Sunday, March 10, 2024

Science and the Bible, or Science v the Bible?

All intellectual endeavor starts with a conception of the world. If that conception is not aligned with the world as it truly is, it fails to enable, or even allow, proper examination of the world. By proper I mean, in a manner that gives true knowledge of the discretely objective world. For instance,
 
> the ancients and pagans generally entertained fictitious occasionalist (look it up) gods contained by the cosmos that were fickle derivations of man at his stupidest, even the fates, that seemed to be over them also seemed to be contained by the cosmos.

> animists as a type of pagan had gods that were enemies and the world was their playground: again, fickle, needing to be appeased, usually by human suffering and sacrifice (oops, we do that today with abortion). It was spooksville all round.

> Aristotle had a view that made the world impossible to truly explore.
 
> Plato too, for that matter, and the
 
> German idealists more or less the same (we are now entering a time that inherits their subjectivism and undoes science). 
 
> Islam views it as subject to a capricious god, making pursuit of knowledge gained by study of the world impossible.
 
> Eastern monism, broadly speaking, reduces the world to a figment, so science is irrelevant, so science is irrelevant and because 'god' is everything, impossible, and
 
> materialism reduces it to chance material conjunctions, or 'dirt' for short, eliminating any hope that a mind that resulted from such random events would have anything of value to say about anything.
 
Darwin also noted this risk, but he nevertheless went on to undermine himself, sitting on the branch he was sawing off.
 
The Christian understanding of the world is utterly different, and thus underpins the rise of modern science, explicitly.
 
The description of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2 gives us this: The world (the cosmos, really) is separate from God, and brought into existence with coherent purpose. At the same time God was active and present in the world, as Creator, not creature.
 
The creation described, as analyzed below was set in the world we are in, indicated by the 'days' of creation making what it teaches set in and about reality (indeed it 'grounds reality'): the reality that we are in and have intellectual access to.
 
This was not off in some silly-ville of paganism or fantasy; it was located concretely in the history we are in and so its characteristics were definitive for us.
 
Its creation showed rational causality and propositional (intelligible) content, with a clear dependency sequence, starting with the general energy field (light). Each day's action rejecting 'chance' and showing its own teleological arc. Something NDE fails in at every point.
 
It shows that we, created 'like' the creator, are able to correspondingly (or conjointly) examine the world which we are to rightly govern/subdue/superintend/steward (none of which means 'exploit', degrade or destroy), gain knowledge and convert this to communicable and intelligible propositions.
 
The basis for this is a confidence in the constancy of the world at some level, regularity and rationality of material processes, and reliability of our cognitive faculties to understand the world as deeply as we can go.
 
There is no limit because we are confident that the world is entirely explicable. A 'designed' world encourages this, a random world jeopardizes the project before it starts.
 
This mission is encouraged because we are also confident that we have a purposeful role in the purposeful world: we have an in-built teleological sense that encourages the worthiness of the project.
 
So, Genesis 1-2 is not a science text, per se. Rather it is the text that explains why science is possible at all, worthwhile and within our grasp.
 
It demonstrates this where Adam is asked to name various animals brought to him. Those sitting on the village idiot fence always get this wrong. Name follows 'understand'. Adam necessarily observed, understood, evaluated and classified in one way or another. The first example of empirical science that we have. All other science has followed this pattern.

Monday, February 26, 2024

Name the animals? Why?

Adam was told to name the animals in Genesis 2:20. Why?

We don't know at what taxonomic level naming occurred. So the time it would take is a moot point. A day may have been plenty of time. It is certainly foolish to imagine it was every modern species. At higher levels we have cranes, water fowl, raptors and parrots...etc. Perhaps a dozen or so kinds.

Aside from anything else, this process of 'naming' was perhaps the first move of Adam's governing of the creation and so has significance in his reflecting the image of God in ' taking responsibility'. It also drives the point of the location of the event in real time and space, in history, that is, and showing that the animals were not creatures to be worshipped, but to be subject to mankind.

