What size church is best

Image by jcoterhals via Flickr

A friend told me recently about some article he was reading which went into detail about what church size is the best one – the conclusion he came to was that regardless of size, the local church should comprise one member due to its unity in the Spirit. I agree with the concepts although the way the author got there seems to me a bit cheesy I’m sure I’m often guilty of the same crime…

Anyhow I’ve been listening to the excellent seminars available from the TOAM conference and really enjoyed Steve Tibbert’s session on church structures and programmes. Something he said stood out to me – he referenced a paper by Tim Keller, so I looked it up.

Keller suggests that the size of a local church can actually make far more difference than we may think; we may be affected more by the size of a church than by its doctrine. Moving to a smaller or larger church could therefore have more of an impact on us spiritually than moving to a local church of another denomination if it was a similar size.

Anyway, Keller’s article can be found here for your joy, and if you like that there are plenty more over here.

I have evidence that Neptune does not exist

Image by The Doctr via Flickr

Are you ready? This is Science speaking:

1. To prove that Neptune exists, it must be observed through a telescope.
2. I do not have access to a telescope.
3. Neptune, therefore, does not exist.

Of course, this is ridiculous, but it’s a style of arguing used by many (all?) Dawkins-following New Atheists.

Here’s an example:

1. If Jesus of Nazareth was raised from death, people would have seen him.
2. I have never seen him.
3. Jesus of Nazareth, therefore,  didn’t rise again.

I’m sure many of us are aware of Tim Keller’s book The Reason For God. It’s an excellent book – not perfect, but excellent nonetheless. In it, Keller does two things: (1) shows that arguments against God hold no weight, and (2) shows that evidence does exist for God.

Some guy has posted his detailed review of this book online, and entitled it The Reason Against God.

The Newfrontiers Theology Forum blog has gone through his response, and have basically concluded that his arguments are formed in the same way as those above.

In essence, here are this guy’s conclusions:

1. Keller is pretty much correct when it comes to showing that the arguments against God are rubbish.

2. The evidence for God isn’t strong enough to prove beyond any doubt that He actually exists.

The first statement is a good one, and I want to congratulate that guy on having the guts as an atheist to admit what everyone thinks deep down: the existence of suffering (for example) doesn’t disprove God, it’s circular logic.

I’d want to say fair enough to the second statement, but unfortunately this is where his response falls a bit flat. Here’s a quote from the review, in which he says why he can’t become a Christian:

Keller goes on to talk about the “final clue”, namely, that believing in God explains all of the previous clues. Perhaps, but only if you’re prepared to regard God as basic enough to be the place where the buck stops in these explanations, without requiring an explanation for God. There are people who find that sort of explanation satisfying, but there are others, like me, who regard it as giving up.

Doesn’t it sound clever and scientific? Here’s the rebuttal:

Translation: theism does explain all the clues, but there is still a problem, in that if the origin of God cannot be explained, then theism is ‘giving up’. Or more bluntly: a necessary, eternal being is philosophically incoherent, and should be rejected no matter what the evidence. Which will be a great surprise to philosophers from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas right through to Antony Flew and Keith Ward. With respect all round, I think a proposal like that requires more than three sentences to substantiate.

So anyway, here’s the conclusion: The Reason For God is a great book; read it. Don’t dismiss Christianity just because you don’t understand it, or because you think it’s an easy way out.

Oh yes, and check out the response to the response (part one, part two).

#TOAM What is hell?

In the Tracking Theological Trajectories training track we looked at Tim Keller’s The Reason For God. It stood out as an excellent book tackling some tough questions in a good style, but raised questions in two areas: evolution, and hell.

Keller’s idea of hell was essentially written to rid his readers of the idea that God somehow gets enjoyment as he pushes those he doesn’t choose into a pit of fire, laughing all the way. Of course, he’s right to correct that image, but the way he does it is questionable.

Chosen consequences

He takes an idea from Romans 1: 18-32, that God hands sinners over into their sin and that therefore people who end up in hell have actually chosen to go there. He quotes C.S. Lewis at some point when he says something like this:

God gives everyone a chance to say ‘thy will be done’ in case on the final day he has to say, ‘thy will be done’.

