Kingdom Thermodynamics 3: The Boundaries

Posted on by
Reply

I followed the introduction to this series with a discussion of the principle of causality, and how it underlies the Second Law of Thermodynamics but is also inconsistent with Christian theology. In this third post I want to look at a different, but in some way equivalent, way in which the Second Law is in tension with theology. This relates to assumptions about what happens at boundaries, especially those at the beginning and the end of time.

The point which I am trying to make is rather clearer when presented in terms of space rather than of time. So I will start with what is I hope a simple analogy, so that those of you who are not used to too much technical material can get an idea of what I am talking about.

First imagine a large flag, flying in a gentle breeze. At one end the flag is fixed, tied to a flagpole, and can move only if the flagpole moves. The other end of the flag is flying free, with no immediate constraints. The middle of the flag is partially free, but not completely so because it cannot move too far from the pole. A point on the flag say one tenth of its width from the pole is even less free, because it is constrained to be close to the pole.

Then imagine a large banner of the kind which is fixed at each end to a pole, but is being carried so that it is loose in the middle. In this case both ends of the banner are fixed. The middle of the banner is relatively free, but it is constrained to some extent, to an equal extent, by both poles, for it cannot move too far from either of them. As for a point on the banner one tenth of its width from one pole, this is again quite tightly constrained by the nearby pole; there is also some constraint from the second pole, but this is much less tight.

Then try to imagine this same kind of situation transformed from space into time. This is rather hard. Perhaps one can imagine a group of children who are released from school to explore an area on condition that they all get home at a particular time – and imagine that they are actually obedient! As you watch how they spread out across the area, to start with this will be determined by their starting point and how fast they walk or run. As time goes on they will start to realise that they mustn’t wander too far as they must get home on time, and so their distribution will start to be affected by this. As they start to return, a time will come when their positions are determined by their need to get home, and hardly at all by where they started from.

Or imagine a dynamic caption of the type I have sometimes seen on TV programmes. It starts with a clear message, and then gradually and apparently at random letters in the message start to change until it becomes unreadable. For a time it looks as if nothing but chaos remains. But it gradually becomes apparent that a new message is forming. The changes turn out not to have been random at all, but to have been constrained by the intention to transform the message letter by letter into a new message.

All of these are examples of boundary conditions. In the case of the flag, the boundary conditions in space apply at one edge only, whereas there are no conditions at the other edge; but for the banner the boundary conditions apply at both edges. For the children, there is an initial boundary condition and also a final boundary condition, that they are in a particular place at a particular time. Similarly, there are initial and final conditions on the letters on the TV screen, that they form particular messages at the start and at the end. If you look at a point in space or time which is close to a boundary with conditions, the state at this point is constrained closely by the boundary conditions, but the constraints become much looser a long way from the boundary.

When we look at processes in time in the world as we know it, at least those which are not somehow controlled by intelligence and advance planning, it seems that no final boundary conditions can apply, although initial boundary conditions may be imposed. Thus processes in time are more like the flag than the banner, with the end flying free. In practice we can constrain the final state of something in time only by imposing tight initial boundary conditions, or by intelligent intervention. This is a direct consequence of causality operating within the universe, which implies that the state of something at the end of a period cannot affect any state or event during that period.

However, when we look at all of this from a biblical and theological perspective, the position is quite different. The Bible gives clear teaching about the future, including specific prophecies, some of which have already been fulfilled, and details about the end times. If the future is known in any kind of absolute sense, that is to say if these prophecies are more than predictions based on current data (like weather forecasts), this is a final boundary condition and so a breach of the principle of causality.

Theologians have taken a variety of positions on specific prophecies. Those of a more liberal kind have tended to discount all biblical prophecy, and to take apparent fulfilment of prophecies, such as those in the book of Daniel, as evidence that the prophecy was in fact written after the event. Open theists have taken a rather different line: prophecies are not absolute knowledge of the future, but rather a combination of predictions based on current data and advance announcements of plans which God intends to fulfil by working within the universe and within time.

Of course any theologian who presupposes that the principle of causality is a philosophical absolute is bound to take one or other of these positions on prophecy. However, this does not seem to be the biblical picture, as I briefly explained in part 2 of this series. The biblical position, as it seems to me, is that God knows the future absolutely, and at times communicates information about it to humans as prophecy. He has said:

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

(Isaiah 46:10, TNIV)

This flow of definite information from the future to the present is a breach of causality. Furthermore, it is related to the spiritual gift of prophecy (although revelation of information about the future is only a small part of that gift), and as such is an indication of a link between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and breaches of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I intend to explore this link further later in this series.

I do not intend in this series to discuss specific prophecies concerning events before the end of time. My interest here is more in the final state of the created universe, and how it compares with the initial state. As this post is already rather long, I will continue this discussion in the next post in this series.

Note: originally the next post was combined with this one; I then split them into two separate posts.

