The Bible's Story

The Bible has come a long way. In the latest issue of Case Quarterly which is published by CASE we look at the 'journey' that took place to arrive at the Bible as we know it today.

In the beginning was the Word, but it took a while for the hundreds of thousands of words in the Bible to be composed, written down, painstakingly copied, preserved, passed around, tested, accepted, collected together, bound into book form and translated to give us the Bibles we have available to us today. 

Its use, status, standing and influence have waxed and waned across the centuries. The Bible was once trusted and read far more widely in Western society than it is today. It has been a book of great significance in shaping thought, the arts, literature, systems of government and so on. English literature and art alone are difficult to fully appreciate and understand without knowledge of the Bible. As Marilyn Robinson writes:

The Bible is the model for and subject of more art and thought than those of us who live within its influence, consciously or unconsciously, will ever know. Literatures are self-referential by nature, and even when references to Scripture in contemporary fiction and poetry are no more than ornamental or rhetorical—indeed, even when they are unintentional—they are still a natural consequence of the persistence of a powerful literary tradition.[1]

But while it is generally believed to be the most published, distributed, read, and influential book in history, it is being increasingly sidelined—even by Christians. Some estimates suggest that as few as 20% of Christians read the Bible regularly.^[2] There are many possible reasons for the reduction in the importance of the Bible as part of daily life, including crowded lives, competing philosophies, and challenges from science. Some have lost faith in the Bible as a reliable book and struggle to see it as relevant.

It isn't possible in a quarterly magazine but in Issue 42 we consider a number. JamesPietsch in his article on the relationship between critical thinking and Christianity, addresses the importance of facing such doubts about the Bible and challenging them head on as we persevere in the faith.

One approach to restoring confidence in the Bible is to combat the ignorance that exists, even within the church, about the Bible: Where did it come from? Is it genuine? Who wrote it and when? How early and reliable are the oldest copies? How consistent is it with other sources from antiquity? Why are there so many different versions? Is there any coherent unity to its diverse elements? This issue of Case aims to shed a little light on some of these issues as it explores the Bible’s story.

Dr Andrew Shead

Andrew Shead addresses the question of the biblical canon: How and why did various texts come to be included in or excluded from the Bible over the centuries? Staying with history, archaeologist Karin Sowada looks at what archaeology can—and cannot—tell us about the people, places and events recorded in the Bible’s pages.

Turning to the story within the Bible’s pages, David Höhne examines the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. He concludes that the writers of the Bible shared the understanding that they were writing different chapters of a single unified metanarrative: the story of God’s love for the world he had created, and the salvation of his lost people through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We have also included brief accounts of the holy books of the other two great Abrahamic faiths—Judaism and Islam. Old Testament scholar, George Athas, explains what constitutes the Jewish Tanakh, and how it relates to the Old Testament and other sacred Jewish texts, such as the Talmud and Mishnah. Samuel Green from ‘Engaging with Islam’[3] does the same for Islamic texts, explaining the origins, nature and structure of the Qur’an, and its relationship with the Christian Bible.

Our ‘Books and Ideas’ segment also includes a review and excerpt of Into the World of the New Testament, providing Bible readers with background knowledge of the context in which Jesus lived and the New Testament was written. The excerpt examines the different strands of religious thought around at the time of Jesus, including the Pharisees, Sadducees and Samaritans. The segment closes with a review of a collection of writings by previous Case author, Edwin Judge: Engaging Rome and Jerusalem.

If you subscribe to Case Quarterly you should have your copy already. If you don't you can purchase single copies HERE or subscribe for just $55 per year.

---

[1] M. Robinson, ‘The Book of Books: What Literature Owes the Bible’, New York Times, 22 December 2011. Retrieved 30 July 2015.

[2] GSI Report, NCLS 2006, February 2011; P. Hughes, & C. Pickering, Milk to Meat Bible Engagement Report (milktomeat.com.au, 2010); and Bible Engagement among Young Australians: Patterns and Social Drivers, unpublished research report initiated by the Bible Society and other partners.

[3] S. Green, ‘Engaging with Islam’, http://engagingwithislam.org/.

21st Century Apologetics

Do we need new apologetics for the 21st Century? For many Christians, apologetics feels like an approach suited to an earlier century. A time when people in western nations had at least some biblical knowledge, and accepted the Bible as a book capable of providing evidence and opening up debate. But we can no longer presume an accepted view of the trustworthiness of the Bible. Today if you begin to ‘give an answer (for the) reason for the hope that you have’ (1 Peter 3:15) by quoting the Bible, it might just lead to the immediate query, ‘but where’s your evidence’? However, the need to give answers is still the same, and so are the deep needs of people. We must provide answers to questions about the Bible and Christianity.

 Part of the challenge for Christians is that while some of the questions asked are timeless (e.g. why is there suffering, how can a good God allow such and such?), many questions spring from developments that have occurred since the biblical texts were written. For example, the theory of evolution, the ability to enable conception, medical manipulation of life, or being able to identify deformities within the womb. There is always the potential for new theories, discoveries, or ideologies to conflict with (or appear to conflict with) established Christian understandings of the Bible and theology.