It’s a powerful idea but one which actually portrays hell as a somehow desirable location, and that’s simply not true. Keller takes Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and points out that the rich man tried to get Lazarus to enter hell, rather than beg to be let out…but he does want his brothers to be warned about the place of torment, so I’m not sure that’s right.

John Piper blogged recently that this theory is like looking at a fat person – they wanted chocolate, not obesity. In the same way, a person in hell didn’t want to get there, they wanted to sin.

God’s wrath

Perhaps more dangerously, however, Keller’s theory proposes the idea that hell is actually God’s passive wrath. The man is merrily cycling towards the pit of fire, and God’s just standing by allowing it to happen.

I think that hell must be God’s active wrath – he is punishing sin because it’s so horrific to him. The Bible doesn’t hold back about describing sin as ‘whoring’, and it’s exactly the fact that God hates sin so much that makes the cross so incredibly grace-filled!

Well, I thought it was interesting – I’d like to hear your thoughts though! If you’d like to hear the session in full it’s located here.

#TOAM Can you believe in evolution AND the Bible?

One of the books we looked at as part of the training track I attended at Together on a Mission was The Reason for God by Tim Keller, who asks the whole creation/evolution question. Keller’s main point is correct, that a lot of Christians appear to be naïve and blind with no care for any scientific evidence.

Historically the church called some scientists heretics for believing that the earth orbited the sun because some verses had been taken out of context. Interestingly enough it was the church that supported Darwin’s theory of evolution rather than the atheists – why has there been a sudden swing in opposition to it?

Well, I’m not going to go into all the details here but Keller’s main point is this: if Genesis 1 can be read as poetry (and it most certainly can), then it may not be a literal description of six days of creation and could very easily not conflict with a belief in evolution. The creation of man in Genesis 2 still stands alone, so biblically speaking you can’t say that humans are related to orang-utans etc.

Two problems can easily be solved, and one still remains unanswered:

1. ‘Six days of creation are claimed by other teachers in the Bible including Moses and Jesus.’ This is actually ok because if Genesis 1 is poetry then it still establishes the image, without it needing necessarily to be literally true.
2. ‘In evolution, death comes before sin and that’s not biblical.’ This is also ok, so long as you’re happy to accept that death for plants and animals is different, and that death for humans and animals is different. So I can uproot a tree and replant it – it’s dead, but still alive…animals bodies are only temporary…humans, however, are eternal.
3. ‘Surely there are still problems with a literal Garden of Eden, creation of a woman from a man’s rib and a talking snake just for starters?’ Yes there are. Keller is able to fully believe in evolution yet still fully believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 2, 3, and onward – exactly how has not been fully explained but looking forward to that!

There’s still a conversation to be had here, and I still very much believe in a literal six-day creation, but the point still stands that you can believe in evolution and the Bible.

If you’re interested in hearing this full session it’s located here.

The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism by Tim Keller

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism

This is one of those books that everyone talks about for a short period of time, but that I often don’t get the chance to read. I’m aware that I’ve read this after many others have, but I have, and so here we are.

The Reason For God is split basically into two halves. The first half takes common arguments attempting to disprove God, and Keller essentially shows that the arguments are circular reasoning and disprove themselves rather than God. The second half then moves into taking evidence to prove that there is indeed a God, and more than that, that Jesus is that one God.

In terms of logic, Keller is almost flawless in pointing out the natural and necessary conclusions of atheists’ arguments. As a Christian, reading this book bolsters one’s faith and gives logical, easy-to-follow, and ultimately correct reasons to answer back against the critics. There are also challenging words in there, so don’t just read this because you think you like apologetics and taking in information.

However (there has to be something!) Keller’s language, in an attempt to be concise, cuts out quite a bit of the conversation one would have with an atheist. While he does an admirable job of presenting the atheist position fairly, the responses are sometimes quite cutting, and could perhaps be seen as naive or patronising. So I’m not sure I’d give this as a gift to an unbeliever in the hope they’d be converted. I most certainly would, however, use it as a tool to start conversations.

Overall, I’m just going to say: read this book! In it you’ll see that every single argument for atheism is built on circular reasoning and flawed logic.