News

Report from the Road – Northern Ireland 2020

by Editor

After months of very limited activities due to the lockdown, it was wonderful to be back on the road again in this autumn. Andy Bannister and Gavin Matthews from the Dundee office joined Gareth Black in Belfast for a series of meetings, some filming and networking events too.

Social distancing in church!

Evangelism Training was high on the agenda for our time in Ulster. Crown Jesus Ministries is a dynamic evangelistic mission in East Belfast, and Glenabbey Church is Gareth Black’s home fellowship. Both of these groups gave us a fantastic welcome and we ran similar events for them both. Gareth kicked proceedings off with some thoughts on “Spiritual Climate Change”, looking at the rapid secularisation of Northern Ireland and the ways in which that creates challenges and opportunities for gospel work. Andy Bannister then presented a version of his talk on the use of questions in evangelism, “How to talk about Jesus without looking like an idiot” – which is our introduction to conversational evangelism, and really the starting point for much of what we do. These events were not identical though, because the second half of the night, (after Gavin interviewed Andy about the work of Solas), was given over to Q&A – and the respective audiences took the conversation in quite different directions.

It was so refreshing to meet people in person, and not just via screens! We were careful to follow all the Covid-restrictions as we travelled – which wasn’t easy, because they are different in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In fact some of the regulations actually changed as we were queuing for the ferry and required some last-minute changes of plan! Some of the regulations have tightened again since we got back, so we were really very grateful to have been able to use this window of opportunity while it was there. It was also really good to catch up with Michael and Rebecca Ots who were over too as Michael was speaking for the CU at Queen’s University.

Being in Northern Ireland was also a great opportunity to speak to others engaged in Christian mission in the public square. We have good friends at Stranmillis EP church, who would like us to bring the Confident Christianity conference to Belfast. It was really good to meet them in a coffee shop and work out what we could do together in different unlocking scenarios. The gospel of Jesus does not change, but the context in which we are proclaiming and explaining it does! It was also good to speak to the team from the EA in Northern Ireland who are doing great work in the public square, and equipping the churches for their role as Christ’s ambassadors.

We also had the opportunity to meet with the guys from CBMC, who are sharing the love of Christ and the hope of his gospel in the business community. We are actively looking at ways we can work with them in evangelism and apologetics in the coming year. The also made this short film with Andy and Gareth at the end of our meeting.

Solas has made regular trips to Northern Ireland over many years, but now having Gareth there on the ground, means that we are equipped to serve the churches there far better than we ever could before. Andy, Gareth and Gavin do a lot of the speaking and writing for Solas, and yet rarely meet together as a team in person. It was also really good for us to be together and plan out some future ideas for the Solas website, plan the next series of Short Answers videos, and record four new episodes with local videographer Michael Bradshaw, which will be coming soon.

Although working within the health and hygiene regulations added significant costs and inconvenience to our trip, being allowed out again to engage in ministry was hugely encouraging.  There are opportunities for us to travel, and to do evangelism training events for churches and ministries – and to do coffee shop and restaurant style outreach events. We are ready to go, and excited to be able to get going with this important work to which we feel called. We will always work within the relevant guidelines (and will reek of hand-sanitiser!), but please do contact us if we can serve you in evangelism, outreach or evangelism training. We are keen to do as much as is practicable within the guidelines.

 

 

How Can I Know the Presence of God in Dark Times?

by Solas

All of us will face suffering at some point in our lives; all of us will go through difficult times. In this Short Answers video, Dr. Andy Bannister shows how Christianity offers the most powerful resources not only to answer the question of suffering (we have covered that in other films), but for living through and coping with suffering. Whether you’re experiencing suffering yourself, or seeking to help somebody who is, Andy shows why the hope, peace, and comfort that Jesus offers can be life transforming.

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.

What does Christianity have to do with Freedom of Speech?

by Editor
FREE SPEECH in 2020

Free speech is eroding in the UK. Speakers with a wide variety of views deemed politically incorrect are ‘no-platformed’ in university campuses and public venues across the country. The government proposes to bring social media under Ofcom’s state regulation, with tighter speech restrictions than are legally required.[1] Youtube is ahead of Ofcom, censoring, for example, videos deviating from mainstream Covid information.[2] In Scotland, the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill (SP Bill 67) was introduced to Parliament on 23 April 2020. It would, under certain circumstances, criminalize possession of texts considered hateful. Furthermore, despite feedback from faith groups, the Bill opens the door to prosecution of individuals whose disagreement with the recent cultural narrative concerning transgenderism is labeled hateful.[3]

Freedom of speech is the issue of our times because on it hinges society’s ability to think and debate every other issue. But how did we get to where we are, and is there a distinctively Christian response to the vexed question of free speech and its limits?

What do we mean when we say, ‘Free Speech?’

Researchers Hallberg and Virkkunen write: ‘The principle of freedom of speech means the right to express, publish and receive information, opinions and other communication without interference from any source.’[4]

Free speech has a rich history. Christian thinkers have advocated for it from at least the sixteenth century. John Wycliffe and reformers such as Martin Luther and William Tyndale insisted on their right to speak. Dutch theologian Dirck Coornhert (1522-90) advocated religious toleration, and with it freedom of speech and of the press.[5] Politically, Sweden was the first nation to break legal ground in favour of freedom of speech and information in 1766.[6] Since then, national and international laws have recognized freedom of speech as a human right.[7] The UN Declaration of Human Rights states, ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’[8]

Despite being enshrined in international law, six billion of the earth’s inhabitants know little of that freedom in practice.[9] Closer to home, recent legal and societal limitations on speech are chilling free speech in the West.

Limits on Speech

Speech has traditionally only been limited where it is directly linked to physical violence. However, in the West today, three further limits are being placed upon it: (i) speech laws, (ii) institutional regulations and (iii) social expectations.

