When are You Most Happy?

 

When are you most happy?  What are occasions when you're most contented?  What do they all have in common?

I might be happy running in the woods, staring at a sunset or listening to choral masterpiece.  Sometimes it might be basking in the glow of some accomplishment: but that doesn't last. There's greater pleasure in performing some task well. Reveling in the mastery of some human faculty.  Or more simply: in making someone else's day.

Mostly I think I'm happiest, when I'm most self forgetful.  When I just enjoy being, without introspection.  When my focus is external to myself.

Is this just me?

What about you?

And what does this tell us about humanity?

Hallelujah! I've Passed!

Praise God! Yesterday I had my viva voce and I passed my PhD subject to minor corrections.  I displayed my complete ignorance on a couple of occasions but somehow they let me through.

God has been good to me.  I've been really stressed about passing my PhD and finding a job afterwards. But, in the last two weeks, He has provided both for me.  So when life gets really stressful, don't give up. Trust God. He loves and provides for His children.

³ Trust in the LORD and do good;
   dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.
⁴ Take delight in the LORD,
   and he will give you the desires of your heart.

 ⁵ Commit your way to the LORD;
   trust in him and he will do this:
⁶ He will make your righteous reward shine like the dawn,
   your vindication like the noonday sun. 

Psalm 37:3-6

Bible in Brief

I've just remebered I have this picture.  A bible overview created by the LIFE 2010 team. I hope you enjoy.

From Whence Comes Morality?

 

Where do objective moral values come from?  What makes something good or evil?

Before looking at this question, what do I mean by an objective moral value?  I mean something that can be considered good or bad throughout time and space.  An objective moral value doesn't change.   So where do they come from? Assuming they exist.

Let's assume there's a God. That He is the creator of the universe.  Are morals external to Him?  Something for Him to obey and be judged against?  Or are they His arbitrary rules to which we must conform?

Can there be an evil God?

The first question suggests that there is something that God is not sovereign over, so can He really be God?  And the second is hardly satisfactory: morals just become some crazy test for us to pass.  So here's a better proposal: that morality reflects God's character.  An action is good in so far as it conforms to how God would act.  Lets see how this leads to objective morals.

If there is a creator then He transcends the universe and time.
Therefore His character does not change in space or time.
Morals reflect God's character.
Therefore morals transcend space and time.
Therefore morality is objective.

So morals are neither arbitrary nor some external rule which God must obey.  So to talk of God as evil makes no sense.  Because if God was different then what we refer to as good or evil would be different.  God is good by definition.

Let's look at some examples. 
Why is adultery wrong?  Because God is faithful and loving, existing as a Trinity.
Why is lying wrong?  Because God is truthful.
Why is murder wrong? Because God is the giver of life, and to take a life is His prerogative.

So how can we know objectively what is right or wrong?  We need to look at how God has revealed Himself.  We need to look to Christ.

This then raises a final question:
If there is no God, can there be objective moral values?

Why do you believe what you believe?

I know the answer that I'd like to give.  But I'm not sure it's true.  We'd all like to say that our beliefs are based on evidence and reason.  But I doubt that's always true.  How big a role do our emotions play?  How much do I believe something... because I want to?

I've noticed how what I want to believe affects how I weigh up competing propositions.  If I want to believe something then I'm more prepared to listen favourably to the arguments.  If I don't want to believe something then I'll search high and low for reasons not to.  I'll still try and rationally weigh up the arguments, but I'd be naive to think I didn't require different burdens of evidence in each situation.

So for Christians and atheists, what might it be about our beliefs that causes us to cling to them?

For Christians:
It's comforting knowing God's watching over our lives and loves us. We cannot face the meaningless of a universe without God. A desire to see justice finally triumph.

For atheists:
A desire for autonomy and not wanting to be accountable to a higher being.  To be thought of as an enlightened person who can see through all this religious bunk. A dislike for who you perceive God to be.

So do you have better reasons for why you believe something?

Or do you just want to?

Submitted!

Hallelujah!

I've finally submitted my PhD thesis. 

I've had four years to do the project, yet somehow managed to only finish with a few hours to spare.  Now all I have to do is: present to the department, defend my thesis, find somewhere to live, and work out what to do with my life...

Not too much then.

But I might have a bit more time to blog now.

Then again...

Book Review: On Giants' Shoulders

 

This is less a book review and more a recommendation. Michael Reeves' book introduces us to some of the most influential theologians of the last 500 years with the plea that we don't ignore them. Reeve's desire is that we study the theologians of the past. In their own words. We should understand their works and influence, the questions they were asking and where they went wrong. And so this short book is designed to whet our appetites for their works. In short: it works for some of them.