The intellectual context in which Christians strive to stand firm and hold out the word of life is constantly changing. This means that at least some of the stumbling blocks to Christian faith will be different now to those of previous centuries. For example, two significant and relatively recent objections to Christianity are the Bible’s teaching on women and homosexuality. Neither were hotly contested issues once, and there was broader universal acceptance of the Bible’s teaching on each. It seemed once, that broader culture and Christianity aligned on these issues. But today, as people cry ‘but I don’t care what the Bible says’, it has become imperative for Christians to be able to give an answer for their counter-cultural stances that are contested.

Another critical front for Christian apologetics is how we respond to the shameful failures of the church as well as broader society in relation to child abuse. The appalling revelation of child abuse within Christian as well as secular institutions, has led some to reject Christianity. Sadly, there is nothing we can do to change what has happened, and it can be hard for Christians to know what to say in the awkward space between shame and defence. In the latest edition of Case Magazine Helen Miller offers her insights into child abuse as a member of the Anglican Working Group appointed to respond to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Also addressed in Case Magazine is the ‘marketplace’ of ideas and religions that offer answers of one kind or another to the challenges of our increasingly diverse cultural landscape of our cities. Recent social research shows an increase in people referring to themselves as ‘spiritual but not religious’. The challenge here is not lack of evidence, but openness to multiple forms of spirituality and concomitant rejection of Christianity’s claims to uniqueness. Ross Clifford and Philip Johnson in this issue have explored different approaches to connecting with these seekers after spirituality, and share these with us here.

Unlike these developments, the perception that science conflicts with Christianity is not new, and excellent Christian scientists have been showing why this perception is unjustified for as long as the accusations have been made. However the voices of those who seek to use ‘science’ to undermine the credibility of Christianity are growing louder not quieter.  In Case #42 Chris Mulherin argues for the urgent need to continue to provide answers in this area.

There is also a need to reconsider how we do apologetics. Chris Swann deals with suspicions about an ‘apologia’ that drifts away from biblical defence. His argument is that the Bible should shape our apologetics and centre them on Christ in content, manner and method.

Andrew Laird and Kel Richards also offer excellent pieces that show that all can do apologetics. Kel Richards commends us to be good listeners who can are then led to see ‘iceberg tips’ that extend to deeper conversations, prayer and changed lives. Andrew Laird reminds us of the need for relationships of love with our friends and contacts, and the way that a simple meal and hospitality can allow relationships to grow and the gospel to be shared.

Our latest issue is rounded out with two interesting reviews. Tess Holgate provides an insightful review of Annabel Crabb’s 'The Wife Drought' that offers a different angle on gender stereotypes. Finally, Dani Scarratt reviews John Dickson’s new book 'A Doubter’s Guide to the Bible' that will end up on many people’s pile of ‘must read’ books. If you subscribe to Case you should have received issue 42. If not, you can still read one of the articles plus a review on our website (HERE) for free or subscribe for as little as $20 per year for four issues HERE.

Rethinking Relationships & Apologetics

Its not everyday you see Christianity written about in the economics section of the Sydney Morning Herald, let alone by the economics senior columnist. However Easter Monday saw the publishing of a very thought provoking column by Ross Gittins entitled 'Time ripe to re-think 'relationships'

He suggests:

Since "...many business people and economists think of themselves as Christians... what implications does this carry for the way they view the world and conduct their affairs?"

This is a question that should indeed not be asked just by business and economists alone! The article struck me for several reasons, first it has succinct analysis of what is at the heart of one's Christian faith. Second, it asks what implications faith has for a believer in terms of our dealings with those around us. This is one aspect of the apologetic life. With this in mind it is no wonder I took notice.  Apologetic people have been the focus of my last two posts in particular (March 13 and Feb 22).

The column however has a broader focus, and goes much further than a discussion of economics. Gittens continues:

"Education's goal can be defined as acquisition of wisdom for children to be able to serve their family and community, rather than acquisition of technical skills merely for personal career advantage. At a personal level, our happiness and wellbeing are determined primarily by the quality of our relationships".

His comments echo some of the content of Case 14 'Seeking Happiness' which had some great articles that address the questions how and why we seek happiness. In the same issue we actually reviewed a book written by Ross Gittins  'Gittinnomics' that considers the impact of heightened materialism on society.

I think many readers of the blog would enjoy the SMH article (here) and reviewing Case 14 magazine 'Seeking Happiness'. The book review from this edition can be read here. Alternatively you can purchase past editions of Case here





Send CASE an email

Moving Beyond the Caricature: An Examined Life

Posted by Edwina Hine

Last week through my blog post I pondered a suitable response to an article on  Facebook  (post dated February 22). Its funny how the post generated different questions for different people. Whilst I was coming from the how should I respond? angle, for some readers the problem of evil was at the forefront.

There has been very rigorous discussion on the sovereignty and character of God. I must say I have been stimulated reading the thought provoking comments that have stemmed from the post. However as I revisit the post and the original poster, I have to admit I was not sure the poster was speaking to the supposed failings of God, or a malevolence in his character. Looking at the original poster I wish I could emphatically respond "Not True!!! Christians are not that petty", but I realised that the poster was probably holding up a mirror for us Christians. That the poster is speaking directly about us as Bill suggested in the first comment.