Kingdom Thermodynamics 2: Beyond Causality

Posted on by
4

In the Introduction to this series I explained my long-standing fascination with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it relates to Christian teaching, especially to Romans 8:19-23. I wrote about how I had been thinking about these matters on and off for about 30 years.

In particular I remember sitting in the Cavendish Laboratory library in Cambridge, in 1976 or 1977, looking at some rather heavy books dealing with the theoretical basis of the Second Law. While I don’t remember the names of the books, I do remember the basic point I discovered: the Second Law is not dependent on experimental evidence, for it can be deduced by pure logic. It must be this that gave Arthur Eddington such supreme confidence in this Law that he could write:

if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

But what I did not find in the books I consulted was a recognition of a hidden assumption in the logic. Yet it should in fact be rather obvious that there is some such hidden assumption, for without it there is no way that the time asymmetry of the Second Law can arise, within a framework of more fundamental laws which are all time-invariant.

The hidden assumption on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is causality. That is to say, it is assumed that any event in the universe is caused solely and completely by other events in the universe which precede it in time, but cannot be caused or affected by any event which follows it in time.

To most people in the modern world this principle of causality seems so obvious that it can be assumed without question. This was certainly not always the case. And I will go on to argue here that there is a fundamental contradiction between causality and Christian teaching.

Nevertheless I must recognise that in practice the world in which we live operates according to the principle of causality. It is perhaps this rather than the Second Law of Thermodynamics which explains why we don’t see stationary objects suddenly start to move without an cause or applied force. If the principle of causality needs any experimental proof, it is in the precise and predictable way in which even at the sub-microscopic level physical, chemical and biological systems obey the Second Law. And we should be glad of this, for without this neither our modern technology nor our bodies would function.

But the principle of causality has implications which conflict with Christian theology. Causality implies that what happens now depends only on what has happened in the past within the universe. The Bible teaches that what happens now is preparation for the future consummation, that “The creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed” (Romans 8:19, TNIV) and “all things work together for good to those who love God” (Romans 8:28, TNIV marginal reading).

Now it is not a violation of causality for an event now to be preparation for a future event, if it is caused by an intelligent being who is planning for that future event. In this sense we might be able to argue that current events which are God’s preparation for the future are caused by God, and so preserve the principle of causality. But this resolution only works if we place God within the universe, and his plans for the future within time – specifically, in the distant past. Some theologians (associated with Process Theology and Open Theism, from the limited amount I know about these movements) have taught that God is inside the universe and constrained by time, and in this way they could preserve the principle of causality. However, this view of God has not been accepted by most theologians, for the good reason that it seems to conflict with the biblical picture of God as separate from his created universe and not constrained by time or space.

If God is outside of the universe, an event caused by him has a cause from outside the universe, in contradiction to the principle of causality. Also, from a theological viewpoint all events are part of God’s preparation for the future and must therefore be at least in part caused by God. So all events have a cause outside the universe, and there is nothing left to be caused according to the normal principle of causality operating within the universe. Thus the classic view of God as outside time and separate from his creation is incompatible with the principle of causality.

But why then do we see the universe operating on the basis of causality and according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The answer was clearly written by the Apostle Paul: “the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it” (Romans 8:20, TNIV). In other words, the universe is currently experiencing “frustration” and “bondage to decay” through the operation of the Second Law because God has chosen to let it work for the time being according to the principle of causality. But, Paul promises, this will not always be true, for we and all creation can look forward in hope to the time when “the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:21, TNIV).

In this verse Paul writes of this as something entirely in the future. But elsewhere, even in this chapter, he suggests that this “freedom and glory of the children of God” is something not entirely future, but which is already starting to appear among Christian believers:

14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”

(Romans 8:14-15, TNIV)

Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

(Romans 8:23, TNIV)

In other words, as Christians we have already been adopted as children of God and given the Holy Spirit, and so in principle we already have “the freedom and glory of the children of God”. But we live within a universe which remains in bondage to decay; even our bodies are in bondage to decay working within them as they operate. Yet the promised freedom of the Kingdom of God has already broken through into our lives, and continues to break through, through us, into the world around us.

So, while we can expect the world and our bodies to continue to follow the principle of causality and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as Christians we should not expect to be bound by this principle and this law. In the spiritual realm we are not bound by them. And, as I will go on to explain in further parts of this series, we should expect to see times and places where these rules are not followed even in the physical realm, because the Kingdom of God is breaking through into the world.

But this is enough for this posting. More will follow. In the next part I look at “boundary conditions” of the universe.

Meanwhile, does anyone reading this know of any specialist forums, journals etc where issues like this are discussed? If so, please let me know by commenting on this.

