Engaging with Foucault: can we believe in truth any more?

I spoke earlier in the week at Sheffield CU's lunchbar, engaging with issues of truth. As a social scientist, it's great to be engaging with writers like Michel Foucault. (I've written before on whether Foucault is correct in thinking power must always be used in a way that invariably restricts freedoms). I owe part of my thinking here to Tim Keller. Here's a summary of what I said:

20th Century philosophies of truth: your perspective informs what you understand the truth to be. When we look at the world around us, each of us sees it from within the horizons of our own world, whether those horizons are linguistic, emotional, social, artistic or whatever. Actually our perception of things is, at best, a limited or partial view of the truth.

Foucault's bit: he added to the above by claiming that truth claims are invariably power plays (as they limit the freedoms of others to chose to live as they like).

This leads us to a kind of paralysis. The big questions are unanswerable. And when we do decide to land on one answer as opposed to another, we can get accused of trying to get power over someone else. We long for truth - but instead all we have is lots of information, a whole load of 'partial truths' at best.

Jesus on Foucault: Jesus agreed that truth can be used as a power play (e.g. in the way that he confronts the teachers of the Law in Luke 11).

We’ve all experienced times when people have spoken genuine truth to us but they have not spoken it to us in love. Instead they’ve told it to us to hurt us, to wound us, to injure us. Yes, we can step back and say, 'What you’ve said is true, but the way you said it; well, you are intending to hurt me, not to help me.' And Jesus would say: "Listen, it’s not the claim to truth that does this – that hurts people. It’s what’s in the truth claim and its intent that matters."

Let's look at Jesus by these criteria...

1. Jesus claimed to speak as someone not limited by his humanity. Jesus was a Jewish man in the 1st Century. But he claimed to speak as God in human form: that he had a God’s-eye view of the Universe. And so he claimed not just to be having a good guess about how things are, but to reveal and embody the truth.

2. Jesus' mission (in his own words) was to bring freedom. While most religions and belief systems present God as static and making demands upon us, Christianity trusts in the God who has served us, in coming to us and dying for us. And so for Christians, true freedom is found in relationship with God. When we realize all that Jesus has done to serve us and give himself for us, this speaks to our fears of giving up our independence, finding true freedom in him.

3. The intent behind Jesus' truth claims. Jesus claimed that he isn’t out to control people like us, rather he’s out to free us and to bring us into the relationship with God we’re made for. In fact Jesus was so committed to us that it ultimately led to his voluntary death in our place. So as you consider Jesus’ truth claims, test the person of Jesus: does he seem out to coerce or control?

A person is transformed when they encounter undeserved sacrifice. Once you’ve encountered someone who sacrifices on your behalf and you know you don’t deserve it, you’re aware you can never be the same. It requires transformation. That is what drives Christians. Out of love for Christ and love for others, they long to see others entering into that relationship of life with Jesus. And so Christians are committed to loving their friends (and their enemies) and pointing them to Jesus, building strong relationships based on truth. That is the natural outcome of Jesus’ teaching and intent.

So, as a Christian, can you believe in truth any more?

This was a question I used to wrestle through as I did my Masters which embraced lots of continental philosophy. Can I believe in truth any more as a Christian? Yes, because truth has made itself known in the person of Jesus; because truth diagnoses me as I really am, then offers an antidote; and because truth shows itself when lived out fully in beautiful others-centred relationships that do not hurt others but build them up.

Is God merely a psychological crutch for the weak?

I've been giving some thinking over recent months to the above question. My post on Robbie Williams' latest song, Bodies, shows that the question regarding whether or not God is a psychological crutch is alive and well. Here are a few of my thoughts:

The presupposition behind the question: that there is widespread internal desire for the spiritual. This is true. A 2005 worldwide survey placed belief in the spiritual realm at 90%. Popular culture also attests to this fact. Sam Sparro's 2008 grammy nominated song Black and Gold, for instance, is about the seemingly innate longing for God.

The charge: God is merely a psychological crutch. People like Sam Sparro – and perhaps you – so desire ‘something bigger than them’ that they project these desires onto a big screen and call it ‘God’. Theorists from Marx to Freud have argued that, in some way, God is merely a figment of the imagination, a kind of wish-fulfilment.

The psychological crutch is a well-documented phenomenon, in academia and in popular culture. The Tom Hanks film Castaway depicts psychological crutches that help Hanks' character Noland to survive under extreme pressure: the most famous being Wilson, the volleyball that Noland turns into his confidante and friend. Richard Dawkins, when examining the Pacific cargo cults - a religious system very obviously rooting from psychological need - claims that all religious belief evolves in this manner. We desire certain things, and so we conjure up spiritual entities – God or gods – in whom we place hope in to bring us what we need.

