The Catastrophe of Hugh Ross

Hugh Ross, the President and Founder of Reasons to Believe, was asked via Twitter “what specific observations could be made that would disprove the ‘creator’ claim?” His response was: “If observations proved beyond any doubt that the universe has no beginning of any kind, that would be catastrophic to Christianity. If observations proved we humans are fundamentally different from the rest of Earth’s life, that would be catastrophic.”

I confess I found his response false – indeed, demonstrably so – and, frankly, dangerous.

First: his claim is false. Suppose it was proven that the universe is past-eternal. How would this be catastrophic for Christianity? My twitter response to Ross was “I can hear the Thomists laughing their heads off.” What do Thomists have to do with it? Well, for centuries Thomists have made their case for the existence of God with arguments that do not presuppose that the universe had a beginning. Take Edward Feser as a modern example. His recent book “Five Proofs of the Existence of God” pretty much does exactly what is says on the tin. The reader will notice that each of these five arguments are utterly unaffected by whether or not the universe began to exist. Moreover, on the back of such arguments Feser defends certain attributes of God, such as: necessity, simplicity, eternity, immutability, omnipotence, omniscience, and others.

There are many other arguments for the existence of God: arguments from consciousness, design arguments, and moral arguments, for example. Very few of these arguments rely on a past-finite universe. In fact, the only argument that I can think of that would suffer utter catastrophe is the kalam cosmological argument, the second premise of which states “the universe began to exist.” It seems then that the case for God’s existence would emerge relatively unscathed.

The atoning death and resurrection of Christ are probably the next most crucial doctrines. How might a past-eternal universe affect them? Not even remotely, I think. There is nothing about the eternity of the universe that means Christ could not be incarnated at a certain place and a certain time in human history to live and die for the salvation of the world and rise again from the dead. Whatever one makes of the case for the resurrection of Christ made by scholars such as Richard Swinburne, NT Wright, William Lane Craig, or Gary Habermas, it seems difficult how it would be adversely affected by the past-eternity of the universe.

So, where is this catastrophe? The obvious doctrinal candidate is the doctrine of creation. Genesis 1:1 says “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Moreover, the Apostle’s Creed (which is one of the best statements of “mere Christianity”) contains the line “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.” Is a past-eternal universe catastrophic for these claims? Not at all. The doctrine of “creatio ex nihilo” would certainly go, but that’s about all, and that’s hardly a core Christian doctrine. There is no need to read Genesis 1:1 as a cosmological statement (and given the mythical nature of what follows, very unwise to do so). In fact, many Christians already resist doing so. Moreover, should the universe be past-eternal, that needn’t deny God the role of creator. As Feser’s arguments show, its existence is still radically dependent on God’s sustaining power to hold it in being. God remains the “creator of heaven and earth” in a very real sense: He upholds the universe, and is responsible for the existence of the entire creaturely realm. At worst, then, an unessential doctrine held by some Christians will require revision.

So, Ross is wrong, and demonstrably so, given that there already exist schools of Christian thought which have made their peace with the possibility that the universe is past-eternal. But Ross’s view is also dangerous. The best way to see this is by reference to evolution. Fierce battles concerning the truth or falsity of this theory have been fought since the 19^th century, with many churchmen proclaiming the theory incompatible with biblical Christianity. Some fundamentalists – like Ken Ham – are still at it to this day. But here’s the problem: it isn’t, and not only have most Christian academics happily embraced evolution, some have even based theistic arguments on the back of its insights! Unfortunately, as the evidence for evolution added up over time, and as Western culture and society made their peace with it, the words of the churchmen still rang loudly in many people’s ears: “evolution is incompatible with Christianity.” The result was predictable: Christianity came to be viewed by many as contrary to known truths, and therefore not a serious option for thinking people. What a shame that was. Thank you, Mr Ham, and others of your ilk!

Ross risks a similar unnecessary outcome here. Whilst I agree with Ross that – quite probably – the universe is finite, that judgment is only provisional. It might easily be the case that the consensus will shift. Should that happen Ross might very well have caused an unnecessary rejection of Christian faith by those bumbling along in his wake, hanging the acceptability of their faith on whether or not the universe is past-eternal.

Given that there are well-established schools of Christian thought that are utterly unfazed by the possible past-eternity of the universe, Ross’s comments seem particularly reckless, or we might say: catastrophic.

Stephen J. Graham

Theistic Arguments – All as Bad as Each Other – Really?