Kingdom Thermodynamics 1: Introduction

Posted on by
Reply

I should start this series of posts by suggesting that perhaps it does not really belong at Speaker of Truth. For I cannot presume to call what I intend to write here, at least after this introduction, “truth”. I hope that it is an exploration in the direction of truth, but some might prefer to write it off as “speculation”. On the one hand, these are preliminary thoughts on this subject, and are liable to be refined at any time. On the other hand, although this is, I think, the first time I have gone public on this, I have already been thinking it over on and off for about 30 years. Yes, really: I remember doing some research on this when I was a student in Cambridge, it must have been 1976 or 1977, in the library of the Cavendish Laboratory.

As a student of physics at that time, and as a young Christian, I was fascinated by time, and I still am. I learned that almost all of the fundamental laws of physics are time-invariant, that is to say, they work exactly the same when time is reversed. If you watch a film which only shows things operating according to these laws, you cannot tell whether it is being played forwards or backwards. This applies, approximately, to such things as swinging pendulums and heavy objects travelling through the air; it also applies, perfectly, to all process on the atomic scale (technically, if charge and parity are also reversed).

There is just one fundamental law of physics which is not time-invariant: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law in its most basic form states that the entropy of a system always increases, which means that the system gradually become more disordered. This may explain the state of my desk! It also explains why heat always flows from hotter to colder bodies, and why moving objects, unless in a vacuum, slow down and stop unless a force is applied to keep them moving. These are all processes which are not time-invariant; if you see a film which shows systems spontaneously becoming more ordered, heat flowing from colder bodies to hotter, or moving objects speeding up without a force, you quickly realise that it is being played backwards.

On the face of it this law, that systems will always become more disordered and will tend towards a state of uniform temperature and only random motion, might seem to be a rather negative and useless one. However, biological systems are able to make use of this law to produce effects which seem to contradict it – but do not really do so, for an organism can decrease entropy in one place only by increasing it even more in other places, typically by converting low entropy food into high entropy waste products. Similarly, human ingenuity has contrived various kinds of engines, which are basically methods of creating ordered motion by converting low entropy fuel into high entropy exhaust gases; thus the modern human world can continue its activities by generating huge amounts of waste entropy which (to grossly oversimplify some very complex processes and issues) causes global warming.

There is something rather special about the Second Law of Thermodynamics which goes beyond its breaking of time invariance. The early 20th century physicist Arthur Eddington wrote:

The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation, well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

What made Eddington so sure of his ground on this one? I am sure that it was not just that the Law fitted so precisely with observation. Eddington’s own greatest claim to fame is that he was the first to confirm Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity by detecting a small deviation from Newton’s laws. But he did not seem to allow that there might be even such tiny deviations from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The reason for this seems to be that, in addition to the experimental evidence, there is a fundamental philosophical and logical basis to the Second Law. It was this basis that I was researching at the Cavendish Laboratory, where Eddington had studied before me.

But my interest in this issue was sparked all those years ago not so much by the physics involved as by what is taught in the Bible. I read (at that time not in this version) and thought about the following:

19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

(Romans 8:19-23, TNIV)

These verses fascinated me. The Apostle Paul wrote that “the creation was subjected to frustration… [in] bondage to decay”, and he was writing 1800 years before physicists formulated the same principles as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But, whereas for physicists like Eddington the Second Law is absolute and immutable, Paul wrote that this “bondage to decay” is ordained by God as something temporary, from which it can eagerly expect liberation.

But how could I, as a physicist at the time and later as a student of theology, bring together these two opposing viewpoints on the same phenomenon? What is the philosophical basis of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and how does this compare with Christian teaching? Could the differences here be linked to the “problem” of miracles, events which seemed to break the laws of physics? And how does it all relate to the coming of the Kingdom of God and our hope of experiencing “the freedom and glory of the children of God”? I hope to deal with these matters in future posts. But I am posting this introduction without having written any more, so don’t expect the rest of the series very quickly!

Update: see part 2: Beyond Causality; part 3: The Boundaries; part 4: The Crunch.

House For Sale in High Wycombe

Posted on by
Reply

This is a change from most of my posts here, but this is a convenient way to put my advertisement on the Internet:

42 Highwood CrescentI am selling my house in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, UK. This is not where I am currently living. I did live there for my last few years as a member of Wycliffe Bible Translators, and since then the house has been let. The tenant intends to move out soon, and the house will then be available for purchase.

The house is a four bedroomed semi-detached house, solidly built of brick in the 1950’s, on the western edge of High Wycombe (30 miles north west of London on the way to Oxford), convenient for the M40 motorway and Heathrow Airport. It is in a good position, near to public woodland and with a great view from the back. Downstairs there is a lounge, a dining room, a kitchen and breakfast room, and a shower room. Upstairs there are three large bedrooms, one small one, and a bathroom and separate toilet. Outside there is reasonably large garden, a garage, and off road parking for several cars.

I am offering the house for £215,000, which is a bargain price for a house of this size in this area. I may be able to offer a discount for a private sale. If you are interested, please contact me by e-mail: peter AT qaya DOT org, or by commenting on this post.