While I accept that the poster is in many ways a caricature of us at our most selfish, most thinking Christians would not consciously behave like this. The poster, I think should provoke us to examine our own lives. When I first blogged on the topic I drew attention to Case #20. “To Give a Reason” and highlighted David Höhne's article. Interestingly I did so to work out how best to respond … mostly verbally, to the original post on the atheist website. Upon reading the articles in Case #20 a couple of times now, it has been impressed upon me that there are times that rational debate will not always cut it, that

"...we are to demonstrate ‘a beautiful way of life’ that commends God to others.”

The poster that sparked my blog post reminds us that Christians don’t always do this very well. I could just fob it off and think …. “well at least I don’t pray for silly things like finding keys or winning sporting matches….” However, if I left it at that I would be missing the point, the poster could just as easily juxtapose images of me actively participating in church activities, but also losing my temper at friends, or spending my money frivolously. Consistency in my faith and actions therefore is as apologetic as any conversation I can have. My recent reading of Titus Chapter 2 instructs women and men in their turn, to be self-controlled, pure, and trustworthy so that

1) No-one will malign the word of God.

2) Those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

And

3) To show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.

But why should the poster in question motivate Christians to examine their behaviour more closely than any other community? Hypocrisy is disliked in all quarters, so why be so concerned when it involves us? We would do well do remember what Christians are, not only what they are called to do. Col 3:8-10 could be helpful here, it begins with how we should act

“But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other…..”

 And concludes with who we are now

“since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.”

We are new creations, in the image of our Lord. Perhaps we need to examine ourselves more carefully as we may forget when we call ourselves Christians we bear the name of Christ. The term "Christian" was  first recorded by Luke in Acts 11 “The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch”. Peter reminds the church repeatedly to not be ashamed of bearing Christ's name – rather it shows their allegiance to him. But if we are to bear the name Christian, we need to do so understanding all its implications – we are under the Lordship of Christ. We cannot be Christian in name only!

An apologetic person

Post by Edwina Hine

Ahh.. the joys of facebook.... most of the time,  the links friends and accquaintances send me are encouraging or  amusing. Occasionally I do read posts that stop me in my tracks. A recent post on Facebook (a repost of an image from an atheist website) did particularly rankle. The image and caption can be viewed here. The post grated on me for several reasons, but it was my own lack of ability to come up with a suitable comment / response to the post that rankled or more precisely really angered  me the most!! Surely I should be able to construct a thoughtful response to a post that evoked such strong disagreement within me.

It seemed clear that I should be able to lovingly yet firmly respond to the post but I will admit finding the right words is still posing a challenge. In my mulling over the issue I have re-read Case #20 "To Give a Reason".

Reading this past edition of Case reminded me of the value in being an apologetic person, rather than just a Christian who can muster up a good and appropriate response in the face of criticism or ridicule. Lang Craig's article entitled "Christian Apologetics – Who Needs It?" especially highlighted how apologetic people not only alone, but in community, can help to create a receptiveness towards Christianity, and a preparedness to listen not just to ridicule. Craig sees an agenda that moves beyond individual encounters, responses and half-baked apologetic responses:

"It is the broader task of Christian apologetics to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the Gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."

The articles  within Case #20 authored by David Höhne, Andrew Bain, Richard Gibson, Mike Thompson, Michael Jensen, and William Lane Craig all in their own way point us towards Peter's commission 'to give the reason for the hope that you have'. (1 Peter 3:15)

As Trevor Cairney wrote in a previous post that commented on David Höhne's contribution to Case #20 (here):

"...we are to demonstrate ‘a beautiful way of life’ that commends God to others. Our defence should not be just rational argument; we must use our ‘head, heart and hands’ and live as apologetic people in apologetic communities—with ‘our whole lives as both a defence and commendation of the grace of God in Christ’. The church is not separate from culture, and yet it should stand out against it."

The post I read on Facebook challenged me to think seriously about my faith and how we need to be prepared to give an answer to detractors and live different apologetic lives always remembering that "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" 1 Corinthians 1:18

Case Subscribers may enjoy retrieving their copies of "To give a reason" (Case #20) published 2009 and view the articles to which I refer to in this post. The William Lang Article can be viewed here. For blog followers who are yet to become CASE Associates you can subscribe HERE or order a single copy of edition #20 HERE. 

Send CASE an email

The Hobbit, Tolkien & Fantasy

The recently released blockbuster film 'The Hobbit' has once again brought into focus the extraordinary writing of J.R.R. Tolkien. The work of Tolkien has been a regular topic of interest at CASE. On 10th March 2004 Lord of the Rings devotees gathered at New College to explore a theological perspective on Tolkien’s trilogy and the contemporary film treatments. The conference had the theme 'Creation, redemption and Lord of the Rings'. Three papers were presented. The papers by Dr Greg Clarke and Dr Diane Speed were published in Case #4. The third paper, by Dr Kirsten Birkett, can be downloaded from the CASE (HERE).

The paper by Dr Greg Clarke titled 'Tolkien and Theology: Believing in Fairy-Stories' explores Tolkien's particular view of fantasy and its purposes and possibilities. In it Dr Clarke writes:

In 1947, Tolkien published a very significant and revealing essay, ‘On fairy-stories’. In the essay, he explores the meaning of a way of thinking called ‘faerie’, commonly expressed in fairy tales. Tolkien is at pains to point out that most people have a very narrow and mistaken view of what such a tale is—that it is a simple made-up story containing small unreal creatures. Tolkien’s own definition is more metaphysical: a fairy-story contains events, words and ideas that are magical or fantastical, but in a serious way such that it seems real. Such a tale is marked especially by the attempt to recover from a loss. Fairy-stories could achieve at least three things: recovery, escape and consolation.

