Dawkins abandons atheism!

Posted on by
44

Shock news of the week: one of the world’s reputed leading apostles of atheism, Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, is no longer an atheist!

Doubts about this were first raised a few days ago in the responses by several bloggers to a story reported by the BBC: Dawkins has put £5,500 of his own money towards the costs of an advertising campaign with the slogan “There’s probably no God”. “Probably”? That doesn’t sound like the statement of the true believer atheist Dawkins that we Christians have come to know, love, and vilify. OK, the word is an allusion to the “Probably the best lager in the world” advertising campaign and so is mocking the advertising rules which allow unverifiable claims to be made if this word is added. But I think it left many people puzzled that he is prepared to endorse and support such an ambiguous campaign – one even welcomed by the Methodist Church, and indeed by myself for making people think about God.

But now Melanie Phillips, writing in The Spectator (thanks to Damian for putting a link to this on David Ker’s Bible Behemoth feed), gives confirmation that Dawkins is no longer an atheist. She quotes him as saying, in a debate in Oxford this week which she attended,

A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

She continues:

This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator. True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn’t believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies. Nevertheless, to acknowledge that ‘a serious case could be made for a deistic god’ is to undermine his previous categorical assertion that

…all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection…Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.

In Oxford on Tuesday night, however, virtually the first thing he said was that a serious case could be made for believing that it could.

In other words, Dawkins is not an atheist but an agnostic, one who is not sure whether there is a God or not. Melanie suggests that his thinking may be following the same path as that of the formerly atheistic professor Anthony Flew. Dawkins previously ridiculed Flew’s arguments for the existence of God, but now he seems to be accepting that there is a serious case for Flew’s position.

Meanwhile Dawkins is continuing his virulent attack on the divinity of Jesus. So there is some way to go before we can welcome him into the evangelical Christian camp. But he does seem to have taken the first step on that path by recognising the weakness of some of his famous atheistic arguments.

Update: David Keen, John Richardson and Mark Meynell got to this subject first, but I hadn’t seen their posts when I wrote mine.

Pete Broadbent lets off gay wedding vicar

Posted on by
Reply

Bishop Pete Broadbent, fresh from his fence-sitting over the Lambeth Conference and GAFCON, seems to have put this experience to good use. According to a blog post by Ruth Gledhill (see also her article in tomorrow’s The Times, thanks to John Richardson for the link), he has been left in charge of the Diocese of London while his boss, Bishop Richard Chartres, is on holiday. Among the responsibilities delegated to Broadbent was the poisoned chalice of dealing with Rev Martin Dudley who, in May, performed a high profile “gay wedding” of two Anglican priests, of which Ruth has now acquired some pictures (to see them clearly, click on the small versions in her post). And Broadbent seems to have used his skill to find a middle way through this situation, to avoid a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” choice.

This seems to be what happened: Dudley was persuaded to write in July a letter to Bishop Chartres, initially confidential, about the gay wedding ceremony. In this he wrote at length in support of his own position, but also the following:

I regret the embarrassment caused to you by this event and by its subsequent portrayal in the media. I now recognise that I should not have responded positively to the request for this service, …

and then referring to the directive from the Bishop which he had disobeyed:

I am willing to abide by its content in the future, until such time as it is rescinded or amended, and I undertake not to provide any form of blessing for same sex couples registering civil partnerships.

Now an uncharitable bishop might have considered this letter very far from an adequate response to the situation. Indeed, as Ruth notes,

Dudley is careful not to apologise for anything, in particular the service itself.

Chartres demanded Dudley’s permission to publish the letter, threatening further action if permission was not given. Broadbent, however, has shown extreme charity in calling it “the Rector’s full and frank apology”. He also writes:

Bishop Richard has considered the matter and has decided to accept the Rector’s apology in full. The matter is therefore now closed.

So, in Ruth’s words, Dudley

is to escape any form of discipline or reprimand.

And Broadbent has shown some episcopal wisdom, some Anglican compromise, and some Nelsonian turning of the blind eye to the actual contents of the letter, in allowing this senior priest to flout episcopal authority as well as God’s standards, refuse to apologise properly, and go unpunished. Perhaps by doing this he has avoided a damaging split in the diocese, which unlike the rest of the Church of England is experiencing consistent church growth. But is this God’s wisdom in such a situation?