UPDATE 14th December: I have now put this house up for sale with agents Philip Green and Partners, and the details are on the Internet. Here is the new picture which the agents took:42 Highwood Crescent

UPDATE 12th January: The house is now sold – at least, I have a confirmed buyer.

UPDATE: The sale was completed on 30th March. The whole process was quite quick by British standards!

Breakthrough: Discovering the Kingdom

Posted on by
2

I am safely back home from my trip. It was hard work but worthwhile. Maybe I will write more about it later.

BreakthroughBut for now I want to bring you some insights from a book I am reading, Breakthrough: Discovering the Kingdom by Derek Morphew, published by and available from Vineyard International Publishing. Morphew is a South African pastor and the international director of the Vineyard Bible Institute. I bought this book at the Momentum conference, where it was being promoted by the main speakers.

Here is an extract from the chapter The Implications of the Kingdom, pp.80-81 which is relevant to some recent discussions on this blog:

The last days begin with Jesus and in Pentecost. Since then we have been living in the last days.

One hears Christians quoting texts about the special conditions that apply during the last days as though they only refer to the last seven years of world history, or perhaps to our times. This is to miss the point completely. The last days begin with the coming of Jesus. Since then they have just been edging closer and closer to the ultimate ‘last’ day. When Jesus came it was already the end. Perhaps we can speak of the end, the end of the end, and the end of the end of the end. New Testament texts are absolutely clear on this. Hebrews 1 can say, ‘in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son’ (1:2). Peter can say, concerning Jesus, ‘He was chosen before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake’ (1 Pet. 1:20).

This has crucial implications.

  • The last days are one, unbroken continuum, from the first coming of Christ, to the Second Coming of Christ, coexisting in tension with this present world. There is no period of church history that has not been a time of the last days. The last few minutes before the Second Coming will not be some different time, only the climax of the same mysterious dimension Christians have experienced since Jesus first came. This is not to say that history cannot ‘hot up’ or become more dramatic. Revelation shows that it will, but there is no other dispensation waiting to arrive, other than the very end of the end.
  • To grasp this is to understand that all dispensational and cessationist theories and schemes have no substance. Cessationists want to tear the time of the apostles away from the remainder of church history and dispensationalists want to do the same with the last seven years. But there is only one, continued dispensation of the last days. The Bible knows of only two dispensations, or ages: this age and the age to come. The age to come arrived when Jesus came.

Here is another extract, from p.84, which I found helpful in view of some things which have happened to me. I hope that others might also find it helpful:

  • Understanding the kingdom also makes us patient with what fails to happen. It is always here, almost here, delayed, and future. Every promise of God, every prophetic word, every calling, every ministry we engage in, has the mysterious sense of being continually delayed by God and yet just around the corner. We live tasting, yet with our mouths watering; filled and yet hungry; satisfied and yet longing; having all, yet needing all. Get used to it! It will not go away until the very end.

As I continue to read this book I will look out for other passages which might be worth sharing here.

Away for three weeks

Posted on by
Reply

I will be away from home from Wednesday 4th to Wednesday 25th October, working on my Bible translation project. I will be staying in a major city in a country where the infrastructure is not quite up to western standards. I should have Internet access, but only dial-up and not always reliable or fast. I will also be rather busier than I usually am at home. Therefore I will not have as much time as usual to spend on blogging. So don’t be surprised if you don’t hear from me for a few weeks. But then I may find time to post something. Also I will continue to receive comments, by e-mail, and will try to respond to anything significant.

I don’t want to say too much about my project here for various reasons. I can say that I will be working with a team of local translators and two other outsiders on the final stages of checking a new translation of the New Testament. I may say more on my return.

PS: I have now worked out how to blog by e-mail, so maybe I will keep in touch that way.

The non-negotiables of the faith, including gender distinctions?

Posted on by
Reply

Adrian Warnock has been reporting on the Desiring God 2006 conference, entitled “Above All Earthly Powers: The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World”.

Now let me first say that I have a lot of respect for the ministry of Desiring God and its leader John Piper. They are doing a great work by emphasising the importance for Christians of desiring God and seeking “a passion for the supremacy of God in all things”. I also greatly appreciate Piper’s support for exercise of the gifts of the Spirit in a properly balanced way.

But Piper is not as careful as he should be at distinguishing between biblical standards and the cultural norms of conservative America. I am not the only one to suggest this. For example, Suzanne McCarthy has referred to a list of roles which Piper considers as suitable for women. I commented as follows on her posting:

Are these rules supposed to be Christian and derived from the Bible? It sounds to me as if they come from a 19th century manual of etiquette. That doesn’t make them necessarily wrong, but nor does it make them right. Piper, Grudem and friends need to distinguish between Christian values and old-fashioned conservative cultural ones. A good course in cross-cultural evangelism, or some in depth first hand experience of a very different culture, would do them a world of good.

and also:

I just read the first half sentence of Piper’s book, and I think this gives the real key to his thinking. That first half sentence is “When I was a boy growing up in Greenville, South Carolina“. It was in that conservative environment, around 50 years ago (according to Wikipedia he was born in 1946, actually in Tennessee), that his cultural values were formed. In the second paragraph we learn that they attended a Southern Baptist church, and that of course further explains the formation of his cultural values. He goes on to describe supposed differences between men and women which he claims “go to the root of our personhood“, but which it seems to me are at least very largely conditioned by the specific cultural and religious context in which Piper grew up. …To summarise, Piper is making the mistake which I am afraid is so common among Americans, especially conservative ones but not only Christians, of simply assuming that their own cultural values are objectively and absolutely right, … There is a woeful failure to understand the distinction between cultural norms and absolute morality.

