Category Archives: Christianity & culture

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

In the ‘vibe’ of the modern world, my impression is that the life of the mind is most commonly associated with the secular and dissociated from the Christian church. Witness: the (strange!) assumed opposition between science and Christianity; the absence of theologians from the standard panel of folks called to speak on big issues; arguments against God do not need to be arguments for mockery suffices.

Christians have not always been helpful, either. I’ve received earnest advice saying, ‘Oh, don’t go there – they will only fill your head with knowledge.’ (Assumed: that’s a bad thing.)

What’s more, in the academy generally there’s growing despair at the possibility of knowledge. Postmodernism (so-called) and the linguistic turn succeed in undermining confidence in any knowledge.

In this book, Green argues against any marginalisation of Christianity regarding the life of the mind. Far from it – Christian theology, he says, is the only hope. Green has two arguments.
1. The Christian vision of God, man, and the world provides the necessary precondition for the recovery of any meaningful intellectual life.
2. The Christian vision of God, man, and the world offers a particular, unique understanding of what the intellectual life might look like.

Green covers the importance of creation and history (we may be confident that there is something to know); of the future (eschatology gives purpose to all things, including thought); of words that really do refer to things (our speech is not a mere game); of knowledge as love (knowledge is never neutral, but always moral).

In each of these areas, he builds important biblical foundations while also identifying the malaise of modern thought. The arguments are accessible, aimed for the (serious) general reader. And I think they succeed! In short, this is a coherent appeal for Christian theology to lead to Christian thought – in many spheres of thought.

There are a couple of things I would like to have seen. Perhaps they were precluded by the intended length of the work.

Firstly, what response does Green think should come from academics who don’t share Christian convictions? Doe he think they can be renewed by learning theology? Does he suggest that current dead-ends in thought will benefit from considered application of historical theology? Or does he think that conversion is the most important need for their academic development?

This first matter is, I believe, directly relevant to the purpose of Green’s book. He’s proposing a way to rescue modern academia. A brief sketch of the map ahead would be most informative.

Secondly – and this is definitely some way from Green’s book – I wondered how this might work in a non-Western context. Of course, an answer would need knowledge of the intellectual tradition in non-Western settings – a huge area to cover (a different study and a different book). But, because the gospel claims all the world and all cultures, I did wonder!

This is a good book, and recommended.
View all my reviews

Science of the gaps

Leave a Reply

There’s a long-standing criticism of Christians that goes like this: whenever there’s something humans can’t explain, you say ‘See! That’s God at work’.

And fair enough too. What a silly argument. How does ignorance on the part of Person Y (me!) provide evidence for the existence of Person X (God)? All it proves is that there’s a hole in human knowledge – and that is not breaking news.

Honestly, though, I have only heard this argument for God a couple of times. The places it has come up have been informal chats among church folk. It’s is usually followed by an uneasy polite silence as everyone else considers how to change the subject.

In contrast, I hear essentially the same argument more frequently against God.

Like this: there are holes in scientific knowledge, but we know that science has capacity to provide the answers. It’s science of the gaps. There’s a strong faith that the ‘scientific method’ is the single method capable of finding truth and certainty.

In my experience, the fields in which this mantra tends to appear are: ethics and society; the nature of mind, consciousness and personhood; questions of ultimate reality and purpose.

The weaknesses of Science of the gaps are many. Here are three:

Lack of knowledge is empirical evidence that science doesn’t (yet) know everything. It’s against evidence to counter by saying, ‘But science can know everything.’
It doe not allow for complementary true explanations. When a family wants to know why a car accident happened, the laws of physics don’t help. Yes, physics gives a true picture of momentum, force, etc. But the family wants to know about drunk drivers, blinding sun or illegal mobile phone use.
It’s impossible to prove the basic assumption. We only prove that science can know all things after science knows all things. In other words, the starting assumption is itself non-scientific.

In science (as in Christianity) it pays to ‘Mind the gap’.

When people can’t hear Christians

Leave a Reply

Working in emergency services and seeing life in all of its manifestations, how have you personally dealt with the difficult side of the job, ie. patient grief, trauma and death? Have these experiences ever made you question your own faith?

The sign of Christianity is the cross, a reminder of Jesus’ unjust suffering. The suffering in this world is so real that God himself chose to suffer in order to offer hope and forgiveness. Thus, for me suffering is not an intellectual problem. The problem is that suffering is hard! Watching pain, sitting with grief, not knowing what to say. There are many helps for me, including prayer, talking about what troubles me, getting good exercise, time with my family, and being disciplined to have days off.