  • Speech Laws

Since 9/11, the UK, Australia, and USA have implemented laws to regulate ‘hate speech regarded as harmful in the saying of it and seditious speech directed at undermining democratic and constitutional authority.’[10] The rationale is that to protect citizens’ freedoms, greater security is needed – security itself being the supreme freedom. Therefore, in order to ensure the freedom to be secure, other liberties take second tier.

Another outcome of 9/11 has been the creation of laws to protect against specific discrimination. The UK Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 addressed Islamophobia.[11] Building on this, in 2008, sexual orientation gained legal protection from ‘hate speech’.[12]

While these laws are well intended and provide legitimate protections, there is now a potential clash of freedoms. A recent conference on ‘equality’ took for granted that ‘[the] manifestation of religion can be subject to “proportionate restriction”. This is particularly relevant in relation to the rights of LGBT persons not to face discrimination.’[13]

Dealing with hate and speech crime is keeping law enforcement personnel busy. Reported religion hate crimes increased in England and Wales almost threefold from 2011/12 to 2015/16, reaching over 4,000 charges.[14] An October 2014 Freedom of Information request showed that ‘12,000 people were prosecuted for offensive speech on social media between 2008 and 2013.’[15] Speech crime reporting is on the rise, and there is no sign of this trend abating.

While these laws represent significant changes, they are in fact only legislative indicators of a rapid and sweeping societal transformation underway concerning how people view speech.

Institutional and Societal Speech Rules

In 2020, Westerners live under heightened social pressure to watch what they say. For example, in June Stu Peters was suspended from Manx Radio for questioning the idea of ‘white privilege’.[16] Societal speech rules are also being institutionalized in settings such as schools and universities, as well as social media. For example, following complaints over freedom of speech, Wellesley College (USA) explained that it simultaneously maintains free speech but also considers it appropriate to ‘[shut] down speech’ with respect to any subject which they label a ‘phobia’ or ‘hate speech’.[17] In England, a school suspended a teacher for accidentally calling a transgendered boy a girl; ‘misgendering’ is not illegal, but neither is it necessarily allowed.[18]

Various defences have been offered to support the subjugation of free speech to other rights.

Some who seek to regulate public speech affirm freedom of speech but see it as subordinate to the value of ‘non-discrimination’. According to one spokesperson, ‘freedom of speech’ is a cover for discrimination.[19] Advocates argue that sometimes ‘speech is violence’ and therefore can be curtailed.[20]

This is problematic in three ways. Firstly, it can be used to shut down dialogue without allowing an opportunity to evaluate the reasonableness of the other’s opinion. Secondly, protecting people from ideas which make them uncomfortable does not develop clearer thinkers or stronger individuals.[21] Then thirdly, we must assert that while words can influence, the listener remains a free agent whose actions are their responsibility. It is an error to conflate the moral responsibility of one’s words into the legal responsibility for another’s actions.

It has also been argued that the purpose of free speech is to ‘actually challenge, rather than reiterate, the status quo’, and therefore free speech is misused when employed to defend traditional viewpoints.[22] However, this argument is in fact an attempt to use free speech to suppress free speech, and assumes, without proving, an intellectual high ground over traditional viewpoints.

The cumulative effect of laws, institutional standards and societal pressure shapes free speech today. The effects are widespread.

Frequently, when we label certain words ‘hate speech’ we silence the voices who speak them. Many people ‘self-censor’ their speech. George Orwell describes this phenomenon: ‘Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.”[23]

This week as I write, virtual silence from much, though not all, of the government and law enforcement is the response to the fact that huge Black Lives Matter protests are breaking Covid-19 social-distancing laws and arguably endangering many vulnerable lives, black, Asian, and white. People fear being unfairly labeled racist.[24] On university campuses unofficial speech bans are enforced through taking ‘offense’. As a result, many campuses are noted for their speech restrictions and ‘trigger warnings’.[25] Roger Scruton, warns that this same trend marked the twentieth century totalitarian movements in Russia and Germany.[26] Jordan Peterson concurs: ‘I’ve studied authoritarianism for a very long time – for 40 years – and they’re started by people’s attempts to control the ideological and linguistic territory.”[27]

Theological Perspective on Free Speech

What if we examine these challenges to free speech theologically? While the Bible does not speak directly about ‘free speech’, it provides a theological lens through which to examine today’s debates.

God himself embodies truth. We were made for God; therefore, central to our existence must be a pursuit of truth in the whole of life.[28] God exemplifies free speech despite the risk of offense: the entire Bible is his message to a rebellious humanity which finds its claims deeply offensive.[29] God created humans in his image and gave us, unique among earthly creatures, the God-like capabilities of rational thought and speech and the freedom to employ them.[30] Honoring the image of God in fellow humans must include honoring these capabilities and the corresponding freedom. Since Adam’s fall, humans’ thinking is marred by sin, and our ability to rightly use power is corrupted.[31] The freedom for members of society to name and confront what they believe to be wrong, to debate issues, and to speak truth to power is an essential counterweight to human depravity and an indispensible tool in the pursuit of truth and justice.[32]

The entire story of Scripture is an exercise in free speech. The historical books and the gospels do not gloss over the shadow side of Biblical characters and events, but lay the stories out frankly and unadorned. Prophets called out the evils of those in political and priestly office. Scripture is giving us principles which undergird the importance of free speech and a free press, by which history is recorded accurately and government is held accountable. The current trend towards limiting and proscribing speech raises questions whether those in power are in fact seeking to rewrite history and to exercise power without accountability.

Jesus himself did not allow anyone to dictate his message but spoke according to his convictions. Christ urged people to go beyond accepted norms and think for themselves. He was neither liberal nor conservative: he called people back to the ancient Scriptures while challenging the status quo. Furthermore, he allowed any question from any person, and he never removed an apostle from his office for failures in speech. By taking this approach, he gave people the opportunity to confess their need or discover their ignorance and consequently to learn from him.

