News

Challenging the Dominant Narrative

by Solas
GAVIN MATTHEWS talks to acclaimed Christian apologist ALISTER MCGRATH about his new book, Inventing the Universe.

Tell us about Inventing the Universe. What is it about, why did you write it, and who is it for? 
 I wrote it because I wanted to explain the kind of journey I made from being an atheist who thought that science explained everything, to being a Christian who sees science as filling in parts of a picture, but who sees that there is a bigger picture as well. So I am writing this for anyone who is interested in the whole area of science and faith, particularly for scientists who are Christians who want to articulate the way they think more clearly, or for other people who just want to know that there are ways of holding science and faith together.  
 
Something of an intellectual autobiography as well, then? 
Well, it is actually, yes! I’m saying that over a 40-year period, this is what I have come to think. This is what I have found my way towards, and if it helps others, I’ll be delighted! 
 
In the book you refer to the “warfare model” of Science versus Christianity. Why do you think that it has come to dominate the public discourse, and created such a problem for allowing Christian apologetics to gain a fair hearing? 
I think it’s become a defining narrative or our culture. In part, because it has been propagated by a media who tend to just repeat what everyone’s said in the past. But more importantly, I think New Atheism has made this conflict narrative normative. I think that when you have very influential cultural figures supporting this, it’s quite difficult to break that stranglehold. And so we need to tell a different story and show that it makes more sense and that it’s much more exciting and attractive. 

 
How can we help people to hear Christian apologetics when their ‘plausibility structure’ has already told them that what we are saying is irrelevant?  
Well what I think you need to do is to say, ‘look, here is a narrative which has been suppressed. Here is a way of thinking that people are trying to drown out’. They find it threatening, they find it challenging, and we need to say that they may not like it but they’ve got to hear it. They owe it to us to give us a hearing. I think that is something we need to say. CS Lewis, in his sermon The Weight of Glory, says that the dominant narrative in our culture is, ‘what you see is what you get’, and he says we have been ‘entranced’ by that, and we need to break that spell! And then he says the way of breaking a spell is by casting a better spell. What he means is presenting Christianity in an attractive, intelligible and an imaginatively compelling way, so that people stop and say, ‘we’ve got to think about this’. And we haven’t done that very well. 
 
And the media is captured by the conflict model, which prevents people like you being heard at the public level, I suppose?  
It’s become the dominant media narrative. Charles Taylor’s book, The Secular Age, talks about how this happens. The difficulty is that once a narrative takes root, anyone who contradicts it is seen as being irrational. And Taylor says that once that mindset develops it’s very hard to break it. We’ve got to see ourselves as a counter-culture, a fifth-column, (or something like that). We are subversives who are challenging the dominant narrative, firstly because it’s wrong, but secondly, because we’re pressing a much more meaningful and exciting narrative.  
 
And your book is doing that? 
Well, it’s a small step in that direction. Scholarship disproved this ‘conflict narrative’ a generation ago, but it’s taken ages for it to filter through to the media, who keep on repeating this old-fashioned, outdated approach.  
 
The book made a lot of scientific ideas accessible to a non-scientist like me, which I found exciting. 
Well, it is written for a general audience, although I think scientists will particularly like it. I’ve just been debating a leading British humanist and physicist, and actually we had an incredibly civil and interesting conversation, because basically my science is right! That makes it much harder for atheists to write it off. If you do that, it gets a really good conversation underway.  
 
Interesting that you were speaking to a physicist. Is it harder to be a biologist who is a believer than a physicist?   
I think the answer is ‘yes’, and that’s partly because if you think of someone like Richard Dawkins, biology has been ‘weaponised’, whereas physics has not. If anything, physics is going in the other direction. Physics is generally supportive of a theistic worldview. Biology, precisely because (if it’s interpreted in a certain way) seems to be anti-theistic, it is being seized upon and made into the weapon of choice by those who want to continue the conflict narrative and offer an atheist apologetic.  
 
