I thought this week's Friday Night Theology from the EA was interesting. A good example of how to turn a current news story into an opportunity for the gospel.
It's The Son Wot Won It
There may not be that many FNT subscribers who read the Sun on a regular basis but for those that do the question is whether or not they will change their voting intentions now that Britain’s best-selling daily has come out for the Conservatives.
Of course, the response of the Labour party to this has been that “People win elections, not newspapers.” But is that actually true? Following the Sun’s claim in 1992 that they had changed the election outcome, a number of academic studies set out to demonstrate whether or not they had. The result is that it is unclear, though probably unlikely, that they changed the overall result, but what is clear is that newspapers do influence how people vote.
More broadly, it is also clear that a vast range of media outlets, from books to films to magazines to the web, impact how we think and behave on many fronts. So, when Coronation Street portrayed a character dying from cervical cancer, there was a substantial increase in the take up of cervical screening services. More negatively, a report in 2004 found that 40% of people think that half of all crimes are committed by young people despite the reality being much less. Excessive media reporting of youth crime was considered to be the main culprit for this misapprehension.
And yet, despite all this, when people are asked whether they think that the media influences their personal beliefs and choices, the answer is frequently in the negative. In particular, they consider it to have a strong influence on others, but just not on themselves.
What we have then is the strange situation where clearly the media does impact the public but this is not fully acknowledged by that public whose opinion is being swayed. What makes this worse is that the media themselves usually claim that they do not drive public opinion, they merely reflect it.
In response to all this, perhaps the first thing to note is that none of this is new. The apostle Paul warned us: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (Romans 12:2) He knew that we are subject to cultural influences, which is precisely why he actively encouraged us to adopt a different approach: the renewal of our minds in conformity to Christ. Even stronger is 1 John 4:4 which gives us hope that such resistance to cultural patterns is not futile, but can actually succeed: “The one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God.”
All of us then, including the church, are prone to social and cultural influences. We may like to think we make our own decisions and form our own beliefs, but the reality is that we swim in a tide of public opinion that is hard to escape. Moreover, subconsciously (if not consciously) we all like to conform. In order, then, to be different we need some other source of knowledge and wisdom to draw upon. That source is, of course, Christ. He provides an alternative base which enables us to think differently from the rest, indeed enables us to think with the mind of God.
So I guess the challenge to our non-Christian friends is to ask whether they want to continue to be slaves to cultural whims, or whether instead they should choose to become slaves of Christ. Whatever else people say about evangelical Christianity, it’s probably the only way to be a cultural rebel these days – and that alone seems a good reason to choose it.
Justin Thacker, Head of Theology
Showing posts with label Friday Night Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Friday Night Theology. Show all posts
Friday, 2 October 2009
Monday, 10 August 2009
Alpha, The Guardian, NT Wright and the Resurrection
I've copied below the post from Friday Night Theology from the Evangelical Alliance (7/8/09).
It appears that Adam Rutherford who writes for The Guardian is attending an Alpha course and writing of his thoughts on this. In his recent article he strongly questions the historicity of Christianity in general and the resurrection of the body of the Lord Jesus in particular. Bishop Wright offers a brief response to this and points to his two wonderful books - 'The Resurrection of the Son of God' and 'Surprised by Hope'.
I hope you find this helpful, and please do check out the EA site for Friday Night Theology.
Wright on the Resurrection
This week’s ‘special’ FNT first appeared on the Guardian's commentisfree site. It is reproduced here with the permission of Bishop Tom Wright.
Various things could be said of Adam Rutherford's take on the resurrection (apart from the fact that the criticism doesn't seem to be engaging with the central issues, so it's hard to tell whether he's really heard the point or not).
1. The historical basis of Christianity is vital precisely because Christianity isn't just a moral philosophy or a pathway of spirituality, however much many in late western culture (including in the church) have tried to belittle it by treating it as such. Of course sceptics want Christianity to be "simply a moral philosophy". That's not nearly so challenging as what it actually is.