So, I was really interested to see that Desiring God was taking on the issue of relating to a postmodern world whose cultural norms are very different from those of the conservative South in which Piper grew up.

And what do I find? I am basing this mainly on Adrian’s rather brief summaries of others’ reports, but these are the points which some have considered significant. I have also looked at some of Tim Challies‘ more detailed first hand reports.

The controversial preacher Mark Driscoll spoke about: (as summarised by Adrian, condensing a report by Ricky Alcantar):

Nine issues to contend for:

1) The Bible.

2) The sovereignty of God.

3) The virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

4) We must argue against pelagianism, a denial of original sin.

5) We must contend for penal substitutionary atonement.

6) The exclusivity of Jesus.

7) We must contend for male and female roles.

8) We must contend for hell.

9) We must contend that kingdom is priority over culture.

John Piper, in comments on Driscoll’s talk, spoke as follows about these nine issues (as reported by Josh Harris and quoted by Adrian):

He referenced a point Driscoll had made in his talk about the importance of holding certain unchanging truths in our left hand that are the non-negotiables of the faith while being willing to contextualize and differ on secondary issues and stylistically (these are “right hand” issues).

In principle Piper is making an excellent point here on relating to postmodern culture. But I find it very interesting that what Piper affirms as “the non-negotiables of the faith” are apparently these particular nine points listed originally by Driscoll. Most of these nine points I can accept as important and non-negotiable (although I would want to ask for clarification about point 4, and I would argue that penal substitutionary atonement is only one among several good biblical models of the atonement). But this list is revealing both for what it includes and for what it omits.

For example, it omits any mention of several things which are clearly taught and commanded in the New Testament as norms for all believers, such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I refer not to the details of how these are to be administered and what they mean, but their very existence. If such things are not listed as non-negotiables, does that imply that they are secondary issues on which we can differ and which we can abandon for the sake of “contextualisation”, in other words in order to make our Christian faith more palatable to, for example, a postmodern generation? Or are they simply additional non-negotiables, thus implying that this list nine points is to be consider as incomplete?

But my main point here is the inclusion in this list of one item, “7) We must contend for male and female roles”, which seems to me totally out of place here. Tim Challies‘ version of this is “6) We must contend for gender distinctions”, but he actually lists this before “7) We must contend for the exclusivity of Christ”, as if gender roles more important than the exclusivity of Christ! Well, what exactly are the “male and female roles” or “gender distinctions” which we must contend for? Ricky Alcantar’s report says a little more here:

7) We must contend for male and female roleswe’re different. Male elders are to govern. We do not endorse homosexuality.

If Driscoll and Piper’s main point is that Christians should oppose homosexual practice and same-sex “marriage”, I would not disagree with them. But I would wonder why opposing these is listed as a “non-negotiable of the faith” when there is no mention of opposition to any other sins, such as heterosexual sex outside marriage, or greed, or pride. Why is homosexuality considered to be a much worse sin than these others? Is there really a biblical basis for this, or is this a case where (despite “non-negotiable” 9) cultural values are being put before kingdom values?

But it seems that what Driscoll and Piper largely have in mind is gender distinctions in the church, that “Male elders are to govern.” Now it is well known to regular readers here and at Better Bibles Blog that I differ from Piper, and implicitly also from Driscoll, on such issues and on the principles of interpretation of Bible passages which are alleged to teach this. I won’t repeat those arguments here, but will restrict my comments to wondering why they make such a big thing out of this. After all, there are in fact only a very few passages in the New Testament which teach about such gender roles. There is probably more teaching which favours slavery, but I don’t see “We must contend for slavery” among the non-negotiables! It might well have been on similar lists in the early 19th century, but anyone looking at such a list today would recognise how dependent it was on cultural norms which have now been abandoned.

There are many issues which are given far more prominence in the Bible than gender roles but have been omitted from this list of non-negotiables. For example, Paul devotes two long chapters of 1 Corinthians to spiritual gifts, and commands elsewhere

Do not put out the Spirit’s fire. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject whatever is harmful.