The above words are from an interview in which I was the one giving answers. The NSW Ambulance Service used their regular staff magazine, Sirens, to highlight volunteers in the organisation. I was one of the volunteer chaplains to ‘feature’. There’s an on-line copy of the chaplains’ interviews here.

This article is a positive piece about Christian minsters. They openly asked us all about our faith, and its challenges. They are encouraging about chaplains having a role in the ambulance service. I hope you catch my emphasis: this was positive!

Of course, editing was needed to fit into the magazine. The editor tidied up some of my answers. I looked more coherent because of good editing.

Now, look at the above question and find the part that was edited out. (Don’t cheat by reading on!)

The final version lacked mention of the cross. Everything before Thus. (“The sign of Christianity is the cross, a reminder of Jesus’ unjust suffering. The suffering in this world is so real that God himself chose to suffer in order to offer hope and forgiveness. Thus…”)

In the whole interview, those two sentences were the most personal and significant to me. They were closest to my heart and thinking and motivation. The cross is everything.

And yet, in a positive piece about chaplains, they were the lines cut out. Cut out, I believe, not with any malicious intent – but because they seemed the least relevant.

What a difference of view: the cross as most important, or the cross as least relevant.

This illustrates a problem for Christians as we try to share the gospel of Jesus with people: many people simply cannot hear what Christians say.

Try as we might to point to the centre of our faith – the life, death and resurrection of Jesus – we will frequently fail to communicate.

It’s not (always) because of ill-will towards Christians. This interview is an example of a positive conversation in which the most important is edited out.

We know there are spiritual causes: the false god of this age does blind people to God’s truth (2 Corinthians 4:4). Hence, we always pray because communication depends upon God.

I believe there are also cultural and communication causes. People have an idea of what Christians are about even before we talk with them, and it takes a long time to overcome errors. It sometimes looks like churches are just another political group (speaking up on matters of legislation). Or Christians are viewed as people whose interest is doing good (the Salvos, speaking up about gambling addiction, supporting asylum seekers, etc). Even our public failures suggest we’re about morality (witness the scandal of child abuse in churches).

So when we say, It’s not my behaviour, it’s all the work of Jesus, we often don’t get through. This real gospel message does not match the imagined message people expect from us. It’s as if our hearers correct us in their minds: ‘When he said that Christians cannot earn salvation, I’m sure he meant they can earn salvation.’

We can’t blame people for this, nor become irritated. So often we Christians have been muddled or unclear! Personally, though, I find it helpful to recognise how hard it is to hear the message of the cross and grace. It’s difficult – therefore I need to say it more often, more clearly, with more patience, and with better appreciation for my hearers.

Next interview, will I mention the cross? Absolutely!

Sex talk

Leave a Reply

Song of Songs 4 is very clearly a poem of intense sensuality. It is a wonderful example of a man’s pleasure in his wife.

The man starts at the top and moves downward. He does not reach her feet. There’s something about her middle that he enjoys! It’s sensitive and tender sex talk. (Her words of invitation in the second half of Song 4:16 indicate how welcome she found his words.)

When I spoke on this passage at church, I explained what I think are five types of sex talk. I thought I would repeat them for a blog readership.

Not
The first type of sex talk is non talk. Avoidance, embarrassment, and red faces.

The Bible, however, does not shy away from sex. There’s the beauty of Song of Songs. There’s affirmation of marriage and warnings against immorality. It openly admits awful sexual failure: David’s adultery with Bathsheba (leading to murder, 2 Samuel 11); the rape of Tamar by David’s son Amnon (2 Samuel 13); etc.

In short, God is in favour of sex talk. If we neglect it, we’re not caring for the whole person.

Direct
There are two kinds of direct sex talk.

The first is, typically, medical or educational. For example, sex education at home, or asking for pastoral help for sexual dysfunction.

This talk is direct because it openly names the anatomy and sexual behaviours. And it is a direct type of talk that is necessary.

The second type of direct talk is far less helpful. This direct communication is the porn ethos. It reveals all and leaves nothing to the imagination. We are meant to see, and to desire to see again. The lights are glaring, the cameras capture every angle, and instant replay is expected.

