I'm quite fed-up with the evolution-creation debate; it polarizes Christians over a non-salvation issue (sorry answersingenesis, your argument is illogical), and it seriously distorts the secular world's view of Christianity.
It used to be that Christians only had to deal with silly confusions such as "it's just a lot of rules and rituals", and "Christians kill in the name of Jesus, like the Crusaders and colonialists". Now we want to add creation-evolution to that? The American religious right has single handedly contributed to creating points of mockery with all sorts of silly unthinking statements (and I say that as an orthodox Christian). Collectively this debate has simply served to fuel the ignorance/arrogance of the latest new religion - the Dawkin's-style militant atheism. Bottom line, Christianity is about relationship. With God. With each other. (Our contemporary apologetics are weak on this). So how to respond to the evolution-creationism issue, either with other Christians or with non-Christians? I engage with a lot of non-Christians, many are what one would call atheist-leaning scientists. Could there a more difficult community to talk to about evolution and creation and God? (Actually, I think there is ... the Ken Ham-style religious right who seem to abdicate their intellect). My approach: 1. Start with the question "Are we mere biology, only the atoms that make us up?" 2. Go back to question 1 and follow where the logic leads. 3. There is no step 3. What's going on here? Q1 has two possible answers, yes or no. If the answer is "Yes" then life is ultimately meaningless, and hedonism is the only rational behaviour. Any personal values are at most self-determined, subjective, and of meaning only to the degree we choose them to be. Evolution is the only apparent answer to our existence, and any debate about that is mere entertainment. Sadly, atheists seem to fail to periodically revisit Q1 (as also should all Christians!). What if, however, the answer is "No, we are more than biology, more than the atoms of our composition, however complex their arrangement may be"? In that case the reasoning goes something like this:
I find the best place to go down these avenues is over dinner and a glass of wine. For myself, that is often at a conference or while travelling, where I can take time for relationship. And whenever I am talking to non-believers, the thought uppermost in my mind is "What spiritual questions would add value to this persons life?" Rarely does creationism or evolution head the list of possibilities!
0 Comments
Would you:
It seems I had encountered the London Naked Bike Ride on the London Jesus Day! The naked bodies were not particularly attractive, dominated as they were by greying men of uncertain age, with a minor mix of odd decorations. The Christians were at least colourfully dressed, and their age was more in the twenties / thirties. An unthinking stereotype might even suggest the groups should have switched. The crowds that were massed seemed to be equally bemused, confused, and entertained - probably none of which were the reactions the organizers were hoping for. Now the strange thing is that both events appeal to me. No, I don't want to ride naked (although I have no strong aversion to normal-body-nudity), and I have little affinity for making cold approaches to strangers to speak about Jesus. Rather, it's that the messages each group were trying to communicate are messages for which I have a deep concern. The naked people were promoting anti-fracking, reducing fossil fuel usage ("burn fat, not fuel"), and issues related to the challenges of global climate change. These are deeply concerning multi-generational issues of individual and community choice, and take place in a relativist world steeped in promoting the power of the individual. The Christians, on the other hand, were talking of a spiritual reality with real world consequence, about a choice of an absolute, a choice of community, of eternal importance and immediate relevance, a foundation of relationship. The naked'ites tried to use shock tactics to give visibility to an important message; yet their body language (pun intended) was one of joviality, a couldn't-care-less attitude about what people think, enjoying the thrill of "as bare as you dare", with broad smiles all round (even if some looked a bit embarrassed at times). The crowds response was almost universally "hey, where's my camera", and their 10's of thousands of pictures and videos now document those bodies to live on in their homes around the world. The Christian's approach was to give the crowds a good time so as to open a door to discussion; a colourful stage, great music, free water bottles, and slightly embarrassing antics. There was a bit of a cringe factor when personally approached, but overall they fitted in right alongside the buskers and street entertainers. Were they effective? I guess that depends on how you measure it. I'm sure there were some individual observers who were impacted by the events. Equally I am sure that the participants found their confidence boosted by taking action ... action is always so good for affirming one's beliefs. If nothing else it made me think about the juxtaposition of these things. Would Jesus participate if he was in the crowd? How would he respond to naked cyclists passing by a Christian rally in the Square? Would Jesus use the opportunity to speak against the worlds addiction to