2. The reason many of us refer to the New Testament in dealing with early Christianity is not just that it's "The Bible", but that it's the close-up, often first-hand evidence both for what happened and for what Jesus' first followers made of it all.
3. The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. I have no idea whether the Alpha teachers have gone into the detail of how we know about things in Palestine in the first century, but the evidence dovetails together with remarkable consistency, as I and many others have shown in works of very detailed historical scholarship. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did, and most agree that he did and said a significant amount at least of what the four gospels say he did and said.
4. Just as Christian faith is far more than a moral philosophy or spiritual pathway (though it includes both as it were en passant), so it is more than a "how to get saved" teaching backed up by a dodgy "miracle". Christian faith declares that, in and through Jesus, the creator of the world launched his plan to rescue the world from the decaying and corrupting force of evil itself. This was (if it was anything at all) an event which brought about a new state of affairs, albeit often in a hidden and paradoxical way (as Jesus kept on saying): the "kingdom of God", that is, the sovereign, rescuing rule of the creator, breaking in to creation. If this stuff didn't happen then Christianity is based on a mistake. You can't rescue it by turning it into a philosophy.
5. Of course, this was nonsense in the ancient pagan world, as it is nonsense in the modern pagan world. Nothing new there. The Jewish worldview (in which there is a creator God who has promised to rescue the world, and whose people are somehow a vehicle of this rescue operation) was and is always offensive to pagan worldviews of every sort. The sceptics of today add nothing to the sceptics of the first and second century AD.
6. And, of course, we all know that dead people don't rise. Actually, the early Christians knew that too; they didn't suppose that people did rise from the dead from time to time and that Jesus just happened to be one of them. (The other "raisings" in the NT are of course what we would call "near death experiences" – people who are clinically dead and then find themselves called back.*) Rather, they claimed that Jesus had as it were gone through death and out the other side into a new form of physicality for which there was no previous example and of which there remains no subsequent example. They knew as well as we do how outrageous that was, but they found themselves compelled to say it. As one of the more sceptical of today's scholars has put it, "It seems that they were doing their best to describe an event for which they didn't have the right language."
7. You can't explain how they came to say what they said unless there were both several "sightings" of and meetings with someone they took to be Jesus, alive again, and an empty tomb where he had been. Without the first, they would have said the grave had been robbed. Without the second, they would have known it was a hallucination (they knew as much about those as we do). But if both occurred, how do we explain them? All other explanations fail to account for the reality of what they said and the change in their lives and their sense of call. (Which can't, by the way, be rubbished by likening it to Jones or Koresh; read Acts and compare and contrast with that sort of stuff.)
8. Jesus' resurrection was not, for them, a kind of odd phenomenon which validated a particular atonement theology (though of course all these things are joined up). It isn't an extra thing, bolted on to the outside of a moral philosophy. It is the launching-pad for God's new creation. "Christian spirituality" is learning to live in that new creation. "Christian ethics" is learning to let the power of that new creation shape your life. A Christian political theology is discovering what it means that, through the resurrection, Jesus is the world's true Lord.
9. Ridiculous? Of course. It was in AD 35 and it is today. But actually it makes sense – historically, culturally, philosophically and even dare I say politically. We've tried all sorts of other stuff recently and got fairly stuck, haven't we? But actually that shoulder-shrugging pragmatism, though it might alert people to the fact that normal western scepticism may not have the last word, isn't enough. It is possible to argue historically for the truth of Jesus' resurrection. I and others have done so and the case is remarkably good. But I'm not sure, to be honest, that the writer attending the Alpha course is really interested in the historical argument. If he is, he might look at Surprised by Hope, especially chapters 3 and 4. And if he wants a fuller account, he could tackle The Resurrection of the Son of God.
Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham
*For more details on what Tom Wright means by this, please see his Surprised by Hope (Chapters 3,4) and The Resurrection of the Son of God (pp440ff).