A Complementarian's Disappointment with CBMW

Posted on by
22

Here is something which I would have posted (perhaps without the final comments!) at Complegalitarian, except that last week moderator Wayne Leman turned it into a non-blog by disabling all comments. As I have written before, I have no interest in so-called blogs which are in fact the blog owner’s monologue.

“Blue with a hint of amber” blogger David Matthias writes of his Disappointment with CBMW, The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, whose website he reads regularly (although he doesn’t seem to have discovered their real full name). As David is an elder in a Newfrontiers church it probably goes without saying that he is a complementarian. But it is interesting to see how critical he is of the complementarian position as promoted by CBMW.

His main issue with CBMW seems to be over their teaching on authority, an issue I am continuing to look at in relation to my review of Reimagining Church (I haven’t given up on it!). David quotes from a CBMW article which argues that women should not preach because that implies that they are exerting elder authority. But, as he notes, his church allows visiting preachers even if they are not elders of any church, because they are acting under the authority of the elders. In a particular case a visitor

did not preach as an elder, he preached as a servant to God’s word and our church vision laid down by our eldership. Did we falsely allow him to exert elder authority by letting him speak?

Isn’t this what preaching should always be like? So, to take David’s argument to a conclusion which he doesn’t quite spell out: why shouldn’t even those who believe in male eldership allow the elders to delegate authority to preach to their own church members, male and female?

David also criticises CBMW’s blanket condemnation of feminism, pointing to the clear benefits brought by some varieties of feminism. He finishes with this discussion of another passage from the CBMW site:

“Perhaps more than ever before, it is clear that this debate is unfolding as a contention about the authority of scripture itself.” is a difficult statement to read. I appreciate greatly the work of Grudem, Piper et al and find is sad that CMBW is drawing a line where it is. It excludes any that uphold male headship but define it more softly, and uphold male eldership but define church preaching differently, and it appears to label anything not four square in its position “egalitarian” and then imply that egalitarianism is the product of feminism, and feminism and christianity should not be mixed.

That is a massive wedge to drive between two churches who believe in male headship but define it slightly differently.

David, it is interesting to see how you are becoming disillusioned with complementarianism. Perhaps you will soon also see the weakness of CBMW’s basic argument for male headship. It seems that they are already labelling you as an egalitarian. How long will it be before I too can welcome you to the egalitarian camp? 😉

"God made me this way", or did he?

Posted on by
13

John Meunier offers an intriguing look at the “God made me this way” argument used to justify homosexuality and indeed all kinds of behaviour often regarded as sinful.

We all need to realise that we are not now entirely as God made us and intended us to be. Our personalities and our bodies have been affected by sin – our own, that of others around us, and the more general sin which has made our environment so much less good than God originally made his creation. So we should never assume that we are as God intended us to be in any particular area of our lives. Instead we should assess that area in the light of God’s standards to see if there is anything there that we need to work on changing, or asking God to change for us – or if there are limitations in ourselves which we have to accept in this life while we wait for perfection in the life to come.

Tominthebox gives news of Todd Bentley

Posted on by
Reply

Tominthebox News Network announces in its usual satirical style that Todd Bentley is returning to revival ministry, but using a “Probationary Podium” to keep his feet on the ground!

One thing in this report does seem to be true: the Lakeland Outpouring has officially ended, just over six months after it started in April. Ignited Church in Lakeland kept the nightly meetings going in their own building even after Todd left in August. But their website now says:

Welcome to the Ignited Church, the epicenter of the Lakeland Outpouring. It began April 2, 2008, and continued through October 12, 2008.

Sarah Palin Fulfils Prophecy

Posted on by
67

Today I have had drawn to my attention an astonishing prophecy given by Sharon Stone in Glasgow. Here is the text, as recorded and annotated by the Elijah List, with their varied emphasis:

The following is a prophecy given by Dr. Sharon Stone in Glasgow, Scotland in the summer of 2008. The notations in RED are fulfillment of the word, but are not part of the word given.

September is a Turning Point

“September is a turning point and a sign of the times. It is all about those who have made Godly alignments in this season being blessed with revelation and information in the midst of world crisis.