Each chapter of the book is devoted to a theologian: Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Schleiermacher and Barth. The chapter begins with a summary of their life and the context of their writings. This is helpful for understanding what and why they wrote, and gives us an impression of their character. Reeves then summarizes their main works. He finishes with suggestions on which of their writings to make a start. Importantly Reeves comments, not just on each work's importance, but also on their readability. For example, I've always been put of reading Barth by the obscure quotes I come across, but Reeves claims this is the result of his writing style involving long sweeping arguments that don't lend themselves to being quoted. The result of all this is that I'm quite keen to get hold of works by Luther, Barth and Calvin's Institutes. I'm less eager to read Edwards and Owen. And I'm not tempted by Schleiemacher; though I'm probably more sympathetic towards him than I was before reading this book.  There's only so much time avaliable in life for reading. 

So my advice for you: give this book a read – it doesn't take long – and see if you can resist wanting to read some of the works mentioned within.

 

Beware what you believe.

That's right. Beware what you believe, lest it blind you to the truth.

None of us are a blank slate, we all believe lots of different things, and this affects how we interpret the Bible, historical evidence, everything. For example, I was once listening to a sermon, and a possible interpretation of the passage (I can't remember the one) was that Paul could have lost his salvation, but this was ruled out on the basis that the rest of Bible teaches you can't loose your salvation. This rather irked my Arminian sensibilities as I could think of various passages, such as Hebrews 6, that many Christians would interpret to say that you could loose your salvation. So what's going on?

We're confusing our belief system, which (hopefully) we've based on scripture with what the Bible actually teaches. Whenever we interpret a passage we only consider possibilities that fit within our system. Is this wrong? Not necessarily. It's good practise to interpret confusing passages in the light of the more obvious ones, which hopefully form the basis of our belief system. However we should be aware that we're doing this. We should acknowledge that other Christians have come to different conclusions, also based on scripture, and we should (I say this to myself) try to understand why they believe what they do and their methodolgy for doing so. This may change what we believe. It may not. But at the very least it should widen the possible ways a given text could be understood. And this may allow us to arrive at a more accurate interpretation, even if this challenges our nice, neat, pre-existing, beliefs.

True Greatness.

Who do you think of as great?

Churchill leading Britain through WWII, Napoleon sweeping all before him or one of the Caesars ruling the known world? But what makes them great?

We see them as supremely successful, dominating the world in which they lived. They had great power, commanding thousands of men and anyone thwarting their purposes was crushed. But what does God think of as greatness?

Jesus is the Messiah. He's the promised king of the Jews who is to reign over the nations. But when He's heading up to Jerusalem with His disciples, He says that He going there to be handed over to the Romans to be crucified.

“We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.” Mark 10:33-34

That doesn't make sense. The great king of the Jews being humiliated on a cross?

But the problem is our view of greatness.  Jesus says

“You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  Mark 10:42-45

Sacrificial love is the measure of greatness.

Making yourself nothing for the sake of everyone else. Doing the dishes, cleaning the toilets, picking up litter and doing all the jobs that people hate, not for the praise you'll get, but because you consider others more important than you. That's what counts.

So why is Jesus going to Jerusalem? He going to die. For us. Why did He leave the unimaginable splendour of His throne in Heaven and live a tough life in Israel? To set us free. You may not agree that Jesus needed to die for you. But just savour the picture the Bible presents us with. The Word of God who made you, left all His majesty and honour, to die for you.  On a terrible cross. He didn't command great armies. Or rule a nation. He wandered through Palestine healing the sick and teaching people. All with the aim of going to Jerusalem to die. Doesn't such self-giving love make your heart sing? And turn all our other views of greatness upsidedown?

God's Knowledge of the Future.

In my previous post I gave an example, at least to my mind, of God foreknowing something without ordaining it. But this doesn't answer how this is possible for God to do. And nor does it demonstrate it to someone who won't trust the Bible.  So how does God know the future?

I've heard agnostics and atheists say something along the lines of: “If God knows what my choices are how can He judge me?” Their argument seems to be: if God knows my choices, then my choices must be determined, so I only have an illusion of choice. Thus, how is it fair for God to judge me for an action when I could do no other?

I think the problem with this view, and with Calvinist statements such as

God foreknows what will be because He has decreed what shall be. From here.