The idea of ‘multiple maps’ is important in the book. What are they? 
What I mean is, science gives us one bit of the big picture – religion gives us another bit. We want to see the whole, and that means we need to recognise that science is going to tell us some things, but not others. You can approach things from only one perspective but that’s simply unacceptable because you leave out massive things like the issue of meaning, the issue of value and so on. The idea of ‘multiple maps’ ensures that you have a full palate of colours to do justice to the richness of the world, our experience and so on.  
 
So ‘multiple maps’ challenges Christian fundamentalists, too? 
Absolutely! What they’re doing is locking themselves into a very small area and are not able to dialogue with anyone beyond that. The method I’m adopting is a wonderful platform for apologetics because it is saying, ‘look, we can talk and have a very good conversation’. Christianity has a marvellous contribution to make, it cannot be ridiculed, it cannot be ignored; there is something very significant here which needs to be heard.  
 
If ‘multiple maps’ are an important idea in the book, ‘scientism’ seems to be the major target. What do you mean by ‘scientism’? 
Scientism is a non-scientific viewpoint which says that science answers all meaningful questions. So, science tells us what the meaning of life is, it tells us what is good and what is bad. Sam Harris, in his book The Moral Landscape, takes that line. My point is simply that this is an abuse of science! Science is science, you’ve got to make sure that you respect it, not convert it into something else. When science is done properly it has limits, and that is the best way of preserving its identity, its integrity. I am protesting strongly against those scientists who exaggerate the explanatory capacity of science. 
 
So why does scientism persist? 
It’s partly a power play because some scientists feel threatened by cultural developments which they see as marginalising themselves. But the real answer goes back to that conflict narrative. It sees intellectual history as a trajectory from the dark ages, to a modern, enlightenment period in which reason and science are the drivers of progress. Therefore, science is the guarantor of rationality and progress, and anything else, such as religion, is seen as backward and unhelpful. However, that is a worldview, not an empirical observation. That is the imposition of a worldview which science is being ‘weaponised’ to consolidate.  
 
You write books faster than I can read them. Where is your research taking you next?  
I get excited by things and love writing about them! Well, the next big book is going to be about human nature. It is going to be looking at scientific, cultural, and philosophical insights, and argue that there is a big problem in the naive enlightenment view of humanity, which still dominates Western culture, but there’s a better way of looking at it. It will be very sympathetic towards traditional Christian ideas of ‘The Image of God’ and sin and so on. So it will be absolutely rigorous, but at the same time it will bring a perspective which often isn’t heard. There is a major discussion underway right now about human nature that is essential to many political, social, and religious debates. It will be published around Easter 2017. 
 

 
Alister McGrath is the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University, and Fellow of Harris Manchester College, Oxford. He is the author of many academic and theological works, as well as the bestselling The Dawkins Delusion and his acclaimed CS Lewis – A Life. 
 
 

Inventing the Universe, by Alister McGrath, is printed by Hodder and Stoughton and is available from leading bookstores and online, for £20. 

5 really bad reasons Christians avoid apologetics

by Solas

Published in Christian Today – 

Congratulations. You passed the first hurdle. Having seen the word ‘apologetics’ in the title, you still managed to read this far! To put it mildly, apologetics has a bad image. Indeed, such a bad image that at Solas we prefer to use the term ‘persuasive evangelism’ because apologetics either carries the notion of saying sorry for being a Christian, or of some male geeky nerd pontificating on the teleological argument. Like all caricatures there is some element of truth in this, but it is overall grossly unfair. It’s time to rescue apologetics from this particular cul-de-sac and instead realise the usefulness of the apologia (defence) of the Gospel, in proclaiming the Good News in today’s needy world. So lets look at some of the objections that stop Christians even considering apologetics in the first place.

