News

Shame-On-You

by Editor

Amnesty International, normally the darling of social media liberal chic, learned that even they are not immune from the censure of the Twitter censorati. In their case the collective outrage of so many smartphone sentinels and keyboard campaigners was focussed on a glossy cover they used for their magazine, in an effort to showcase the plight of refugees in the Mediterranean. The cover depicted a female model lying on top of a pile of life-jackets, her modesty barely covered by flotation devices. The marketing pitch behind this contradictory image was to highlight the disjunction between the coffee-table bourgeoisie and thousands of people risking life and limb on the high seas in an effort to find a home.

The subtlety was lost on the custodians of the virtual pitchfork, who quickly amassed themselves at the gate of the charity’s social media home, demanding blood. Amnesty’s responses were fairly swift and, at first, cautiously defensive of the nuance that their cover had sought to embody. When this was met with further denunciation and deprecation the embattled social media operative behind the account capitulated, offering an apology for any offence caused. The first response from the mob was a three word Tweet, helpfully hyphenated for indignant emphasis, ‘Shame-on-You’.

This is now the generally accepted underbelly of the ‘Sorry not sorry’ world of the social media fracas, and glib apology – terminal unforgiveness, perpetual hostility, and outright ungraciousness. Even when someone is not issuing a ‘my behaviour does not reveal my heart’ climb-down for some social atrocity which they purposely committed, even when an individual or an organisation owns the unintended consequences of their actions which have been taken in good faith, the Twitter mob will not be turned back. We are angry, we are vocal, and we are on your case – nothing can save you or your reputation now.

We have rebuilt the pillory for modern life, we have constructed the gallows, and we find few things more delightful than seeing others publicly shamed. This unforgiving, never-forgetting vortex is difficult enough for large organisations with PR staff to tack away from, but when individuals find themselves within its influence the effects are devastating and irreversible. A mistake, a badly phrased message, an embarrassing photo, our trampling of a cultural taboo, or our mispronunciation of the latest shibboleth can cost us our reputation, and even our occupation, in a matter of minutes. No plea is ever heard in the court of appeal, no conviction is ever quashed, no slate is ever wiped clean, no remission is ever granted.

Part of this is obviously a symptom of anonymous empowerment, the real-time role-play that social media facilitates. People who would struggle to ask for a pay rise in their job, or complain about mould on the soft fruit delivered by their local supermarket, are willing to demand the conscience, the obeisance, the self-renunciation of those whom they have never met.

There is, arguably, a deeper phenomenon behind all of this. We are masters at deflection, at self-righteous moralism, and projecting unworkable legalisms on to those for whom we have no esteem, and to whom we owe no accountability. Twitter can be a wonderful place, but it can also be a whitewashed tomb constructed brick by corrosive brick by its users. People are free to virtue signal, to look for business class seats on the band wagon, and to rush with the raging current of moral disapprobation without having to search their hearts, or address their own lives. Social media gives us a microscope through which to see the speck in the eyes of others, while blindsiding us to the plank that obscures our vision and skews our perspective. If we can rage against the machine, or vilify men, or spit venom at the media, if we can deplore another’s position, and explore another’s transgression in fine detail, then we are absolved from ever seeing ourselves, and by extension seeing the profundity of our own sin.

Christians might have more of a voice on these matters if we had not patented this model of social interaction long before the internet became part of our lives. For many the church has been the forum where they have realised their wish fulfilment of being antagonistic, of channeling their inner Pharisee, and reveling in a comparative ethic which always absolves them from self-scrutiny. Where fellowships have been a kind of proto-Twitter of unforgiving invective or insinuation, we must repent.
We can also counter the condemnation culture by modelling in the life of the church, and our own personal lives, the reality of forgiving because we have been forgiven much. We can confound the assumptions of the watching world that we as followers of Jesus are judgmental, by exposing the darkness of what true judgmentalism looks like through the revolutionary embodiment of grace in our lives and interactions. We will never turn the tide of Twitter by tutting in our tweets about liberal virtue signalling, but we may just see God turning hearts by their encounter with the grace community of the church, and grace carrying Christians. If we are emissaries from another kingdom then our calling card ought to be the reality of sinful hearts transformed and radical grace extended. Such counter-culturalism will undoubtedly garner hostility, but it might also provoke curiosity in the hearts and minds of people who live in the harsh predatory wilderness of modern online pharisaism.

Islam and Christianity Dialogue in Dundee

by Editor

I had the privilege of speaking at a joint event at the University of Dundee, hosted by the Christian Union and the Islamic Society. The evening was built around a dialogue between myself and a local Imam, Shayk Zuber Karim from the Al Maktoum Mosque. They gave us the really helpful title, “What is God like and how can we know?”

Zuber spoke first, and outlined the Islamic view of God, and explored that for twenty minutes or so, ending with some criticisms of the Bible. That was great – because it made the whole discussion a bit sparkier!

Then I was invited to speak for twenty minutes. I drew on my book and talked about the Christian view of God who is knowable, relational and who is love. I cited Muslim scholars who say that ‘Allah’ is none of those things.