consumption and the consequent increase in oppression, poverty and suffering? Would Jesus get a band to come and play great music while his disciples walked among the crowds challenging them one by one? For the reality is that Jesus was there. I hear you say "Oh, in Spirit, of course". But I mean it, he really was there, in me, in each Christian that stood in that public place. And so I am left with that thought, would Jesus walk away, ignore, take a picture, sit back and enjoy, talk to someone, be pleased or disturbed, angry, sad, laughing, smiling, following behind, shutting his eyes? For me, Christian that I am, I looked, I listened, and I walked on. For as a stranger in a strange land of relative and selective values, where public nakedness is portrayed as fun, where the Christian rally keeps their backs to the naked riders, the opportunities are fleeting moments of surprise where I don't quite know how to connect. It seems we Christians need to rethink how we express Jesus within. To understand who Jesus is. Does that shock? To say Christians need to rediscover Jesus? I want to pose a question: how serious should we be about Paul's "become all things ..."? Can you imagine being a person like this: You were raised by atheist parents who lived in a strained relationship (or divorced), and were into pleasure and materialism. You were schooled to compete and succeed despite the consequences for others. In your teens you discovered the joys of recreational sex and alcohol, maybe even some drugs for awhile. These freedoms then had to compete with the stress of taking a job, fighting your way up the corporate ladder of success while trying to hold onto the last vestiges of youthful hedonism. Your relationships, bound as they are in self serving desires, are fragile and futile, leaving a trail of hurt. Outwardly you're groomed with all the right accessories. You might be financially stable or you might be in debt, but the world around would never know. Ethics are about what helps you succeed. Ambition is what feeds your soul. Morals are a tool to manipulate others, yet something to espouse around the dinner table as a means of self promotion. Entitlement is a culture that's been bought en masse. Spirituality is about recipes of behavior that may give you momentary patches of peace. Church was for marriages and funerals. God? He's irrational. Values are situationally dependent. Christians are dull and deluded. This describes many of the people around you. Maybe some would deny the bald faced way it's stated, but its real. And for every one like this, there are a myriad of other parallel life stories that differ only in the minor details.The question is: how far would you go in order to see things from another angle, from the perspective of someone who does not know God, from the point of view of the contemporary world. Of course seeing someone else's point of view does not mean agreeing with them, but until we can stand in their shoes we'll struggle to understand them, and unless we understand them, it'll be hard to love them. Now of course we're all used to hearing a conversation that includes “Yes, I understand your point of view, but ...” What is often really being said is “Keep quite and listen to me”. Becoming what we need to become in order to really communicate is hard work; you have to fight your own preconceived notions, put effort into trying to imagine someone else’s experience, and accept that what’s nonsense for you may actually make sense for someone else. It's also scary, because we have to think about things we don't want to hear, we fear our own doubts. To explore another person's perspective is to expose one's own weaknesses – and in today’s global church of weak intellect Christians, that's always a risk. Now I know you can read the description of a person above, but can you imagine being such a person? Really? Pause before you answer. Think about it. If you were this person, how would you approach all the situations we each encounter on a daily basis. If you were at the bar and someone invited you home for the night, how would you evaluate that opportunity? When confronted with same sex relationships, skipping time off work, casual one night stands, telling white lies in a report for work, manipulating finances for gain, addiction to the perverse side of an easy-access internet, or longing for the weekends drinking binge – for any of these issues and more, if you were the person described how would you respond, and can you understand why the response would seem natural, logical, and right? Because until we can do that, we'll struggle to talk to them about Jesus. I met someone recently while I was traveling, he was an aggressive Christian. I think he thought he was doing the right thing, but without understanding anything about me he proceeded with a flow of rhetoric filled with Christian'ese. As a Christian I could understand him, but I wanted to escape as fast as possible. Imagine a non-Christian's reaction, and subsequent perception of Christ. Sure, this event was an extreme case, but such a failure to understand the other person in order to love them, to reach them for Christ, is a pervasive failure of the global church. This is what Paul is saying; I will become what I need to become to reach all people for Christ. That means how I strategically go about doing things, and the effort I expend to leave my place of security and step into another persons world. Its