“I see more banks will suffer: a USA world bank’s shares are in trouble (Lehman Brothers files bankruptcy, September 15, 2008). I see government in the USA bailing out mortgage giants (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Federal takeover, September 7, 2008) and the government in England cutting house purchase taxes for the sagging housing crisis (Stamp Duty Tax change announced, September 2, 2008) to no avail.

“I see a European airline failing with no notice (XL files bankruptcy, September 12, 2008). I see the eyes of the world looking to see, ‘Who is this coming out of Alaska?’ (Sarah Palin announced as McCain’s running mate, August 29, 2008). And I see smoke coming from the Chunnel (Fire in the Chunnel, September 11, 2008).

“As I see these things, I hear the encouragement of God to His Isaacs in the earth who sow in the times of famine and reap 100 fold in the year. I’m not a prosperity preacher, I’m a prophet. And God is saying that September will convince you that you must connect to His economic system. There are always the few that are greatly blessed when the majority are shaken, threatened and fearful.”

God says, “Have you positioned yourself for THE NEW? Your storehouse is not an earthly bank. Hold on and I will bail you out of your mortgage issues. Am I not better to you than any government? I will not leave you stranded on foreign soil, and I will carry you above the circumstances better than any plane or jet. And your hope is not an Alaskan saviour, but Me.” I know that sounds strange, it does to me also.

“England, the smoke I saw coming out of the Chunnel is a warning for your intercessors to arise and cut off the enemy’s plan to sabotage and siege England’s favour in trade. Let him who has ears hear….

“God, I release an Isaac anointing upon us now!”

The Isaac reference, by the way, is to Genesis 26:1,12.

I note here six quite specific prophecies which were fulfilled in September, including that the eyes of the world would look to Sarah Palin (announced as a candidate in August, but infamous only in September). One or two of these might have been guessed at, but not all six. Can anyone possibly claim that there is no Christian prophecy today?

As for Sarah Palin fulfilling the prophecy, it is perhaps significant that her emergence from Alaska is listed with five disasters! Anyway, as the prophecy continues, our hope is not to be in an Alaskan saviour, nor for that matter in a Hawaiian one, but in God.

But prophecies like this are not given for entertainment, nor primarily to convince unbelievers that God speaks to today, but as warnings and encouragements for his people (1 Corinthians 14:3). The warning here is to the intercessors of England to pray. A day of prayer for the world’s economies has been announced for 29th October, with events being planned in London (I can’t find online information) as well as New York. My church is considering how to get involved.

The Investigator

Posted on by
Reply

I just took the (free) short form of a questionnaire recommended by Eddie Arthur. It is no surprise to me that he came out as “The Enthusiast”. It is also no surprise how I came out:

Enneagram

Type Five
The Investigator
The perceptive, cerebral type. Fives are alert, insightful, and curious. They are able to concentrate and focus on developing complex ideas and skills. Independent, innovative, and inventive, they can also become preoccupied with their thoughts and imaginary constructs. They become detached, yet high-strung and intense. They typically have problems with eccentricity, nihilism, and isolation. At their Best: visionary pioneers, often ahead of their time, and able to see the world in an entirely new way.

This seems to fit me well. The first three examples of my type are Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates – sounds good to me!

Click on the picture above to take the test yourself.

Here are my full results reported in a histogram, showing the areas in which I am relatively strong and relatively weak, according to the rather short and simplified free version of this test:

Type 1 – The Reformer •••••
Type 2 – The Helper •
Type 3 – The Achiever •••••
Type 4 – The Individualist ••••
Type 5 – The Investigator •••••••
Type 6 – The Loyalist •••••
Type 7 – The Enthusiast ••••
Type 8 – The Challenger ••
Type 9 – The Peacemaker •••

The Live Parrot Sketch

Posted on by
9

Anyone of my age here in England will certainly remember the Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch, starring Michael Palin and John Cleese. If you have never seen it, you really must. You can find it on YouTube: Dead Parrot Sketch – there is more of it in this version than I had remembered.