Then we were invited to ask each other some questions. Zuber’s main line of questioning seemed to want to drive a wedge between the idea of a ‘God of love’ and a ‘God of Justice’ in Christian thought, suggesting that there is a contradiction there. I thought that was a very helpful question actually because it enabled me to expose a common misunderstanding that love is the opposite of justice. In fact, the opposite of love is apathy not justice! God’s justice exists because he cares deeply about this world and sees the harm that we have done to it, and one another – and so he is compelled to respond.

We then had a fascinating discussion about whether ‘love’ is something which can be earned. In the Qur’an over half the references to God and love refer to people Allah does not love (the unfaithful, the rebellious, the prodigal) and the other half are conditional, saying that God will love you if you meet certain requirements. I was surprised that Zuber tried to explain this by saying that if you have a compliant child and a rebellious one, you will obviously love the compliant one more! But those of us who are parents, who have experienced this – don’t love our kids any differently! We might parent them differently, but that’s because we love them equally.

Our discussion then applied the same ideas to the concept of ‘forgiveness’. In Zuber’s view, forgiveness is something which must be earned. I disagreed with that and argued that forgiveness does have a cost – but in true forgiveness that cost is borne by the forgiver, not the forgiven party. If I offended my wife, and apologised – and she agreed to forgive me on the basis that I completed a list of chores around the house; that wouldn’t be forgiveness, that would really be economics; closing a deal!

Then we went to audience Q&A, which I always enjoy. The university still had some Covid-restrictions in place, so there were only 40 people in the room; everyone else had to watch online. The audience was about 50% Muslim and 50% Christian and something like 30 questions were posted into the Sli.do forum for the event. My favourite question was the one we ended with, which was; “What is the purpose of life?” I went into my answer through the famous line in the Shorter Catechism that the ‘chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever”. That led into the comparison of the Islamic and Christian visions of heaven or paradise. The Islamic one features food, drink and women to be enjoyed by the men; but the Bible (Rev 21) sees a deep relationship with God himself as the great prize of heaven. Zuber, and some of the Islamic students tried to say that these things in the Qur’an were only metaphors; but there’s good evidence that they are seen literally in the Qur’an and in the following centuries of Islamic scholarship. In fact, there is  a vast amount of writing about the sexual aspect of heaven including debates about whether men would be given supernatural strength to have more sex with more women than possible on earth. Clearly they didn’t mean metaphorically…!

In an entirely unplanned development, my final slide stayed up above the stage for the whole of the 2nd half of the event. It was of a quote by my late friend Nabeel Qureshi, who converted from Islam to Christianity about why he had found the person of Jesus so attractive. Several students asked me about that at the end of the event.

After the formal Q&A there was lots of informal Q&A at the end. Two young Muslims engaged me in dialogue for a long time, and made derogatory comments about the Bible. The problem they had was that they had never looked at the history of the Qur’an, how it was composed and put together with manuscript variants evident to scholars.

It was such a good evening to be part of, and I was hugely grateful to the CU and the ISOC for extending the invitation to me. Obviously I want Muslims to hear the gospel of Christ. But also, I really want Christians and Muslims to meet one another, make friends and keep talking!

CU President Nathan Legg said, ““We were excited to collaborate with our friends in the Islamic Society as we felt there was a good discussion to be had around the differences in our faiths. It was refreshing to engage with a group of people who, though they didn’t agree with us about who Jesus was, had a great interest in him and were keen to engage in dialogue about him. We were glad to be able to offer them the Christian perspective and respectfully challenge some of their ideas surrounding Jesus.

I feel that the event was thoroughly enjoyed by everyone involved and it was a great benefit to have Andy Bannister offer his insights on both Christianity and his academic work on Islam. The event was a great success with dozens of questions being asked during the Q&A and even after the event, we would definitely be keen to put on more events like this in the future!”

 

 

Have You Ever Wondered Why Mathematics Works?

by Solas

Have you ever wondered why mathematics is so effective? For example, the deeper we delve into physics, the more we discover that the laws of nature are written in the language of numbers. But if we live in a godless universe, how is this possible? Numbers are just something invented thousands of years ago by ancient goat herders to keep track of their flocks—how on earth do they fit so well with modern science? Did those goat herders get lucky? Or is there something else going on? In this Short Answers video, Dr. Andy Bannister explores why numbers are yet another clue that there’s a much bigger story to the universe.

Share

Please share this video widely with friends or family and for more Short Answers videos, visit solas-cpc.org/shortanswers/, subscribe to our YouTube channel or visit us on Twitter Instagram or Facebook.

Support

Short Answers is a viewer-supported video series: if you enjoy them, please help us continue to make them by donating to Solas. Visit our Donate page and choose “Digital Media Fund” under the Campaign/Appeal button.

Have You Ever Wondered If All Religions Are Basically the Same?

by Editor

I grew up in a very diverse part of London; where I lived as a teenager, you could choose from a thousand different belief systems: Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Humanism, and a multitude of other isms. Within a mile of two of home, there were churches, mosques, temples, a gurdwara, and a myriad other places of worship.