Randal Rauser, a seminary professor and analytical theologian, recently engaged in a “Devil’s Advocate” debate with Ben Watkins from Real Atheology. Devil’s Advocate debates are way more interesting than the average stale Theist v Atheist debates. In Devil’s Advocate debates the atheist presents the case for theism, and the theist presents the case for atheism. The exercise of presenting the case for something one believes to be false is incredibly useful. It forces you to engage in intellectual empathy, to put yourself in the shoes of one’s opponent, and to try to see the world through their eyes. It also forces you to engage the principle of charity, to look at what’s good about the claims and arguments of one’s opponent. Moreover, it helps a person to “steelman” their opponent’s views – to make them as good as they can possible me made, after all, you’re going to be defending them!

So, how does a person go about doing such a thing? For some, it simply cannot be done. I’m reminded of numerous times I’ve seen arguments for the existence of God being written off en masse because “they’re all just as bad as each other.” It is to these sorts of claims that I address the rest of this short article.

Now, I’m a theist, so obviously I don’t think every aspect of the case for the existence of God is terrible (though it wouldn’t be impossible for a theist – perhaps a fideist – to adhere to such a claim). How do we respond to the atheist who claims that all theistic arguments are as bad as each other?

Well, first of all we need to start with the wealth of arguments for the existence of God. There are dozens of them. Not only are there numerous categories of arguments – teleological, cosmological, ontological, moral, pragmatic – there are multiple types of arguments within each category: fine-tuning arguments, analogical design arguments, arguments from contingency, causation, motion, or from the beginning of the universe. Anselm’s ontological argument differs from Descartes, which differs from modern modal versions presented by philosophers such as Plantinga & Malcolm. Are all of the many arguments offered for theism really equally bad?

What do we mean when we say an argument is good or bad? There are several criteria we can apply. Is the argument valid: such that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true? Is the argument sound: are the premises true, more probable than not, or at least plausible? Is the argument rationally persuasive? Even an otherwise good argument will fail if it contains a premise that most people cannot understand or see to be true. Does the argument provide even a small amount of weight in favour of theism as opposed to, say, naturalism?

When we consider criteria such as these, the claim that all theistic arguments are just as bad as each other seems spurious indeed. Some theistic arguments are invalid. We might consider an argument that God exists because the Bible says He does, and we know the Bible is true because it’s the word of God. That’s invalid. Compare that with the Kalam cosmological argument, which is clearly valid. An invalid argument is much worse than a valid one! Or consider rational persuasiveness. Plantinga’s ontological argument is valid and (I think) sound, but it isn’t rationally persuasive. The fine-tuning argument is valid and (I think) sound, but it is rationally persuasive, and has indeed persuaded many people. The atheist might of course think both arguments are unsuccessful, but that’s not the point here. One is clearly better than the other at doing what any argument needs to do: persuade.

Things get much worse when we consider probabilistic arguments. Think of the following features of the world and whether they are more expected on theism or naturalism: morality, free will, and consciousness. It seems to me that morality and consciousness add a little more weight to theism over naturalism, in that both are relatively unsurprising on theism but not so much on naturalism. Both offer more weight than free will does. Of course, the atheist disagrees, but, unless he or she thinks none of these features adds *any* weight at all to the case for theism, then it seems wrong-headed to say they all provide exactly equal weight to theism. However we rate these arguments, many of these features of the world provide some (I didn’t say much) support for theism. It seems highly unlikely that they all provide exactly the same level of support as each other. Thus, while it might be reasonable to think all arguments for the existence of God are bad, it’s quite incorrect to think all arguments for the existence of God are equally bad. A valid argument is better than an invalid one. A sound argument is better than a probable one, which is better than a merely plausible one, which is better than a dubious one – and there are theistic arguments right across this spectrum. Moreover, there are theistic arguments which are much more persuasive than others – as is evidence by the fact that many more people are actually persuaded by them!

Perhaps the “all are as bad as each other” position is born from a certain intellectual laziness rather than careful reflection. If so, then I invite such atheists to find themselves a theist and have a good old Devil’s Advocate debate.

Stephen J. Graham

Why I Chose the Chimps

Randal Rauser recently tweeted a poll:

The lab is on fire. You only have time to save the three chimpanzees in Room A or the three fertilized human embryos in Room B. Which do you save?

