ground of humanity. You could refuse to identify the Numinous with the righteous, and end up worshipping your own sexuality ... or the dead ... or the life-force ... or the future. But the cost is great.

And when we come to the last step of all, the historical Incarnation, the assurance - that ultimate reality is righteous and loving - is strongest of all. The story of God becoming human in Jesus Christ is strangely like many myths which have haunted religion from the very beginning; and yet in a significant way, it is not like them. It's not something we could have invented for ourselves. It doesn't have the suspiciously easy clarity of Pantheism ("everything is God") or of Newtonian physics ("to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"). Instead, it has the seemingly arbitrary and strange character which modern science tells us we must put up with in this willful universe - where energy is made up of little parcels of a quantity no one could predict, where speed is not unlimited and where subatomic particles are described by probabilities, not certainties. So, if any message were to reach us from the core of reality, what kind of message should we expect to find? I think we should expect just that unexpectedness, that dramatic willfulness that we find in the Christian faith. It has the master touch - the rough, strong taste of reality, not made by us, or, indeed, for us, but hitting us in the face.

Questions yet to be discussed

2007-07-21T18:53:00.000+10:00

Was Jesus really born of a virgin? Does it matter?
Is homosexuality wrong and/or a disease?
Why is the universe the way it is (e.g. unimaginably vast and mostly empty)?
God is described as 'the Father'; Jesus was a man; the twelve disciples were all men... Why does Christianity seem to be so weighted towards the male?
Would the existence of extra-terrestrial life be inconsistent with the Bible?

Questions already discussed

2007-07-21T18:48:00.000+10:00

(but which may warrant revisiting)

What does it mean to say that the Bible is the 'inspired Word of God', especially when the prejudices and preoccupations of its writers are so prominent and parts of it seem to contradict other parts?
Why was Jesus' death and resurrection necessary and sufficient to forgive and save us? Couldn't God forgive us without them?
What is damnation and why would God inflict this upon any of His creatures? [Read Notes & quotes from The Problem of Pain : Ch. 8 : Hell]
What is in store (after this life) for devout adherents of other religions?
If it could be proven that a story in the Bible never actually happened (e.g. The Flood), would that diminish the authority of the Bible?
Could capital punishment ever be right? [Read email discussion]
Attending church - (Arthur's suggestion) - "I think it would be worth discussing what sort of gatherings a Christian person might find helpful. For me it would also be helpful to know how several of you see your relationship with Kincumber Anglican Church." [Read email discussion]
Is it valid to say "all religions are basically the same"? [Read Jonathan's short article]
"The nature of Christian experience" [Read email discussion]
Putting God first - (Bruce's suggestion) - "If we're looking for a really hard question then it might be around making
God first in our lives. If I were honest I'd have to say He is a high priority, but I don't think I'm there yet. Trust and obey still doesn't mean 'First'." [Read emails]
How can free will exist?
Are any subjects off-limits to a Christian artist or writer?

Are all religions essentially the same?

2007-07-21T18:37:00.000+10:00

Recently, a friend surprised me by saying that she no longer identified herself as a 'Christian'. She still prayed, she said, but no longer held the belief that there was only "one path to God". This got me thinking... despite the appeal of such inclusivism, is this really a more enlightened approach to religion? And on what basis can Christianity claim to be true, to be a religion worth following?

"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." This statement, attributed to the Dalai Lama, would probably find broad support in contemporary society. If everyone would just recognise that all religions are essentially the same, the argument goes, there would be no need for sectarian violence and hatred. It is certainly an appealing proposition. Saying to someone else, "My religion is right, but yours is wrong" seems akin to saying, "My culture and my way of life are better than yours." But are they the same thing? Language, culture, ethics and religion are so intertwined in everyday life that we may be tempted to regard them as inseparable. The Dalai Lama quote referred to one aspect of religion, one that is central to Buddhism: namely how we should live (including our attitudes). But religion is generally more than just a user-guide to life.