John Warwick Montgomery highlights this principle:

‘The answer to obnoxious viewpoints must not be that of a paternalistic society endeavouring to wall off its citizenry from falsehood through criminal penalties. To do so smacks of the very totalitarianism one desperately wants to eliminate…. The distance between stupidity and political incorrectness is hardly a bright line, and society needs to protect the right to be wrong and insensitive; otherwise, truth can be imprisoned as easily as falsehood.’[33]

It is noteworthy that regardless of the content of others’ speech, Jesus’ response to words was words. The only corrective action Jesus took was in response to the actions of others who set up shop in the temple precincts.

David French said, ‘Absent virtue, liberty can lead to disorder. In the face of that disorder, however, we shouldn’t restrict liberty; we should rebuild virtue.’[34] The gospel both provides a rationale for free speech and supplies the moral resources to promote virtuous speech through its ethic of love. Furthermore, it provides the grace which makes possible what today’s society rarely considers when speech rules are broken: forgiveness and restoration.

What is driving the rise in speech regulation in the West? Since our post-Enlightenment society denies any revelatory word from God, it derives its knowledge from human reason. The Enlightenment project has led most people to believe that self-definition, personal autonomy and happiness are ultimate values. This is our vision of ‘the good life’. In the absence of absolute realities, how I feel and what I want become my identity. So you disagreeing with who I say I am (e.g. transgender) is more than a disagreement; it is an assault on my person and on society’s highest value. We desire a society where people live at peace, but many culture shapers reject the peace of respectful tolerance; we require the peace of enforced ‘non-discrimination’. It seems that speech laws are an attempt to solve conflict in such a society.

Moreover, when post-9/11 lawmakers determined that speech could now be equal in criminality to action, the immediate results included terrorism related prosecution with respect to speech. However, these laws, first designed to combat terrorism, bled into other areas of criminal law.[35] Could it be that as post-9/11 society became conditioned to the possibility that speech itself can be a threat, that belief was readily transferred over into the realm of everyday communication, disagreement, and debate? It appears to have been appropriated (intentionally or not) by those seeking to control speech for other reasons. Today, a fool’s rude comment or a sincere disagreement with another’s moral choice can be interpreted by the hearer as a reportable ‘hate incident’ or a fireable offence.

In this climate, the church must adopt a posture of truth, love, and willingness to suffer. This article highlights the need to speak truth and to defend free speech. Because we serve the God of truth, this is not a mere option nor a right, but a Christian duty. At every level of society and for its good, Christians have a responsibility to promote the free exchange of ideas without repercussion. Furthermore, all of the church’s truth-telling must conform to the shape of Biblical love. That love, exemplified by Christ, was costly. At times it is the cost itself which commends the message. The head of the church was crucified, in part, because he chose to speak the truth. In so doing, he conquered. The religious authorities of Jerusalem tried to silence the apostles, but the apostles responded, ‘we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.’[36] Early church history indicates they each suffered for this stand. O’Donovan describes how the boldness of this young church impacted the Empire: ‘But, confronted with the community empowered by God’s speech, force could extinguish speech only at the cost of investing it with the dignity of martyrdom. It proved impossible in the event for Roman society to refuse an answer to the word that was addressed to it with this seriousness.’[37] May the church today exercise free speech with genuine fruitfulness by seeing speech not primarily as a right to assert but a duty to discharge in the cause of Christ-shaped love for the good of the world.

David Mitchell is a Canadian who is pastor of Connect Church in Fife, Scotland. He is currently researching a Masters degree in leadership in the New Testament .

 

 

[1] Jeffrey Howard, “Free Speech in the UK: it’s the business of parliament, not Ofcom, to judge what is ok to publish”, 26 Feb 2020 [accessed 7 Jun 2020], https://theconversation.com/free-speech-in-the-uk-its-the-business-of-parliament-not-ofcom-to-judge-what-is-ok-to-publish-132219#:~:text=The%20UK%20government%20recently%20announced,them%20if%20they%20don’t.

[2] Toby Young, “No sacred cows: Why is YouTube so afraid of free speech?”, The Spectator, 6 June 2020

[3] SP Bill 67: https://beta.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/current-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/introduced/bill-as-introduced-hate-crime-and-public-order-bill.pdf; Policy Memorandum: https://beta.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/current-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/introduced/policy-memorandum-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill.pdf

[4] Pekka Hallberg and Janne Virkkunen, Freedom of Speech and Information in Global Perspective, 1

[5] Malcolm Yarnell, “The Development Of Religious Liberty”, 133

[6] Hallberg and Virkkunen, 10

[7] ‘On the international level this human right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and, of course, in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)…’. Hallberg and Virkkunen, 4

[8] United Nations, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” n.p. [Cited 26 Feb 2018]. Online: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

[9] Ibid, 3

[10] Ibid, 151

[11] UK Government, “Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006”. [Cited 26 Feb 2018]. Online: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/pdfs/ukpga_20060001_en.pdf, 3

[12] UK Government, “Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008” [Cited 26 Feb 2018], n.p. Online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheading/hatred-on-the-grounds-of-sexual-orientation

[13] Equality Coalition et. al, “Briefing Note: Defining public duties to tackle incitement to hatred whilst respecting free expression” [Cited 26 Feb 2018]. Online: https://www.qub.ac.uk/home/media/Media,772866,en.pdf, 9

[14] Hannah Corcoran and Kevin Smith, “Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2015/16” [Cited 26 Feb 2018]. Online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/559319/hate-crime-1516-hosb1116.pdf, 4

[15] Ibid.