Taking on the argument

1. The charge that belief in God is a product of wish-fulfilment for believers can be countered by the charge that unbelief might be a product of wish-fulfilment for unbelievers. Arguments that don’t rest upon objective evidence can cut both ways. If one group attributes the other’s view to emotion or sociology or psychological need, then the other only needs to reply in kind. Non-belief in God could, itself, be a form of wish-fulfilment.

For example, the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud hypothesised that belief in the existence of God as "merely a projection of a childish wish for the protection of the father.” But this statement can be turned around. As the psychologist Philip Witz has recently written, Freud had a very bad relationship with his own father. Whereas religious belief might be rendered merely a childish need for a father figure, the non-belief of others such Freud could be characterised as a form of adolescent rebellion against the father-figure of God.

Moreover, CS Lewis showed that there is a psychological dynamic of ‘fear fulfillment’: in other words, that people have reasons to wish God non-existence as well as his existence. According to Freud’s own theory of universal subconsciousness, a person would seem to have at least as plausible a psychological basis for wanting to do away with a Father in heaven as wanting to believe in him.

2. Not all forms of belief in God or gods can be lumped together. Richard Dawkins writes: ‘I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan. Instead, I shall define the God Hypothesis as this: there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual human evolution’. It sounds fair enough – that Dawkins wants to somehow remain politically correct and attack everyone’s gods!

But there's a flaw in this argument: just because some belief in God can be shown to be psychological doesn’t mean that all belief in God is psychological. No doubt some forms of religious belief are merely psychological, but it is logically fallacious to say that therefore all belief in God is merely psychology. Dawkins’ view assumes (without any argument) that all religions have the same basic core components, which can all be explained as projections of psychological crutches. All gods, and hence all religions, are simply projections of human desires. But there are differences between religions – crucially including how God is made known and is knowable.

3. Christian belief in God is not primarily founded in human experience, but in God's own revelation of himself. The Christian writer Gresham Machen wrote, 'The only God about whom I feel concerned is one who has objective existence, an existence independent of man. But if there be such a really and independently existent Being, it seems extremely unlikely that there can be any knowledge of Him unless He chooses to reveal Himself.' This is where Christianity differs to every other religion and philosophy. Whereas, for whatever reason – psychological factors or an inbuilt desire to want to know God – other religions are about humanity trying to find God, Christianity is about God coming to find humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. This means that the way of knowing what God is like is not internal, but based upon revelation in human space and time.

An alternative perspective on spiritual desire

The Bible endorses the idea that each of us has a desire for God, and with it a primal longer for fulfilment and significance. We feel that without God we’re incomplete. But, according to the Bible, this feeling of incompleteness is no crutch or hope for an imaginary friend. Rather, it teaches is that humans are not accidents, but that we were created in the image and the likeness of God. As relational creatures made in the likeness of a relational Creator, it’s not at all surprising that we want to relate to God. We long for God because we have been created to relate to him. As one Bible verse puts it, ‘God has set eternity in the hearts of men.’

CS Lewis put it like this: “A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, then; is such a thing as water. People feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.” Lewis is saying that our universal instinct for purpose and meaning is a strong evidence that God exists. It’s as if there is an inbuilt honing device in each of us that draws us beyond the physical.

God has designed us to want to know him, and we can only understand our creatureliness when we understand the Creator. In fact, we are truly human – we live as we were created to live – when we live in relationship with the God that made us. It’s something that Jesus won for us through his death on the cross, that we might be reconciled to God, start a relationship with him and therefore experience true humanity.

Please don’t dismiss this out of hand – dismissing it like that could be a psychological crutch – a fear fulfilment. Will you look into the evidence objectively for yourself?

Robbie Williams: Bodies

Robbie Williams makes his long-awaited comeback later this year with an album released in November and his latest song, Bodies, regularly on the radio.

I'm not a massive fan of Robbie's music but there's no doubting that he's something of a cultural icon. His forthcoming album Reality Killed the Video Star is dominating the charts on future release charts. And to his credit, Bodies, his comeback single isn't safe: not a ballad, but a sound that will appeal to a slightly more adult audience.

There's no doubt that spirituality plays an important part in the track. It opens with Gregorian chant and ends with a gospel choir. And whilst the lyrics sometimes feel somewhat forced, there's some interesting mileage in considering their message.

One of the lyrics at the end of the track is 'Jesus didn't die for you / What do you want?' I happened to hear an interview with Robbie on the radio over the weekend and there's no doubt that in part this is an effort to attract headlines through shock. But I wonder if there's more going on in the song.