So, before we examine the question, "Are all religions equally valid?" we need to know just what it is that religions 'do'.

All religions claim to have answers to certain kinds of questions, or at least to provide insight into them. Almost by definition, such questions have no scientifically verifiable answers. ¹

Although there are many such questions, they seem to group themselves into the following three areas:

What is the nature of existence? Including: "How did the universe (and we) come to be?" and "Do I have a soul (or mind), or am I just matter?"
Is there life after death? If so, what form does it take? And is there anything I can do to affect the kind of afterlife I will have - i.e. to make it enjoyable?
Is there a universal moral code? (Or, at least one for all of those in my 'society'?) If so, on what - if anything - is it based: internal factors (e.g. survival of the species, the greatest happiness for the greatest number) or external factors (e.g. to please God, to be more like God)?

So, let us return to the task of comparing religions. It seems there are, at most, four basic options:

Only one religion is right; all others are wrong
One religion has the truest and most complete set of answers; other religions differ in how close they come to the complete truth ²
All religions are 'right', or equally valid; no religion is superior to any other (in terms of answering questions that have no scientifically verifiable answers)
All religions are equally meaningless, because such questions are fundamentally unanswerable (otherwise known as agnosticism)

It may seem that I have omitted one option: "All religions are equally wrong, because nothings exists apart from matter" (otherwise known as atheism). However, atheism is actually a specific form of A (dogmatic exclusivism).

So, what would happen if C ("all religions are equally valid") were correct? Consider two religions that answer the same question (such as, "Is there one supreme being who created everything?") in two contradictory ways ("yes" and "no"). Regardless of the question, regardless of whether an answer to it could ever be proved or disproved, the statement "X is true and X is false" must always be false (because it is fundamentally false).

Imagine I have flipped a coin in a locked room and you are outside that room. You could either say:

"I believe it is Heads", or
"I believe it is Tails", or
"I don't know whether it is Heads or Tails", or
"I don't care whether it is Heads or Tails"

... but it would be absurd and meaningless to say, "I believe it is Heads and it is Tails." ³

Those who claim to believe C ("all religions are equally valid") are really adhering to D ("all religions are meaningless": agnosticism), because their real answer to a specific question (e.g. "Does God exist?") is not "I don't know", but rather "I don't care." Option D supposes that it is possible to not make a decision of belief, whereas the most we can do is postpone a final decision. In the meantime, we are in effect saying, "Until more evidence comes to light, I will act as though such-and-such were true." This is our 'default' position.

There is a principle in science, known as "Occam's Razor". In its simplest form, this principle states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. In other words, when you have two competing theories, which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the best to follow. So, given that there is quite compelling evidence that the universe has not existed forever, which of the following is the simpler explanation for how it came to be?

It was created by a supreme being ("God").
It came into existence spontaneously.

Although the first seems to be a 'black box' theory - passing the burden of explanation onto a statement that defies further examination - the second is not much better. It says, in effect, "That's just the way things are." Yet many scientists - even if they do not state it explicitly - operate as though this were a 'given'. This is their 'meta-assumption': their assumption about which is the best assumption.

But, does it really matter? After all, it is often said that following a religion, regardless of its specific doctrines or principles, can be worthwhile, because of what it offers the believer, such as peace of mind and a sense of purpose in life. This is even presented by many believers as the primary motivation for their faith. But, if such benefits were built on nothing more than a delusion, it would be like someone taking a poisonous drug because it makes them happy right now. But if God is really God, and grace is real, my present "peace of mind", or lack of it, is surely a side issue. The real issue is: "In which direction shall I point my life?" or "To what, or whom, shall I pledge my allegiance?"