It appears that Adam Rutherford who writes for The Guardian is attending an Alpha course and writing of his thoughts on this. In his recent article he strongly questions the historicity of Christianity in general and the resurrection of the body of the Lord Jesus in particular. Bishop Wright offers a brief response to this and points to his two wonderful books - 'The Resurrection of the Son of God' and 'Surprised by Hope'.
I hope you find this helpful, and please do check out the EA site for Friday Night Theology.
Wright on the Resurrection
This week’s ‘special’ FNT first appeared on the Guardian's commentisfree site. It is reproduced here with the permission of Bishop Tom Wright.
Various things could be said of Adam Rutherford's take on the resurrection (apart from the fact that the criticism doesn't seem to be engaging with the central issues, so it's hard to tell whether he's really heard the point or not).
1. The historical basis of Christianity is vital precisely because Christianity isn't just a moral philosophy or a pathway of spirituality, however much many in late western culture (including in the church) have tried to belittle it by treating it as such. Of course sceptics want Christianity to be "simply a moral philosophy". That's not nearly so challenging as what it actually is.
2. The reason many of us refer to the New Testament in dealing with early Christianity is not just that it's "The Bible", but that it's the close-up, often first-hand evidence both for what happened and for what Jesus' first followers made of it all.
3. The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. I have no idea whether the Alpha teachers have gone into the detail of how we know about things in Palestine in the first century, but the evidence dovetails together with remarkable consistency, as I and many others have shown in works of very detailed historical scholarship. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did, and most agree that he did and said a significant amount at least of what the four gospels say he did and said.
4. Just as Christian faith is far more than a moral philosophy or spiritual pathway (though it includes both as it were en passant), so it is more than a "how to get saved" teaching backed up by a dodgy "miracle". Christian faith declares that, in and through Jesus, the creator of the world launched his plan to rescue the world from the decaying and corrupting force of evil itself. This was (if it was anything at all) an event which brought about a new state of affairs, albeit often in a hidden and paradoxical way (as Jesus kept on saying): the "kingdom of God", that is, the sovereign, rescuing rule of the creator, breaking in to creation. If this stuff didn't happen then Christianity is based on a mistake. You can't rescue it by turning it into a philosophy.
5. Of course, this was nonsense in the ancient pagan world, as it is nonsense in the modern pagan world. Nothing new there. The Jewish worldview (in which there is a creator God who has promised to rescue the world, and whose people are somehow a vehicle of this rescue operation) was and is always offensive to pagan worldviews of every sort. The sceptics of today add nothing to the sceptics of the first and second century AD.
6. And, of course, we all know that dead people don't rise. Actually, the early Christians knew that too; they didn't suppose that people did rise from the dead from time to time and that Jesus just happened to be one of them. (The other "raisings" in the NT are of course what we would call "near death experiences" – people who are clinically dead and then find themselves called back.*) Rather, they claimed that Jesus had as it were gone through death and out the other side into a new form of physicality for which there was no previous example and of which there remains no subsequent example. They knew as well as we do how outrageous that was, but they found themselves compelled to say it. As one of the more sceptical of today's scholars has put it, "It seems that they were doing their best to describe an event for which they didn't have the right language."
7. You can't explain how they came to say what they said unless there were both several "sightings" of and meetings with someone they took to be Jesus, alive again, and an empty tomb where he had been. Without the first, they would have said the grave had been robbed. Without the second, they would have known it was a hallucination (they knew as much about those as we do). But if both occurred, how do we explain them? All other explanations fail to account for the reality of what they said and the change in their lives and their sense of call. (Which can't, by the way, be rubbished by likening it to Jones or Koresh; read Acts and compare and contrast with that sort of stuff.)
8. Jesus' resurrection was not, for them, a kind of odd phenomenon which validated a particular atonement theology (though of course all these things are joined up). It isn't an extra thing, bolted on to the outside of a moral philosophy. It is the launching-pad for God's new creation. "Christian spirituality" is learning to live in that new creation. "Christian ethics" is learning to let the power of that new creation shape your life. A Christian political theology is discovering what it means that, through the resurrection, Jesus is the world's true Lord.