No event can be foreknown unless, in some sense, it has been predetermined... Foreknowledge demands certainty, and certainty demands foreordination. From here.

is that they think of God as stuck in time like us. They picture God in the present peering into the future. Because He knows the present perfectly He can run the universe forwards in His mind to see the future. This view only works if we live in a deterministic universe. If indeterminate things are possible then this view of God's foreknowledge can't work or else God can't know the future. But I think that this is a mistaken view of God. Time is part of the universe. Time came into being when the universe began. In fact, according to General Relativity, time flows at different rates at different parts of the universe. This necessitates that God is timeless. He sees the whole of time at once. He knows the outcome of an indeterminate event in the future because He is there, observing it occurring. Just as me observing a coin spinning and twisting through the air and finally landing – didn't determine whether it was a head or a tail – so God observing me in the future doesn't imply that my actions, desires or decisions were predetermined.

It's hard for us temporal beings to picture God knowing all of time at once. So maybe this will help.  Imagine a one dimensional object moving randomly along a line between two points A and B. Because the object is moving randomly we can't predict, from its initial position, where it will be at time t1. But if we are outside of time (see the picture) we can see that at t1 it will be at point B. So because we can see the whole of time we can know with certainty where the being will be at a given time without its position being the result of some deterministic law.

 

I hope this post shows how it is possible for God to know the future exhaustively and allow the possibility that not all our choices are predetermined. However it doesn't answer why God chose to make this particular universe containing you and me and the choices we make.  And I'm not sure if we'll ever be able that question. But we can rejoice that God knows all things.

Remember the former things, those of long ago;
   I am God, and there is no other;
   I am God, and there is none like me. 

 I make known the end from the beginning,
   from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
   and I will do all that I please.’

Isaiah 46:9-10 

A Question for Calvinists.

I go to a Grace Baptist church and we've just started a two part series on the Ordo Salutis (the Order of Salvation) which is essentially a series on Calvinism. The first of these sessions was on Foreknowledge and Election. Therefore I think this might be a good time to do a couple of posts... or more... on the age old debate about Calvinism. As last night's sermon was on foreknowledge I think I'll start there.

Ignoring what exactly foreknowledge means in some of the hotly disputed passages (context determines the meaning of a word in any given passage), I'll just limit myself to the question:

Can God foreknow something unless He ordains it?

Or, to put it another way: Can people have genuine freedom if God knows what decisions we will make?

Here's a quote from a Calvinistic website:

Simply put, what God foreknows, must, of necessity, be as fixed as that which He has decreed. Therefore, to argue for foreknowledge over against predestination by appealing to the freedom of the will is to argue in a self-contradictory fashion. No event can be foreknown unless, in some sense, it has been predetermined... Foreknowledge demands certainty, and certainty demands foreordination. [Emphasis in Original]

Clearly, he along with others, believes the answer is no. But rather than getting into long philosophical debates I think I'll just raise a question for Calvinists:

Did Adam and Eve have genuine free will at the Fall? Could they have resisted the temptation and not eaten the forbidden fruit?

This is a yes or no question and whatever you answer it has important implications.

If you answer yes, then we have an example of genuine free will and of God knowing what the result of that free will would be. This demonstrates that human freedom can coexist with God's omniscience. It doesn't tell us how it's possible, nor even if we currently have free will, but it does show us that it's possible. God can foreknow a decision without determining it.

If you answer no. Then you claim that God ordained the fall. And to my mind, this makes God the author of sin and evil. And that's not something I'm happy to believe.

The Important Things in Life

How can you know what's important in life?
How can you tell what really matters?

It's easy really.

Remember you're going to die.

Then ask yourself: what would I regret if I died tomorrow?

So what comes to mind?  Money, job, career, holiday, qualifications, car, education, sporting achievements?

For me it's none of these.  What matters are people. It's the friends I've lost contact with, the relationships that have broken down and  the people I haven't told how much they mean to me.  I don't think this is just me. I'd guess most people will say others are the most important things in life.  But why is this?  Is it just because I want to be remembered as a nice bloke or is there some deeper reason? Why are humans so important?

If there is no God, then this life is it. There's nothing else. When I die, what's in my bank account won't matter, but then neither will my relationships.  The best I can hope for is that people remember me as someone who was great – but that won't bother me either, if all I am is worm food.  Moreover, unless I'm someone like Alexander the Great, in a hundred years I'll be forgotten.  It will be as if I'd never existed.  So why is it that my heart tells me that relationships are more important than all else?  Maybe it's because this life isn't all there is, that when I die it's not all over, and that how I relate to people has eternal consequences.

The Bible teaches that people are made in God's image.  That death is not the end.  Therefore relationships matter.  Money, career etc. don't matter – they won't enter eternity - but people do.  And people matter.  God cares about how we treat those who bear His image.  He made us for relationships – with each other, but most importantly with Him.  And this is the relationship we tend to forget most about.  But it's the one that matters the most. It's the one that determines our eternal fate. And if I'm reconciled to my creator then I'll start to put my other relationships right.