Notes:

^ return
Of course some religions - or the fundamentalist varieties of some religions - claim to have answers to other kinds of questions as well, even if they come into direct conflict with scientific evidence. But that is not our concern here.
^ return
We could divide options A and B further, according to whether or not we believe that we know which is the 'right' religion.
^ return
Actually, quantum physics says that, at a sub-atomic level, such contradictions do take place: e.g. a photon can be said to have travelled along two distinct paths simultaneously. However these do not occur at the 'macroscopic' level (molecules, drops of water, human beings, planets, galaxies, and beyond).

Check out these URLs:

Which religion is the right one for you? (quiz)
Which religion is right? What is the difference?
All religions are much the same
Religious Tolerance.org
Which is the Right Religion?
Is There a God?
I suppose you think your religion is right and all others are wrong.
Is thinking your religion is "right" and the others are "wrong" intolerant? (online discussion)
... and the one with the most amazing title, and from which the Dalai Lama quote was drawn ...
Super Models Pick the Best Religion For You!!!

Notes & quotes from The Problem of Pain, by CS Lewis

2007-07-21T18:35:00.000+10:00

From Chapter 8: Hell

There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, If it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, specially of our Lord's own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason. If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If the happiness of a creature lies in self-surrender, no one can make that surrender but himself (though many can help him to make it).

1. Retributive punishment is barbaric.
All punishment becomes unjust if the ideas of ill-desert and retribution were removed from it ...
Picture ... a man ... without a care in the world, unshakably confident to the very end that he alone has found the answer to the riddle of life, that God and man are fools who he has gotten the better of, that his way of life is utterly successful, satisfactory, unassailable. ... Supposing he will not be converted, what destiny in the eternal world can you regard as proper for him? Can you really desire that such a man, remaining what he is (and he must be able to do that if he has free will) should be confirmed forever in his present happiness ...? You are moved not by a desire for the wretched creature's pain as such, but by a truly ethical demand that, soon or late, the right should be asserted, the flag planted in this horribly rebellious soul, even if no fuller and better conquest is to follow. ...
... though Our Lord often speaks of hell as a sentence inflicted by a tribunal, He also says elsewhere that the judgement consists in the very fact that men prefer darkness to light ... We are therefore at liberty ... to think of this bad man's perdition not as a sentence imposed on him but as the mere fact of being what he is. ... Our imaginary egoist has tried to turn everything he meets into a province or appendage of the self. [In death] he has his wish - to live wholly in the self and to make the best of what he finds there. And what he finds there is hell.

2. The apparent disproportion between eternal damnation and transitory sin
(Death ought not to be final; there ought to be a second chance.)
If a million chances were likely to do good, they would be given. Finality must come some time, and it does not require a very robust faith to believe that omniscience knows when.

3. The frightful intensity of the pains of hell
Our Lord speaks of Hell under three symbols: ... punishment ... destruction ... banishment. The prevalent image of fire is significant because it combines the ideas of torment and destruction. ... If soul can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul? ... To enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being in earth; to enter hell is to be banished from humanity. What is cast (or casts itself) into hell is not man: it is "remains".

4. How could we be blessed in heaven while we knew that even one human soul was still in hell? (Are we more merciful than God?)
At the back of this objection lies the mental picture of heaven and hell co-existing in unilinear time. ... But ... Our Lord, while stressing the terror of hell with unsparing severity, usually emphasises the idea not of duration but of finality. ... We know much more about heaven than hell, for heaven is the home of humanity and therefore contains all that is implied in a glorified human life; but hell was not made for men. It is no sense parallel to heaven; it is "the darkness outside"...

5. The ultimate loss of a single soul means the defeat of omnipotence.
And so it does. In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. ... I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. [The damned] enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.

The nature of Christian experience

2007-07-21T18:33:00.000+10:00

From: Jonathan
Date: 22 July 2006 5:31 PM

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking about this Monday's meeting and the discussion topic. Since we are the Hard Questions Group, I suppose we could turn the topic into "What do we mean by 'The Christian experience'?".