There are masses of spiritual references: not only to Jesus, but also to the Bodhi tree (where the Buddha apparently received his revelations). In the interview I heard, Robbie confessed that although he'd been raised a Roman Catholic, he no longer knew who to pray to. He joked that the previous night he'd prayed to the Archangel Michael because he liked the look of his muscles, and also intimated that he enjoyed reading atheist writings by Richard Dawkins.

And I wonder if that brings the hearer to the crux of the song. Robbie sings about 'bodies' ('Bodies in the Bodhi tree / bodies making chemistry / bodies on my family...). Yet the song seems to point to a conviction that humans are more than just bodies finding themselves in space and time at a particular point ('Praying for the rapture / Cause it's strange, getting stranger'). Perhaps above all, though, the song represents a fear that the need for Jesus is merely a psychological need that we all have: possibly the need to be accepted as we are ('All we've ever wanted is to look good naked / That someone can take it / God save me rejection from my rejection / I want perfection').

And so the song closes, with Robbie singing that 'Jesus didn't really die for you', whilst a gospel choir sings 'Jesus really died for you'. I wonder: is this an argument that is going on in Robbie's head? Is Jesus merely a projection of our needs?

For more on Jesus being a psychological crutch or wish-fulfilment, click here, or see my post Is God merely a psychological crutch for the weak?

The Trinity: unbiblical, illogical, irrelevant?

I had the privilege and opportunity to speak on a lunchbar with the above title at Lancaster University last week.

As part of the lunchbar, I stated that I believed that any religion based upon a singular god shows itself (at least in part) in works. After all, this god might demand obedience and religious service and sacrifice and prayer and elaborate worship. If it's going to come from anyone, it has to come from humans. Religion is about humans paying all of this to a god. (This contrasts to Biblical Christianity, in which the Son makes forgiveness possible, and whose righteousness is credited to those who trust in him).

I had an interesting conversation afterwards with a Christadelphian. I have to admit that I didn't know very much about Christadelphian doctrine, beyond the fact that they denied the Trinity. But the girl I met was adamant that works have no part in salvation in the Christadelphian view.

However, as the conversation continued, I think my original statement was endorsed. Christadelphians believe that humans are separated from God because of their sins, and can be reconciled to him by becoming disciples of Jesus Christ. This comes through faith, confession and it seems baptism (although the girl wasn't completely sure on this point). But, above all, she explained that salvation comes as a result of making a commitment to follow the commands of God. The work, it seems, is a commitment to obedience.

I left the conversation sad, because we seemed to get nowhere. But then I got to reflect again on the amazing Trinitarian God - a plurality that offers all those who trust in Christ forgiveness in full as a gift of grace, the reputation and righteousness of Christ, the very status of Christ, adoption as heirs and the gift of the Holy Spirit. What a God!

Some thoughts on the prosperity gospel

A few weeks ago I was asked to give a message at Bolton CU concerning the prosperity gospel.

Whilst there are a fair number of prosperity gospel lunatics, I realised that most prosperity teaching is actually only a subtle (but dangerous) twist of the genuine gospel message. Jesus is portrayed as a kind of key that brings us entry into a store of blessings that flow from God the Father.

But here are three problems that I have with the prosperity gospel:

1. True blessing for a Christian is not primarily concerned with 'stuff' (as prosperity teachers imply) but a closer walk with Jesus, whereby a believer leans more fully on Christ in everything - Philippians 1:21

2. Communion with Christ transforms all areas of life (as the prosperity gospel teaches) - but this happens not magically but as a believer surrenders life to him with the Holy Spirit's help - Colossians 2:6-7

3. The clearest witness to Christ comes not through accumulating stuff, but as we willingly surrender it to him - Matthew 13:44-46

'Communal reinforcement'

I've been away for a week in Cyprus - an excellent time to get some R&R, and do some reading. One book I read was Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. Goldacre is the editor of the Bad Science website, and his book is well-written, heartfelt and engaging.

At one point of the book (in a chapter entitled 'Why clever people believe stupid things', in a section on why we often prefer chat show endorsements to empirical evidence), he writes the following:

'Communal reinforcement' is the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief, through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched, or supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Communal reinforcement goes a long way towards explaining how religious beliefs can be passed on in communities from generation to generation...' (page 253).

I've spoken several times on whether belief in God is merely a psychological crutch, and this is a commonly occuring theme in popular culture (see my review of the Brit flick Franklyn, for example). I'd come across 'communal reinforcement' in thinking about voting patterns before, and it got me thinking further about communal reinforcement in Christian circles. (In passing, I think it's harder to make this claim of Christian belief than, perhaps, theocratic beliefs like Islam, where confession influences much wider aspects of a society's culture).