Greg Clarke's full paper and his expansion of Tolkien's three things fairy stories can achieve was reprinted in Case magazine #4 (2004). You can download it free HERE.
You can also read an excellent post from the newspaper 'Eternity' on 'The Hobbit' HERE.

Les Misérables (REVIEW) - An opportunity to speak of God's grace

By Jonathan Billingham, New College UNSW

The stage production Les Misérables has always stood out to me for its brilliant narrative, score and staging. Readers of the CASE blog will be most familiar with Herbert Kretzmer’s English adaptation of Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Shoenberg’s original French production. Of course Boublil and Shoenberg’s musical, Les Misérables (really a modern opera), is itself an adaptation of Victor Hugo’s 1862 colossal novel by the same name. That the story, in its musical incarnation, is now the subject of a cinematic adaptation is testament to the enduring value of the overarching narrative, themes and characters conceived by Hugo.

The cinematic release of Les Misérables affords Christians many opportunities to share the Gospel of Christ.  In your new year conversations you might flit from ‘How was the family lunch?’ to ‘Did you see any films over the holiday?’ I encourage you to sprinkle the seeds of small-talk by drawing attention to the Christian truths and worldly fallacies portrayed in the film Les Misérables. You may not entirely agree with the theological framework in which Les Misérables is set.  And yet, you have an opportunity to engage in criticism of the film and, like the characters Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert, share your worldview to advance (or oppose) the message of Christ and his gift of grace.

One of my favourite lines in the musical is sung by the lead character Jean Valjean in his song “Who am I”. Valjean bemoans,

“If I speak, I am condemned. If I stay silent I am damned.” ¹

Valjean is struggling to align his identity with the circumstances that confront him. Once poor, he is now defender of the poor. Once a thief, he has become a man who loves justice. But unlike Javert, the justice that Valjean embodies is one that knows grace and mercy. Jean Valjean has become a follower of God, has gained the respect of his fellow man, has become a successful businessman and the mayor of the French town in which he lives. And yet, because he broke the terms of his parole he has been forced to leave behind the name Jean Valjean, synonymous with his prisoner number 24601, and take up the name Madeline.

Inspector Javert erroneously identifies and puts on trial a man who he believes to be the “sinner” and parole-breaker Jean Valjean. The real Valjean is faced with the possibility of allowing another man to die in his place. But Valjean has come to believe that Christ has already died a death that will bring him eternal life. The certainty of condemnation and death awaits him if he reveals his true identity. The certainty of eventual death and possible damnation awaits if he allows his likeness to “go to judgement [in his place].” ^1.1 Valjean’s new identity as a man in allegiance with Christ eventually shines through and he reveals himself to Inspector Javert as the long hunted prisoner, 24601.

At this point the doppelganger may well have exclaimed to the real Valjean,

Thanks be to God that, though you used to be a slave to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become a slave to righteousness! (Paraphrased from Romans 6:17-18) ³

I have two practical suggestions for Christians who choose to use the film Les Misérables as a  springboard to share the Gospel of Christ. Firstly, a work of art, no matter how God inspired, is no substitute for the Word of God itself. Don’t be discouraged from excitedly discussing the film and especially the many aspects of the Christian life that it touches on but also have some bible verses in mind to support and shape what you are trying to share. If you are looking to encourage your friends, remember that “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.” ³

Secondly, season your talk with lots and lots of love. You don’t want to end up sounding like Javert, simply laying down a theological framework by which you expect the person you are speaking with to live, or have already lived.

I hope that as you watch the film adaptation of Les Misérables, brought to life by director Tom Hooper and his star-studded cast, that you take great delight in what I believe is a brilliant piece of art and a wonderful opportunity to share the love of Christ.

Further Reading: Colossians Chapter 4 verses 2-6

1. “Who Am I”, Les Misérables, Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Shoenberg (English apaptation) Herbert Kretzmer, 1985 (Also Footnote 1.1)
2. Romans 6:17-18, Holy Bible, New International Version, 2011
3. Romans 15:4, Holy Bible, New International Version, 1984 
4. ‘Law, Grace and Redemption in Les Misérables’, L. Micahael Morales http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/law-grace-redemption-les-miserables/, Sunday, 23 December 2012
5. ‘Grace and Les Misérables’ http://abf4him.org/archives/472 Sunday, 23 December 2012

The lack of science in 'Live Science'

Don't you just love the way some atheists and 'scientists' opposed to religion often seek to undermine the relevance of religion and faith with dodgy 'science'. A classic example is the American website 'Live Science' that provided 'analysis' of a recently released US Gallup Poll. The opening paragraph was:

Americans' confidence in organized religion is at its lowest in more than three decades, with just 44 percent having a lot of faith in the church, a new Gallup poll released this week suggests.

The results follow a long-term decline in Americans' confidence in religion since the 1970s, when Americans ranked "the church or organized religion" higher than any other institution in the survey, beating out the military and the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 1980s confidence in organized religion fell below 60 percent for the first time. Gallup officials say the dip may have resulted from scandals involving televangelist preachers Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart.