how I say things, how I listen, where I go, and so much more. And for us as a church it means how do we conduct our activities when we meet as a body? I don't know what the answers are. I think I know what the answer is not: it's probably very unlikely that the answer is to conduct our church life unchanged from yester-year. I think the answer probably needs to include a massive dose of reality check about the world around us, with commensurate effort to understand it, real effort. It is probably safe to say that most Christian's social circles are often a poor reflection of the surrounding culture – we become so quickly disconnected that Paul's attitude is something we forget; to step into the world-view where the other people live, not waiting or expecting them to find a way through the opaque boundaries of Christian culture. To be in the world but not of the world. And that goes for the church collectively as much as it does for each of us individually. So my question: how serious should we be about 1 Cor 9:19-23, and where would we start? Personally, I think it starts with an investment of effort to understand, really understand, the culture around us. Reading about it. Talking about it. Engaging it. Seeing it in the Bible story, and seeing the Bible story in the world around us. Understanding does not mean learning; learning is only the first step – understanding means internalizing what it means for someone else in experience, emotion, and attitudes. Jesus did this. So did Paul. Voyeur ... the very term conjures up sexual connotations of a sleazy disreputable old man looking through windows or hiding behind bushes as he spies on people. Indeed that is one definition. However, there is a second definition: a voyeur is "someone who enjoys learning about the private details of other people's lives, especially unpleasant or shocking details" We have become a society of voyeurs; Christians are no exception, for we all participate. I'm not arguing against the internet ... I'm a total thoroughbred geek, and I can say the internet has transformed my work for the better. But I also think we should grow into this digital age with our eyes wide open, for there are some disturbing elements that translate even into our very church services, let alone our personal spiritual reality. For the Christian, put on God's spectacles! Consider: snapchat, vine, instagram, twitter, tumblr, youtube, facebook, tinder, and the thousands of personal blogs. Can you say what their common content is made of? It's largely an unashamed sharing of one's personal life details to all and sundry - and it has entered the permanent public record. If you look at no other links from here, at least look at this one and consider the stats. If you're a teen or younger, are you aware of the implications? If you're of the 1st digital generation, how cognizant are you of these virtual worlds? If you're a hangover of the pre-internet generation, do you even know what these are? How much of the social media activity is narcissism, loneliness, or something else? Probably all of these - a response to the mix of twisted values we hold. If nothing else this digital era has opened the floodgates to reduced inhibitions - easy exposure of our personal trivia, all with the apparent safety net of being hidden by the semi-anonymity of a virtual world (as if the lack of face-to-face contact makes any difference). But as some have found (like snapchat's CEO), it comes back to bite. Whatever our motivation, there seems to be a deep seated urge that when the barriers are lowered we put ourselves out there, naked for all to see (are we all masochists at heart?). That's one side of the coin; this urge to reveal ones inner self, rooted in a fast changing value system where what was once taboo quickly becomes at most embarrassing, before turning into nothing to be ashamed of. On the other side of the coin we have this insatiable desire for scandal, and the digital age has certainly opened the doors to such revelations. This is nothing new; the temptation for gossip is as old as can be, because scandal makes us feel we're better than the other person. What the digital age so effectively feeds is our desire for the macabre, the bizarre, and the sensational. Its no different to a freak show at the 19th century circus sideshow; only now we're the "freaks" and the internet makes it all only a click away. Consider these examples:
Now, none of this is about the erosion of privacy from nefarious spying, such as facebook tracking your behaviour, or the case where a school supplied laptops with spyware installed that allowed them to activate the laptop webcam and take pictures of the students without them being aware. And that's not even touching on the Snowden revelations about the NSA. No, this is about our changing sensibilities. Some might argue that we are being desensitized, while others may argue that it's the crowd mentality of the internet (its so easy to get lost in the masses) that causes a diffusion of personal responsibility.
I had dinner with a relativist the other night. He did not like my assertion (but could not deny it) that a relativist can never claim a behaviour pattern to be wrong; all a relativist can say is that an action does or does not fit their personal value system. The most reprehensible person one can think of cannot be "wrong" in any absolute sense; the relativist can only say they do not fit into someone's value system.