Unfortunately, this ethos can infect our speech and thoughts. It might be crude jokes. It could be offensive abuse between sports teams. Or it might be speaking of sex as if it involves hardware, not people: screw, bang, poke, …

This is a long way from the tenderness of Song of Songs. It’s selfish in getting sex, or getting noticed. Sex that should be part of a life-long covenant relationship is reduced to a bodily function. It’s not healthy direct talk.

Indirect
Again, this type of talk has two expressions.

The first kind of indirect sex talk is innuendo and smuttiness. While not being explicit, it twists vast swathes of normal conversation into sexual reference. Normal words become codes for bodily parts, or for sexual activity. It’s Benny Hill, Carry On Eye Rolling, Nudge Nudge Wink Wink. Often accompanies by supressed giggles and knowing looks, it also creates an in group who know the codes and need to look to each other for constant affirmation (‘that’s a reference to breasts – see, I am still with you’). Necessary? Useful? No.

The second type of indirect sex talk is precisely that of Song of Songs. It’s honest about sex and refers to a real person, one’s spouse. Yet it remains sensitive to honour that spouse and enjoy all his or her qualities. It does not hide sensuality, yet without treating sex like a forensic examination. Being poetic, I believe it opens up our appreciation for sex instead of narrowing it down to a few brute physical facts.

To gain a feel for this poetic opening of reality, read through the Song of Songs and consider how the senses are evoked. The lovers not only see one another, but also hear, touch, smell and taste. Then read again and consider where the drama of their love is played: house and city, forest and field, plains and mountain. All of nature is their playground.

So, learning from the Bible’s pattern, there’s good sex talk and damaging sex talk. Have I missed any other categories? Let me know in the comments below. We all can learn how to better employ language in this significant area of living as God’s creatures.

Politics, change & wishes

Leave a Reply

In Albury-Wodonga, the weekly free newspapers used to include a column of reflections. They were written by local ministers, or similar (authors included a local Baha’i leader, as well as someone from the local humanist society branch). I don’t know why they stopped. Equally, I don’t know if they achieved anything!

Cleaning up my computer, I found a few of mine. In the interests of recycling, I will re-release them on this blog.

How did your vote go? Did it count for something? Are you happy with the outcome, do you think you made a contribution?

I write this before the federal election, but am already sure of one thing: no one will be completely satisfied. You might prefer things a little different, or completely different. Either way, our dreams have not been met.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a man who wanted things different. As a Christian minister in Germany, he opposed Hitler, and during the war was imprisoned and executed. He wrote something very helpful about our desires, what he called ‘wish dreams.’ His claim: we need to give up our wish dreams.

So there’s no point saying, ‘If only our politicians were fully trustworthy.’ Or, ‘If only my family had more patience.’ Or, ‘If only the church was perfect.’ (Bonhoeffer was writing specifically about churches.) We need to get past the ‘wish dream’, and work with the reality before us.

As Bonhoeffer put it, “What may appear weak and trifling to us may appear great and glorious to God.”

God proved that appearances aren’t everything by working through Jesus and his execution on the cross. These look feeble and empty. The unjust execution of a poor Jewish teacher 2000 years ago does not sound impressive. It sounds positively shameful. Yet the Bible says that Jesus mocked this shame and weakness and chose to endure the suffering. Why? Because the cross is real power: it is where God changed the world, offering forgiveness to anyone.

Perhaps you have had wish dreams about God. That he’d do something spectacular and showy. That he would suddenly change everything about life that you don’t like. Forget the wish dreams. The reality is much better. It’s trusting Jesus that changes life. He may appear weak and trifling, but is great and glorious to God.
October 2004

Faith before reason

Leave a Reply

There is a simple way to see that faith comes before reason.

We universally hate being lied to.

That probably requires some explanation, I accept, but it captures all that I will say.

Firstly, though, why bother thinking about this? It’s because there’s a prominent line of thought that places an absolute divide between faith and reason. ‘My total authority is reason, I have no place for faith.’ It’s a claim that any faith is always irrational.

This is – oh, the irony! – a creedal position. It is propounded as an unchallengeable tenet that must be believed.

(I do not think this position is held widely, but it is held loudly. The faith-reason dichotomy has some devoted and insistent public defenders. Plenty of people who opt not to hold the Christian faith, however, know that 100% of people exercise faith.)

This post is not to argue that we all have faith before reason, but to illustrate it, So, again, this is the illustration: We universally hate being lied to.