Then, in 2001 confidence increased to 60 percent, only to be hammered back down, possibly as a result of charges of child molestation by Catholic priests, Gallup suggests.

The survey item on which the article is based is as follows:

"I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence, you, yourself (sic) have in each one - a great deal, quite a lot, some or very little?"

Now it's true that only 44% of people indicated they had a 'great deal' or 'quite a lot' of confidence in the church compared to 60% in 2001. What the article doesn't mention is any of the ratings for other institutions. First, it should be noted that the church was ranked 4th behind the military (75%), small business (63%) and the police (56%). Second, it might be helpful to reflect on some of the results for other institutions below the church. For example:

The Medical System (41%)
The Presidency (37%)
US Supreme Court (37%)
The Public School (29%)
The Criminal Justice System (29%)
Newspapers (25%)
TV News (21%)
Organised Labour (21%)
Banks (21%)
Big Business (21%)
Health Maintenance Organisations (19%)
Congress (13%)

Oh, and a third thing. While the confidence level for the church was at 60% in 2001, the average for the years 2002-2011 was 49% with variations from 45% to 53%. You might also read the data for all other institutions as well and you will notice that Americans seem to have lost confidence in many institutions since 2001. In fact many are at 'an all-time low', to use the 'Live Science' language. These include the Banks, Public Schools, and TV news (see Gallup's own article on this HERE).

Now I don't intend to dig any deeper to uncover further evidence of the casual use of data by an organisation that prides itself on being 'scientifically rigorous', because my confidence in 'Live Science' is already low enough.

Other links

You can read 'Americans' Confidence in the Church at All-Time Low' HERE  
You can read the Gallup Poll figures and trends HERE
You can read about the Metanexus project to 'Scientifically Honour Death' HERE
You can read the full 'Live Science' post HERE

Could I visit the Narnia Exhibition & miss Christ?

I must confess I am a bit of a Narnia fan. Naturally, I am really looking forward to visiting the Narnia Exhibition which will be at the Powerhouse museum for the next few months. Whilst preparing for my visit to the exhibition I have visited the promoters website, and it left me slightly confused. The promoters detail a myriad of themes they believe C.S Lewis covers in his novels, they tell of the mythology and his imaginative narrative. Yet not a mention of Lewis' faith, or hint that the Narnia Series is a Christian allegory.  

Cogitating on this apparent oversight, I was reminded of Michael Ward’s article entitled 'C.S Lewis on imagination and story apologetics', which appeared in our last edition of Case Magazine issue #30. 

Ward reminds the reader that C.S Lewis is

………the most influential practitioner of Christian apologetics over the last hundred years. Works such as Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Problem of Pain, The Four Loves, and Surprised by Joy have been read by millions of people round the world……..

Yet as I join the throngs of crowds descending upon the museum to view the exhibition depicting Lewis’ imaginative works, I will be experiencing in person Ward’s proposition that it is indeed Lewis’

…seven Chronicles of Narnia which have been read most widely and exerted the greatest influence.

Michael Wards article analyses imagination, in theory and in practice, and describes how his narratives have influenced countless readers.   The article also suggests

….the Narnia stories reveal Lewis’s personal religion more profoundly than any of his more theological works.

I encourage you to pull out your copy of Case #30 and revisit Dr Michael Wards interesting article which dissects C S Lewis’ fantastic narratives. CASE Associates receive Case magazine 4 times per year as part of their benefits. For blog followers who are yet to be CASE Associates you can sign up HERE or order a single copy HERE. As for me, I will put aside my initial disappointment that the exhibition promoters seem to have ignored an obvious component of 'The Chronicles of Narnia'. I am sure the exhibition will spur on a new generation of C.S Lewis readers and the CASE article reminds me that  

…..these books where his imagination has full scope he presents the Christian faith in a more eloquent and probing way than ever his more straightforward books of apologetics could…..

And with that pleasing thought, I best be off….. I have an exhibition to visit!!!!!

(Details for the Powerhouse and the Exhibition can be found at the links provided) 

Christian Responses to Global Atheism Convention

A team of atheists is touring Australia for the Global Atheist Convention to be held in Melbourne this weekend (13-15 April). The conference has received plenty of publicity. As a result, a number of Christian organisations have been responding in varied ways to ensure that there is balance, rather than simply another series of uninformed attacks on Christians and people of faith. CASE supports the efforts of several of these groups. In this post I want to point to a number of free resources on the CASE website and this blog that are relevant for anyone who wants to engage with atheists.

If you visit the CASE website you will find many of our online resources are free and that there are many more for our CASE associates. The resources are grouped on the sidebar by broad discipline. The 'Science and Medicine' link has a number of great articles. As well, the following articles and posts may be of interest:

A review of Richard Dawkin's book 'God's Undertaker' HERE
A review of 'Religion for Atheists' HERE
'Kant and the Early Moderns' HERE
'The Stem Cell Debate' HERE
'Five things I never learned in Science' HERE
'Kinsey,Truth and the Rhetoric of research' HERE
Review of 'Reason, faith and revolution' HERE
'Can science see the end?' HERE
'Belief in God, a trick of the brain?' HERE
'Embryo Liberation' HERE
'The Language of God' Review by Megan Best HERE
'Science, Uncertainty and Ambiguity' HERE

Human Embryonic Stem Cells - Wiki Commons

The Simeon Network is another group that has been offering an alternative voice. It has created a new website 'Doubting Dawkins' that will offer alternative ideas and resources.