The Christian is called to reflect the reference. Yet our Christian practices have aligned themselves with the eroded values of the digital transformation. Individually, collectively, and institutionally we've lost our focus, and lost the capacity to speak into this instagram-type world of self-centered focus. Instead we write blogs ostensibly in the hope these will magically change people (it doesn't - people gravitate to the echo chambers that feed their innate desires, and our blogs are often ego-inflating devices). Likewise, what we post to our social media sites in order to "be a Christian witness" (ignored by the people we supposedly want to reach) is often simply an embarrassing pile of trivia. What does the internet-age Christian look like? How should a Christian engage this modern world in a way that impacts with value? How do we build a dialogue across the boundaries of our filter bubbles? And where and how do we engage with the culture arising from this pervasive value-neutral technology in the context of our (conflicting) ethics and life styles in the institutional church. I have yet to find a coherent discussion on this, and instead hear only the platitudes of a bygone era that roll so easily off our Christian-ese tongues. I heard a good talk last night (good by my definition - see sidebar further down); for me it was familiar stuff for the most part, citing the different contemporary perspectives on Jesus and drawing from the diversity of people like NT Wright, John Piper, Rob Bell, and such like. A mundane description would be "re-framing (but not redefining) Jesus and Christianity in a post-Christendom world". The more interesting (to me) way to see it is: "Is your Jesus my Jesus?" or "Get out of your hidey-hole and realize that the world's moved on!" But it was a good talk because it made my mind wander onto new avenues, every now and then being re-directed by a key word or phrase that triggered a new connection. The issue is that today's world knows little about Christianity ... oh, they know of Christianity, but not about Christianity. Thus most churched people are lost when it comes to talking to non-Christians. I raised this in the group discussion time, but it seemed all the responses were church-style platitudes - none really seemed to get to grips with the realities of living and serving our relativistic world. So here I need to explore three of my mind-wanderings catalysed by the talk:
A recent study showed that well connected people post limited personal information on Facebook; it's the disconnected and lonely people that post deeply personal information. This says a lot about our modern society which touts the view "you can be all you want to be" ... unfortunately what we want to be turns out not to be very nice.
NO, the internet world of discussion is not much about discussion, but is rather plagued by a culture of aggressive self-promotion (how many "Likes" did I get today?) that competes for the attention of everyone, of anyone ("please pay me some attention!"). If we want to become what we need to become to introduce others to Jesus, then we'd better see behind the veil of internet cosmetics and through to the underlying reasons why people are exposing themselves, the environment and pressures they wrestle with, and why they're addicted to implicit voyeurism. 3. Is the real question really "Who is Jesus?" Of course it is ... well maybe, ummm. Huh, well perhaps. Hmmm. There is a huge focus today on re-framing Jesus (and sometimes redefining Jesus) among the emerging strands of "new-Christianity": we have the emerging church, alternative church, mystical church, Alpha courses, re-invented traditional church, and much more. But many times all that's being achieved is a new description of Jesus, not a new knowing of Jesus. Jesus said that he who has seen him ("seen", as in really looked behind the surface) has seen the Father. This is the real question, can you see the Father? What makes a person choose to change? Something has to be either pushing or pulling. The pull of Jesus is the revealed beauty and Truth of God. Yet, too easily we get diverted by the easy beauty of the gods ... mystical, power promising, ego-massaging affirming gods, the "you're-ok-love-will-overcome" gods. None of these embody God's necessary partnership of perfect love with perfect justice. Conversely, a push to change has to come from something we want to escape, a revulsion or fear of seeing behind our own façades to the dirt that lies inside. The conventional Christian's platitude is that Jesus convicts through the spirit, Jesus draws through the Spirit, Jesus satisfies the hunger and thirst through the Spirit. But Jesus and the Spirit point to God the Father ... there lies the final person of our deserved attention. Martin Lloyd-Jones has a beautiful way of capturing this: "What gives us conviction of sin is not the number of sins we have committed, it is the sight of the holiness of God". And one might extend this to say "What gives us a desire for God is not our craving for emotional satisfaction, it is the sight of the holiness of God". For a glimpse of God's holiness cannot fail to convict and cannot fail to stir the deepest desire for more. So is the most important question "Who is Jesus?" Yes and No. It's a YES if we understand that in the answer we see the Father. It's a NO if all we simply do is re-frame a topical Jesus into a comfortable expression for our contemporary culture. When all is said and done And so in the end the challenges we face are these. a) If I am to be the face and voice and hands and feet and eyes and ears and touch and heart and mind of Jesus, if I am to become what I need to become to reach others for Jesus, then do I myself see the Father? For only then will I be able to truly convey who Jesus is. b) Am I aware of what lies beneath the surface of this society, do I know how to "read" my culture, can I see behind the façades, and am I aware of the changes both coming and gone? For unless I am, I will likely be talking past those I seek to reach. Jesus knew the Father (I only do what I see the Father doing). Jesus was the master of reaching beyond the veil of all those he encountered. This is who he calls me to be, so that I can say to others "Look at this Jesus, and see the Father". |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|