1. Apologetics is just for nerdy geeks.

There is an image problem. It appears as though unless one has a PhD from a top university, apologetics is best left alone. It is for the brain boxes, the people who like to think academically and who enjoy nothing more than to sit down with a glass of wine and a couple of books on Descartes and Derrida. While you have nothing against those who are so inclined (and gifted), you like to be more practical/spiritual/prayerful. But this is to create a false dichotomy. All of us are made in the image of God, and all of us therefore are Logos – we have minds and we are expected to use them. None of us are expected to believe without some evidence. God addresses the heart through the mind, not vice versa.
My simple way of putting this is: if you cannot answer the questions of a 12-year-old, you won’t be able to answer anyone’s questions; but if you can, then you can answer anyone’s! The hardest questions I have ever been asked haven’t come from journalists at The Times or the keyboard warriors of the New Fundamentalist Atheists, but rather from the young thinking teenager whose questions are for real. Not to think about them is to disrespect and despise them. Apologetics is for all!

2. Apologetics is too negative.

It’s not so much that people think apologetics is about apologising for Christianity (I’m sorry for the Crusades, the Inquisition, Westboro Baptist and Ned Flanders, as though I were responsible for them all!), but rather that, in either of its main forms, it is considered negative. On the one hand being ‘defensive’ comes across as though we perceive ourselves as constantly under attack; on the other if we go on the offence, we are perceived as being offensive. It’s a lose/lose situation. Sometimes, however, we need to remember that we live in the real world, where stating a ‘negative’ can be a good thing. “Don’t drink that liquid because it’s poison” may be a negative statement, but it’s kind of a crucial one! But the apologia of the Good News is not about defending something which needs our help, it’s about proclaiming it in a world which desperately needs it, while not understanding that desperate need.
CH Spurgeon once quipped,“Defend the Bible? I would as soon defend a lion!” Apologetics is not about defending God, or apologising for him – it’s about letting the lion loose. It’s proclamation!

3. Apologetics is not spiritual – it’s man centred, and not biblical.

This is something I hear from all quarters. “Do you think you can persuade people? Does God need your arguments? All you need is love. Just be nice to people. Let them come to church and hear our praise. Let us go to them and show them how nice we are, and they will want to become like us!” Or the big one – “it’s the work of the Holy Spirit”. Who is going to disagree with that latter statement? But do these same people then say that preaching, prayer, mercy ministries, and social action are all useless? No? Why not? Are they too not the work of the Holy Spirit? The fact is that the Holy Spirit uses means – and that includes apologetics. Most people are not struck down on the road to Damascus, the train to Derby or the plane to Denver. They come to an appreciation of the truth through a variety of experiences. Defending and explaining the Gospel, (apologetics) is just simply one tool that the Spirit uses. How dare we say that we don’t need it?!

4. Apologetics is not evangelism – it’s for the Church.

This is an interesting one, because the way that apologetics is often done makes it seem as though it is for the Church. Many of the responses to Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion appear not to attempt to reach out to the many non-Christians who are now thinking about God, the Bible and the Church, but rather to assure the author’s own tribe that their man was on the ball, and that they did not need to worry about the ravings of this godless heathen. Right now, apologetics in the US is perceived as something particularly necessary to protect the young of the church from the ever-increasing atheistic secularism.
While I think it is good to give Christians ‘reasons to believe’, it is not the primary purpose of apologetics. If people are already Christians and know Christ, why would they need reasons? Is Christ not the greatest reason? What they do need is a greater knowledge of Christ and his Word, and an understanding of the contemporary world and the many lies that the devil tells people, so that they can ‘always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have’ (1 Peter 3:15). Evangelism without apologetics is like fish and chips without the fish – the substance is missing!