Religion was everywhere as I grew up and today, a few decades on, it’s still everywhere and it’s growing. According to the statistics, we are becoming a more religious society here in the west. People don’t believe less, but they do believe more diversely.[1]

One reason for the growth in religion and spirituality is that people are increasingly dissatisfied with shallow secular answers, the idea that all you need is money and pleasure, and that’s enough. As psychiatrist and author Viktor Frankl famously put it: “Ever more people today have the means to live, but no meaning to live for.”

How do we answer that meaning question? Winifred Gallagher is a journalist who has written for magazines including Rolling Stone, Harper’s and The Atlantic. In an interview about her book, Working on God, she describes this growing unease in our culture, this sense that there must be more to life than this:

The only way to describe the new phenomenon I am observing is to coin a new phrase: spiritual agnostics. We have regarded religion as belief in unbelievable things. Our trusted tools of intellect and learning have deconstructed religious belief. But we’re finding that we have inexplicable feelings. We wonder: Is this true? Is this all there is? I have tried to muffle this question in all the accustomed ways all my life: love, achievement, stuff, and therapy. I tried to muffle it by writing two books on science. By middle age, I have wearily recognized that religion is the only road I have not taken in pursuit of the answer … We’re haunted by faith.

If as Winifred discovered we are spiritual beings who need more than the endless treadmill of career to satisfy us, that raises a deeper question: which religion? Many people when they first begin to realise that there’s a spiritual side to life then quickly panic when they see the incredible range of religious options on offer. Paralysed by choice, the temptation is to reach for easy platitudes, such as “Well, I wonder if all religions teach basically the same thing?” That’s a warm, comfortable answer, not least because it allows us to approach spirituality in a slightly consumerist way, picking the beliefs, ideas, or practices that “work for us”: a little bit of yoga, a dash of meditation, the odd prayer, a couple of candles, and a lemon-scented journal.

But the uncomfortable, nagging fact remains that the only way to maintain this idea is by not actually going and looking. It’s a bit like when I frequently misplace my car keys: “Have you looked in the lounge where you normally lose them?” my wife will ask. “Yes, dear,” I reply, by which I mean I glanced briefly through the door but didn’t bother searching properly.

And it doesn’t take much looking or searching before you stumble across some fairly stark differences between the teachings of the world’s major religions, faiths, and spiritual traditions. Take just the two biggest religions, Christianity and Islam—often sloppily lumped together under the label “Abrahamic Faiths”. To give just one major example, if you look at the character of God in the Bible, you discover the Bible’s claims that God is relational, knowable and is not just loving, but is love. Turn to the Qur’an, and you discover it’s claims about God are almost entirely opposite.

“Ah, but that’s just theology,” you say. Alright, well what about some history. The central event of the Christian faith is the death and resurrection of Jesus—and secular historians will tell you that the former is one of the best attested facts of first-century history. If we can’t be sure that Jesus was crucified, under the Roman governor Pilate, sometime round about AD33, then we can’t be sure of anything in first-century history, as the evidence is so overwhelming. But along comes the Qur’an, some 600 years after these events, and claims that Jesus was not killed by crucifixion, but that this was just a wild claim made by the Jews. Those two historical claims—crucified and not-crucified—are impossible to reconcile, as execution by crucifixion is a rather binary affair: you can’t be partly crucified or only-mostly-dead.

And the more you study Christianity and Islam, or indeed the more you compare any of the world’s faith traditions, the more the contradictions mount up. Short of closing your eyes, covering your ears, and muttering “What car keys?”, you can’t escape the differences.

So how to navigate the maze of diversity and difference? Well, firstly, don’t be worried by it—it’s just one more sign that human beings are inherently religious, that we’re wired for faith, designed to be spiritual. That a desire for connection with God bubbles up everywhere in human culture, across time and space and history, is itself a massive clue. But that aside, how do we work through all the options and choices? Do we just pick randomly and hope for the best—or is there a better way?

I think there is. And so my first suggestion is this: try praying. Radical idea, right? But if there is a God behind this universe and there is religious truth to be discovered, maybe rather than take on our shoulders the full load of finding it, maybe we might ask for help? After all, Jesus famously said: “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” So why not try praying, perhaps something like this: “God, I don’t know what to believe about you, but I want to know the truth and I want to encounter you. Would you please guide my steps as I seek?”

Secondly, take a long, hard, careful look at Jesus—perhaps by reading one of the four first-century eyewitness accounts of his life, death, and resurrection found in the gospels in the New Testament. Lots of religions claim to offer wisdom, advice, or high-minded thoughts about God and spirituality—but Christianity teaches that God stepped into space and history in the person of Jesus, in order to show us what he was like. If Jesus’s claims not to just have ideas about God, but to be God-with-us stand up, then that answers both the “Which religion?” question as well as the “What is God like?” question, in one go.

It’s easy to forget just how startling the impact of Jesus’s life has been, until you stop and actually think about it. The paradox is captured powerfully in this famous meditation written a century ago:

He was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village, where he worked in a carpenter’s shop until he was thirty. Then for three years he was an itinerant preacher. He never wrote a book, never held an office, never went to college, never visited a big city. He never travelled more than two hundred miles from the place where he was born. He did none of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but himself. He was only thirty-three when the tide of public opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied him. He was turned over to his enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. While dying, his executioners gambled for his clothing, the only property he had on earth. When he was dead, he was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend … All the armies that have ever marched, all the navies that have ever sailed, all the parliaments that have ever sat, all the rulers that ever reigned put together, have not affected the life of humankind on earth, as powerfully as that one solitary life.