[16] BBC, Stu Peters: Manx Radio host suspended over Black Lives Matter comments, 5 Jun 2020, [Cited 7 Jun 2020] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-52936980

[17] The Wellesley News, “Free Speech is Not Violated at Wellesley”, n.p. [Cited 27 Feb 2018.] Online: http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/04/12/free-speech-is-not-violated-at-wellesley/

[18] Jonathan Petre, “I called a trans boy a girl by mistake”, n.p. [Cited 27 Feb 2018] Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073511/Teacher-suspended-praising-pupil-using-wrong-gender.html

[19] The Rainbow Centre, a Wilfrid Laurier University campus group, cited by Aaron Hutchins, “What really happened at Wilfrid Laurier University”, n.p. [Cited 26 Feb 2018]. Online: http://www.macleans.ca/lindsay-shepherd-wilfrid-laurier/

[20] David French, ” Anti-Free-Speech Radicals Never Give Up”, n.p. [Cited 26 Feb 2018]. Online: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/free-speech-violations-supreme-court-patent-trademark-office-slants-southern-poverty-law-center-double-standard/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html

[21] Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, “The coddling of the American mind”, n.p. [Cited 26 Feb 2018], Online: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

[22] Jordan Peterson cited in Dave Beatty,”McMaster debate with controversial professor Jordan Peterson disrupted by activists”, n.p. [Cited 26 Feb 2018.] Online: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/mcmaster-debate-with-controversial-professor-jordan-peterson-disrupted-by-activists-1.4031843

[23]George Orwell, “The Freedom of the Press”, n.p. [Cited 26 Feb 2018]. Online: http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go

[24] John Rentoul, “Boris Johnson banned protest and no one noticed, not even him“, [Cited 7 Jun 2020] Online: https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/editors-letters/protest-george-floyd-demostration-ban-boris-johnson-priti-patel-police-coronavirus-a9552446.html

[25] Josh Dehaas, “Half of Canadian Universities fail at free speech”, n.p. [Cited 27 Fe 2018.] Online: http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/half-of-canadian-universities-fail-at-free-speech-report

[26] Ibid, 12

[27] Jessica Murphy, “Toronto professor Jordan Peterson takes on gender-neutral pronouns”, n.p. [Cited 27 Feb 2018] Online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37875695

[28] 1 Jn. 1:5, 7; Jn. 14:6

[29] E.g. Isa. 65:2

[30] Gen. 1:26-28

[31] Eph. 4:17-18

[32] Prov. 25:12; 27:17; 1 Kg. 20-21.  Cf. Howard Taylor, Human Rights, 81

[33] John Warwick Montgomery, “A Note from Our Editor: ‘Hate Speech’ “, n.p. [Accessed 26 Feb 2018]. Online: https://www.galaxie.com/article/gjct11-2-01?highlight=%22freedom%20of%20speech%22

[34] David French, ” When Speech Inspires Violence, Protect Liberty While Restoring Virtue”, n.p. [Cited 26 Feb 2018] Online: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/steve-scalise-shooting-political-violence-no-excuse-restricting-political-speech-free-speech/

[35] Katharine Gelber, Free Speech after 9/11, 151.  [Cited 28 Feb 2018] Online: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198777793.001.0001/acprof-9780198777793

[36] Acts 4:20

[37] Oliver O’Donovan, The Desire of Nations, 269

Alpha Scotland online Q&A

by Editor

When the Coronavirus was perhaps at its peak, Alpha Scotland put on an online Q&A webinar to respond to people’s questions. Our old friend Dez Johnson from Alpha chaired the event, and brought together a panel of six guests from a variety of churches and missions from around the country. Solas’s Andy Bannister (who Dez introduced as “The Dundee Tornado”!), was joined by Lynne Paterson from TearFUNDF, Ian Birch and Lina Toth from the Scottish Baptist College, Charlie Maasz from Glasgow City Mission and Brodie McGregor from Queen Park Baptist.

Questions came on a whole range of topics from suffering, to church to the presence or absence of God, and how Jesus relates to a world like ours in which things like pandemics occur. Someone asked if God caused the virus, or was responsible for it, or is it the result of the work of evil. Others asked more practical questions about how we should respond to the crisis.

Andy Bannister said, “It was a privilege to work our friends at Alpha again, we love them and the work that they do. It was also really heartening to see that people in our society are really asking big, searching questions. We are often told that in our secular world, that people are no longer concerned with questions of God, ultimate destiny, meaning and truth – but what we find again and again is that when given the opportunity, many people are longing to have a place in which to ask just these sorts of things. These online Q&A’s have been really helpful for some people too. There are many people who wouldn’t come to a church meeting, let alone stick up a hand and ask their question in front of others. Yet they have important questions, which they are willing to put into an online forum. It’s important that we meet them there, where they are wiling to engage.”

Dez Johnson, who leads Alpha’a work in Scotland said, “It was truly special to be a part of a group of people wrestling with relevant and current questions. I especially appreciated Andy very balanced and informative response to the specific question around “Why is God letting Covid happen?”

The webinar was recorded and can be played back here
Dez’s remarkable story is a on our website here:
Alpha’s online courses are here

 

PEP Talk Podcast With Andy Bannister

by Solas

When you’re a “professional” evangelist and “qualified” apologist, that means it all comes easy when sharing your faith, right? But we all have to start somewhere. This time on PEP Talk, Kristi Mair interviews her normal co-host Andy Bannister about how God called him into public ministry and what he’s learned along the way.

With Andy Bannister – PEP Talk

Apple Podcasts
Spotify
Amazon Music
RSS Feed

Our Guest

Andy Bannister is the Director of Solas and an Adjunct Professor at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto. Having ticked the wrong box on his university admissions form, he now holds a PhD in Islamic Studies. He has written The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist and his next book Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? is due out in March 2021. When he’s not travelling, writing, speaking, or entertaining his children with bad jokes, Andy can be found walking the hills of Scotland or the Lake District.

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

A Beginner’s Guide to the Moral Argument

by Editor 1 Comment

Chilli Rating: ???