(1 Thessalonians 5:19-22, TNIV)

But Driscoll and Piper do not list acceptance of spiritual gifts including prophecy as a non-negotiable. Why not? Piper accepts these gifts himself, but maybe he is afraid of upsetting a large part of his audience, cessationists who disagree on this, by stressing their importance. But he doesn’t seem afraid of upsetting those who reject his approach to gender issues. Or is it because he accepts that cessationist arguments are strong enough that this should be considered a legitimate area for disagreement among Christians? Well, the cessationist arguments, largely an indefensible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:10, seem to me much weaker than the arguments for alternative interpretations of passages on gender roles in the church. So why can’t Piper and friends accept that here too there is a legitimate area for disagreement among Christians?

It seems to me that Driscoll and Piper are picking and choosing among biblical commands, and not to find issues which really are central to the Christian faith and should really be considered non-negotiable. Instead they have selected a list of points which fit with their personal presuppositions about what is central to the faith, based on their culture as much as on the Bible. Their approach on such matters seems to be similar to that of the scribes and Pharisees of Mark 7, who no doubt justified their teachings from Scripture, but of whom Jesus said:

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.

(Mark 7:8, TNIV)

So, what should we do? I nearly finished this post here, but decided that this was too negative. I would challenge Driscoll and Piper (if they would listen to me!), and others who might agree with them, to go back to the drawing board and reexamine what really are the central non-negotiables of the Christian faith, the points which are not culturally relative and which are also central to the Good News of Christ. And these are the things which I would recommend them to concentrate on in their preaching to a postmodern generation. Then there will be other things which they will also hold as non-negotiable in principle but in practice might allow to take a less prominent position; here I might include baptism, the Lord’s Supper, spiritual gifts, and (from Driscoll’s original list) the virgin birth and hell. Finally, I would remind them to base their contextualisation on Paul’s biblical model:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

(1 Corinthians 9:19-23, TNIV)

Dawkins is wrong: a scientist can believe in a real God

Posted on by
Reply

Richard Dawkins’ new book The God Delusion seems to be causing a bit of a stir. I haven’t read it, and I probably won’t. Not long ago I sat through a series on Channel 4 TV in which Dawkins presented his views on the same subject, and that was more than enough to put up with!

But I would like to respond to one of Dawkins’ points which is highlighted by Al Mohler in his commentary article The Dawkins Delusion. And as Mohler has not enabled comments on that article, I am responding here and in more length than appropriate for a comment.

Mohler writes, in part quoting Dawkins in The God Delusion:

In [Dawkins’] opening chapter, he argues that most legitimate scientists–indeed all who really understand the issues at stake–are atheists of one sort or another. He defines the alternatives as between a stark atheism (such as that Dawkins himself represents) and a form of nonsupernatural religion, as illustrated by the case of Albert Einstein. “Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply,” he explains. As examples, Dawkins offers not only Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking but also Martin Rees, currently Britain’s Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society. … He cites Einstein to the effect that he was a “deeply religious nonbeliever”–moved by the majesty of the cosmos but without any reference whatsoever to a supernatural being.As Dawkins explains, real scientists are naturalists. As such, they eliminate entirely the question of a supernatural being’s existence. “The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.”

Thus Dawkins claims that scientists are never true theists, believers in a living and personal God separate from his creation, but if they are not atheists they are more like pantheists, believers in the divinity of the universe. But this claim is so wide of the mark as to be ludicrous. For centuries there have been many scientists who have been theists of one sort or another. Indeed the founders of modern science were almost all theists, even though many, such as Isaac Newton, were not orthodox Christians, and some tended towards deism (which is rather the opposite of pantheism, not identifying God with the universe but separating him entirely from it). Einstein also seems to have been a theist, despite what Dawkins claims, as shown by his famous statement “God does not play dice with the universe” (is that “without any reference whatsoever to a supernatural being”?); so apparently is Stephen Hawking, for he has insisted that “God does play dice with the universe.” Indeed, in our own time there are many good scientists who are theists, indeed who are orthodox Trinitarian Christians.

As an example, I can mention John Polkinghorne. He was Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge, in the same department as Stephen Hawking (although not then in its beautiful new building). In fact Polkinghorne taught me astrophysics, when I was a graduate student of physics at Cambridge; I still remember his graphs of the life cycle of a star. He would never have got that post, nor been elected FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society), if he had not been a good scientist! He was also a reader (effectively a part-time assistant pastor) at a local Anglican church; I remember receiving communion from him. At about the time that I left Cambridge, 1978, he also left to train for ordination in the Church of England; he was then in his late 40’s. He ministered in churches for some years before returning to Cambridge as President of Queens’ College.

Polkinghorne has written a number of books on the subject of science and faith. In the one I have in my hand, Science and Christian Belief (SPCK, 1994), based on the prestigious Gifford Lectures for 1993-4, he argues from scientific first principles for an orthodox Trinitarian Christian faith, with a very definitely theistic God. Now I don’t agree with everything that Polkinghorne writes in this book. But he is certainly a counter-example to Dawkins’ claim. And Dawkins must be aware of him. Does he get a mention in Dawkins’ book, I wonder, or is this an embarrassment which is simply ignored?