And, third, try reading the stories of those who have trodden the path of spiritual inquiry before you, especially those who have had the courage to follow it out of the religious tradition where they began. One of the most powerful books I have ever read in this vein is Nabeel Qureshi’s autobiography, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus. It tells the story of how, as a young and highly devout Muslim, he set out on a quest to know God better—and discovered that journey led him not deeper into Islam, but to an encounter with Jesus.

When it comes to the most important questions of life, ultimately what matters are not our feelings nor our hunches, but what is true. When we go to the doctor with a worrying pain we don’t want her to say: “What medicine do you feel would help?” but we want a diagnosis, and a correct prescription. When we board a plane, we don’t want the captain to come over the PA system and invite anyone who feels like it to come up to the cockpit and have a go at flying. What matters in these situations are not feelings or preferences, but truth. And it’s the same when it comes to questions of spirituality and religion—tempting as it is to settle for easy answers that make us feel good, I want to suggest that we need to find answers that measure up to reality, given that much is at stake.

[1] ‘Size and projected growth of major religious groups, 2015-2060’, Pew Research Center, 3 April 2017.

Truth Questions at Glasgow University

by Editor

The motto of Glasgow University is, “The Way, The truth and the Life”, which is carved into the walls in University Avenue. So the University of Glasgow Christian Union decided to entitle their mission week: “The Truth?” They held a series events, all of which related to an aspect of the truth. I had the privilege of speaking at their daily lunchbars, opening the topic up with a talk and then engaging in Q&A with the students who came along.

Monday’s events was entitled, “True Story: Is the Bible reliable as a source of truth and can we trust it to provide us with answers to life’s biggest questions?” On the Tuesday it was “True Answers; Can Science and Religion Coexist?” and that meeting probably got the biggest turnout of the whole week. The room the CU booked was completely filled and they had to bring in more chairs because students were queuing out of the door and down the stairs of the Union building. The Q&A was challenging and stretching and the event built up a huge amount of enthusiasm for the rest of the week! Many of the Christian students who had brought friends along specifically for that topic, reported that they had many great conversations after the event as a result of the thought-provoking things that had been raised there.

On Wednesday the topic was “True Hope: Was Jesus Raised from the Dead?” There were lots of penetrating and challenging questions there about the historicity and reliability of the resurrection accounts in the gospels. That included discussion of the plausibility of, and possibility of miracles – of which the resurrection is the highest. “True Justice” was the topic on the Thursday, subtitled, “Is the Christian God a moral-monster?” The turn-out for this was very high again, with lots of students wanting to engage with issues around values and ethics and morality. While the Bible has things that people found challenging and difficult, we tried to flip that round and show everyone that so many of the ethics, values and beliefs that we all share come in fact from the Bible. That led to some absolutely fascinating discussions Some of the best one-to-one conversations I had with people came about because of that talk, particularly with one girl who was deeply offended by the way I had answered a particular question about heaven, hell, and justice. In the course of the conversation her whole countenance changed from one of anger to respectful listening. I think she felt that she had been listened to, and her points really heard – but equally she was willing to go away and think about things more herself too. She went away from our conversation with book recommendation, for something that would help her develop her thinking in this area.

“True Healing: Where is God in my suffering?” was the subject for the final day’s meeting. That is a very deep and real topic for so many people. A very short version of my talk for that lunchtime has been published here at Solas, as “Have You Ever Wondered Why Suffering and Evil Seem So Wrong?” which you can read here. It clearly struck a nerve with a lot of people and the questions which followed were honest and very real. The final question of the whole week I had to reply to by saying, “humanly speaking there is no answer to that question – I do not know the mind of God on these things, but what I can tell you is that Jesus has the answers to your questions and He’s the one you need. He alone is the one who can help.”

We had a great time at events week with the Glasgow University Christian Union. The students in the CU did a fabulous job. The number of people who worked to organise and put on the events was impressive. I was only involved in the lunch bars on apologetics and evangelism, but the students put on a whole host of evening events as well!

It was a hugely encouraging week, and one of the first mission events I’ve done as a Solas speaker which was great too! It was a privilege to fly under the Solas banner.

PEP Talk Podcast With Mike D’Virgilio

by Solas

We often speak on PEP Talk about sharing our faith with “friends, colleagues and family”.  Speaking of family, how do we share our faith with our children? Is that even evangelism? Or is it something we just assume will happen? Today Andy speaks with a self-described “regular guy” who thinks Christian parents can be intentional and persuasive (without guilt or pressure!) in the way they share God’s truth with their kids.