The other aspect of naming is the commencement of the intellectual component of stewardship. Here Adam is told to make the first move in creating knowledge! The intelligibility of the creation shown in Adam's intelligent analysis of it.
 
Now we must be careful in talking about man's dominion here. Today anti-theists, read back into this man's current foolish and selfish domination of the creation. Adam's role as being in God's image would entail loving and caring for the creation as God's gift and reveling in the joy of doing so.
 

Monday, February 12, 2024

Yesterday at church: be family

The sermon was on 'being family'.

Clearly our teachers saw a deficiency here and urged its correction.

However, a 'family' ethos is a result, not a cause. If our current systems are not producing the desired outcome,  then 'try harder' within these systems will achieve no change, just frustration, fatigue and disenchantment.

We must understand the system that is causing this result, and then devise relevant changes to it. It is probably a long term effort, not one that will work next week.

Saturday, February 10, 2024

Welcomers at your church gatherings/services/meetings

The job of a welcomer is usually to say 'hi' hand out the service handout, if there is one, and for a newcomer, offer to help them find a seat and escort them to it.
 
Welcomers should continue to be 'on duty' after the gathering: keep an eye out for the newcomer, speak to them again, ensure they have a coffee if desired and available. Introduce them to a regular member.
 
Emergencies: the welcomers must be trained for emergencies, be able to help with exits, operate fire extinguishers, and do initial aid care (not 'full' first aid) and assist as guides for evacuation. They must train for this regularly.
 
Spiritual issues. The welcomer may be the only person a newcomer speaks to, and so they should be able to give a plain English, cogent answer to any of the 7 basic questions:
 
1 -- Why do you go to church?
 
2 -- Why are you a Christian?
 
3 -- Why do you read the Bible?
 
4 -- Did Jesus of Nazareth really resurrect -- is he really God?
 
 
5 -- Why do you believe in God?
 
6 -- Doesn't science disprove the Bible?
 
        See John Lennox on Science and God -- Two Mistakes we Make.
 
7 -- How can you believe in God/be a Christian with so much evil and suffering in the world?
 
        My first impulse here is to ask how they deal with evil and suffering in the world without a Saviour? Do they just accept it mutely, ignore it, seek to redress it, and how? However, the first question, as always should seek information: what do they mean by 'evil and suffering'? But also see John Lennox on this. And the full lecture.

Monday, February 5, 2024

Who is in charge?

The default answer to this question asks you to trot out the 'leader'.

We don't have 'leaders' in church.

A leader in modern terms would be the Greek archon: a ruler, boss or governor. One in command. We don't have this in the church. The closest thing might be overseer (elder) or the modern invention 'pastor'. 'Minister' is the best general term, and I think 'Senior Minister' is OK: senior servant, like your Butler at home.

The Senior Minister is the one who coordinates the service of the other ministers (both paid and volunteer).

In our church we have Organizers (who help the Coordinator), Convenors of home study and prayer groups, Ministry Assistants and Helpers (who attend to practical aspects of service).

But, I'm still groping for the word that is short snappy and to the point.

Moderator, as in some denominations; I think is a better term than president or chairman, so it might be useful.

For the local church, the general term I like, if 'minister' is inappropriate, ambiguous or confusing is Steward. A steward is used in secular connections, but ours is different. Instead of a youth group volunteer 'leader', who I would call a 'ministry assistant', but that is too clumsy for easy conversation, there would be stewards. 'Counselors' might also work, based on the term in summer camps; although this might be confused with therapeutic counselors. Organizers might also do the job.

But not 'Leader'. Ever!

How to teach theology

Only based on my experience, I doubt that most churches teach any theology. What theology people pick up would be by their private reading, so that could go anywhere, or by osmosis in their local church.

Osmosis is not the most efficient way!

But teaching theology would sound onerous to many church stewards, moderators, teachers and congregations. It has to be made relevant. And here's how.

One of the teaching segments of the year, perhaps aligned with Lent, or a school term, or for a couple of months after Trinity would be dedicated to 'theology'. The other 'terms' if you follow the school year, might be one OT, one NT and one contemporary life, for example, with Advent taking us up to Christmas.