But does Dawkins in fact have a point that these scientists have “a form of nonsupernatural religion” which is “light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible”? Well, yes, although this concept of a non-interventionist God is not pantheism but deism. As I mentioned before, there has certainly been a tendency towards deism among scientists, and more widely, since the 18th century Enlightenment. Indeed, as I have discussed elsewhere, a form of deism is found even among many Bible believing Christians, whose God is not really “interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, … prayer-answering”, and is “sin-punishing” only outside this world; they too hold to “a form of nonsupernatural religion” at least since the end of the apostolic age. But that is another issue.

Well, as we have seen, Hawking is certainly not a deist but a theist if he is serious in asserting that “God does play dice with the universe,” for this is a personal God intervening in the universe after its creation. Einstein’s denial of this did not make him a deist either, for, according to a BBC programme, “Einstein’s work was underpinned by the idea that the laws of physics were an expression of the divine.” It seems rather that their concept of God is a classical theistic one: God perpetually controls and upholds the universe which he created. But at least for Einstein this seems to have implied that God always works in a way determined by the laws of physics, thus ruling out miracles as well as randomness.

Polkinghorne, although not in the same league as Einstein and Hawking as a scientist, is certainly not a deist. He also goes beyond Einstein’s kind of theism to accept that God can work outside and beyond the laws of physics, for he accepts that at least one miracle took place: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And if one miracle is possible, then there is no reason why others should not be. So, while Einstein’s God is not “the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible”, and while Polkinghorne might not identify completely with this rather tendentious description, Polkinghorne’s God is able at least in principle to do all these things, and his religion is not “nonsupernatural”.

And where my former science professor led, I am not afraid to follow. Indeed I would go further, and claim that God does indeed intervene in our world, work miracles, read thoughts, punish sins (but more readily forgive them), and answer prayer. There is nothing in science, understood properly, to say that these things are impossible. But I have seen these things happen, and as a scientist I need to take this as evidence that they are possible, and indeed should be expected to happen today.

Deborah and a woman from Bethlehem

Posted on by
Reply

I usually agree with my blogger friend Lingamish, and I regret that I will not have time to meet him in person when he passes through London next week on his way back to Mozambique.

But I do have to disagree with one part of his recent posting on misogyny in the book of Judges, specifically his assessment of the role of Deborah. He quotes from my comment about her place in the book:

Indeed this “misogynist” book in fact gives one of the strongest biblical examples about a woman in leadership.

I was rather taken aback by his response to this:

Even the story of Deborah in Judges 4 & 5 is given not to show a woman in a positive leadership role but rather to shame the man who abdicated his responsibility. I’m not against women in leadership, but I don’t think you should look to the story of Deborah to show a positive role model.

Now it would come as no surprise to hear such teaching in some church circles. It is an embarrassment to those who have strong views about leadership being inherently male that the woman Deborah was clearly leading the people of Israel. But I can see no justification for treating her as a secondary character or a negative model in this picture. As I commented on Lingamish’s blog:

I don’t think you are fair to Deborah to treat her simply as a minor character in the story of Barak. From a literary viewpoint she is the main character in the story, in both chapters 4 and 5. She, not Barak, was the judge with the authority to command even Barak in God’s name, 4:4-6. Those who downplay her part in the story to a mere foil for Barak are more guilty of misogyny than the author of this part of Judges.

I hope it is not fair to suggest that Lingamish himself is guilty of misogyny, but I would claim that, if not, he is uncritically accepting an interpretation of this passage by misogynists.

This is how I would interpret this passage:

All of the judges in the book of Judges should be understood as positive role models for us to the extent that they took up God’s call to lead his people, and by following his leading defeated their enemies. But many of them are also presented as flawed individuals, with faults which are clearly pointed out. While it is an encouragement to us that God can use even imperfect people, the judges’ faults are clearly not for us to copy.

Deborah is the judge in her time, the divinely called leader of Israel. She is also a prophet (4:4) and “a mother in Israel” (5:7). I note that there is no justification in the Hebrew for the distinction between “became Israel’s judge” (3:10 TNIV, of Othniel) and “was leading Israel” (4:4 TNIV, of Deborah); in each case a verb “judge, lead” is used with “Israel” as the object. But the distinction is not gender-based, for oddly enough Othniel is the only individual called a “judge” in the book of Judges, in both NIV and TNIV. So there is no justification in the text for considering Deborah to be anything less than a full member of the succession of “judges” after whom the book is named.

The relationship between Deborah and Barak seems to have been that of political leader and appointed army commander, like that between King David and Joab. The ancient tradition was that the political leader personally led the troops into battle; indeed this was still common practice in Europe into the early modern period. In 2 Samuel 11:1, however, we read that David sent Joab off to fight his battles while he himself remained in Jerusalem, presumably busy with affairs of state as well as with his affair with Bathsheba. The often rebellious Joab doesn’t seem to have complained on this occasion at being given his freedom.