It's certainly true that communal reinforcement inevitably does occur within Christian circles. This is shown by the fact that when someone professing as a Christian loses the community around them (typically leaving to go to university), many cease professing further. Additionally, it is not difficult to envisage that Christian conferences (for example) might leave delegates with an emotional high that is of merely psychological benefit. Conferences are wonderful but it's important we don't let them become emotionally manipulative. To do this might actually drive some away from authentic belief in Christ.

But like the normal 'psychological crutch' argument, just because some belief can be proven to be communal reinforcement, this does not necessarily go 'a long way' in explaining Christian belief. For one thing, it does not account for Christian belief where Christian community is minimal or non-existent (or where a person's community is primarily with those that are not Christians). Certainly Scripture represents belief in Christ as something based on historical fact (see John 20:30-31, 1 John 1:1-4 and so on), and not hunch or family faith.

A tool to help engage with philosophy and pop culture

I've recently come across a series of very useful books for those of us involved in cultural engagement, apologetics and evangelism.

Published by Wiley-Blackwell, the Philosophy and Pop Culture series helps the reader to get their heads around the various philosophies that popular films and television programmes both espouse and reflect. Why is it that we find David Brent so ridiculous? What is the form of philosophy that drives Jack Bauer? These are amongst the questions that the books investigate. As well as 24 and The Office, there are also guides on other series including Battlestar Galatica, Family Guy, Lost, South Park and the Batman films, amongst others. You can view the full list of titles here.

The books aren't easy reads (especially the one I read on 24). It's academic philosophers that have written the chapters. But I found the guides both helpful in illustrating quite abstract philosophical ideas, and in helping me to engage with the ideas these shows present and play around with. I'm hoping that as well as deepening my appreciation of these programmes, the books have armed me with new material for sermons and lunchbars.

Debaptism and institutional religion

Andy Jinks refers to a BBC article on the latest atheist statement against the institutional church: debaptism.

The article is worth a read, touching on subjects like the individual's freedom to religion, the role of theology and baptism, and the issue that seems to be dominating many atheists' soundbites: whether or not it is right to bring children up with religious beliefs.

It's interesting that original sin seems to be the thing that the guy in the article is particularly angry at. It's also interesting how the article closes:

The Church wonders aloud why, if atheists and secularists believe baptism is so meaningless, they are letting it upset them.

Mr Hunt supplies his own answer.

"Evangelical noises are getting louder and louder. The recent change in European legislation has led to religious beliefs not being challenged at all, and there's no limit at all on what anybody can claim as a valid religious belief. I think it's important that more people speak out and say they don't subscribe to the historic beliefs of the Church."

It still seems that many equate institutional Christianity with (abuses of) power, and that Christian beliefs are merely superstitious. What a challenge we Christians face in debunking these ideas.

Isn't the God of the Old Testament genocidal and bigoted? (or, Is the God of the Bible a monster?)

I'm speaking at the lunchbar at Lancaster University on the very tricky and emotionally engaging question above. This has been hard work to prepare.

I've decided to look at the slaughter of the Canaanites in Joshua 6 (which is often what people have in mind - at least implicitly - when they ask this question). The incident, which occurs with the invasion of Jericho, is thought to demonstrate God's lack of moral standards, that don't even seem to match up to our own. Nor can Christians just pass off these incidents as being inapplicable because they are recorded in the Old Testament. God is unchanging. And so a whole load of fears emerge... fears that God isn't good, fears that the Bible might stirs its readers to religious violence and so on.

Here's an outline of the path I'm going to take in responding to the charges against God from Joshua 6:

1. God's actions in judging the Canaanites as he did were unique because what he was doing in the world at the time was unique.

The land of Canaan was the backdrop for God’s model; an arena where the nations could see the blessing of a relationship with God, and a real-life picture pointing to forward to the Messiah, ultimately fulfilled in Jesus. Because the reality to which the model pointed has come, Christians are never called to take up arms and kill people in the name of God or Christianity today.

2. God alone has the right to demand the end of another’s life.

3. The Canaanites were not innocent.

As illustrated in Deuteronomy 18:9-12 and so on. Child sacrifices were amongst the detestable practices that God was judging.

4. God was not impatient in judging the Canaanites, but had given them many years to change their ways.

As shown in Genesis 15:16, and echoed for us today in 2 Peter 3:8-9. God's justice will still be done - and eventually he will bring a final judgement.

5. Escape was not impossible.

... As illustrated in the example of Rahab and her family (Joshua 6:17, 22-23). This illustrates the Lord's kindness, and points us forward towards the ultimate rescue he made for us through the cross.

U or √?