Here's how the theology program might work: by using the main questions other religious approaches ask of Christian faith:

It might be the most common questions asked or claims or objections made by:

Muslims

1 Is the God Yahweh of the Bible the same as the god Allah of the Qur'an?

2 How can God be 1, yet 3, simultaneously?

3 How can God have a son?

4 Where does Jesus say 'I am God' in the New Testament?

5 Who is greater, Jesus or Muhammad?

6 Was Jesus ever crucified?

7 Which is the real religion of peace? Christianity or Islam?

8 Doesn't the Qur'an claim the Bible is corrupt?

9 We have an original Qur'an, so why can't you find an original Bible?

10 Because Islam is growing faster and stronger, won't it defeat Christianity?

See these videos for answers.

Jehovah's Witnesses

See 3, 4 and 6 above.

Modern Spiritualists (the average person)

1 Aren't all religions really the same/teach the same thing?

2 Everyone is good, deep down.

3 Isn't trying to do the right thing good (enough)?

4 Isn't the Bible just a collection of myths and legends?

5 Isn't God really the universe and in us all?

Modern atheists/materialists.

1 Isn't matter, energy and space are all there is, and all there will ever be.

2 See 1-4 for Modern Spiritualists

and, of course the

7 basic questions of Christians.

1 Why do you attend church?

2 Why do you read/believe the Bible?

3 Why do you believe in God?

4 Why are you/what is a Christian?

5 Wasn't Jesus just a great teacher, like other famous religious figures?

6 How can a good God permit evil and suffering?

7 Doesn't science disprove the Bible?

(See an earlier version: the 5 basic questions.)


In answering the questions, the basic theological themes of the Bible could be explicated.

Then the Apostles creed might be worked through, units of the questions that changed church history, as a bonus political history and the church might also be examined.

Ideally, each talk ( 'sermon') would have an accompanying article for people to study and perhaps discuss in their discipling group.

All interesting!

Wednesday, January 31, 2024

How are you at sales?

Not selling?

I'll bet you are!

I'm thinking of clergy and volunteer ministers at church. You know, the ones who look after 'pastoral' care, and seek to support those in some particular need.

A common question I've heard, and indeed, one I have asked as well is: "How can we help?" or "What can we do for you?"

Now, this is the sort of question that was perhaps learnt from poorly trained retail sales assistants. These are the poor souls who approach the customer on entering their shop and ask...one of the two questions above.

Bad sales technique, bad technique for those 'selling' their pastoral support services.

What is even worse is the implicit superficiality or disrespect, or disdain, in some cases, this shows for the person asked.

I'm not going to tells sales assistance what to do...they can pay for their own training, but church ministers (of whatever stripe) can do better.

Our job is to know people, to 'relate' to them, to  understand who they are and from that be able to suggest areas of service.

We need a conversation, not a one-liner 'I'm off the hook now, because I've inquired after their welfare.'

We can use the normal conversation.

-- Hello, how are you/how are things going at the moment?

[answer comes back]

-- It sounds like you have a few challenges/frustrations/worries/burdens/loads/things on your mind [pause for response which may or may not come].

-- Could I drop in to have a coffee with you at home? I'll bring the coffee!

OR

-- Let's go inside [there should be nooks in the eccleseum for quiet chats]...or elsewhere.

During this visit your job is to get to know the person's current challenges, objectives, hopes and desires and to bring to them both the succor of our Lord, pastoral care, and identify any practical care that the church is able to provide. Let them know what the church can do and if necessary what community services might also be available.

I know people vary in their opinions on this, but I don't think I'd reflexively offer to pray for them, either on the spot (certainly not on the spot, despite some evangelicals and Pentecostals loving to do this), or remotely. A Christian should expect another Christian will naturally pray for them, particularly when expressed need is discovered. No need to say; sounds empty IMO.

On this score, while imperfect, I aim to pray for all those whom I've spoken to at church through the following week.