In thinking back to when I was not a Christian, I often felt a sense of indignation when people would cheat on their exams or when some jerk would bully a kid in my class. Watching the news at night, I’d respond with disgust when a criminal would rob a person or threaten that person’s life, especially when the victim wasn’t able to defend themselves, such as an elderly lady. I would think: That just isn’t right. People shouldn’t do those kinds of things. Conversely, I’d affix a value judgement of goodness to a situation when someone returned a wallet full of money to its owner or when people gave time to work at a homeless shelter. Yet, from where did I derive this sense of right and wrong? Was it just because of my culture and upbringing that I felt these things shouldn’t be so? Would I have different views if I were raised somewhere else or were these kinds of things always right and wrong?

During my search for answers to these questions, I encountered an argument called the Moral Argument for God’s existence. There are three basic ideas in the argument:

Idea #1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Idea #2: Objective moral values and duties do exist
Idea #3: Therefore, God exists.

The terms

Objective: independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.

Subjective: dependent upon people’s opinions, feelings, and personal preferences.

The opposite of objective is subjective.

This first idea would seem to be the most controversial idea other than the conclusion. It purports that if God does not exist, then objective moral values (what is good and evil) and objective moral duties (what is morally obligatory) do not exist. In the past, God has been considered as the highest good, or as the maximally good Being, upon which our values have been based. We’ve used the perfectly good nature of God as the point of reference for all our moral judgments and God’s commands as the standard for what we are obliged to do. However, currently, there are arguments against this view. The New Atheists say that we can be good without God. They provide reasoning from evolutionary biology to explain that morality is merely a tool for survival. Others suggest that morality can exist on its own without any origin, as a fixture of the universe. Both views fail to provide a grounding or point of reference for morality in a consistent manner.

If morality is really an adaptation for survival, then we cannot know if any view of morality is true. Rather, instead of there being something actually (that is truthfully) good and evil, there is only that which aids our survival (an ever-changing sociobiological condition); nothing more. This scenario gives us no impetus for why we should do something, it only describes the way things are.

As for the argument that morality has no origin, it just exists, this is an odd argument. Philosopher William Lane Craig states that “Moral values seem to be properties of persons, and it’s hard to understand how justice can exist as an abstraction.”[1] If the universe were void of persons, would we really believe that justice, mercy, patience, love, and so on, exist on their own? These are all qualities of persons, but not necessarily of the non-personal physical realm. Further, why would we feel obligated to something that is non-personal? What would be the motivation?

These examples of alternative explanations for the existence of objective moral values and duties fail to provide a standard of goodness which is the point of reference for our moral judgments and obligations. What we need is a stopping point at which we can say, “This is how I know what is good and what is evil,” and “This is how I know what to do.” A natural stopping point is God, who, “by definition, is the greatest conceivable being, and a being that is the ground and source of goodness.”[2]

The second idea is that objective moral values and duties do exist. As one philosopher states, “Humans do not have to find out what is moral by reading the Bible. Such knowledge is available to all people. Romans 2:14-15 says that those without God’s special revelation (Scripture, Jesus Christ) can know right from wrong.”[3] Since humans have been made in the image of God, they are created in such a way as to reflect the moral qualities of God’s own character. While there may be some differences in the way these moral qualities are expressed or developed in differing cultures, it doesn’t mean that the fundamental grounding for morality isn’t underneath all of our expressions of morality.

C.S. Lewis noted that “there were two odd things about the human race. First, that they were haunted by the idea of a sort of behaviour they ought to practise, what you might call fair play, or decency, or morality, or the Law of Nature. Second, that they did not in fact do so.”[4] How does one know that they are not living up to a moral standard, if there is no standard to live up to? Yet, all cultures throughout time and history share the basic ideas of good versus evil and right versus wrong. He argues that there is a great similarity of the human moral experience across the various expressions, because these expressions are all coming from the same fundamental source.

The third idea is the conclusion that naturally flows from the first two ideas. If we do not find  objective moral values and duties in the world, then God wouldn’t exist. Yet we find that objective moral values and duties do exist, and therefore God exists. The argument is a powerful argument to help us understand why we think there are things such as good and evil, right and wrong, and where we find grounding for those ideas. “Being made in the image of a truthful, rational, good Being makes sense of why we trust our senses/moral intuitions.”[5] The Moral Argument conversely helps us understand what happens when we remove God as the standard for objective values and duties: we do not have any ultimate obligation to uphold fundamental beliefs in values or moral obligations, such as that each person has the right to life and so we should protect human life.

At the end of the day, I cannot get around God as the objective standard for my value judgments and for what I think I “should” or “ought” to do. To strip my existence of this standard would be to leave a massive void in my human experience.

Mary Jo Sharp is a former atheist who came to faith. She first encountered Christian apologetics in her own spiritual search while seeking answers. Mary Jo is now an assistant professor of apologetics at Houston Baptist University and the founder and director of Confident Christianity Apologetics Ministry.

Further resources:

Stephen S. Jordan. “C. S. Lewis and 8 Reasons for Believing in Objective Morality.” Moral Apologetics Website. https://www.moralapologetics.com/wordpress/2019/1/18/c-s-lewis-and-8-reasons-for-believing-in-objective-morality

Paul Copan. “The Moral Argument for God’s Existence.” https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/the-moral-argument-for-gods-existence/

William Lane Craig. “Can You Be Good Without God?” DrCraigVideos. You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

Francis J. Beckwith and Greg Koukl. “Relativism: the loss of ‘truth’” BeThinking.Org Website https://www.bethinking.org/truth/the-death-of-truth/2-what-is-moral-relativism

Greg Koukl. “Did Morals Evolve?” https://www.bethinking.org/morality/did-morals-evolve

Peter S. Williams. “Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?” https://www.bethinking.org/morality/can-moral-objectivism-do-without-god

 

[1] Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Kindle Locations 2241-2242). David C Cook. Kindle Edition.

[2] Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Kindle Locations 2284-2286).

David C Cook. Kindle Edition.