I thought it might help get us started if this rather general question got 'teased out' a bit. So, here are a few "sub-questions" to think about (some of which are me playing the devil's advocate):

It's often said that we shouldn't rely on our emotions to determine our spiritual state, but is that really possible?
People who have taken certain drugs have reported effects indistinguishable from mystical, spiritual experiences. So, is Christianity (or religion in general) just a "natural high"?
Christians often talk about "joy" and "peace" in the Lord; what are they but emotions (which can be changed by slightly altering the mix of chemicals in our brain)?

Bring your thoughts on these, and perhaps some of your own sub-questions, to the group on Monday.

See you then.

Cheers,
Jonathan

From: Arthur
Date: 22 July 2006 8:30 PM

Jonathan,

I suppose what you are wrestling with is the fine line between the nature of general religious experience and what is genuinely Christian experience of the true God who made heaven and earth, whose Son is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Best example of this is that speaking in tongues is an experience not limited to Christians!

Regards

Arthur

From: Jonathan
Date: 22 July 2006 11:36 PM

Hi Arthur,

That's partly it. But I'm also thinking of experiences or emotional states that don't even claim to be based on anything more than chemicals and brain impulses, but which can be indistinguishable from the "real thing".

And, yes, speaking in tongues is usually associated with heightened emotion, but that doesn't mean it has to be (i.e. by definition). Also, heightened emotional states don't necessarily involve anything as "spectacular" as tongues.

But you're right: the real issue is - what does it mean to say that we have an experience of the one true God, who made heaven and earth and whose Son is the Lord Jesus Christ?

Regards,
Jonathan

From: Jonathan
Date: 25 July 2006 7:21 PM

Dear hard questioners,

It was a shame that Wanda, Arthur and Bruce were unable to attend last night but it was a fruitful discussion nevertheless. Here are some of my recollections of the evening, plus some additional thoughts.
(Lorna, Rod & Nina: if you believe I've misrepresented you in any way, or missed out something important, please reply to the group.)

First of all, I read out the emails of the past few days (two from me and one from Arthur), plus one from a good friend of ours, George (to whom Wanda mentioned a few days ago that we were going to be discussing this topic). George is not a Christian but regards himself as "spiritual". His beliefs have a lot in common with a number of eastern religions.

He writes:

"In order to respond appropriately to life-situations (this is what I understand by being in a state of grace) the right blend of intellect and emotion is necessary. (This I believe is the proper meaning of intuition.)

"Therefore, while it is true that we shouldn't rely on emotion alone, emotion is a necessary component of our consciousness. Some drugs force the release of certain chemicals, which are released naturally in joy and peace states; the difference is that while drugs give us 'unearned' blissful states, and therefore drug experiences are often followed by feelings of depression and emptiness, spiritual 'highs' (i.e. divine grace) are a natural result of love, devotion and surrender, and are therefore free of negative reaction.

"Belief in God is an advantage as this belief provides a focus for these sentiments, but it can also be a hindrance if our idea of God is sectarian and divisive. This is why there many people who profess atheism when they are in fact great devotees of love, truth etc. (divine attributes) while conversely some so-called religious people have little real spiritual understanding."

(George's reference to faith possibly being a hindrance "if our idea of God is sectarian and divisive" is interesting in the light of our discussion at the last meeting, about the appealing but misguided view that all religions are essentially the same.)

Not surprisingly, what arose from our discussion were not definitive answers but more questions, plus some suggestions and, hopefully, insights:

Do we seek joy/bliss/transcendence (as with many eastern religions) or do we seek Truth (i.e. God) and let joy etc follow - to a greater or lesser extent - as a result? (Rod)

Nina disputed that joy is really an emotion; she believes it is more an orientation. However, Lorna disagreed. Perhaps it is a bit of both, or maybe one word is inadequate.

Do we make decisions based on reason or emotion? Lorna said that she will creates lists of pros and cons but in the end will make a decision based on gut instinct. Rod said that gut instinct can often be our moral compass. Although I didn't say it in the meeting, I've been thinking about how reason and emotion work within me. My best description is an image of an ever-widening spiral:

As the spiral widens, my sense of 'certainty' increases.