Another group that CASE supports is 'The Reason for Faith Coalition'. It's partners include:

City Bible Forum
The Centre for Public Christianity (CPX):
Bible Society Australia
Outreach Media
The Simeon Network

You might also just search on the CASE website or this blog for other resources.

Religion for Atheists?

In recent weeks, there have been a couple of newspaper articles commending the Christian faith for reasons other than faith. Two of these have had me thinking about the source of the media attention and whether the hostile full frontal attacks by atheists might have led some to adopt a different approach. Perhaps some atheists have concluded that their cause is furthered by simply acknowledging the odd merit of the church, while effectively still telling Christians that they are all deluded and wrong; in a more polite way of course. This is not far removed from the approach of some within the church who would want to airbrush out all the 'difficult' bits of Christianity.

This strategy of course is very convenient for those people who want the cultural practices of religion without the faith. The first article that got me thinking was in the Sydney Morning Herald several weeks ago, 'Churchgoers keen to take a pew despite their disbelief'. In it, a parishioner from a Uniting Church shared how he does not believe in God and doesn't see this as necessary for church attendance. He's right of course about belief not being required for church attendance, any Christian church would welcome him. However, the idea that you might attend church for cultural, social and justice reasons alone, is out of step with the teachings of Christianity. As well, I suspect it says something about the vague message of the specific church he attends as well.

The parishioner commented:

"[My spirituality] drives me to want to be in a spiritual community that has a sense of a mission to do good things and to help do justice in the world...but also I like the Christian and other religious liturgies and spiritual practices – I find that they're very good for me. But, for me, belief in a literal god is quite unnecessary."

Interestingly, the man said he rejects the label "atheist" because he sees it as having militant connotations.

The second article was a brief interview with Alain de Botton about his soon to be released book, 'Religion for Atheists'. When asked why an atheist would write this book de Botton says:

"...The supernatural claims of religion are entirely false - and yet religions still have some very important things to teach the world."

We'll have to wait for the book to see what he thinks the 'very important things are'. But in both these examples, one from a churchgoer and the other from an atheist, we see a common way to deal with Christianity, cut out the hard bits from the Bible with which you can't agree and simply stress the positive and get on with life. Both approaches are a rejection of God.

In one sense, as a Christian, I'm pleased when someone like de Botton takes a less hostile line than atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, however, I can't help feeling that de Botton whether with a silk glove or an iron fist, is still displaying the same arrogance and pride in his own knowledge as a churchgoer who says he needs only the cultural bits; the music, lifestyle and good friends. In each case, there seems an effort (whether deliberate or not), to domesticate the Christian voices that would want to stand firm to the claims of the Bible.

However, I don't want to end on a negative note. It seems to me that while we need to be wary of those who damn us with faint praise, at least people like de Botton, Geoffrey Blainey, Clive Hamilton, Terry Eagleton and others like them, provide an opportunity for conversation and apologetic exchange. While we mustn't allow the message of Christianity to be softened, or watered down to make it acceptable to others, we do need to enter into dialogue with atheists and agnostics with humility and respect for those with different views.

Related links

'Reason, faith and revolution' - A review of Terry Eagleton's book HERE

Interview with Alain de Botton on his new book HERE

'Apologetics is more than winning arguments' HERE

'Humble Apologetics' HERE

Understanding the 'Social Perspective' of Others

A psychology professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education has spent the last ten years exploring the capacity of humans to grasp, discern and perhaps decipher the feelings and thoughts of other people.  Dr Hunter Gehlbach has been exploring this human ability to help teachers improve teaching and learning. He calls it 'Social Perspective Taking' (SPT). At one level, Gehlbach is simply concerned with how he can assist teachers to identify when students aren't motivated, distracted, unhappy and so on, with the goal being to enhance their engagement and learning. But this ability to discern the feelings and thoughts of another has even greater potential. In an interview that is reported in an article written by Deborah Blagg, Dr Gehlbach suggests that there are implications for a variety of people in education; for example, students, teachers administrators etc. He suggests, for example that,

“We need to help students comprehend their classmates’ values, perspectives, and motivations so they can learn from each other as well as from their teachers.”

But of course, this isn't just a challenge for children. What motivates adults to seek to understand, respond to and take up the perspectives of other adults? He comments:

“We are exposed to dozens of people every day — in the grocery check-out line, during our commute to work or school, or sitting in a restaurant — yet we are very selective about those with whom we empathize.”

Why do we do this? Why do we take note of some people, ignore others, and take a wide berth of others? I see this in my own behaviour. My SPT can be very selective. It might also be possible that the way we see our roles and relationships within the school, church, neighbourhood might make a difference to the way we selectively apply SPT.

One interesting finding by Gehlbach was that people could be very selective across contexts and roles in how they engage in SPT.  For example, “a border crossing guard who is trying to identify someone who might be a threat, or [a] detective questioning a high-stakes suspect, is very motivated to take that person’s perspective to try to figure out what they might be thinking.”