With Mike D'Virgilio – PEP Talk

Check out Mike’s book here:  The Persuasive Christian Parent: Building an Enduring Faith in You and Your Children

Apple Podcasts
Spotify
Amazon Music
RSS Feed

Our Guest

Mike D’Virgilio has a B.S. in Communication from Arizona State University and an M.A. in Systematic Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary Philadelphia. He has worked in public relations, sales, and marketing for over three decades. His first book is an exploration of apologetics for parents called The Persuasive Christian Parent: Building an Enduring Faith in You and Your Children.  He also blogs on apologetics and a variety of topics at mikedvirgilio.com.

About PEP Talk

The Persuasive Evangelism Podcast aims to equip listeners to share their faith more effectively in a sceptical world. Each episode, Andy Bannister (Solas) and Kristi Mair (Oak Hill College) chat to a guest who has a great story, a useful resource, or some other expertise that helps equip you to talk persuasively, winsomely, and engagingly with your friends, colleagues and neighbours about Jesus.

Support the Podcast

Book Review: John Stott on Creation Care by R.J. Berry and Laura S. Metzner Yoder

by Editor

If you are a Christian who is indifferent to environmental issues, or if you have dismissed the Christian faith as something which permits or facilitates environmental damage, this book will challenge your thinking! If you are already quite committed to the care of the natural world, you will find this book greatly encouraging. Whatever your starting point this book will offer you a deeper understanding of the Bible, of creation, and the importance of creation care as an essential component of Christian living. Here R.J. (Sam) Berry and Laura S. Meitzner Yoder have assembled the teachings of theologian John Stott on Christian environmental responsibility and creation care. Excerpts from Stott’s writings, sermons, and lectures are organised and interspersed with further insights from Berry, Yoder and others.

John Stott (1921-2011) was one of the most renowned theologians of the 20th century. His influence and respect were global. He was an Anglican clergyman known for his disciplined study and careful exposition of the Bible and his clear and powerful preaching. He authored more than fifty books. He was firmly committed to the authority of the Bible, had a passion for world evangelisation, and profound compassion for the poor and oppressed. Although Stott never wrote a book devoted singly to the topic, the theology of creation and creation care were woven throughout much of his writings, sermons and lectures. He had great foresight. His understanding of the importance of creation stewardship began in the 1940s, well before the importance of environmental issues became widely recognised in the 1970s and 80s. His personal study of nature (particularly birds) and his careful study of the Bible’s teachings (particularly the Psalms) contributed to his growing convictions.

This book differs from almost all other books advocating environmental protection in that its plea for care of the natural world arises not from scientific data or the urgency of our current environmental crises, but rather directly out of Scripture. Care of the natural world that God created is an area that the Bible speaks to throughout both the Old and New Testaments, but it has been largely neglected in the preaching, teaching and practice of evangelical churches, and too many Christians view nature conservation as an ideological or political issue rather than a biblical issue. Almost all other books on the topic begin with a statement of the environmental issues and problems, with varying discussion of the underlying science, followed with a biblical justification for action. Stott, by contrast began with careful exposition of the Bible. Berry and Yoder likewise do not discuss specific environmental problems or science.

The authors discuss several major biblical doctrines which Stott focused on as constituting the imperative for our care for the earth. The first is that the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it (Psalm 24:1) and that it was created by him and for him (Col. 1:16). The earth is created, sustained and redeemed by Christ (Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:2-3). Thus, we dare not abuse what belongs to Christ by right of creation, redemption and inheritance. It is also clear from the book of Genesis that God has delegated the responsibility of serving and protecting his creation to us. We are its stewards. God remains the landlord and we are his tenants. To be faithful stewards, our delegated dominion over the earth should model God’s, and his model for us to follow is clear throughout scripture, e.g. God is loving towards all he has made (Psalm 145:13). To dominate, abuse, waste or destroy is modelled on sinful human arrogance and selfishness, not the loving care for the earth and its creatures modelled by God.

Another relevant biblical principle is that God’s redemptive plan is much larger than our personal salvation. The Bible is clear that the mission of God to bring all things in heaven and earth into unity under Christ, reconciling them through his death and resurrection. Like us, creation too will one day be freed from its slavery to decay and enter into God’s glory. We often neglect this, and as Stott notes, “Many Christians have a strong theology of salvation but a weak theology of creation”. Stott also drew a direct link between our care of creation and the biblical principle of mission and the commandment to love our neighbours. Our mission in the world should be modelled after that of Jesus, who came both to save and to serve others (Mark 10:45). Thus, both evangelism and compassionate service belong together in our mission, and caring for others must include caring for the earth upon which we all depend. I certainly agree. Given that more than 8 million people die annually due to environmental pollution and many millions more are made ill, loving our neighbours must include care for the environment.

Finally, the authors note that the creation itself is an important part of God’s revelation to us. The Bible teaches repeatedly throughout that we are to observe, study, and learn from creation as well as from the Scriptures. Stott called this “double listening”, and he valued his personal time in nature observation and study as an important part of his Christian life and learning. As a scientist and a Christian, I am saddened by the dismissal of science by many Christians, and I appreciate the perspective on science and faith expressed here. As Stott notes, theology is our attempt to understand what God has revealed in Scripture, while science is our attempt to understand what God has revealed in Nature.