So in light of your mortality: how will you live tomorrow?

To AV or not to AV?

That is the question.

And frankly I haven't a clue.

Next Thursday in the U.K. we're having a referendum on whether to change our voting system from First Past the Post (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV) system. So to be a responsible subject I ought to have a think about how to vote. 

The first past the post system is the one we currently have. The person with the most votes wins. It's simple and transparent. But it has its problems: the existence of safe seats and that votes for a minor party seem a waste. The AV system claims to be able to fix this. In the AV system (which we use in student union elections), instead of putting a cross by the candidate you want, you number the candidates you want in order of preference (you don't have to put a number against all of them). The votes are then counted and the person with 50% of the vote wins. If no one has 50% then the candidate who came last is eliminated and their votes are redistributed amongst the other candidates, according to the second preference. This is continued until someone has more than 50% of the vote. So does this fix the problems of FPTP? Does it create any new problems?

Will it make safe seats less safe?

Maybe for some seats. In constituencies where there is currently one clear winner and the remaining vote is spilt between two similar parties then suddenly the seat will becomes more marginal. But in other cases it won't. Where there is one clear winner at the moment and the remaining vote is spilt between lots of different parties then the seat will remain safe. Currently if you live in such a safe constituency, and you don't like the safe candidate, then it doesn't seem worth voting. But what would happen under AV? Maybe everyone's alternative choices will combine under some compromise candidate to oust the current incumbent. And this will make it worth voting. But I think its unlikely.

What about voting for minor parties?

At the last election I was living in a marginal constituency: between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. Under FPTP a vote for a minor party is perceived as a wasted vote. But I voted for UKIP, why? Wasn't that a waste. The reason UKIP (or any other minor party candidate) is seen as a wasted vote is because everyone assumes that everyone else will vote for the two main parties, so they vote for one of the two main parties, even though they don't really represent them. So even though with FPTP you should be voting positively, you end up voting negatively, to keep someone else out. But I voted UKIP anyway, why? Because I decided to vote positively in the forlorn hope that everyone else might also decide to. I decided there wasn't a big enough policy difference between the two major candidates for it to matter much if the which of them got in. Neither represented me. As it turned out, the Conservative won.

With AV I wouldn't have had to face this dilemma – I could have voted UKIP 1^st, Conservative 2^nd, Whoever 3^rd etc. My vote wouldn't have been wasted. In essence I have one positive vote and then can arrange my preferences to arrive at the least worst candidate. This sounds like a better system. But I'm not so sure. I think the minor parties would pick up far more votes than they do. This seems more representative, and if that means people voting positively it would be a good thing. However what is most likely is that the minor parties will be eliminated and their votes redistributed so they'll be no real change. In fact, I fear, the major parties will be blander than ever in the hope of picking up the second preference votes of the other major parties. In short: you can vote centre left in either red, blue, or yellow and various levels of sanity. This is hardly increasing democracy. By voting UKIP in the last election I was sending a message to the conservative party. By moving their policies to the left they have lost my vote. In some constituencies, assuming most UKIP voters are Tories, the UKIP vote lost the Conservatives the seat. The more my vote costs the the Conservatives the more likely they are to decide to shift back to the right - and then people can have a genuine choice at future elections – which might just shake up voter apathy. But under AV the Conservative parties can safely ignore the concerns of UKIP voters as they know they'll pick up the second preferences. The chance to vote for genuinely different alternatives is essential to a healthy democracy; I think AV will erode the remaining differences between the major parties.

The ability to sling one government out and install another is important part of a democratic state. Some people believe that AV will result in more coaltions with the Lib Dems, winning more seats. But coalitions are unaccountable. Both parties seem to rip up their manifestos and blame the fact they're not keeping their promises on the other party. In addition the third party (the Lib Dems) remain in perpetual power and act a king makers. That doesn't seems very representative.

To sum up. AV sounds like a great idea in principle. You can vote for who you want to represent you without feeling you're wasting your vote. I don't think we can tell what the effects of AV will be. Will voter turnout increase and what effect might that have? Will a minor parties be seen as a credible choice and this change the whole political landscape? But as a whole I can't see it changing the grip of the major parties. And as an unintended consequence, their policies will become less distinctive. Do we want to elect the least offensive candidate to the electorate rather than the one most people want? And should people's second, third or fourth preference vote count as much as a first preference? I'm still not sure how I'll vote. My heart says AV, but my head may overule.