[3] Paul Copan. “The Moral Argument for God’s Existence.” [Internet Article) Available from: https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/the-moral-argument-for-gods-existence/ Accessed September 12, 2019.

[4] Lewis, C. S.. Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis Signature Classics) (p. 16). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.

[5] Paul Copan. “The Moral Argument for God’s Existence.”

Teaching students about Islam at Cliff College

by Editor
An interview with Cliff College’s Aaron Edwards

Solas; So, Aaron – introduce yourself to our readers!

AE: Hi, I’m Dr. Aaron Edwards, and I’m the MA Programme Leader; Lecturer in Theology, Preaching, and Mission at Cliff College in Derbyshire, and also the course designer/leader for the MRP3 module

Solas: What’s the MRP3 module?, and how does it work?

AE: MRP3 is a postgrad MA module called “Mission and Islamic Contexts” – and it’s this module that Solas has been involved in delivering.

The MA in Mission at Cliff College has around 90 students, and offers a broad range of over twenty different taught module options for our postgraduate students. Students need to choose just four modules plus a dissertation in order to complete all their credits for the MA, and usually students find it a difficult choice. MRP3 is more of a ‘niche’ module because it’s a more specialised topic than, say, ‘evangelism’ or ‘biblical theology’ or ‘mentoring’ but I was pleased that on this first run, 5 of our MA students took the module for credit, and a further 4 students came to ‘audit’ the module (which means sitting-in-on the teaching); so we had 9 in total, which is about average for a postgraduate cohort.

Solas: Why did you develop a module on this topic?

I’ve always had a keen interest in reaching Muslims, having had various contact with Muslims in different places over the last fifteen years. I’ve also spoken to many pastors and church ministry workers in urban areas of the UK who simply don’t have any idea how to think about reaching the growing Muslim populations in their neighbourhoods; so I made it a matter of urgency to design a course that would facilitate a way for Christians to both understand and engage with Muslims more effectively.

Solas: And you invited Andy Bannister from Solas to teach the course?

AE: Well, I first heard Andy speak on this topic at Keswick in 2017 and was very impressed by his heart for evangelism among Muslim people, his incredible knowledge of the subject, and his lived-out examples of engaging with them. Knowing he does so from a distinctly Evangelical perspective was also very important, as there are obviously many in the academic world engaged in inter-faith dialogue in unhelpful or confusing ways that don’t do a lot of good. I also signed up to the Solas newsletter and have since been further impressed with the work Solas are doing in engaging culture with rigorous, compelling evangelism and apologetics. So I was delighted to be able to bring Andy here to be our main speaker for the week. I anticipated there might be issues getting the unit approved by the University of Manchester, given the potentially controversial nature of the topic. However, knowing that Andy had a PhD in Quranic Studies was particularly helpful on that front as it showed we weren’t just trying to shoehorn an unreflective evangelistic approach into a postgraduate course, but that we had someone of real academic and practical expertise here. I honestly can’t imagine a more ideal speaker than Andy for this course.

Solas: Any surprises or highlights from the week?

AE: On the first night of any MA week, my wife and I invite everyone to our home for a meal, which my four young children particularly enjoy [!], as do the students. It’s a great way to break the ice. Anyone who might be feeling nervous or out of their depth on the first day here doesn’t usually feel that way for long when confronted by various toddlers serving you drinks, or asking you to read them stories, sing songs, whilst they carefully ask your opinion on each and every one of their favourite toys!

As expected, though it was an intense week! The students engaged really well with the content and found it incredibly stimulating theologically, pastorally and missionally. Many of them have said it has been their favourite unit on the programme so far, and have getting other students to sign up for it, within and beyond the college!

We had some lively – and often controversial – discussions around the clash of western and Islamic cultures, particularly the ways in which the western church has acclimatised to secular culture in ways that might actually make evangelism to Muslims more difficult (such as lax attitudes to Scripture, doctrine, prayer, modesty, etc.). Some students were discussing these ideas in order to prepare for a 6,000 word essay for the module – alongside others who were there just because they live on majority-Muslim urban housing estates and are trying to find ways to better connect with their neighbours.

I also led a text seminar on Dan Strange’s excellent book, ‘For Their Rock is Not Our Rock’ (IVP, 2014). It was a fairly challenging read, not what you’d call a page-turner! (…and I’m sure some of the students haven’t quite forgiven me yet for making them wade all the way through it!) but it was full of fascinating insights and led into some really rich discussions. By the end of the seminar most of the students were surprised just how much they had benefited from getting their teeth into some really important biblical, theological, and missiological issues that relate not just to Islam, but how we conceive of and engage with other non-Christian religions too, in light of the overarching themes of Scripture and God’s providence in history.

Having Andy McCullough here, with his cross-cultural church-planting experience, was a great way to break up the week (and perhaps gave everyone some brief respite from Andy Bannister’s puns!). Andy McCullough shared and reflected upon some incredible stories of what God did to open doors for them in Muslim communities. Though we often hear such stories of God using dreams, prophetic words, and incredible coincidences to bring people to faith, hearing about them never gets boring! It serves as an incredible reminder of the remarkable things God does with people out there on the front line, trusting Him in ambiguous or downright intimidating situations. He is always faithful, often in the most surprising ways.

Solas: What do you hope that students will have gained from the course?

Students will have gained not only from the expert teaching on the history and beliefs of Islam, and the theological reflection on mission in Islamic contexts, but they will also have been inspired to find ways to engage with Muslims in and around their own UK communities. Academically, of course many will have gained course credits, as well as personal theological development and been provided with a gateway into further study and a wealth of further resources to explore.

Solas: How will Cliff College and Solas be working together in the future?

AE: The ending to Casablanca comes to mind… ‘I think this is a start of a beautiful relationship!’ As I said, I’ve been very impressed with all that Solas have been doing over the years, and having now spent some good time with Andy whilst he was down here recently (which included sitting in a teashop window putting the world to rights over a Bakewell pudding!) I’m confident we’ll be able to partner together in various ways going forward.