In discussing the Bible’s teaching on our relationship to creation, the authors caution against the extremes of idolatrous nature worship on one hand, and indifference to God’s creation and its degradation on the other. They dispel many unbiblical beliefs about the environment, e.g. We needn’t care about the earth because God is going to destroy it anyway. Environmental degradation is an inevitable result of the fall of man, therefore we needn’t and can’t do anything about it. These and others are not dispelled based on the authors’ personal ideologies or views, but rather based directly upon Scripture.

The message of this book is clear, compelling and most importantly, biblically-based. It is not a call to save the planet. Rather, the message here is that Christians should actively care for the natural world simply because the Bible teaches that we are to be faithful stewards of what God created. Our care of creation is an essential part of our worship of the Creator and our care for all humans who depend on the natural world He created, and it should be an integral part of our daily Christian life.

Are All Religions The Same?

by Solas

Have you ever wondered if all the world’s religions are essentially the same? For those who would consider themselves “spiritual” but also “tolerant” that’s the typical way out, but however nice it sounds, is it actually true? In this Short Answers film, Andy Bannister (that rare breed, a Christian with a PhD in another religion!) introduces us to four helpful questions we can use to compare religious claims—and a way through the maze of religious diversity.

Share

Please share this video widely with friends or family and for more Short Answers videos, visit solas-cpc.org/shortanswers/, subscribe to our YouTube channel or visit us on Twitter Instagram or Facebook.

Support

Short Answers is a viewer-supported video series: if you enjoy them, please help us continue to make them by donating to Solas. Visit our Donate page and choose “Digital Media Fund” under the Campaign/Appeal button.

Have You Ever Wondered Why the Environment Matters?

by Editor

“Do you care about the environment?” This has become a defining question of the 21st century, one that we find ourselves continually answering indirectly in the daily decisions of our lives. I was once asked this question directly. As I walked out of a bookstore, I was greeted on the street corner by a friendly college student wearing a Greenpeace t-shirt and holding a clipboard. He was delighted to hear that I did care about the environment. He explained to me how people are destroying the planet but that I could do something about it by making a donation. Before I opened my wallet to support this global cause, I wanted to pursue the question deeper. With genuine interest, I asked: “Why should I care about the environment?” It was obvious from his silence and blank stare that I had identified something of a cultural blind spot. After pondering my question for a while, he responded: “We should care about the environment for future generations.”

The answers “future generations” or “world heritage” seem to capture the most common responses I hear from those questioned with why they reduce, reuse, and recycle. These are good answers but notice that the logic is established in the value of people not nature. Intuitively we understand that we don’t owe a rock anything, even one the size of a planet. This is because one’s moral duty is owed to persons not things. It’s why we walk on rocks and not people.

Unfortunately, people have taken our moral duty to protect the environment to an extreme.

For example, both New Zealand and Canada have each granted legal personhood status to a river (Whanganui River and Magpie River). Before this, New Zealand began this legal precedence by giving personhood status to a forested hill country called Te Urewera, that technically owns itself. These legal moves grant these rivers and land the same value and rights as a human person. Although I appreciate this was done to protect the environment, it undermines its own project by calling into question the value of future generations.

We must remember that after WWII the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created to stop people from ever being devalued again. That document begins with the famous declaration that all humans have inherent dignity. Inherent means that our value is encountered not created. That is, we come into the world with value. No human gave it to us, and thus cannot legitimately take it away. Our desire to protect the environment for future generations gives voice to that shared dignity we encounter in each other. However, when a government gives our value to an object or an animal—it cheapens, and even undermines our own dignity; it is the very definition of dehumanizing. Similar to poor environmental stewardship, future generations will pay for the mismanagement of our human value.

We should be concerned about policies that undermine the value of future generations, but we should ask if the environment matters without us? Here again, we run into the problem that things only matter or have value in relationship to a person or persons. Without persons the environment presents a very depressing perspective. This is where modern philosophy continues to undermine environmentalism. For example, the chair of the philosophy department at Duke University, Alex Rosenberg succinctly summarizes the foundation of modern thinking: “The physical facts fix all the facts.”[1] This seems to sum up the secular perspective and leads philosophers, such as Rosenberg, to the following conclusions: “What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is. What is the purpose of the universe? There is none. What is the meaning of life? Ditto.”[2]

I expressed my concern over this physics-only worldview with the man from Greenpeace by asking: “Why bother caring for the environment or future generations?” He looked perplexed, so I offered an explanation: “Physics tells me that the sun is dying and as it does it will expand until the earth is consumed in fire. If my life and the planet are destined for destruction and are ultimately meaningless, I might as well get what I can while I can.” With a mix of profanities, he said, “That’s messed up.” “I agree.” I told him, “but why?”

I find it odd that so many universities today teach that the physical facts fix all the facts and yet you should still recycle. However, that is not a physical fact. What do I owe a meaningless universe? Nothing! Yet, that is surely wrong and justifies this man’s revulsion. What’s the alternative? Rethinking our worldview. Perhaps we know the environment matters with or without us because our planet exists in relationship to another person—God. My answer to why the environment and future generations matter is because God matters. As a Christian, my responsibility to the environment and future generations is grounded in my relationship to God, which also give life and the universe meaning, purpose, and value. If you care about the environment and future generations, I encourage you to invite the person of God into your thinking.