Anyway it doesn't matter how I'll vote. How will you vote? This is an important issue to think and pray about. And if you want to know more about the issues then I suggest you read here and look here for a Christian perspective.

P.S. I just found this video clip which demonstrates a serious flaw in the AV system.  By voting for who you want, you can cause someone you don't want to be elected, who wouldn't have been elected if you hadn't voted!

A Prosperity Gospel?

I just finished watching the series Civilization: Is the West History presented by Niall Ferguson. Which you can still currently watch in the U.K. on 4oD. In this fascinating series, Ferguson outlines six feature of western civilization that made the west great which he names killer apps: competition, science, property rights, medicine, consumerism, and the work ethic. Some of the things he covers were disturbing, such as how Africans were treated at the start of the 20^th century, and some were quirky – how jeans brought down the Berlin wall. But what stuck me the most was in the last episode, apart from the inexplicable (that is if you deny the triune God) growth of Christianity in China, was that as an atheist Ferguson was bemoaning the decline of the protestant work ethic and the moral vacuum at the heart of our society. This has got me thinking: does the gospel lead to prosperity?

No! Not in the sense of the money preachers: that with enough faith you'll be rolling in the money. But in a more general sense. The sense that we should work hard as for the Lord, that we shouldn't hanker after material wealth, that the physical world isn't intrinsically bad and inferior to the spiritual, and the wisdom contained in proverbs encouraging saving and hard work. These just relate to the work ethic, but what about individual rights and science? Contrary to the view of Furguson, who sees religion as holding back scoiety, wasn't the birth of science in the west the result of the Christian worldview?  And this quote about rights seems to have some rather Christian assumptions 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  U.S. Declaration of Independence.

I don't think that the gospel is responsible for all of Ferguson's killer apps. For example, I don't see how competition, especially when it results in war is a fruit of the gospel. But enough of Ferguson's killer apps can be related to the Bible's worldview to ask the question:

Did the Gospel make the West great?

Not that making society prosperous is the Gospel's main purpose. Rather it's purpose is to reconcile us to God through Christ. But did it made the West great as a byproduct of this. That by people being brought into relationship with their creator society's values are made more in tune those of our maker and as a result we prosper.

Book Review: End of the Spear

The story of “Operation Auca” has gripped me all my life. The image of the small yellow plane, on the sandbar of Curaray River deep in the Ecuadorian jungle, and the speared bodies of Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Pete Fleming, Ed McCully and Roger Youderian, has haunted my imagination and challenged my values. What will I give to serve the Lord?

However, I have often wondered: what did their deaths achieve?

They dedicated their lives to making contact and getting the gospel to the Aucas (Waodani); one of the most violent societies to ever exist, with a 60% homocide rate. Yet they were speared to death having only just made contact. Why would God allow such a thing? Why would God let these men fail and die in such a noble endeavour?

End of the Spear picks up the story 40 years later, when Steve Saint (son of Nate) returns to the Waodani to bury his aunt, Rachel, who had lived and shared the gospel with the Waodani for half her life. The book is an exciting account of how God leads Steve to take his family and live with the Waodani for a year, to help them interact with the outside world, and the events that follow. Throughout the book, we get glimpses of what happened on that sandbar through the eyes of the Waodani, and how God has changed their lives. How a people in deep darkness, have seen a great light. And how God has used the deaths of those five men.

So what were the highlights for me?

1. That 20% of the tribe are now Christians.
2. The spearing have, by and large, ended.
3. God's providence and guidance. Steve didn't have some vision or hear a voice telling him to move to the jungle, but God's guidance was unmistakably clear.
4. But the most impressive thing of all, the thing that will stay with me, was the amazing love put on display. Steve's deep love for the people who killed his father and their love for him is remarkable. It's divine. That Steve loves the man who killed his father, as a father, is the greatest of miracles. There is no natural explanation. This can only be the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is God's great apologetic. To take two people who should hate each other and cause them to love each other deeply can only be through Christ. He is our peace.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35

The Lure of Academia

What do I want to with my life, and more importantly, why do I want to do it?

I'm currently coming to the end of my PhD and am considering what to do next. I have been considering doing a Postdoc but what is my motivation? What is the lure of academia?