I was chatting to a Christian student earlier in the week at Lancaster University. She had been brought up with the idea that Jesus has made a 'return to Eden' possible. Many Christians hold to this point of view - it's a kind of U-shaped view of the Biblical narrative.

Her questions, then, followed like this: surely it would have been better for God to have ensured that Adam and Eve didn't fall in the first place if salvation is all about returning things to how they were before the Fall. This had become a major apologetic stumbling block for the student.

Instead, though, the shape of the Biblical narrative is not just a 'U'; in fact, it is more like a '√'. Our heavenly existence will see our adoption as sons, a status of being co-heirs with Christ and a deeper knowledge of God's grace and mercy than Adam and Eve could have ever known. God allowed the Fall to happen so that humans might experience a quality of relationship Adam and Eve never had in Eden.

The egotistical God that demands praise?

I was chatting earlier to a student who struggled with the idea of a God that demands to be praised and was reminded of this quote I recently read:

'The praise of the God whose truth, beauty, grace, mercy, greatness and faithfulness we appreciate is the most natural thing in the world, and can be the most joyful too, as well as the most health giving. As CS Lewis wrote, 'Praise almost seems to be inner health made audible.'

Lewis's wisdom helps us to see two things. First, tat what looked like bargaining with God is simply honest anticipation of glorifying him through active enjoyment of a renewed display of his active love. Second, that the corporate praise to which the psalms constantly call us, and which we seek to achieve in church every Lord's Day as we sing out together our shared appreciation of God and his ways, brings him close to us. Writes Lewis: "I did not see that it is the process of being worshipped that God communicates His presence to men. It is not of course the only way. But for many people at many times the 'fait beauty of the Lord' is revealed chiefly or only while they worship him together."'

[JI Packer & Carolyn Nystrom, Praying, pages 100-101]

"There are many paths to what you call God" - are all religions the same?

Here are some thoughts for a lunchbar I'm giving this week at Lancaster University. It tackles the sort of new age pluralist belief that 'right action' is the most important thing.

I was given a quote by the American television host Oprah Winfrey, “There are many paths to what you call God”, and then given the subtitle, “Are all religions the same?” Thanks to YouTube, I was able to find the context where this quote was made. It was made by Oprah in her television programme a few years ago:

Oprah's worldview

1. Humans can experience true humanity through feeling certain things through making certain choices of action. Oprah suggests that people can choose to get to the same point through showing love, kindness and generosity. For her, that’s what it means to be human. In fact, she suggests that what some call knowing ‘God’ is merely one of millions of possible ways of experiencing our true humanity, broadly given the description of living in ‘the light’. God is not a personal being, but a name some give to a feeling of fulfilment. Humans can waste their lives through choosing not to show love to ourselves and others. Whilst Oprah would surely admit that there are differences in teaching between religions, for her the similarity between them is that all of them help their adherents to express what it means to live in ‘the light’.

2. Certain religious believers who hold what are called ‘exclusivist’ beliefs are arrogant and intolerant because they insist upon thinking the ‘right things’ about God. What’s important is living the right way, living in the light, and thereby being enlightened to the experiences of what it means to be human. Teaching and doctrine just get in way of doing that, causing unnecessary arguments and intolerance.

In a 2008 web seminar on her religious views, Oprah clarified her own position on Jesus’ identity and his relationship to other religions, saying:

“Jesus came to show us Christ-consciousness, Jesus came to show us the way of the heart, Jesus came to say, ‘Look, I’m going to live in the body, in the human body and I’m going to show you how it’s done. Here are some principles and some laws that you can use to live by to know that way.’ ... I don’t believe that Jesus came to start Christianity. What Jesus said has a depth to it. So there’s no conflict between his teaching, which is purely spiritual, and any other religion.”

Pluralism, then, is shown to be what Oprah holds most highly. To insist upon there being only ‘one way’ is uncool, arrogant and intolerant. Christians, for example, that claim that Jesus is the only way to God have misunderstood Jesus and the ‘depth’ of his teaching. Holding exclusivist views is to be unenlightened about what it means to live and truly experience life as a human.

3. There can’t possibly be only one way to God. Oprah charges the Christians in the audience, apparently incredulous at their small mindedness, and angry at how Christians render God. If there were a God, and there are people who are trying their best to live like Jesus, how can God possibly deny them entry into heaven? Again we see that living the right way and experiencing the light comes before believing.