Dr Andy Steiger is the author of ‘Reclaimed’ which can be found here.

[1] Alex Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions (New York: W.W. Norton Company, 2011), 162.

[2] Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, 2-3.

PEP Talk Podcast With Paul Woolley

by Solas

In our western cultures, the way we present the gospel and the way it is embodied appears to be anything but “good news”. It’s worrying, disappointing, even life-diminishing news! But in a world of pandemics and Putin, how can we hold out real, authentic good news to our friends who are so desperate for it? Andy and Kristi explore this question with Paul Woolley this time on PEP Talk.

With Paul Woolley – PEP Talk

Have a look at these resources from LICC which Paul mentions:
https://licc.org.uk/resources/6ms/
https://licc.org.uk/events/40-cities-tour/

Apple Podcasts
Spotify
Amazon Music
RSS Feed

Our Guest

Paul Woolley joined the London Institute of Contemporary Christianity as CEO in January 2021, having been Deputy Chief Executive at Bible Society. He was previously the founder and director of the influential faith and society think tank Theos. In addition to studying theology, he has worked in parliament and the media. He is married to Ruth, and they have four young children. They live in Wiltshire and enjoy being outdoors, playing board games, and keeping chickens.

About PEP Talk

The Persuasive Evangelism Podcast aims to equip listeners to share their faith more effectively in a sceptical world. Each episode, Andy Bannister (Solas) and Kristi Mair (Oak Hill College) chat to a guest who has a great story, a useful resource, or some other expertise that helps equip you to talk persuasively, winsomely, and engagingly with your friends, colleagues and neighbours about Jesus.

Support the Podcast

Have You Ever Wondered If Jesus Actually Existed?

by Editor

Our children’s library contains many different books, recounting the adventures of various characters like: The Gruffalo, Superworm, The Monkey Who Lost His Mum, The Whale and the Snail, Thomas the Tank Engine, and many others.  We also have a collection of beautifully illustrated books about the Bible, retelling stories about Jesus.

Now, you probably have never lost any sleep over the question: Does the Gruffalo actually exist?  Of course, not – we recognise that it belongs the realm of fiction.  However, have you ever wondered if Jesus actually existed in fact?  That’s a question that has consumed a significant portion of my life and the lives of countless others for almost two millennia.

The good news is that it’s a question we can answer beyond reasonable doubt.  Even the agnostic professor of the New Testament Bart Erhman begins one of his popular books: “The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist”.

We have as much reason to believe that, as we do to believe that Caesar Tiberius existed.  There are 10 sources for his existence recorded within 150 years of his life (one of which is a Christian source); while there are 42 sources for Jesus’ existence in the same period (9 of which are non-Christian sources).

In his book “Is Jesus History?” the historian John Dickson takes the reader on a guided tour of those ancient sources that corroborate much of the Bible’s testimony about Jesus.  For example: two mentions in the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18:3, 20:9); one mention from the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44); as well as mentions from critics who record not only the existence of Jesus but also that Christians worshipped Jesus as God from the earliest of times:

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account” (Lucian)

“Now if the Christians worshipped only one God they might have reason on their side. But as a matter of fact they worship a man who appeared only recently. They do not consider what they are doing a breach of monotheism; rather they think it perfectly consistent to worship the great God and to worship his servant as God… When they call him Son of God, they are not really paying homage to God, rather, they are attempting to exalt Jesus to the heights” (Celsus)

So, without any further commitment, it is reasonable to conclude with a high degree of probability that Jesus really did exist.  The more interesting question is why some 2000 years later should we care that he existed, any more than we care about the Caesars?

The philosopher Peter Kreeft paints a picture that helps us see how remarkable it is that we remember Jesus at all:

“He never entered politics, never fought a battle, and never wrote a book.  He lived in a backwater nation, never went more than one hundred miles of his home, and was executed by crucifixion as a dangerous criminal.  His moral teachings were not completely new.  Nearly every piece of advice he gave us about how to live can be found in his own Jewish tradition, as well as in the philosophies of others.  What caused his unparalleled impact?” (Peter Kreeft).

To answer this question, we need to consult the primary historical sources of those who witnessed the life of Jesus, who watched Him perform divine acts, who heard Him claim to be a divine person.  For example, you could take an hour or two to read the shortest and earliest of the gospels – The Gospel According to Mark.

Mark’s pre-eminent question is: WHO IS JESUS?  He starts off by telling us the answer, which he will seek to persuade us of throughout the rest of his book: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1).  At the centre of the book, there is a conversation between Peter and Jesus where Jesus asks “And who do you say I am?”  and Peter replies with his marvellous confession: “You are the Christ” (8:29).  Also, near the end, Mark records a Roman centurion who witnessed the death of Jesus: “Truly this man was the Son of God!” (15:39).  Mark’s gospel is all about identifying Jesus.