One concrete way we’re hoping to do this will be co-hosting one of the Solas Confident Christianity conferences in Sheffield next year. We’re currently working out the details of that at the moment, but it would be a way to serve and equip the local churches in the area of apologetics and mission, whilst also acting as a kind of ‘taster’ promo for the MRP3 course. We were originally going to run the unit every 2 years but such has been the interest in it that we expect that numbers will increase next year and we’ll be having to turn people away…

Given that the DNA of Cliff College has always been evangelism and mission, I can envisage many other opportunities in which we might collaborate in other ways in future too, whether on our validated courses, short courses, or other outreach-oriented events. Watch this space… and Keep up the good work, TeamSolas! Soli Deo Gloria!

Solas: Thanks Aaron!

Cliff College has been providing Biblical and theological training for mission and evangelism since 1883.

What About Those Who Haven’t Heard of Jesus?

by Solas

What about people who have never heard or had an opportunity to trust in Jesus? Isn’t it immoral for God to condemn individuals on the basis of not responding to revelation that they have never had? In this Short Answers video, Solas speaker Gareth Black addresses this common moral objection to the justice of God’s judgement.

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.

The Genexis Course (online)

by Editor

Genexis had been hosting a remarkable series of public events in which leading thinkers from across the disciplines of science, history, philosophy etc explained why belief in God makes sense of their world. Guests included people such as Francis Collins (who ran the Human Genome project), world renowned physicists Paul Davies and Ard Louis, and historians NT Wright and Tom Holland.

The pandemic has put paid to all that, with the public events all being postponed. Genexis, has decided to go online, and in this video, Ben Jacobs explains how individuals and groups can explore the great questions of faith through the free “Genexis Course”. Solas’s Andy Bannister has just been announced as one of the speakers for the Genexis Course too!

The main website for Genexis is genexis.org
The course website is at genexis.org/course
Contact Genexis to book a place on info@genexis.org 

Inclusive/Exclusive

by Solas

Andy Bannister hosts David Bennett and Anne Witton as they discuss sexuality and the gospel. Is the message of Jesus really good news for gay people?

Anne Witton works with Living Out and is on the mission team at Gateshead Central Baptist Church. David Bennett works with the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is the author of A War of Loves.

PEP Talk Podcast With Aaron Edwards

by Solas

In our Christian churches today we often extol the virtues of “friendship evangelism”. But does the low-key, latte-sipping, long-term approach really do justice to the gospel? Aaron Edwards joins Andy and Kristi to help us navigate between awkwardness, courage, sincerity, fear, and initiative in our relationships with others.

With Aaron Edwards – PEP Talk

Apple Podcasts
Spotify
Amazon Music
RSS Feed

Our Guest

Aaron Edwards is the MA Programme Lead and lectures in Mission, Theology and Preaching at Cliff College. He has specific interests in the theological work of Kierkegaard, Barth, Bonhoeffer, the Reformers, and the Great Awakeners. Additionally, having studied English Literature at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, and has been an editorial and administrative assistant for the acclaimed Irish poet, Micheal O’Siadhail. He has an enthusiasm for literary, philosophical, and popular culture, and is keen to find ways of maintaining rigorous faithfulness to the Gospel in the midst of the present moment. He has been a guest on various religious radio programmes and alongside his academic work he writes regularly for a number of church/mission-focused publications.

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

A Beginner’s Guide to the Argument from Beauty

by Editor
Chili Rating: ? ? ?

A few years ago I was trekking in the Himalayas and had the privilege of watching the sunset at Mount Everest. All day, the mountain had been hidden, but as dusk approached, the clouds rolled back, revealing the great north face. At the very same moment, the westering sun dipped and the clouds lit up as if on fire, a maelstrom of red, orange and ochre, causing the whole mountain to shine with alpenglow. It was one of the most breath-taking scenes of natural beauty I have ever experienced.

Two Approaches to Nature

I had gone to the Himalayas because of my fascination with the pioneering British Everest expeditions in the 1920s which were funded by two organisations, the Royal Geographical Society and the Alpine Club and right from the start, there was a clash of cultures. The RGS were interested in science—they wanted to bring back samples, perform experiments, to map the region. In contrast, the Alpine Club’s interests were primarily aesthetic—they wanted to conquer the summit, capture beautiful photographs, and advance the art of climbing.

Science and the pursuit of beauty are two very different approaches to life. Most of us are fascinated by and drawn to both of them, but how do they fit together? Aren’t they even in tension with each other at times? How you deal with this tension largely depends on your worldview, your philosophy of life.

The Failure of Naturalism

Naturalism is the worldview that says that only material things exist: atoms, particles, stuff. The only thing that matters is matter. There is no transcendent realm of any kind, everything can be explained by the blind, impersonal forces of nature.

For those of us who truly love the outdoors, especially the wild places, the problem with this is that naturalism so obviously and patently fails. You liked the sunset on Everest? Well, that’s only atoms and photons, there was nothing sublime there. You were moved with wonder? Ah, that’s only the motion of chemicals in your brain. Anthony Esolen playfully parodies this philosophy:

[For the philosophical naturalist] it is best to keep the word “only” ready in the arsenal at all times. The flame of the sky at sunset is “only” the part of spectrum that penetrates the atmosphere at that angle … it is “only” something or other material that scientists know about … or at least somebody knows all them in some Important Places. Beauty is “only” a neurological tic, or a personal opinion.[1]

Yet trying to explain away a sunset as only photons, a mountain view as only the result of tectonic activity and erosion, or our sense of wonder as “misfirings, Darwinian mistakes” in the words of atheist, Richard Dawkins[2]—fail, because none of those purely naturalistic explanations come even remotely close, to our actual experience of natural beauty. Naturalism is a half-hearted attempt to simplify and reduce an experience that is rich, deep and three-dimensional to a two-dimensional caricature. Naturalistic explanations fall woefully short: sure, at a basic level Paradise Lost is “made of letters”, or Chartres Cathedral is “some bricks”; but neither description does justice to their entire reality.