1. Curiosity about maths and how it can be used.
   But isn't it selfish to devote myself to something simply because I want to know more? If I want to know more about history I'll buy a book and read about it, I don't expect to get paid by the taxpayer to satisfy my interests.
2. A desire to teach.
   I like the idea of explaining things to other people and passing on knowledge but quite a few academics dislike teaching, so will I fit in? They see teaching as a distraction from their all important research and moreover you're employed for your research and not your teaching. Since no one can ever guarantee that (pure) mathematics research will ever have a real world application, is this attitude towards teaching justified? Shouldn't the taxpayer expect a return on their money? Isn't this best achieved by analytical minds entering the workplace and not by some really pure result in a narrow field of interest? Shouldn't the students paying their fees and so the academics' salaries expect to be the academics' priority?
3. Pride.
   Do I just want to to show people that I can do research? That I'm not thick. I think a large part of academia is motivated by pride. They work with the attitude that “I will show how clever I am by tackling a tough problem”. They work so that they can get to the top and say “Look, I have X number of publications; I'm the big boy in the field”. And each person thinks that their work is incredibly important, however pure and esoteric, and society owes it to them to continue in them endeavour.
4. Because it's expected of me.
   People assume its the next logical thing to do. I'd look a fool for walking away with no clear idea what to do. But I should fear God not man.
5. Fear of the unknown. 
   I'm institutionalised. I've been in full time education all my life. I have no idea what the Big Bad World is like out there and whether it will blow me down. Where do I fit in?
6. To serve God.
   People in academia need to hear the gospel as much as anyone on the outside. But will being on the inside help? Is this just masking a desire to be credible, to say “look I'm intelligent and am a Christian – you don't have to abandon your reason”? But all this really boils down to is “Trust Christ because I'm clever.” That's an attitude that God will never use to save anyone. In addition

   22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. I Cor 1:22-24.

   Christianity will always appear to be foolish to the wise in the world, it doesn't matter how educated its exponents are.

So having looked at my motivations, a postdoc doesn't seem the wisest idea. I wouldn't mind doing one if I can see how the research might be beneficial to society and if it fits in with the more important things in my life. However I thinks that's unlikely and so it's probably time to move on. There are far more important things in my life than the job I do. Which leaves me pondering what to do next?

I'm afraid of the future and so there's always the temptation to stay in academia and to continue with what I know. But God's in control and He loves me so why should I fear? If I never take a risk, trusting God to provide for me. I'll never live, I'll live forever in a cage of my own making.

But I say unto you...

Lots of people say that Jesus was a good teacher. They point to the sermon on the mount as an example of His great teaching. But have they ever read what Jesus said?

Recently I've been thinking about the sermon on the mount and I've been struck by Jesus' authority. And it appears I'm not the only one

28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law. Matthew 7:28-29.

In Matthew Chapter 5 Jesus repeats the phrase “You have heard that it was said...” and quotes part of the Law, and some of the Jewish interpretation of it, and then says “But I tell you...” seven times.  When He does this Jesus doesn't contradict the Law. He extends it. He shows that it applies to our hearts, to how we think and not just to how we act. But what gives Him the authority to do this?

Jesus doesn't say “God says this” or “I think the Law means this.” He says “I say” and that's the end of the matter. He is the final authority. Who does He think He is to make these claims, to base the authority of what He is saying on who He is?

Through this sermon Jesus is implicitly claiming to have equal authority with God.  He states that how we respond to Him and what He teaches will determine our eternal fate.  These are not things that someone who is just a good teacher would claim.  So my question for people who say Jesus is just a good teacher is this: 

How can a man have moral authority if the basis of that authority is that he thinks he is God?

Determinism and the Death of Justice

We cry out for justice.  When we see the murder of an innocent we demand that the perpetrator should should be held accountable.  We long to see wickedness punished. But how does this desire for justice fit into a world without God?

In order to be held accountable for an action a person must have been free to do otherwise.  Whatever the pressures on the person when they committed an act, to be accountable they still must have had an alternative option, even if it was an unattractive one. But if naturalism is true, i.e. all there is is the physical universe and the laws that govern it, then no one can be held accountable.   If materialism is true then we are simply complicated biological machines responding to various stimuli. The brain processes the information it receives, following the laws of chemistry and physics, and the person reacts.  They may have the illusion of choice but in fact the wiring of the brain and the physical processes dictate the reaction.  They have as much freedom as a computer.

When I rant and rave at my computer for its latest malfunction I am being irrational.  The computer was just following its programming.  When Basil Fawlty chastises his car we know he's gone over the edge.  You cannot hold a machine accountable.

Yet we hold humans accountable.  We lock people up or execute them for murder.  We act as if people have a choice.  If atheism is true murders, rapists, and terrorists have no choice.  The best we can say is that they are sick: their brains have their wires crossed.  They should receive our sympathy and not the due penalty. We shouldn't lock them up.  But can we live with this reality?  Do we really believe that we have no choice?  That when our consciences scream at us but we ignore them that we really couldn't have listened?