A lie hurts, profoundly. To lie is to speak a word, and break it. The liar makes a promise: ‘I will do this’, ‘This is true’, etc. Every promise is – at the same time – an invitation to faith. ‘Trust me!’ And we do exercise faith: we trust, and our trust is betrayed.

Now, what has this to do with reason? It shows reason to be secondary.

Reason tells me that lies are everywhere and from all people. Men and women, young and old, every culture … we are liars. Could anyone disagree? If reason were primary, we should be able to stop lies affecting us. Logic would change us to expect lies and simply treat them with equanimity. ‘Oh, a lie – yes, that makes sense and has no personal effect on me.’

But instead, our strong faith continues. We believe that words should mean something. We trust that a promise will be kept. We rely on information from other people. We cannot shake our faith – faith is a bedrock reality of human life. And it’s a good bedrock!

Faith is not against reason. But faith is before reason.

Gallipoli & meaning

Leave a Reply

Cleaning up my computer, I found a few of mine. In the interests of recycling, I will re-release them on this blog.

Three weeks ago I had the chance to visit Gallipoli.

It was a centre of activity in preparation for ANZAC Day. There were Turkish voices, Australian accents, temporary seating and police direction (as well as the ubiquitous souvenir sellers!).

It was moving to walk through graveyards with headstones of Australians, New Zealanders, Turks, Indians and other nationalities. It was impossible to imagine how anyone could even land at the narrow beach of ANZAC Cove, let alone climb the steep slopes above.

The visit made me remember what so many have said: the futility of death.

I think there’s another force for modern visitors: the futility of life.

We can do heaps: work, family, fun, fly around the world and visit battle fields. These things certainly take our attention. But is there any point? Is there anything that lasts? We all end up precisely like the men whose remains lie scattered about the Gallipoli battlefields.

The Bible is not shy about this feeling of futility. ‘Meaningless, meaningless. All is meaningless’ says the writer of the Bible book Ecclesiastes. (You may have heard it as ‘Vanity of vanities.’)

Another part speaks of creation being ‘subject to futility’ or ‘in bondage to decay.’ Things wear out and look pointless. That includes you and me!

Jesus himself points out what modern physics now also says. Jesus said ‘Heaven and earth will pass away.’ The sun looks permanent. It is only more permanent than us.

But I cut Jesus off. Let’s allow him to complete his sentence. ‘Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away.’ Jesus’ extraordinary claim is that what he says lasts forever.

He promises forgiveness to those who trust him – this lasts forever. He says no one is too bad for God’s love – this lasts forever. He says he accepts all who come to him – this lasts forever.

Gallipoli is definitely moving. Yet as I left, I could only be more thankful for Jesus and his trusty word.
May 2007

How difficult is the gospel of Jesus?

Leave a Reply

I’ve been a Christian for going on 30 years now, and I learn more every day. If there’s so much more depth for me to learn, how hard is it to understand the message of Jesus for the very first time?

I often say, ‘The gospel is simple’, and it’s true! Christianity is not a philosophy, nor an academic pursuit. Yet, whenever we share the news of Jesus, words are involved. Understanding is part of the process.

How easily will people understand the words I use when I talk about Jesus? Which words are common, which are rare? This is particularly important when in conversation with those who have English as a second language.

How complex would you consider the following to be? It’s a quick and rough explanation of the gospel of Jesus that I just typed up. Please read this and consider how hard it is!

God lovingly created the world, and gave people the responsibility to rule it under him.
We rejected God and cut ourselves off from him. Instead of life, we chose death. Instead of God’s love, we are under his judgement.
Yet God’s love continues! He worked through his people to save the world. The high point of this was in the son of God, Jesus. Jesus died in our place so that we might not die. Jesus rose again, which shows he is the ruler of all things (of the world, of life and death, of us too).
That leaves us with a new opportunity. Instead of continuing to live cut off from God, he invites us back to himself. We accept the gift of forgiveness by trusting Jesus’ death and accepting that Jesus is the ruler.

How difficult is that to read? (Not ‘How right or wrong?’, but ‘How difficult?’)

I took that text and typed it into The up-goer five text editor. This is a fun tool that checks entered text – the idea is to explain any idea using only the 1000 most common English words. It told me I have used non-permitted words. The offending words …

Lovingly
Created
Responsibility
Rule, ruler
Rejected
Ourselves
Chose
Judgement
Jesus
Opportunity
Invites
Gift
Forgiveness

Of course, most English-speakers have a vocabulary that copes with a number of these words. Some words could be replaced with a simpler option. But this illustrates something to keep in mind – our key Christian terms need straightforward explanation.