In this first half of the gospel, Mark takes us breathlessly through a series of action packed stories of Jesus.  If you simply skim through these early pages of the gospel you’ll see Jesus:

  • 1:21-28: Jesus liberates people suffering from demonic oppression
  • 1:29-34: Jesus heals people suffering from diseases
  • 2:1-12: Jesus forgives people of their sins and offences against God
  • 4:35-41: Jesus calms a storm at sea
  • 5:21-42: Jesus heals a woman from an incurable illness and raises a little girl from the dead

Mark wants us to see the good news that Jesus can overcome over the greatest threats to human flourishing: natural disasters, demons, diseases, and death. Mark also wants to show us that Jesus not only claims to be God, but does things that only God could do!

At the climax of the gospel, Jesus is arrested and sentenced to death for the crime of blasphemy – of claiming to be the Son of God.  Jesus should have been just another forgotten victim of Roman brutality – another failed Messiah.  However, in the final chapter of Mark’s gospel we read the account of the first eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead – vindicating His claims to be the Son of God and the Lord of life.

Strangely, however, Mark ends on a minor key: “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb.  They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid” (16:8).  Obviously, that’s not the end of the story – more happened afterwards.  But the question is why does Mark end this way?  It seems Mark is wanting to draw you, the reader, into the story.  He’s challenging you – now that you know who Jesus is – it’s your job to respond to the story and then you need to go and tell.

Ministry in Newcastle-upon-Tyne Andy at Jesmond Parish Church

by Editor

Jesmond Parish Church (JPC) is a thriving evangelical Anglican congregation of the Church of England in Newcastle. Solas’s Andy Bannister had spoken for them online during the pandemic, but was invited back to speak in person recently.  JPC is a very missional church, which is quite focussed on  taking the gospel of Christ to their city. They invited Andy to speak, with the specific remit of speaking to the many people they draw to their services who are not yet believers in Jesus. They are a church which is popular with students too, which also means there are always young people present, many of whom are thinking through life’s biggest questions and exploring the Christian faith.

Andy spoke at three services on the Sunday, to between five and six hundred people. The early service was ‘Covid-friendly’, in which masks and social distancing were still enforced- to allow people who were not able to mix more freely to attend church in person with confidence. The morning service was specially designed for visitors who might not be familiar with church, The congregation were encouraged to invite friends and the leaders explained the elements of the service as they went through it- not assuming any prior knowledge or familiarity. In fact the folks at JPC invited any newcomers to observe the Christian faith in practice as they worshipped, prayed, and read scripture together.

An especially lovely element to the services were the interviews they did with people who have come to faith in Christ over the last two or three years. They were interesting, engaging and really helpful for not just encouraging Christians but helping people looking into Christianity to see what becoming a Christian looks like in practice. In the morning the person speaking had no background in the church, but was drawn in through friends – and found real faith in Christ. In the evening the testimony was of someone who was brought up in church, but had no real personal faith – and had to discover what that meant as an adult. Both of these were really helpful stories!

In the morning Andy preached on “Can life have meaning without God?”, using John chapter one as his basis. He explored some of the problems with Atheism but brought the talk to a conclusion with Philip’s plea to Nathanael about Jesus, “Come and see!” Jesmond Parish is about to launch a Christianity Explored Course, which is a wonderful way for people to come and see who Jesus is. You can watch the talk here.

“Christianity: Intolerant, irrelevant and out of date?” was Andy’s title in the evening. Underlying all of those accusations is the concept of freedom. One of our culture’s primary beliefs is that every individual must be free to do whatever they want. Christian faith is seen as a negative, or even harmful thing because it is perceived as restricting that freedom. Andy argued however that there is no such thing unfettered freedom – nobody can be entirely free from constraints. The question we all have to decide for ourselves then is ‘what are the best constraints to have’ and under what constraints will I flourish? Jesus said, “My yoke is easy and burden is light” and as such promised that in following him people would experience ‘life in all its fullness”. This talk is online here

Jonathan Prycke, Senior Minister at JPC said, ““We greatly appreciated Andy Bannister’s ministry at Jesmond Parish Church last Sunday. He spoke on ‘Can life have meaning without God?’ and ‘Christianity: irrelevant, out of date, intolerant?’ Andy very helpfully gets under the skin of these questions. He helps those who are not yet Christians to see that their secular materialist assumptions about life don’t hold water, before pointing them to Jesus as the one who makes sense of life. Andy joined us last year by video when we were only able to meet together online, so it was wonderful to have him with us in person as we begin to open up again. The church faces great challenges after its battering by the pandemic. But we know that our calling to take the gospel out to the community around us has not changed. Indeed, there are great opportunities created by the way that the foundations of people’s lives have been shaken over these last two years. Andy’s visit helped us to communicate with those outside the church who are asking questions. The model that he gave us also helped to encourage and equip those of us who are Christians in our own witness. We’re praying that the Christianity Explored course that we advertised at these services will be a place where seekers can continue to ask their questions, and can encounter Jesus in the pages of Mark’s Gospel.”

Andy said, “It was great to be back in front of a large live audience and to bring Jesus centred messages to them from the book of John. JPC is wonderful church which is really outward looking and evangelistic. Their leadership team are really strong, and the people really responsive and engaged. I hope to be able to work with them again. At Solas we’ll be praying that their Christianity Explored course is a blessing to many people in Newcastle.”

Find Jesmond Parish Church online here.
Their Clayton TV channel is here.