In the rather similar position in Judges 4:6-9, Deborah clearly has the right to give orders to Barak in God’s name, but she is reluctant to go into battle herself. We don’t know why: maybe she thought this was not a woman’s place, or maybe she had other work to do. But Barak refused to go into battle without the divinely appointed leader of the nation. Again we don’t know why, but it certainly wasn’t out of misogyny!

It is frequently alleged that Barak should have been the judge but that he refused the job and so Deborah had to do it. But that is not what the text says. It says that she was already the judge before there is any mention of Barak. And, while Deborah as a prophet speaks in the name of God, Barak does not; he is simply a soldier who follows God’s guidance as relayed to him by Deborah and wins a battle (4:14-15). Maybe this is the key to Barak’s reluctance: he knew that he needed God’s help in this battle and he wanted the prophet Deborah to be on hand to pass on God’s tactical guidance. But he need not have worried, for it was not him but God who routed Sisera and his army (4:15).

But there is certainly some truth in the suggestion that God uses women in leadership when they are willing to serve in this way but men are not – and when they are allowed to. The following story is taken from Light Force by Brother Andrew, about which I recently posted. It concerns a middle-aged Arab woman from the modern town of Bethlehem, who is already a Bible college graduate. This event took place in 1996 (p.200):

Nawal Qumsieh was ready and eager to go into ministry. But where? And how? At a seminar in Bethlehem, Nawal responded to the challenge. ‘If anyone wants to dedicate his life to ministry for Jesus,’ the guest speaker intoned, ‘now is the time to come forward!’ The man stepped back from the podium and bowed his head in prayer. Nawal slipped out of her seat and hurried to the front of the room. Out of some fifty in attendance, she was the only one to answer the call.

The speaker opened his eyes and looked around the room, then down at Nawal. He shook his head and said quietly so only Nawal could hear, ‘Go back to your seat, please. Women cannot help in this society. We need men.’

Again the speaker challenged the audience. ‘We need men to stand up for Christ in this culture. Will you come forward? Will you be part of the solution?’

Fighting back tears, Nawal walked slowly back to her seat. She felt like she’d been hit in her heart by a rubber bullet. Not one man took her place in the front. Now weeping, she prayed, ‘Lord, who will minister to my people?’

And within her heart, she immediately sensed the answer: ‘I am calling you to be in ministry.’

A little later in the book (pp.225-228) we find Nawal ministering in healing prayer and evangelism.

This happened in Bethlehem, but could it happen in your church, here in the west? Maybe it would be done a bit more subtly, but is the message going out that some classes of people, such as women or maybe less educated or ethnic minority people, are not really wanted for God’s service?

Jesus said to his disciples,

“The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. 38 Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”

(Matthew 9:37-38, TNIV)

And he said the following just as a woman was bringing many people to meet him:

“… 35 Don’t you have a saying, ‘It’s still four months until harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. 36 Even now those who reap draw their wages, even now they harvest the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. 37 Thus the saying ‘One sows and another reaps’ is true. 38 I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor.”

(John 4:35-38, TNIV)

Yes, the workers are few. Sometimes the only workers available are women, but even when men do come forward there are rarely enough of them. And there is still a plentiful harvest: people who are going to a lost eternity unless they are reached with the gospel message. So let’s not discourage any believers who God is calling to take a part in bringing in his harvest. Let’s not reject them just because of their gender, or anything else, but let’s encourage them all to find their place in God’s work.

In the lands of the Bible God has been able to use women in his service, from the time of Deborah up to today when he is using women like Nawal. If he can use women even in the strongly patriarchal cultures of ancient Israel and modern Palestine, surely he can use them also in our own western cultures.

The acceptable face of charismaticism?

Posted on by
Reply

In a post on his blog today, linking to sermons by one of his heroes, Adrian Warnock wrote:

C.J. Mahaney is well-known as the acceptable face of charismaticism.

I commented in response:

If CJ “The Father killed the Son” Mahaney is “the acceptable face of charismaticism“, then may God preserve the non-Christian world from its unacceptable face!

Adrian deleted my comment, as he did not want to open up a new debate on this matter. In fact I had no intention of taking it any further, but maybe others would have tried to reopen the debate we had in June. (By the way, I don’t want to reopen it with this post either.)

Well, I sympathise with Adrian to some extent. He recently had the comment thread on an excellent post on the charismatic debate hijacked by an irrelevant discussion about Benny Hinn. But in this case I was responding directly to a statement Adrian was making about Mahaney. It seems that Adrian is not willing for his statement to be questioned. He allowed all kinds of frankly libellous accusations to be made against Hinn (in fact he could probably get in legal trouble for publishing them), before eventually calling an end to that discussion. Could it be that he is so sensitive to a negative opinion about Mahaney because he doesn’t personally agree with it?

Is censorship “the acceptable face of charismaticism”?