Since this is so, we need to choose carefully. Many words already need an explanation, so only use the less-common words if they really will help.

In the text above, I avoided the word ‘sin’. Sin is a word poorly-understood, so I try to explain the idea some other way. (And it’s not one of the 1000, either.) On the other hand, the second word is a problem: ‘lovingly’. I included this because I want to say, as early as possible, the God loves!

So what do you think? Let me know if you think the gospel is hard to understand, or easy; if there are words to avoid, or if we should stick to the vocabulary of the Bible.

Passionate commitment

Leave a Reply

Cleaning up my computer, I found a few of mine. In the interests of recycling, I will re-release them on this blog.

Have do you describe a good argument? How about a worthless argument?

Watching the new freeway opening made me ask these questions. I think they’re good questions to ask! Let me explain why.

It’s been fascinating watching the new freeway take shape, and now begin to flow. One thing the border can never forget is the range of opinions people had. And still have!

We saw this in the Border Mail history of the freeway. The television news pictures from the last decade were just as informative. A number of Albury-Wodonga houses still have signs demanding where the road should go. During construction there was the odd bit of graffiti protesting developments.

What most struck me about the early debates is how passionate people were. Arguments were fiery. Opinions strong. Emotions high. A number of folk had a lot of their life invested in these decisions.

Now, roads are useful. But there are more important matters.

Likewise, commitment is great. But the best commitment is commitment to the best causes.

Easter gives us a hint about the best commitment, the best argument, and the best passion.

The best model of passion is the man who went through the Passion, Jesus Christ. His passion – his suffering, in other words – was the perfect expression of love. Jesus’ love for people proved his great love for God’s ways.

What they said at the time was right, ‘zeal consumed him.’ Jesus’ zeal to do good and bring forgiveness cost his life. That’s why so many people not only remember Jesus’ death but also commit to following him in every area of life.

So what arguments will you get involved in this week? I hope they’re about lasting matters: life, forgiveness, love, truth, … Perhaps even about whether you can follow Jesus as we approach Easter.
March 2007

Reasons not to believe

Leave a Reply

Cleaning up my computer, I found a few of mine. In the interests of recycling, I will re-release them on this blog.

What’s a good reason to not be a Christian?

As a minister, I regularly ask myself this. After all, I don’t want to waste my time if the Bible, prayer and church are empty. There are many suggested arguments against Christianity. Of all the reasons, there is only one that might stick.

Some reasons are about weak Christians. Perhaps you know a Christian with a short temper, or you’ve been to a church that did not feel as friendly as it could.

These are weaknesses, but hardly reason to ignore Jesus. Jesus said he came to call sinners, so I expect them at church. Having wrongdoers at church is just like having sick people at hospital – perfectly normal.

Other reasons against Christianity are about the Bible. Maybe you have said, ‘It’s too hard to understand.’ Or, ‘I want to read it one day, but haven’t got around to it.’

These aren’t convincing either. It’s a big surprise to me to find men and women who are experts in their work, but whose understanding of Jesus is at the level of a ten year old. They’ve never read the Bible as adults and rely on half-remembered school scripture from 20 years ago!

So what is the one good reason to stay away from Christianity?

As we’d expect, the reason is all about Jesus. Specifically, if Jesus is not alive from the dead then ignore all Christians.

Lots of leaders have died unjustly, even heroically. Yet none claimed that they would come back to life after three days. Jesus did.

Many religions spread their leader’s teachings. Followers of Jesus have always announced that Jesus’ tomb is empty. A ridiculous message. Unless it’s true!

If anyone could prove to me that Jesus did not rise and that he is not alive, it would change everything. This alone would convince me Christianity is bankrupt.

Yet, as we approach Easter, I am ever more convinced that Jesus is alive. That’s why I keep following him. What do you say about the living Jesus?
March 2006

Oops

A blog by Chris Little

Category Archives: Christianity & culture

Quick review: The Gospel and the Mind

Science of the gaps

When people can’t hear Christians

Sex talk

Politics, change & wishes

Faith before reason

Gallipoli & meaning

How difficult is the gospel of Jesus?

Passionate commitment

Reasons not to believe