Accessing feelings can be very difficult., perhaps because we've learnt over many years to suppress them. Often feelings are best accessed indirectly, through symbols (or 'resonant sensations'). This is why religious paraphernalia (such as candles, incense, music etc.) can sometimes be helpful.

We can find peace with God only when we are 'broken'. Again, although I didn't say it in the meeting, I've been thinking about this some more. I imagine myself going for a job interview at God Inc.:
God: So, what strengths can you bring to the company?
Me: Absolutely none, I'm afraid.
God: That's what I hoped you'd say.

Regarding a date for the next meeting, I reckon the sooner the better (especially since three of us missed out). Mondays and Tuesdays are probably best for us, but other days could be possible, too.

Regards,
Jonathan

From: Rod
Date: 27 July 2006 8:12 PM

Dear all,

May I echo Jonathan's recommendation that we aim to regroup ASAP, especially bearing in mind how many missed out the other day. I hope Wanda you are feeling better, and that parish issues have settled for Arthur (and his wise counsel Bruce).

I was appreciative of Jonathan instigating an interesting discussion on Monday. I have certainly never been in a home group meeting before where this topic has been discussed.

Jonathan states: Rod said that gut instinct can often be our moral compass.

That is not quite what I said (or at least what I meant!), rather I reflected that my decisions are often ultimately based on feelings, rather than what is entirely rational. This led to some discussion about the Myers-Briggs personality analysis, and the fact that as individuals, we process information and make decisions based on a range of personal differences (eg I am an INFJ, so my natural tendancy is to Feel rather than Think). The benefit of analyses such as the Myers-Briggs test is that by understanding better what my natural tendancies are, I can better recognise when those natural tendancies are in fact limiting my responses. For me, then, having an "F" tendancy, it is worth my while taking time to Think a bit before concluding my response to an important decision. (In my legal work, I find most clients also tend to rely heavily on their feelings, and I am often able to assist them to look at their circumstances with some rationality by firstly tapping into their feelings).

In relation to faith and feelings, for me being an "F" means that feelings have always been integral to my faith. Some of the highest points in my spiritual journey have been occasioned by a deep sense of joy and peace. BTW, those concepts, to me, encompass all of my being, so that when I am at peace, I am at peace in both my feelings and thoughts. On the other hand, I need to be careful that I do not rely too much on my feelings as a measure of the health of my faith journey.

I think (and feel) that Jonathan's picture is great, because it perhaps captures the importance of us drawing upon BOTH reason and emotion, and not discarding either (both of which, incidently, are given to us by God as a guide).

Nina and I have various things on in the coming weeks...... I suggest perhaps Arthur nominates a few dates, and we work from there??? I know for sure than 7/8, 8/8 and 11/8 are out for me.

Regards,
Rod

The ideal church

2007-07-21T18:32:00.001+10:00

From: Jonathan
Date: 12/02/2006 7:32 PM

The characteristics I would expect an "ideal church" to have:

Trust: being able to trust others and to be trusted
A sense of belonging
Involvement (more than just being on a "job roster")
Personal encouragement
Transcendence: a sense that there is something far bigger than myself
Fresh insights -- on spiritual issues and life in general
A sense of meaning
Soulfulness (as per the writings of Thomas Moore)
A sense of joy (as per the writings of C.S. Lewis)
Simplicity: getting back to the "essence of things" (In other words, I don't usually go for "religious theatre", unless it's done very well, usually in the context of a VERY large gathering.)

From: Arthur
Date: 12/02/2006 9:27 PM

At the conference on Wednesday the speaker, Martin Robinson from England, gave us a list which was just about an answer to your question. He believes that the emerging church will have [the following characteristics]:

Value authentic community
Sustainable spirituality (as opposed to instant fixes)
Small is beautiful (as in small group is essential)
Congregations are needed as an additional blessing
Celebration events have value
Creative experiment leading to ministry, mobilisation and movement (which in the end will change society)

Putting God first

2007-07-21T18:29:00.000+10:00

From: Bruce
Date: 04/01/06 07:42 AM (& 09:09 AM)

This was the piece I mentioned the other night.