5. Apologetics doesn’t work.

In the all-pervasive, quick fix culture in which we live, it appears as though apologetics doesn’t work. At least that is what I am constantly told. You don’t hold an alter call at the end of an apologetics talk. Communicating the good news is like sowing the good seed, you first plough the ground, then sow the seed and eventually (after God gives the increase) you reap the fruit. The trouble is that most evangelism as currently practised seems to be about the latter. I have found that patiently working away, dealing with the defeater beliefs, challenging the misconceptions and prejudices, and telling people about Jesus is like a constant dripping. It eventually brings fruit. We may not get the glory, but then we should not want it. The glory is Christ’s, whatever our particular function. Without apologetics, evangelism does not work.
A defeater belief is something that someone has which prevents them even considering the good news of Jesus Christ. These come in various forms, ‘science has disproved religion’, ‘religion is the cause of all evil’, ‘there are too many gods to choose from’ etc. Over the next few weeks I am going to be writing on the basic ‘defeater’ beliefs that people have.
Each week I will also recommend a book that will be helpful for you if you wish to develop this further. We begin with the absolutely magnificent Fool’s Talk by Os Guinness. This is the best apologia for apologetics, and the best example of how to do it, that I have ever read. When I grow up I want to be like Os! The Bible, in an unerring prophecy of the forthcoming desktop publishing, tells us that ‘of making many books there is no end and much study wearies the body’ (Ecclesiastes 12:12). With thousands of Christian books published every year we need to be discerning. Fool’s Talk is a diamond in the rough – and well worth ‘wearying the body’ in order to study!
From Os’ book I leave you with a wonderful prayer he cites from the late, great John Stott: “I pray earnestly that God will raise up today a new generation of Christian apologists or Christian communicators, who will combine an absolute loyalty to the biblical Gospel and an unwavering confidence in the power of the Spirit with a deep and sensitive understanding of the contemporary alternatives to the Gospel.” And all God’s people said – Amen!

CULTURAL VANDALISM

by Solas

Removing religious education from schools condemns our children to ignorance about a key dimension of human life. 

By JOHN DICKSON

IF a devout group of naysayers get their way there will come a time, soon, when there won’t be any  sympathetic religious instruction in our schools. It’s time for those who know the positive benefits of  religious education — the parents, teachers, and principals — to speak up before a dreadful decision to cut programmes across Europe is made.

None of us wants our children proselytised. That’s a given, and religious education programmes should never be set up to convert anyone. At the same time we do want our kids to learn a bit about the story of the Bible, the life and teaching of Jesus, and the ethics that shaped much of our world. To deny children this is to deprive them of their own cultural backstory.

I speak as a Christian but I am sure my Jewish, Muslim, Baha’i, Hindu, and Buddhist neighbours will be able to read my argument through their own lens. Few things are more culturally influential than religion.

The main arguments against sympathetic religious education miss the mark. Some of the naysayers cite anecdotes of kids going home to mum in tears after a scripture teacher’s insensitive remark about sin, or their denial of Santa, or because a piece of literature was handed out that does drift into proselytising. This can, and should, easily be fixed with better protocols and training.

Others climb the secular high-horse and intone about the separation of church and state as if we were living in the United States. But much of Europe’s roots lie in a more sensible “soft” secularism: Religion should neither be imposed nor excluded. Well-conducted religious education programmes reflect this balance perfectly. It is available but voluntary, and ethics classes offer an excellent alternative.

Others suggest religious education creates divisions. After all, it has the word “religion” in it. But there’s no evidence of that. It isn’t even intuitive. Dividing students into school houses, sports teams, grades, reading levels, boys and girls, and religious education tracks, is perfectly normal and healthy. These kids will grow up in a society that includes people of all faiths and none. Shouldn’t they learn to navigate the vibrant differences of our pluralistic society? Religious education has an added built-in safety mechanism, since each religion’s curriculum teaches respect for all.

Finally, some anti-religious education campaigners propose what they call a“neutral’’ approach where the teacher, rather than volunteers, takes kids through all of the world religions as part of the curriculum. It sounds plausible but in reality is unworkable. With everything else teachers have to know and do, they are never going to be able to understand the Bible as well as, say, the middle-aged mum from the local church who’s been reading scripture for decades. And that’s just the Christian text. Imagine insisting teachers learn the vast intellectual traditions of the Talmud, the Upanishads, the Tripitaka, the Quran and Hadiths.​

Religion is one of the most significant features of culture through the ages and parents should be able to allow their kids to give it a sympathetic hearing in a trusted environment. 