As well, he found that people could be highly motivated to engage in SPT in one context but not another.  He found that a soldier was highly motivated when he was acting as an interrogator, but not when he was handing out discipline within his own unit.

All of the above prompted me to think about the relevance of this secular research for understanding my own empathetic inconsistencies. It seems likely to me that my own desire to engage in SPT might vary depending on things as varied as:

How busy I am? Am I so distracted at times by multiple balls to juggle that I can't see what's obvious in the person in front of me, in the queue at the bank, in the workplace, at home and so on.
How focussed am I on the agenda at hand? In my desire to deliver the current lecture or sermon well, do I fail to stay tuned to my audience before, during or after it?
Do I restrict my circle of contacts in such a way, that I screen out those for whom I find it hard to extend SPT?
Do I look for like-minded people to spend time with so I don't need to work hard at understanding the social perspective of others?

I don't have an answer to the above questions, but I suspect that thinking through Gelhbach's concept of SPT, and using it as an analytical lens for my life, might just make me a more effective teacher, neighbour, friend, husband, brother and apologist.

Ultimately, I know that my desire to love other people, my ability to empathize with those who weep and suffer, and my preparedness to try to place myself in the shoes of another and understand their view of the world should be motivated by love born of God's grace shown to me, and a desire to see others come to saving faith in Christ. The Cross of Christ and my understanding of the consequences for the people I know that reject it, must be the foundation of my burden for others.  Having said this, my suspicion is that Gelhbach's work might just offer a corrective to some of my sinful ways, and that this might just open my eyes to the 'social perspectives' of others, and direct me back towards God as I live my life with others.

Related Posts

'Asking the Second Question' HERE
'Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends' HERE

Asking the Second Question

I have the privilege of being Master of 'New College' at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. We have regular formal dinners for all residents when we eat good food together, enjoy a musical item by talented residents and listen to a guest speaker. One of my tasks is to identify the speakers, invite them and introduce them to our residents. I try to find people of varied backgrounds, interests, life experiences, cultures etc. At our June dinner I invited a remarkable 27 year old man to speak to us - Dr Sam Prince. I asked him to speak about his life as a doctor and his entrepreneurial activities building a chain of restaurants and initiating varied projects designed to fight inequities of one kind or another.

He shared many interesting things, but one idea in particular has stayed with me. He suggested that as a young many he has learned that it is important to ask people the 'second question'.

What did he mean by this? Something quite basic, but in it's own way, quite profound. As an innovator, entrepreneur and consummate networker, he had found that it's easy to ask one question, hear the answer, then keep talking about your self, or move on to the next person. He suggested that it was important to 'listen' well enough to ask the right second question. He shared several powerful examples of strangers he had met and with whom he now had significant relationships after asking a second question. He stressed that each of these conversations could have ended with just one question. But it was the second question that often opened the door to more substantial discussion. While I assume that Sam Prince isn't the first person to think about 'second questions', it is a helpful reminder.

I should stress that he shared his insight, not as an apologetic strategy for any faith. In fact, I don't think he has a religious faith of any kind. But his insight about the second question is of immense relevance to apologetics. There are many books and blog posts that talk about asking good questions, leading questions, tough questions and so on. But the role of the question is to hear what someone says, particularly what's on their heart. Our questions should hopefully open a door that allows us to understand the person we're talking to, and understand their deepest needs.

What is troubling them?
What are their fears?
What are their hopes?
In what do they put their trust?
What do they see as the need of the hour?
What are their passions?

Often the first question we ask of anyone - friend or stranger - is simply an opening. How are you today? Having fun? Been here long? Are you okay? Questions of this type often receive a response, but frequently they offer little and sometimes are not even truthful. "How are you?" "Oh, I'm fine". But the good friend, neighbour or work mate will assess the words of response in the light of other things. Is he or she really 'fine'?

It is remarkable how many times I have approached a friend and received a response like 'fine' and then followed it with a second question that has elicited a different response. "Are you sure you're fine, you look tired?" To such a second question I have often received a much more honest response. "Not that flash really." Such an honest response might lead to a significant conversation that opens the door to those deep fears, troubles, hopes, passions and so on. It is only if conversations get to the 'second question' and beyond that you will have the opportunity to share your own hopes and the God in whom you have placed your trust.

The Christian Mind

I'm in the middle of preparing the 2011 Commencement Lecture* for 'St Mark's National Theological Centre' in Canberra next week titled 'Regaining our Voice in the Secular University'. I have spent considerable time in January and February reading some new and some old works that are relevant. I thought I'd share a great quote from Harry Blamires well-known book 'The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian think?' Harry Blamires is now 95 and has been retired for some time. He is an Anglican theologian, literary critic, and novelist and was head of the English department at King Alfred's College (now Winchester University) in Winchester, England. He began writing in the late 1940s at the encouragement of his friend, C. S. Lewis, who was his tutor at Oxford University.

"There is no longer a Christian mind. There is still, of course, a Christian ethic, a Christian practice, and a Christian spirituality. As a moral being, the modern Christian subscribes to a code other than that of the non-Christian. As a member of the church, he understands obligations and observations ignored by the non-Christian. As a spiritual being, in prayer and meditation, he strives to cultivate a dimension of life unexplored by the non-Christian. But as a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization. He accepts religion - its morality, its worship, its spiritual culture; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sets all earthly issues within the context of the eternal view which relates all human problems - social, political, cultural - the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view which sees all things here below in terms of God's supremacy and earth's transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell." pp 3-4

Blamire's challenge to recover the authentic Christian mind was made in 1963! It still applies in 2011. CASE exists in response to challenges such as Blamire's. His book does not denigrate or ridicule the secular mind; rather, it calls upon Christians to seek to understand the difference between the two.