If you're like me you have heard Martin Luther King Junior's words "I have been to the mountaintop."

I had assumed he gave that speech and was then assassinated. I have recently read the full final stanza (well actually I now see there is something left out in my source) of that speech, which was the last one he gave, the night before he was assassinated. It is powerful, but mostly because of what it says about his faith in God and His plan. It was clearly a deliberate invocation of Moses and what he had done for his people. And like Moses, having seen the promised land he didn't enter it.

"And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?

"I don't know what will happen to me now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter to me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. I won't mind. Like anybody else, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over and I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I'm happy tonight ....I'm not fearing any man. 'Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord'".

Clearly he died happy.

If we're looking for a really hard question then it might be around making God first in our lives. If I were honest I'd have to say He is a high priority, but I don't think I'm there yet. Trust and obey still doesn't mean "First".

(I know I fall short of even King's obedience as "Trust and Obey" is still not necessarily being where Abraham was with Isaac.)

And here is a weblink to the whole address.

www.afscme.org/about/kingspch.htm

From: Nina
Date: 04/01/06 09:16 AM

Bruce said
> Now a really difficult question that we touched on Monday would be putting God first.< ... and one that is not unrelated to the church question. Let's put that one on 'the list'. I really enjoyed the discussion on Monday night. Thanks everyone

From: Wanda
Date: 04/01/06 5:27 PM

Thanks Bruce for sending on the extremely inspirational words of Martin Luther King Jnr. It does seem that we are compelled to make sacrifices for our faith but the question I guess we are asking is, how far are we prepared to go? In other words, how seriously do we really take it?

I think I still have a long way to go in regards to this & am willing to be challenged on it.

Capital punishment

2007-07-21T18:25:00.000+10:00

From: Bruce
Date: 07/12/2005 08:07 AM

Arthur,

I've been thinking some more about the woman caught in adultery as we discussed last night. I wonder whether we can extend the metaphor still further. (Maybe this is what you meant.)

When Christ says, "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone" (apart from the Mary joke*), He was the only one who could have cast the stone. In a forerunner of what was to come, by grace He says to her, "Neither will I." It doesn't change the fact that the wages of sin is death, and He tells her to stop sinning. But He was to go on and pay that price once for all.

So in the Death Penalty debate does it all fall back to only God has the right to take life from us?

An interesting follow-on question on the death penalty is what will happen to the executioner? Has he sinned in giving to Caesar what is Caesar's? Can he use the Nuremberg defence ("I was only following orders")?

From: Lorna
Date: 07/12/2005 11:06 AM

Dear Bruce,

These are interesting ideas. I think that Jesus did take the wrap for us all and, in that case, the decision is God's, not ours. Also, by not implementing the death penalty the perpetrator of the crime has the chance, through God's Grace, to mend his ways and not sin again, and to also make amends to the victim or victim's family; this we know occurs rather less that one would like, but should the opportunity to do this be taken away prematurely by execution?

I know in times past that an executioner always asked to be forgiven by the criminal in advance of the deed. He (the executioner) obviously thought that he was, in a strange sort of way, committing an offence against God and God's child on earth. The other thought about following orders is rather more difficult - if, in the case of war crimes, a soldier is following orders does his superior officer take the rap? Events in Iraq (Abu Graib prison etc.) would suggest that in today's society we are all responsible for our own actions - but is the sentence harsher on the boss? Also in the same vein, although most western cultures do not agree that a president (USA excluded) or a reigning monarch actually pulling the strings is God's anointed on earth, there are still some that do. This may be particularly so in other cultures as well; in this case the chain of command might be said to begin at the top and not to follow orders is considered, by extension, to be a crime against God. What do you think?