Dr. John Dickson
Author, historian and founding director of the Centre for Public Christianity in Sydney. A version of this article first appeared in the Daily Telegraph (Sydney).

WHY WE NEED THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON

by Solas

True knowledge arises from a deep contemplation of the wonders of creation.
BY DAVE BOOKLESS

Today’s environmental problems are so complex they often seen intractable. To tackle them, we not only need politics and economics, science and technology. We also need great wisdom to move towards a more sustainable and just world. But where can we find it? 
King Solomon was renowned for his wisdom. In response to God’s astonishing offer, “Ask for whatever you want me to give you,” he could have requested security, prosperity, health or happiness. Instead, he chose wisdom. As a result, “God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore”.  
Today, we tend to think of wisdom as primarily self-knowledge and understanding of human society. While Solomon could judge human dilemmas wisely (as in the famous example of the two women who both claimed a baby was theirs) the heart of his wisdom lay elsewhere. 
Ellen Davis, professor of Bible and Practical Theology at Duke Divinity School in the United States, writing about Proverbs, says “wisdom means holding two things together: discerning knowledge of the world plus obedience to God”. Christians are familiar with the second of these from the familiar biblical adage: “The fear [reverent awe] of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7, Psalm 111:10), but what about “discerning knowledge” of the natural world? 
According to 1 Kings 4:33-34, Solomon was a dedicated naturalist: “He spoke about plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also spoke about animals and birds, reptiles and fish. From all nations people came to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.” At the heart of the wisdom of Solomon was close, detailed observation of the flora and fauna of the ancient Near East. Just as Jesus instructed his followers to become botanists and ornithologists in order to live worry-free lives, so Solomon’s wisdom was rooted not in books or philosophical discussion but in deep immersion in God’s works. 
Throughout Christian history there are examples of those who took Solomon’s path of natural wisdom. The Desert Fathers and the early Celtic saints combined meditating on God’s revelation in nature and scripture. Francis of Assisi embodied a Christocentric spirituality that recognised other creatures as fellow members of the community of creation. John Ray, Gilbert White and William Carey are among many others whose wisdom arose from a deep contemplation of the wonders of God’s world. 
Today, we need to recover this kind of wisdom. Outdoor field studies should be a part of the educational curriculum for every young person. Studying ecology and wildlife to a professional level needs to be affirmed as a holy and important Christian calling. However, studying nature cannot be left to scientists alone. What is required for wisdom is not only the detached rational enquiry of science but also the immersed, meditative contemplation of artists and poets. 
“It is regrettable that the church has in the last three centuries largely lost sight of the fact that ‘nature wisdom’ is indispensable to an accurate estimation of the proper human role in God’s creation,” says Professor Davis. “Perhaps the time has at last come for the revival of this branch of theology.” In an increasingly globalised, virtual and digital world, all who would seek wisdom need a close attention to their environment. Getting to know the local species and habitats should be part of worship and godly wisdom for every Christian.  
We cannot understand God’s character and purposes without looking at what God has made. We cannot understand what it means to be human unless we know how ecosystems function and how we belong within them. Jesus humorously pointed out that wayside flowers were better dressed than even King Solomon.  
We cannot find wisdom second-hand by reading books by wise people. We find wisdom by seeking God and by getting to know our place, within the places that God has placed us. 
 