Overall, Oprah advocates a position very similar to the religious pluralist John Hick:

‘Around the different ways of conceiving, experiencing and responding to the Real there have grown up the various religious traditions of the world with their myths and symbols, their philosophies and theologies, their liturgies and arts, their ethics and lifestyles. Within all of them basically the same salvific process is taking place, namely the transformation of human existence from self-centredness to Reality-centredness. Each of the great traditions thus constitutes a valid context of salvation / liberation; each may be able to gain a larger understanding of the Real by attending to the reports and the conceptualities of the others.” (Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, 1985)

Engaging with Oprah's worldview: two questions

1. How do we know anything about God at all and what he is like?

Oprah asserts that ‘God’ is an impersonal experiential feeling that comes from doing good. She brings her own definition of who God is and what God is like into the discussion (which, in practice, runs against the concept of God that nearly every world religion would hold).

Each of us is liable to form a God of our imagination, because we don’t instinctively know what God is like. We need him to reveal himself. Otherwise, we just bring our own definitions of what we think God should be like – without any evidence – and then assert these ideas on others.

The God of Christianity is a personal, revealing God. For that reason, he has made himself known, supremely in the person of Jesus.

So what about the claim that there’s no conflict between Jesus' teaching, which is 'purely spiritual', and any other religion? We'd have to refute it. The plain reading of the Gospels reveals Jesus to be God, not someone whose primary aim was to encourage others to search for a hidden existential philosophy (like Oprah suggests). And if the God of the Bible really is God, he is well able to represent himself in ways that are plainly intelligible to us.

2. How do we experience what it means to be truly human?

I think Oprah rightly wants to live an authentic human life – and for her, that’s to be kind, generous and loving to all. For her, acting rightly now and doing the right thing is the supreme end of being a human.

Our consciences testify that Oprah's way of living is good and right. But here’s the problem: by ourselves, we can’t live this way. In fact, we’re incapable to just choose to live this way. We’re not free to live in the way we know we ought to be living.

In Mark 7:21-23, Jesus describes why it’s impossible for us to live this way: it comes from a disease at our very core. Jesus described in it this way: “What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts come evil thoughts: sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you.” The source of this disease, this evil, is wanting to live life without God.

In the name of freedom, we’ve walked out of the relationship with God for which we were created. We live instead as we were never meant to live. And so, although what God made was very good, what we have made is evil. Everything God made has been caught up in it. Everything is broken. But we can’t just saunter back to God. We’re trapped in this way of living.

According to Jesus, that leaves us with two problems:

(a) the judgement of God’s verdict upon our lives: our past condemns us;
(b)there’s no prospect of change: none of us can just change.

In short, we need a miracle. What Oprah longs for is good. She longs to be generous and kind and loving. But this is only possible if, somehow, we can be miraculously changed from the inside out to live as the way we were created to live, for God. But that requires us to be brought back to him. The Bible teaches us that this happens through Jesus' death and resurrection.

Those who trust in Jesus are made completely new from the inside out (this is what Oprah craves) . Christians are washed clean, and then God himself – through the help of his Holy Spirit – helps Christians to live for God, the way that we were created to live. God’s help makes kindness and generosity and love a possibility where they were impossible to show consistently before. It’s a slow process, but God is miraculously at work and promises that, when we die and receive new bodies, this work will be complete. And the process of being made more like Jesus is a beautiful thing to see in the lives of others.

Conclusions

Oprah says, “there are many paths to what you call God.” But for all of her good intentions, Oprah is wrong here on two counts:

• ‘God’ is not a way of living, he is a person who longs to be known.
• And we can’t live the way that God wants us to live without being brought back to him. That happens through Jesus’ death on the cross.

Why has God revealed himself as he has?

In the last few days, I've met up with and then been in contact with a friend who's doubting as as Christian. There are lots of big issues which he's wrestling through for the first time, but one of the big questions relates to the issue of God's revelation.

Why has he chosen to reveal himself as he has? Why hasn't he revealed himself in other 'clearer' forms, like a big message in the sky? If the Bible revelation of God today is mediated through Scripture, isn't that cold and rationalistic?

I think the key thing here is the nature of relationship that God wants with humans. If God wanted us merely to assent to his existence intellectually, then a big message in the sky might do. But for a personal relationship to be initiated, then surely another form of revelation is required. The nature of revelation must change for a certain relational form to follow. (A joke used to go round some of the students I work with that I proposed by text message. I didn't. But why would this be so scandalous? Because that form of revelation - that I wanted to marry Linda - needed to be made in a certain way in order to have a certain form of relationship with her).

In human relationships, we get to know others by actively relating to them. We spend time with, we see what makes them tick, we talk to them. This is necessary to have a personal relationship with them. In the same way, we come to know God through relating to him. He designed it in this way. Just as it wouldn't be possible for a person to comprehend the reality of their parents' love for them apart from a personal relationship with them, so we come to know God and his love in the same way.