If atheism is true then justice is dead.  And my desire for it is just the symptom of a malfunctioning brain.

But this is not the view of the Bible.  God holds us accountable for our actions; that we should turn from our wickedness to Him and live.  How can this be?  The answer is that we are not just physical beings but spiritual. We are not constrained by the physical laws of cause and effect but, as spiritual beings, we transcend them.  We have genuine moral choices.  We are accountable. God has given us all a conscience that tells us when we are wrong, even when it's not in our interest to listen to it.

The Image of God

 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

 27 So God created mankind in his own image,
   in the image of God he created them;
   male and female he created them.

 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Genesis 1:27-28

Humans are made in God's image; but what does this mean?

In some way we are meant to be a reflection of what God is like. The question is in what way?

I think we display God's image in those moments when we see something in us that is truly noble.

Those moments when we admire something in another human.

The bravery of a soldier who risks all to fulfil his duty.

The creativity of an artist who dazzles us with beauty.

The loving care of a mother with her new born baby.

The sacrifice of an aid worker to help the poor and needy.

The ingenuity of an engineer to build a stunning structure.

The married couple living for the sake of each other.

The whistle-blower defying all for the sake of truth.

The righteous verdict that brings forth justice.

The patience of a teacher with an unruly pupil.

The act of mercy that brings forth peace.

The problem is these are only glimpses. We're all sinful. Broken. Not as we were meant to be. The image is tarnished. So where does the image of God truly lie?

In Christ.

He is the perfect Man. He is the second Adam. Through Him we see what God is truly like.

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. Hebrews 1:3.

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? John 14:9-10.

Yes, Jesus displays God's power and knowledge because He is truly God. But He's also truly man. Through Jesus we see God's character. We see his compassion, his love, his mercy, his determination, his sacrifice, his love of truth and justice. These are all things that humans are capable of, however imperfectly, and they reflect what God is like. When we see these things in humans, however sinful, however broken, whether atheist or Christian, we catch a shadow of what we were meant to be.

But this is not all. Christ didn't come just to show us what God is like. He came to save us. And if we trust in Him then God restores His image in us. As we love and follow Christ He transforms us to be like Him:

And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:18.

And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man. 1 Corinthians 15:49.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. Romans 8:29.

God's goal is to make us like His Son. So we might display His glory to all creation.

The Meaning of Life.

What is the meaning of life? Why am I here? What is the point of life?

These are questions we all ask. Philosophers ponder them. We all long for an answer. But the question I'm asking is: why do we ask these questions?

To ask the meaning of something is to ask about its purpose. When an archaeologist finds a strange object he wonders what it was for? What is the meaning of a kettle? What is the meaning of a knife? The meaning of the kettle is to boil water and the meaning of knife is to cut something. In both cases their meaning is external to them. The creator – man – decides what the objects purpose is and the object fulfils that purpose when it does what it was designed for. Another picture might be, what is the purpose of a private in an army? He cannot see why he does what he does, risking life and limb, but the General, whose plan it is the soldier follows, has a purpose, which he hopes the soldier will accomplish. Again we see that the soldier cannot define meaning for himself amidst the chaos but it is an external agent who defines his meaning. So when we ask what is the meaning of life we are asking: for what was I made? And only our creator can tell us.

If Atheism is true, then why should we ask these questions? We are here by chance and natural selection. There is no purpose. We are nothing but specks, screaming into the darkness to be blown away by the winds of time. This is the conclusion of Nihilism. There is no God therefore there is no meaning. And yet the fact remains they wrestle with this question. We all desire meaning. Some Atheists advocates a form of existentialism where we define our own meaning. But this is nonsense. The kettle and the knife cannot decide what their purpose is. The kettle cannot cannot decide today to be a spoon. The private in the army cannot decide he finds meaning by doing his own thing. Meaning is external. So Nihilism is right. If there is no God then there is no meaning. But in stating that they must have asked the question.

So why do we desire meaning?

If Athesim is true then there is no meaning and it makes no sense to ask about it, think about it or worry about it. We should live like animals, following our instincts to try and pass on our genes. We shouldn't waste time and energy with such questions: they don't help us survive. In fact they could be detrimental – because if there is no great purpose in life why bother even to pass on my genes? Why make the world a better place for my children? Why help humanity or nature to survive? We're all dust. No one will notice if we're gone. The universe will march on in indifference if humanity should cease to look on it. In short, to ask why we are here does not have any evolutionary advantage, so can only be explained as an accidental by-product of conciousness. This is not explanation but a mere just-so story and doesn't really satisfy. The same as life without meaning doesn't satisfy. Instead, I think, a better explanation is that we were indeed created.