Dave Bookless is Advisor for Theology and Churches for A Rocha International (www.arocha.org) 
@dave_bookless 

VAN GOGH AND GOD

by Solas

Celebrated as one of the world’s most influential artists, often neglected is the thread of Christianity that wove itself throughout the Dutch post-impressionist’s brief and at times turbulent life.  BY SUSAN MANSFIELD

I remember, once, listening to the curator of a major Van Gogh exhibition give an account of the artist’s life. Looking faintly embarrassed, she moved swiftly over the period in which Vincent Van Gogh was a pastor and missionary, as many art historians do. In the determinedly secular world of the Arts, it’s best to dismiss this as an interlude of “religious mania” and hurry on to the part where Vincent picks up a paintbrush.  
But I have long thought that there might be another way to look at this, that a strand of faith might run through all of Van Gogh’s life. The man I see expressing himself in his paintings and his lively, articulate correspondence is a man concerned with the spiritual. Were it not so unfashionable, I wonder what light this perspective might shed on his work.  
This year, exhibitions and events across Europe are marking the 125th anniversary of Van Gogh’s death. The history of psychology is littered with attempts to analyse his life and posthumously diagnose his various illnesses. Though recent scholarship suggests it is incorrect, the image many people retain of Van Gogh is of Kirk Douglas, in the 1956 film Lust for Life, painting in a frenzy while crows circle overhead, the madman who died as a martyr to his art. 
There is little room in this for Van Gogh, the Christian, but such he was. A third-generation son of the manse, he left school unsure what he wanted to do, and was helped by an uncle into a job with art dealers Goupil & Cie in The Hague. He later transferred to London where, in 1876, he parted company with the dealership. After a short period as a teacher, he sought – and obtained – a job as an assistant to a Methodist minister in Isleworth. He was 22. 
He preached his first sermon there at the end of October, and sent the text to his brother, Theo. In it, he draws on the importance of the faith in which he had been raised: “I still feel the rapture, the thrill of joy I felt when for the first time I cast a deep look into the lives of my parents, when I felt by instinct how much they were Christians. And I still feel that feeling of eternal youth and enthusiasm wherewith I went to God saying: ‘I will be a Christian too’.” Some biographers have concluded that his shift towards religion was a reaction to being spurned in love (by the daughter of his London landlady), but his letters suggest something more. He wanted, he wrote, “to realise great things for humanity”.

Some biographers have concluded that his shift towards religion was a reaction to being spurned in love but his letters suggest something more. He wanted, he wrote, ‘to realise great things for humanity’. 

Van Gogh seems to have been a good, and diligent, pastor. Back in the Netherlands the following year, he studied to apply for theological college, but failed to pass the entrance exam. Instead he took a probationary post as a missionary among the mining villages of the Borinage, Belgium’s black country. Living among the people, he gave Bible lessons and visited the sick, distinguishing himself by working tirelessly to help the injured after a series of firedamp explosions in the mines. He lived a life of radical poverty, giving away his clothes and shoes and exchanging his modest bed for a palette of straw. At the end of three months, the mission announced it would not engage him further. 
Van Gogh’s asceticism made people uncomfortable, as has been the case before and since with those who attempt in a literal way to live out the radical lifestyle taught by Jesus. Organised religion, it seemed, had shut its doors on him and gradually, in the months that followed, he turned towards art. But still, he continued to push the boundaries of radical compassion. Surely this was behind his decision to take in Sien, a former prostitute who was working as an artist’s model, and her sick child – a move which alienated another set of middle-class sponsors. 
His first artistic subjects were the peasants of Nuenen, whom he painted with a dignity and worth normally reserved for those who could pay for it, manifesting in paint principles which had been central to his life as a missionary. In due course, he moved to Paris, then Arles, and his paintings filled with light and colour, even as his personal struggles with illness intensified. Still, the language of Christianity remained with him: again and again he painted images of sowing and reaping. He painted Christ in the garden, he said, but scraped the canvas back. He wrote to Theo that even in times of mental extremity, he was engaged in “the consideration of eternity”. 
His letters show a questing intelligence, a lively mind trying to make sense of the world and of mankind. To see his late paintings: the inky blue skies full of stars, the golden cornfields, the trees resplendent with blossom, is to see paintings of ordinary scenes which transcend the ordinary world. They continue to strike a chord, and have become some of the most popular paintings in the history of art. Vincent never knew this: the odds in the struggle were stacked against him. But he “realised great things for humanity” after all.