And so, the knowledge that God wants us to have isn't just knowing that he is exists as an object - but rather that we might know him as the supreme person, our sustainer and redeemer, Lord of all - even over each of us. In short, God wants us to know him as he really is. And so his form of revelation is personal; designed to reveal his character and to bring us into the sort of relationship with Jesus whereby he is the proper head of our family. He calls us to enter and enjoy a loving relationship with himself.

If that's the case, then, how does the Bible fit in? Scripture presents Jesus to us, as he really is. Jesus himself is the revelation of the Father, and through the Spirit, Scripture renders the authentic Jesus. The Bible is like no other book, in that the Spirit of the co-author and the subject of the book is with us by his Spirit. And so, far from being intellectual, Scripture draws us to the person of Jesus - showing us what he is really like, his character, his mind, his trustworthiness - and calling us to worship him. That is what it means to experience life (John 17:3), both now and in the age to come.

God, evolution and Charles Darwin

It's worth reading this article that featured in yesterday's Times, documenting ten surprising things that Charles Darwin said about religious faith.

If you were born in the Middle East, you'd be a Muslim...

This is one of the questions I find most difficult to answer - and one that was posed to me at Lancaster University CU's Grill-a-Christian panel last night by some members of the Atheist and Agnostic Society (yes, it really does exist!).

I've been mulling over this question a bit today, and found Paul Copan's article here helpful. I quite like this line: 'The same line of reasoning applies to the pluralist himself. If the pluralist grew up in Madagascar or medieval France, he would not have been a pluralist!'

This is a start of an answer. Another would be that just because investigation of Christianity is more easy in 'Christian' countries like Britain doesn't necessarily invalidate its truth. Another would be that Christianity has been accepted as truth across many cultures, geographically and historically diverse.

Anyone else got any further ideas?

On another note, I was reading a review of the Grill-a-Christian by one of the aforementioned atheists / agnostics and I was described as 'clearly intelligent and well read, but very, very lost' - there we go!

Ted Turnau resources

One of the things I really benefitted from at the European Leadership Forum was Ted Turnau's sessions on using films for discussion, understanding worldviews and in evangelism.

His session, Screening Worldviews: how to watch (and discuss) movies as a Christian is available here, and strongly recommended. Ted also has his own website here, and includes fantastic resources on hosting a film discussion night and a list of recommended films to use. The sort of film discussion nights that he proposes might be suitably used by churches, plus also by CU small groups for outreach events.

Gary Habermas in Manchester

Yesterday three of us headed down to hear the very well known Christian apologist, philosopher and theologian, Gary Habermas, speak in Manchester as part of the Evangelical Alliance's Think Resurrection tour. Professor Habermas' Wikipedia entry can be found here.

It was quite a shock that so few people were there. I don't think the events was very well publicised. It was a shame. Those of us who made it were given a real treat. Prof. Habermas is a great speaker and communicator, and evidently knows what he is talking about.

Below, I've sought to reproduce what I can from the notes I made from Prof. Habermas' sessions.

Session 1: Paul on the resurrection of Jesus

In his first lecture, Prof. Habermas spoke of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus that is provided from Paul’s letters; evidence which has been commonly underplayed by evangelicals who have relied on the later Gospel accounts. He mainly used 1 Corinthians and Galatians to establish the evidence from Paul’s writings, as they are amongst the letters considered ‘indisputably’ written by Paul.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul speaks of ‘what I received I passed on to you of first importance … that [Christ] was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.’ Virtually all scholars agree that Paul is presenting an ancient creed concerning Jesus' death and resurrection which is actually much earlier than the composition of 1 Corinthians. In these verses himself, Paul says that he had preached the same message whilst in Corinth (dated at 51-52 AD through the pro-consulship of Gallio, mentioned in Acts 18:12, 14 and 17).

According to Prof. Habermas, that this material is earlier than Paul is evident from many facts, such as the usage of the technical terms ‘delivered’ and ‘received’ (which indicate the giving of oral tradition); the proper names of Peter and James, and the probability of an original creed in Aramaic. Even critical scholars generally agree that the creed has a very early origin.

Many scholars date Paul's receiving of this creed from two to eight years after the crucifixion itself, or from about 32-38 AD. Most of those who comment on the issue hold that Paul most likely received this material during his visit in Jerusalem with Peter and James (see Galatians 1:18-19), who are included in the list of appearances (1 Corinthians 15:5-7). It’s reckoned that this first meeting with Peter and James, recorded in Galatians, happened within six years of Jesus’ crucifixion.