Cheers! Lorna

From: Arthur
Date: 07/12/2005 01:55 PM

Bruce,

I do think that only God has the right to take or authorise the taking of life. So that what happened in the OT was that God authorised the taking of life under certain circumstances in a theocratic society. I do not think that that applies to us.

More than that, Jesus has died in our place - exactly as you say.

As to the executioner - well I think that explains stoning. In stoning the whole community is the executioner, not one individual. I am not sure what to make of executioners.

Regards
Arthur

From: Bruce
Date: 13/12/2005 08:19 AM

Lorna,

Thanks for your reply.

As I think I have shared before, I have struggled with the issue of forgiveness after my niece's murder and think I have finally resolved the issue around the idea that I must stand ready to forgive, but they have to seek it. There is in fact no point in me forgiving someone who won't acknowledge their wrongdoing.

As far as the issue of "making amends", I actually don't believe this needs to go beyond the acknowledgement of the sin and seeking forgiveness for it. To me it is not a matter of victim compensation, for in reality it is often impossible ,in the case of these so called capital crimes, to restore things to the way they were had the crime not been committed. Similarly, there is a difficulty in the case of Van Nguyen in amending things, since the victims of this crime were prospective and anonymous. What matters is being right with God, and if the prospect of imminent death does not focus the criminal's mind on that necessity I'm not sure that time will either. None of this should be seen as an argument in favour of capital punishment however, since I think that the right to take life does not reside with any human being.

But that still leaves us with the issue of the culpability, if any, of the executioner. I think that they are operating within the earthly framework of the legal authority in their country and under the judicial system. As such they are just instruments in the process and therefore they are forgiven all of their sins if they seek that.

Although it is no longer the popular concept, all earthly authority is ordained by God for his purposes. The Old Testament is replete with bad Kings who nevertheless fulfilled God's purpose. After all it was God who hardened Pharaoh's heart in the face of the plagues, so that when he brought the Hebrews up out of Egypt it was clear that they were the chosen people.

But now for the really curly question: If we follow this logic all the way back up the chain of command, isn't each execution ordained by God for some purpose? If not, where in the chain did free will enter and short-circuit this?

The wages of sin is still death, and only Jesus sets us free from that. Ironically, if what we hear about Van Nguyen is right, even though he was hanged, he has been freed from death.

From: Lorna
Date: 13/12/2005 09:03 AM

Dear Bruce,

By making amends I do not mean compensation, I mean saying sorry for a start and, as you say, acknowledging that a sin hs been committed and seeking forgiveness for it. For the rest I'll have a think about it.

Cheers! Lorna

From: Nina
Date: 31/12/2005 04:33 PM

I have (finally) had some time to look at the HQG website and found the email discussion really interesting. I wish we had been there on the night. What caught my interest was the question of the culpability of the executioner. I was interested to read in an article recently that The American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association specifically prohibit their members from any involvement in capital punishment, including monitoring vital signs and pronouncing death (this doesn't stop some members from participating in lethal injection and they have not as yet been disciplined for doing so!?). Clearly for these professional bodies, at least in theory, the executioner is culpable.

On a slightly different tack, I saw the short for Joyeaux Noël at the movies recently. It retells the story of WWI soldiers calling truce for christmas. Apparently (sorry Lorna my mod. history is sketchy at best) the battle was abandoned when the soldiers who had shared christmas dinner together refused to shoot at one another. I guess the question of the executioner reminded me of that if everyone refuses to do the killing then no-one has to die. Might be worth a look.

Happy New Year everyone
Nina

From: Arthur
Date: 31/12/2005 04:46 PM

My understanding is that at the Christmas peace in WW1 the generals had to move all the troops away from the spots they had been in because they were not prepared to shoot at people they had become friendly with.

[* A supposedly "Roman Catholic" joke:
Jesus says, "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone" then, moments later, "Mother, put that stone down!"]