Today (thanks to Matt Wardman and David Keen‘s sidebar for the link) John Cleese appears in a new sketch, in fact more of an interview, this time about a live parrot. As there were problems with Matt’s attempt to embed this, here is a link to YouTube: Live Parrot Sketch. This is in fact John Cleese’s take on the other Palin, Sarah. Among other things he says:

I used to think Michael Palin was the funniest Palin ever …

She’s basically learned certain speeches. And she does them very well, she’s got a very good memory. But it’s like a nice looking parrot, because the parrot speaks beautifully, and kind of says “Aw, shucks” every now and again, but doesn’t really have any understanding of the meaning of the words that it is producing, even though it’s producing them very accurately …

And the truth is that Sarah Palin is no way good enough … [In Europe] you probably wouldn’t find 5% who think she is good enough to run the United States. And she’s running as the partner of a 72-year-old cancer survivor. I mean, Monty Python could have written it.

By the way, Cleese is not politically naive: he has been a long term supporter of the Liberal Democrats (the party I am a member of) here in the UK.

Now I am not sure that the media have been fair to Sarah Palin. I stand by my initial impression of her as a small town politician with integrity and a genuine Christian faith.

I think Sarah Palin was right to insist that an allegedly violent state trooper, accused of

using a Taser on his stepson, drinking beer in his patrol car, illegally shooting a moose and threatening his former father-in-law

should have been fired, if the allegations were true. It was quite wrong and morally reprehensible for Walter Monegan to rely on the argument

He didn’t do anything under my watch to result in termination

to wash his hands of the fact that what Trooper Wooten allegedly did when off duty should have led to him being fired. The way in which Palin intervened was of course unwise, but this is the way things are done in small towns.

Nevertheless I agree with John Cleese that “Sarah Palin is no way good enough … to run the United States”. Experience of running a small town is just not relevant. McCain may have thought he was making a smart move, but it looks like it has backfired on him.

Good news: not that Bishop John!

Posted on by
Reply

At last I seem to have actually succeeded in cutting down my blogging, to the extent of not posting for more than a week. In fact I have been commenting quite a bit here and elsewhere, and I have been busy with the rest of my life including trying to reconfigure my computer to run at a decent speed. But I don’t want anyone to think I have gone away completely. So here is a post …

Several years ago a certain Jeffrey John was chosen to be a bishop in the Church of England. But there was an outcry because he was in a relationship with another man, although he stated that he was celibate. This was about the time of the initial controversy about the American gay bishop Gene Robinson. Archbishop Rowan Williams intervened and blocked Jeffrey John’s consecration; instead he was appointed Dean of St Albans.

This year there has been a rapid changeover among the six bishops of the Church in Wales, the independent (and disestablished) sister church of the Church of England in Dean John’s native principality. In April this year the Bishop of St Davids was forced to resign because of allegations of an extra-marital affair. In May a new bishop of Swansea and Brecon took up office. Then in June Bishop Crockett of Bangor, according to the BBC “the first bishop in the UK to have been divorced and remarried”, died. As earlier in the year the Church in Wales had decided not to allow women bishops for the moment, and as at least one Welshman, Rowan Williams, is serving as a bishop in England, there was perhaps a shortage of suitable Welsh candidates for the episcopacy, in a diocese where a Welsh speaker was required.

So it is perhaps not surprising that, as Ruth Gledhill reported, one of the names put forward for the new bishop of Bangor was that of Jeffrey John, a Welshman who had already been chosen for an English bishop’s mitre then rejected. In some ways he was a strong candidate. But for the Church in Wales to elect a gay man, albeit a celibate one, as a bishop would have caused serious problems in the Anglican Communion, reopening wounds that have partly healed since the Lambeth Conference. I would imagine that the Archbishop of Wales would have come under strong pressure both from within his own church and from his predecessor in his post, Rowan Williams, to block the appointment. And that is apparently what he did.

Nevertheless rumours were going around last week that John was among the candidates being considered at a “lock-in” at Bangor Cathedral. Some evangelicals were seriously concerned, not just because Jeffrey John is gay but also because he takes a strong anti-evangelical position on some issues. But when the announcement came their concern turned quickly to relief and joy. For it turned out that the man chosen to be the new bishop was not Jeffrey John but Andrew John, Archdeacon of Cardigan. Andy John, a married father of four, seems to be much more one of their own, according to Chris Sugden a member of the Evangelical Fellowship in the Church in Wales He was trained for the ministry at St John’s Nottingham, and was curate in his home town at the “both Evangelical and Charismatic” St Michael’s, Aberystwyth.

So, for once good news in the Anglican Communion for evangelicals and for conservative Christians in general.