There are several indications that the content (and perhaps words) of this ‘gospel creed’ are apostolic:

• Paul mentions very early resurrection appearances of Jesus to the disciples (1 Corinthians 15:4-7). He probably received the list from a couple of them.
• Paul himself is the eyewitness and source behind the appearance of 1 Corinthians 15:8.
• Paul asserts that the apostles as a whole were themselves currently teaching the very same message about Jesus’ resurrection appearances (1 Corinthians 15:11, 14-15; see also Galatians 2:6, 9-10).
• On at least two occasions, Paul specifically checked the nature of the gospel he was preaching (which includes Jesus’ resurrection – 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) with the other apostles and found that the content of his teaching was accurate (see Galatians 1:11-2:10). The ‘we’ of 1 Corinthians 15:11 refers to the preaching of all the apostles: Paul and the other apostles were evidently agreed on the message of the resurrection.

Fascinatingly, apparently these facts have been accepted by liberal scholars, including those of the Jesus Seminar. Even Gert Ludemann, an atheist New Testament scholar, agrees that the oral tradition of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 must have been formed within 2-3 years of the crucifixion! Thus even if a person doubts the conclusion concerning the actual date and specific location of the creedal material given to Paul, there is still an excellent foundation for it being early and apostolic in nature. This very early report of Jesus' resurrection appearances clearly link the eyewitness content of the gospel with its later proclamation. All of the evidence shows that the participants actually did see the risen Jesus, both individually and in groups.

Thus Prof. Habermas was keen to show that there is another path through Paul’s writings to the historical event of Jesus’ resurrection, which backs up the Gospel accounts. He recommended Paul Barnett's 'Jesus and the Logic of History' as further reading.

Session 2: The Uniqueness of Christ

In the second of his lectures, Prof. Habermas focused on the uniqueness of Christ. In particular, he made the point that both Jesus’ resurrection and deity were preached right from the very earliest parts of Christian history.

It has long been the received wisdom among New Testament scholars that John’s Gospel presents a portrait of Jesus as divine, coming down from heaven, whereas the Synoptic Gospels do not consider him in such exalted terms, and specifically contain no hints of Jesus being pre-existent. In other words, a common claim is that Jesus’ deity was increasingly established across the 1st Century as Christian thought developed. However, Prof. Habermas claimed that Jesus is clearly portrayed as God even in the Synoptic Gospels. In Mark 14:61, for example, in responding to the questioning of the high priest at his trial, Jesus ties together the titles ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of the Blessed One’ (‘Son of God’). Jesus portrays himself as a figure worthy of worship (drawing upon the language of Daniel 7:13-14 and possibly also 1 Enoch 46:1-4 and 48:2-10). Other references which clearly portray Jesus as God include Matthew 11:27 (and the parallel in Luke 10:22), Mark 13:32 and Mark 14:36. In short, even in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus makes incredible claims about himself. Indeed, if Jesus is not speaking the truth of himself, then he has committed the blasphemy laws of Deuteronomy 13 and 18. He recommended reading ‘The Pre-Existent Son’ by Simon Gathercole as essential further reading on this matter.

Prof. Habermas then listed six things that make Jesus unique amongst other religious teachers and philosophers:

1. No other founder of a world religion claimed to be divine.
2. No other founder of a world religion is believed to have been raised from the dead.
3. No other founder of a world religion has miracles performed by them recorded within a generation.
4. No other founder of a world religion claims himself to be the way to salvation (i.e. Jesus effectively says, “How you respond to me determines whether or not your receive salvation”).
5. No other founder of a world religion says that their death is important – even indispensable – to their mission.
6. No other founder of a world religion claimed that suffering is central to the belief system they inaugurate (contrasting especially with Buddhism, which says that suffering is illusory and not real).

All in all, the sessions were excellent. I believe the recordings will be made available by the EA and are well worth getting your hands on!

True truth

Just read this wonderful quote from CS Lewis in his book The Weight of Glory. I think I've heard it before but been struck but its sheer depth.

The line is this: “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

Lewis is making the point that we become convinced that something is true not just when a few pieces of evidence seem to support it - but when absolutely everything proves it.

In university missions over the past few weeks, I've been quite staggered by the number of individuals who have come from religious backgrounds but who are under the impression that thinking is the enemy of Christianity. Some have even been told by Christians (maybe sometimes with good intention?) not to question, but just to have faith. What freedom Lewis's observation is: that questions are good and that thinking is good. As we do so, and as we seek to make sense of the world, we'll find that all of the evidence points back to Jesus and the truth claims of the gospel. You certainly don't have to throw your brain in the bin or divorce yourself from experience to be a Christian (far from it!).

It's been great to be able to encourage students to think, knowing that if the gospel really is true truth, that it will be able to stand up to their honest questions.