When we ask the question: what is the meaning of life? It is a tacit admission that deep down we know that we are created even if we deny it to ourselves. If there is a creator it makes sense that we should want to know why He made us. It makes sense that He should place it in our being to want to know why he made us. It makes sense to ask the question - why is there meaning - as there is the possibility of an answer even if we may not like it.

Judgemental!

Ow!

How it hurts to be called judgemental. Yet when I'm honest with myself the hat fits. And the Bible agrees:

 ¹ You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. ² Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. ³ So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Romans 2:1-3

So when am I guilty?

Whenever I judge someone.

When I condemn people for theft and am lazy at work. When I look down on people for sleeping around when I'm struggling with lust.  When I think my doctrine's perfect and wonder how can others believe such strange things.  When I know exactly what someone is struggling with and just how to fix it. 

¹ “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ² For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

   ³ “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴ How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.  Matthew 7:1-5

But thank God for Christ.  The one who will judge us is a friend of sinners.  He didn't consider Himself too holy to be with us but came to Earth to save us.  He didn't tell the Samaritan woman (John 4) to sort her life out and then come back.  No.  He offered her living water: eternal life and the Spirit. He offers us the same. He gives us His spirit to change our hearts where our problems really start.

So I pray that God would change me so that I'm not judgemental.  That when I see others struggling with sins that I won't become proud that I've 'got it sorted', as if my efforts can change my heart, but I'll point them to Jesus the one who can truly help them.

Whitewashed tomb!

 ²⁷ “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity. ²⁸ Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness. Matthew 23:27-28

Much as I hate to admit it, I fear that I too can be a whitewashed tomb.  As a Christian, I know the things that please and displease God and, perhaps more so, I know what other Christians expect from me.  So I make my behaviour meet these expectations and become a whitewashed tomb..

Surely fighting sin is a good thing?  Yes it is, but if all I do is alter my behaviour my deepest problem remains:

²⁰ And then he added, “It is what comes from inside that defiles you.²¹ For from within, out of a person’s heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, ²² adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. ²³ All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you.”

Mark 7:20-21 

If my heart doesn't change then all I've done is painted over the problem.  I become proud that I've achieved x,y and z and judge people who haven't.  This is the best I can achieve with my own efforts and it's not good enough.  I need Christ. Only Christ can change my Heart.  Only He can cause me to desire Him above all else.

Repentance must start in the heart and work outwards.  My desires need to change first and then my behaviour will follow. When I value Christ above all else then the temptations that I face seem less attractive.  When I realise that my heart is the problem then I won't beat myself up for giving into temptation (though there's still no excuse to sin) because that failure is just a symptom of my problem.  When I realise my heart is the problem I know that any change in me is by God's grace.

There's no room for boasting.

2010 - the year just gone.

This morning was the first day back in the office after the Christmas break and my optimism for the year ahead faded within thirty minutes: I'd maxed the memory on the maths department server and flicking through the current form of my thesis left me daunted by all the work I need to do.  So what's better than to spend the evening blogging about 2010?

Struggles
Feeling like I've made almost no progress on my PhD all year.  I can't think of anything clever to do and am left with a brute force method that maxes out my computers memory.  Trying to work out what God wants me to do with my life after my PhD. Struggling with lust. Wondering if all the CU evangelistic activities and my prayers are producing any fruit.  Wondering if I'm doing too many things. Wondering what I should be doing.

Highlights
Milking Cows and hearing the radio say it was currently colder in the U.K. than in Alaska. Walking to St Martha's in the snow. Flying for the first time. Running up Arthur's seat before breakfast and staring over Edinburgh. Two new leaders my church's youth club. Traveling to Turkey to see five of the seven churches of Revelation. Becoming an uncle. The team on Life 2010 and running along the sea front in howling wind and torrential rain.  A wedding in Jutland. A trip to London Aquarium - sharks are cool. Five new kids, without connections to the church, joining the youth club.  God providing a job for my girlfriend and keeping her employed. My sister finishing her degree.  More snow.  Building an igloo (some determined friends, 2 recycling boxes to compact snow into, and... 4 an a half hours of hard work). My friend passing his PhD and getting a postdoc position. Running in the snow.  Spending time with my girlfriend.

So what have I learnt?
God has blessed me in lots of ways despite all the things I'm struggling with. I'm not very clever.  I'm a terrible procrastinator.  Relationships are important.  I can't do everything.  I can't know everything.  Christ is central to everything.

That 2011 is going to be a challenging year.