Beauty is one of many such experiences that strips away our pretensions and points us beyond ourselves. For most of us, natural beauty causes us to yearn for something that molecules, atoms and particles alone can never ultimately satisfy.

What is Beauty?

Beauty clearly isn’t just a personal preference—you like the music of Beethoven, I like Justin Bieber. If beauty were simply our personal opinion, then we render the word meaningless.  If this were true, when I say “I find this picture beautiful”, I wouldn’t have told you anything about the picture, merely described my interior psychology. Furthermore, if you say that beauty is subjective, you instantly demolish all of the humanities—why bother studying art, music, literature, or photography if ultimately aesthetics is nothing more than personal preferences?

Beauty and Emotion

Another fascinating thing about beauty is the emotions that it can produce. When I stand on a mountain, I find three emotions rise up. Wonder, gratitude, and something akin to homesickness. I noticed this when I gazed at that sunset on Everest—a desire for something more beautiful, more radiant, more real, and a sense that beauty gave us a glimpse of it.

Naturalism struggles to begin to even describe such emotions, the experience of seeing real beauty, and thus it’s here I wonder if a second philosophy, a different worldview, may offer us a more compelling explanation. Consider these ancient words of poetry from the Hebrew Bible:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.[3]

Now at this point, maybe some people are thinking: “What’s with the whole God stuff, for Darwin’s sake, all we need is science, right?!” When I interviewed the atheist Oxford Professor of Chemistry, Peter Atkins he said: “Some people think science answers how questions and religion answers why questions. But that’s utter rubbish. There are no such thing as ‘why questions’. ‘Why questions’ are just little packets of ‘how’ questions—and science can answer them all.” I was tempted to ask “Why do you think that?” but resisted.

The deeper problem here is that it’s a misuse of science. Science is an incredible tool, but like all tools, it does some things well and some things badly—a hammer is great for putting up shelves, but don’t use it for brain surgery.

This kind of approach also leaves no room for the things that really move us. Are we then condemned to live disconnected lives, being rationalists in our work, but romantics in our personal lives; Darwinians in our science but anti-Darwinians in love of beauty, art, and aesthetics?

Signposts

According to the philosophers, truth is one of three ultimate values—alongside beauty and goodness. Why should you believe something? Because it’s true. Why should you desire something? Because it’s good. Why should you look at something? Because it’s beautiful. But of course, if naturalism holds true, none of that works. If we are just random collocations of atoms, why does it matter what you believe? Why does it matter what you desire? And what does good even mean—surely all you have are personal preferences?

Only if human beings are designed to be truth-seeking, beauty-pursuing, good-desiring creatures can any sense be made of this. Why do we yearn for more? Why do we ask ‘why’? Why do we desire not just food and sex; but value, purpose, meaning, significance, truth, justice, goodness, and beauty?  What if our desires for things like beauty and meaning and purpose and significance point somewhere? Imagine you were lost in the trackless expanse of a desert, dying of thirst and craving a drink. That wouldn’t mean that every glimmer on the horizon was an oasis—but your burning thirst would surely tell you that water exists. What, then, does our desire for beauty and such transcendent things tell us? Where does that sign point?

 

Three Ways of Looking

There are three ways of looking at beauty. Take a beautiful painting. You can look through it, and see just blobs of paint on canvas. Or you can look at it—and admire its beauty. Or you can look along it—ask yourself, what does the fact that this is really, truly, objectively beautiful, really mean? Is that a clue about something bigger about the universe and if so, what?

What worldview, what philosophy of life can hold all these things together? I come at these questions as a Christian philosopher and in the fourth book of the New Testament, we read:

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made … The Logos took on flesh and dwelt amongst us.

Among other things, the Greek word “Logos” meant “The Meaning of Life”. By the time of Jesus, classical Greek philosophy had divided into two camps. The Stoics thought there was a meaning of life, but we can never know it (so grin and bear it). The Epicureans thought life had no meaning, so eat, drink and party—for tomorrow we all die and nothing matters.

Into this raging debate, the Bible says something different and deeply radical. Yes, there is a Meaning to Life. There is a Logos, you’re not a random accident. But that meaning is not an idea, nor a concept, nor a philosophy. The meaning of life is not a thing, but a who. The Meaning of Life, says the Bible, is a person, Jesus Christ. And the purpose of life is to know him; and all beauty, truth and goodness point to him.

This means that scientific truth and natural beauty can join up—that we can integrate our lives—because truth and beauty and justice are grounded somewhere. And it also explains why we humans are wired to pursue both truth and beauty, science and aesthetics.

What worldview can hold together science and beauty, truth and justice and goodness? Only one that I know of. And thus I believe in Christianity in the same way as I believe that the sun has risen: not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.

Andy Bannister Short Answers 13Dr Andy Bannister is Director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity

Further Reading:

Roger Scruton’s, On Beauty.

CS Lewis, Surprised by Joy.

Rick Stadman, 31 Surprising Reasons to Believe in God. 

 

[1]        Anthony Esolen, Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books) 236.

[2]        Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Transworld, 2006) 221.

[3]        Psalm 19:1-2.

Andy Bannister at the Echoes International Conference

by Editor

International mission agency “Echoes International” held their annual conference in Glasgow this year. They invited Solas’s Andy Bannister to speak on a subject close to his heart – the value of a human being, and the foundations of ethics. The talk, entitled, “Are we matter – or do we matter?” was livestreamed and recorded, and is available to see below. As this is a recording of a livestream, it hasn’t been edited. As such the intro-reel, and the coffee breaks are all included.

 

Echoes International