I chose the chimps, despite the fact that I’m (broadly) “pro-life.” So now I feel the need to explain myself. Does this contradict my pro-life stance on abortion? Not at all. I have written a number of articles on this blog in which I expound and defend pro-life principles. The human embryo has value, great value, much greater value than it is typically held to have by those who would support the most permissive of abortion practices.

However, being pro-life needn’t be an absolute position. There are some groups who would outlaw abortion under any circumstances. For me, an unborn human has value, but not absolute value. There are considerations and circumstances that could outweigh our obligation to protect an unborn human. The obvious one is: should the pregnancy be a serious threat to the life of the woman, then abortion would be morally permissible.

My refusal to save the embryos isn’t a denial that they have ANY value. It’s the result of a judgment call on my part as to where the most value lies in this case. So, here are the choices (I’m assuming – for the sake of the thought experiment – that the chimps won’t kill me as I try to save them, and that I have the equipment that will safely store the embryos outside the building):

Room A contains 3 chimps. Chimps are highly intelligent animals, almost certainly self-conscious, with basic language skills, and surprisingly powerful cognitive apparatus, including complex emotions and social skills. In fact, some philosophers have argued that they meet the threshold for personhood, and as such should be protected under the sorts of human rights legislation that protects our own species. These beings would die horribly in a fire. They will undeniably suffer greatly in the process, and depending on how the fire spreads, their death could be hideously prolonged. I have the ability to prevent these highly intelligent beings – one of our closest living relatives, sharing many of the charactistics we associate with personhood – from dying such an agonising death. Moreover, their chances of surviving subsequent to rescue is pretty high.

Room B contains 3 human embryos. Embryos are fully human, but they are not sentient. Whilst they have the potential for rational thought, self-awareness, and suffering, such things are presently unrealised. Should they be destroyed in the fire they will not suffer at all. Moreover, there is no guarantee they will ever be fully developed. The implantation procedure is far from perfect, and couples who undergo IVF are in no way guaranteed success, even with more than 3 embryos being implanted. I could save the embryos only to have their implantation fail. Their chances of surviving subsequent to rescue is fairly low.

So, we have guaranteed agonising pain experienced by animals incredibly close to humans, who have a high chance of surviving, versus human beings incapable of experiencing pain or terror, and who have a low chance of surviving post-rescue. I therefore make a judgment call to save the chimps.

Do you agree? If so, why? If not, why not?

Stephen J. Graham

The Exorcisms of Jesus and that time I Exorcised an Imaginary Cow

I’ve always struggled with the notion of demonic forces who can “possess” a person for malevolent ends, even when I was an active charismatic. Much of my subsequent investigation into apparent demonic activities suggests to me that the chief cause behind such things is either fraud (on the part of the possessed person or sometimes on the part of an exorcist who has managed to convince someone they are in fact housing a demon) or psychological disturbances in the person deemed to be possessed.

Upon discussing my scepticism, it is fairly common for Christians to say something like, “well, Jesus certainly believed in demon possession, and even performed exorcisms to drive out the demons, so you’d better make your peace with the notion.” Maybe so. But, I recently reflected on a episode from my own life and wondered is it plausible for something similar to have been going on in the life and ministry of Jesus.

When my son, Daniel, was around 3/4 years old, he began having frightening dreams. In these dreams he would be confronted by a being he referred to as “the 1p cow,” a large mechanical robotic cow that would come after him in his dreams. We checked with his play group to see if there was such a character in any picture books he may have seen, but there wasn’t. Nor could we think of any children’s TV programmes he could have got the idea from. Perhaps his own imagination just cooked it up. I was at the end of my time in the charismatic movement, but it was suggested to us that perhaps Daniel was suffering an attack from some demonic entity and we should pray against it.

That just seemed silly. At the same time a friend in work gave me a suggestion she had got from a child psychologist when her own child was having recurring nightmares. She told me to pretend to catch the 1p Cow, put it in a bag, and throw it in the bin – all while Daniel was watching. So, one evening when we were playing in Daniel’s room, I crept under his bed and told him to stay where he was because the 1p cow had appeared. I pretended to wrestle it, all the while assuring him that the 1p cow was no match for Daddy. I had a bag ready and pretended to put the 1p cow inside, before proceeding to struggle with the bag across our landing and down the stairs, with Daniel following me, cheering me on. I opened the door and threw the 1p Cow into the bin, and we celebrated. Who knows what the neighbours were thinking about those crazy Grahams across the street.

Daniel never dreamed about the 1p cow again.

I had “exorcised” it from his mind.