9. Ridiculous? Of course. It was in AD 35 and it is today. But actually it makes sense – historically, culturally, philosophically and even dare I say politically. We've tried all sorts of other stuff recently and got fairly stuck, haven't we? But actually that shoulder-shrugging pragmatism, though it might alert people to the fact that normal western scepticism may not have the last word, isn't enough. It is possible to argue historically for the truth of Jesus' resurrection. I and others have done so and the case is remarkably good. But I'm not sure, to be honest, that the writer attending the Alpha course is really interested in the historical argument. If he is, he might look at Surprised by Hope, especially chapters 3 and 4. And if he wants a fuller account, he could tackle The Resurrection of the Son of God.
Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham
*For more details on what Tom Wright means by this, please see his Surprised by Hope (Chapters 3,4) and The Resurrection of the Son of God (pp440ff).
Saturday, 6 June 2009
EAUK Friday Night Theology
EAUK do a very helpful Friday Night Theology email and page on their web site - find it here.
This week Susannah Clark has written on the appalling murder of George Tiller. Before our General Assembly I posted about the need to speak respectfully and lovingly towards one another. To murder someone, standing at the door of a church, because you disagree with his position and practice on abortion is an unspeakable evil.
I'm grateful to Susannah for her helpful comments, and I've copied them below. Please join me in praying for Dr Tiller's family, for the congregation where he was worshipping and for the Christian community in the USA where such things can happen.
The Murder of George Tiller
The murder of US late term abortion doctor George Tiller last Sunday, has sparked the debate again between the pro-choice and pro-life camps on both sides of the Atlantic. The murder suspect, Scott Roeder, was a member of a Christian group, albeit an extreme right wing militia group, prompting a Guardian headline, Terror in the name of Jesus.
Sadly, this is not the first violent incident in the US over this issue: to date 15,125 violent acts have been committed towards abortion providers, many carried out supposedly in the name of Jesus. Speaking on Tiller’s murder, Barack Obama said, "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence." I for one certainly agree with that. And as many commentators have noted, the suspect may have viewed Tiller as a murderer, but murdering the murderer on the basis that you think he is a murderer is surely a contradiction.
While researching this article, I read some stories of women who have had late term abortions. As I read, I felt overwhelming compassion. Most of these are stories of women who have to make agonizing decisions, stories of foetuses with horrendous disabilities, unlikely to live more than a few days, stories of women who longed for a baby. Pro-life arguments against the decision to abort would include that to abort the foetus is to pre-judge God and that only God has the right to give life and take it away. Yet these women have found themselves in harrowing situations that I would not wish on anyone.
Jesus’ actions towards people though were not based on whether or not he endorsed their decisions and behaviour, yet sometimes we seem to think that ours can be. Jesus told us very clearly not to judge people, to examine carefully our own conduct, (Matthew 7:1) and equally clearly, he tells us that we are to love our neighbour (Matthew 22:39). Yet often we rush to make judgments and treat people depending on whether we think they’re right or wrong. In this case, such disagreement has led to violence, murder, abuse and hatred: at both Tiller and women attending his clinic. Such acts have no regard for their common humanity, as people made in the image of God. We may not carry out murder and violence, but how do we treat people whose actions or points of view we disagree with?
Jesus wasn’t afraid to tell people he disagreed with them and he did so out of love, to show them a better way. Sometimes they didn’t respond, but it didn’t mean he ceased to love them. He comforted the hurting, healed the broken, bound up the broken hearted, loved those who felt alone and abandoned, wept with those who were suffering and offered them hope and life. If we believe in a God of love, compassion and mercy, let’s be the first to demonstrate that to people: no matter what they’ve done, or what situation they are facing.
Susannah Clark, Public Theology Researcher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)