"To think secularly is to think within a frame of reference bounded by the limits of our life here on earth: it is to keep one's calculations rooted in this-worldly criteria. To think christianly is to accept all things with the mind as related, directly or indirectly, to man's eternal destiny as the redeemed and chosen child of God." p.44

While Blamire's book is framed by his experience in the first half of the 20th century, his ideas still resonate. I'll probably do a longer post on this topic in the next few months.

* The lecture for those interested is HERE

Professors Who Believe

The personal testimonies of people of faith are always interesting. Paul M. Anderson's edited book 'Professors Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of Christian Faculty' brings together the testimonies of 21 professors drawn from a wide variety of disciplines and North American universities. The book is helpful in an age where New Atheists are increasingly claiming that the only truth is that which can be 'objectively' measured, that science and reason are virtually synonymous, and that faith and belief have no relationship to either truth or reason. It was published in 1998 and so is not a new book, but it is still a helpful book for Christians or those considering the Christian faith. Anderson writes in the introduction to the book:

Some argue that science and faith are antithetical because religion (1) involves no experiments, (2) tests no hypotheses and (3) is committed beforehand to a set of beliefs. I have not found such arguments convincing. First, science is a process that people use to understand the world, whereas religion addresses questions of purpose and meaning. Both science and religion are interested in truth. Science represents human efforts. Religion, especially the Christian faith, looks to revelation - i.e., God's initiative. Galileo Galilei, considered the father of modern scientific inquiry, captured the essence of this distinction when he stated that "the Bible tells us how to get to Heaven, not how the Heavens go."

Anderson who is a Biochemist and Molecular Biologist goes on to suggest that some of the postulates can in fact be tested. At least one of the professors in this book came to faith by testing a premise of the teachings of Jesus. He also reminds us that to accept science as objectively pure is a mistake. We should not simply afford a blind acceptance of purity and objectivity to science.  Anyone who has taught research methods at university (as I have) will know that the concepts 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' are hotly contested. Anderson reminds us that Science is thought by some to be "...scholarship that is free from prior commitment to a particular answer or belief system. However, anyone with a few years experience in science knows that science is, in fact, often strongly influenced by pre-existing expectations."

However, this book is not an argument about objective truth, the objectivity of science and the scientific process, it is simply the story of 21 university professors and their reason for the hope that is within them. The book would be useful for Christians ministering to university students or who wish simply to encourage young Christians as they set off to university for the first time (as thousands will in Australia in coming weeks). It might also encourage other Christian academics to be prepared to share their own stories.

Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15but in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:13-17)

Related Posts

'Education  Based on Reason Alone Falls Short' (HERE)

Truth in the Midst of People's Confusions about Christmas

I was amused by the above nativity scene that I photographed on Saturday in someone's front yard. The message of Christmas is actually quite simple, but it's amazing how people manage to distort the central meaning with a vast array of misused symbolism. Some of it is very funny, some unhelpful, some offensive, and other attempts are simply confused. The family that created the above scene was no doubt having some fun with Santa and the garden mulch, as well as representing the birth of Christ in their own way. In the process they had inadvertently (I assume) communicated one of the key truths of Christmas. While Santa Claus is irrelevant to the biblical meaning of Christmas, the nativity scene uses remarkably appropriate symbolism; for John's Gospel tells us that in the coming of Jesus, it was if God came down to earth and pitched a tent in all of our front yards. John 1:10-18 describes what happened on that first Christmas.

10He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15(John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") 16And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

When John wrote that Jesus ('The Word') came and 'dwelt among us' in verse 14, the Greek from which this was translated, literally God “pitched his tent”. This was an allusion to how God dwelt among the Israelites in the tabernacle (see Exodus 25:8-9; 33:7). God's rescue plan for his rebellious people was to send his own Son into the world. The eternal and holy Son of God took on human nature and came to live amongst humanity. He came both as God and man at the same time, and in one person. While the tent in the front yard and the 'humble' representation might not match our sense of the wonder of God, in a strange way its simplicity speaks powerfully of what God did for us.

The Bible teaches that our response to God's amazing act in sending his Son into the world, is that we should acknowledge it, repent, and believe that Jesus was and is the saviour of the world.And that his death and resurrection (which we remember at Easter) is sufficient to remove the debt we owe God due to our sin and rebellion. If we do this, then we need not fear death, for God promises us eternal life as his adopted children.  As John's gospel reminds us:

12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)

My prayer is that readers of this blog might grasp something new this Christmas about the story of Christ. Whether you see yourself as a Christian or are simply curious about him, I pray that you might look afresh at the teachings of the Bible and see new truth in the simplicity of the message.


Resources

Rev John Smuts gave a great sermon titled 'The Wonder I Never Saw' on this passage at Petersham Baptist Church last Sunday.  You can listen to it HERE.

A simple explanation of the Christian faith 'Two Ways Lived' HERE