And I wonder, is this a plausible understanding of what was going on with Jesus when he healed people allegedly possessed by demons? Did he condescend and play along with the delusions of his time, the common beliefs that such beings were marauding across the face of the world looking for unfortunate people to take over? Take the powerful scene from Mark chapter 5, where we meet a man living in the tombs, seemingly possessed by a spirit that gave him prodigious strength. He would lie screaming at night and cutting his own flesh with stones. The story continues:

6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!” 8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!”

9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”

“My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.” 10 And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.

11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” 13 He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

Did Jesus really exorcise a man possessed by many demons? Perhaps. But, I’m experimenting with an alternative understanding, in light of my own experience with the 1p cow. The man – and the people in his vicinity – clearly believed he was demon possessed. That was a common understanding of the behaviour he exhibited. But suppose he wasn’t possessed at all. Suppose he was suffering from a psychological condition (and yes, certain conditions can indeed cause prodigious strength). Suppose also that Jesus could see this rather plainly. Just as it did Daniel no good to tell him the 1p cow wasn’t real, so it would be fruitless to reason with this man. So maybe Jesus played along. Maybe he spoke to this man, condescending to his beliefs about his own condition. Maybe Jesus pretended to exorcise the demons, and to make the image as powerful as possible somehow caused the pigs to stampede down the hillside to their death. The man then believed the demons had gone for good and his situation immediately improved.

It’s just a thought, really. Far-fetched? Perhaps, but is it any more so than the notion that this man was possessed by many demonic entities?

Stephen J. Graham

50 Quick Questions

1.       What’s your favourite colour?

Red.

2.       What’s your favourite novel?

The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas or The Plague by Albert Camus.

3.       How many brothers and sisters have you got?

One older sister.

4.       How many children do you have?

One son.

5.       On your census form what do you put down as your religion?

Presbyterian.

6.       Do you believe in God?

Yes.

7.       Do you believe in life after death?

Yes.

8.       Are human beings free?

In many things, yes.

9.       Who is your favour author?

Albert Camus

10.   What’s your favour movie?

Chariots of Fire.

11.   Who’s your favourite actor?

Jack Nicholson.

12.   Actress?

Judy Dench.

13.   What’s something you do for fun?

Cinema.

14.   What’s your favourite food?

Mushrooms…or maybe rice…rice with mushrooms!

15.   What height are you?

5 foot 10 inches.

16.   How much do you weigh?

168lbs at last weigh-in (3 days ago)

17.   Beard?

A fairly light one.

18.   Favourite video game?

Mario Kart.

19.   Best way to travel?

Train.

20.   Typical breakfast?

3 eggs (scrambled, boiled or fried), two rounds of wholemeal toast and a mug of coffee.

21.   Do you work out?

Three dumbbell sessions a week.

22.   Your house is burning down – what material possession do you save first?

My laptop.

23.   Ever been seriously ill?

Nothing life threatening, but periodic crippling anxiety.

24.   Ever had an operation?

Yes, a hernia repair just over 20 years ago.

25.   Have you ever taken an illegal drug?

No.

26.   What’s your favourite non-alcoholic drink?

Coke zero.

27.   Alcoholic drink?

Rum with ginger beer.

28.   The last movie you watched was?

Jurassic world.

29.   The last book you read?

The Oresteia

30.   Who is your favourite philosopher?

Plato.

31.   Which philosopher has been most influential for you?

Alvin Plantinga.

32.   What’s you favour holiday destination?

Paris…no, Edinburgh…no, Paris…hmm…..

33.   Where would you love to visit but haven’t yet?

Australia.

34.   What grooming products do you use?

Beyond a hair brush?

35.   What can’t you live without?

Besides oxygen, food, and water? My books.

36.   If you won 10 million pounds what would you do?

Quit work, buy a new house, visit Australia, and move to Paris…no Edinburgh…no Paris…hmm…

37.   What age are you?

40.

38.   What age do you wish you were?

17

39.   What part of your body do you like best?

My smouldering good looks, obviously.

40.   Which part of your body would you most like to change?

The shape of my head…seriously, what’s going on with it?

41.   Which famous person would you like to spend an evening with in the pub?

Micky Flanagan

42.   Star Wars or Star Trek?

Star Wars.

43.   Marvel or DC?

Marvel

44.   Do you play a sport?

Not presently. I used to play football and badminton.

45.   When you were younger what did you want to be when you grew up?

A fighter pilot in the RAF.

46.   Why didn’t you do that?

Apparently other plane try to shoot you down, who knew?!

47.   What household chore are you responsible for?

Dishes, ironing, bins, and anything requiring a power drill.

48.   Any hobbies?

I play drums, collect world percussion instruments, and read comic books (typically Thor).

49.   Quick death or time to prepare?

Go to bed and never wake up, isn’t that what we all want?

50.   Where would you like to be right now?

Having a stroll up the Royal Mile, Edinburgh.

The Presbyterian Church in Ireland – Building Relationships by Destroying Them?

The Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) made two decisions at its General Assembly last week that have caused some consternation. On Wednesday PCI made a formal break with the Church of Scotland because of its more liberal approach to gay marriage, and then on Friday they decided that those living in same-sex relationships cannot be communicant members because they cannot be regarded as making a “credible profession of faith.” As a result of the rules on baptism in the Presbyterian church, the children of such couples cannot be baptised.

Both decisions are erroneous.

The Church of Scotland

Such a formal break in a deeply ingrained historical relationship is utterly unwarranted and PCI has been incredibly short-sighted in breaking over an issue that is not – according to any historical creed – a Christian fundamental. There are many areas in which Christians disagree – some far more serious than this one – and to grandstand on the back of it in this way is to move in an isolationist and narrow-minded direction. Moreover, it reduces the chance of influencing the Church of Scotland and – dare I say it – actually learning from them. If the Church of Scotland is deemed (quite rightly) to be a Christian denomination, then cutting off such close historic ties is immensely uncharitable and has the potential to lead to further splits within PCI itself. Frankly, it looks petty-minded, smacks of an inability to accept difference, and is all the more baffling in light of the fact that the incoming Presbyterian Moderator has chosen the theme “Building Relationships” for his year in office. The Church of Scotland has remained with an outstretched hand in the hope of resuming the friendship, and surely PCI can learn a lesson here in Christian charity.

Same-Sex Relationships

In dealing with the second decision I won’t debate the ethics of homosexuality, homosexual relationships, or gay sex. Let’s grant PCI’s contentions: that gay sex is sinful, that same-sex relationships are sinful, and that God’s ideal is marriage between a man or a woman. Even by PCI’s own lights it is a huge mistake to disbar those in same-sex relationships from full membership. The decision lacks grace, misunderstands the nature of sin, repentance, and forgiveness, it dehumanises gay people, and smacks of elitist self-righteousness and hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy

In a cultural context in which members of the LGBT community have been on the receiving end of horrendous homophobic abuse at the hands of the church it is thoroughly opprobrious to single out homosexual relationships for censure. There are many in the church guilty of serious sins who can nonetheless participate as full members because we are willing to overlook them. Bob regularly loses his temper and continues to make excuses for himself. Jane gossips and continually defends herself as passing on prayer requests. Gary the worship leader is arrogant and boastful and engages in false humility to cover it. Tommy is a bigot whose low opinion of Roman Catholics is only marginally higher than his opinion of homosexuals. Pastors readily abuse their own authority and when challenged get defensive. Sometimes only years later they come to see just how bad their behaviour is. We excuse all these faults in ourselves or others, but fail to extend the same courtesy to homosexual Christians. When it comes to those in gay relationships shouldn’t we trust Christ to shape and mould them to his image over time just as he does with us? Instead, PCI has created an arbitrary hierarchy of sin, wherein the sins of LGBT people are viewed as worse than others. That will always sound self-righteous, hypocritical, and homophobic. This was a great opportunity to positively engage LGBT church members and rejoice that Christ is working within them and extending grace to them as they seek to live faithfully for him (even though we might disagree with them on a single moral issue). Instead the church has – on the back of a rather severe Doctrinal Committee report – adopted a position of hypocritical, haughty disdain.

Grace

Grace is sadly missing from PCI’s decision. We are all works in progress and, crucially, have many things wrong with us that we aren’t even currently aware of.

In my exchanges with others about PCI’s decision I have been told that “genuine Christians” will “repent,” just like Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more.” Stafford Carson – the Principle of PCI’s Union Theological College – rather sniffily opined that the life of a Christian should be marked by obedience to Christ. What this response ignores is that repentance and sanctification are processes, not single events. When people convert they don’t suddenly become aware of all their faults and sins at once. No Christian – not even Professor Stafford Carson – is a work of sinless perfection and perfect obedience. Moreover, surely part of obedience to Christ is humility, and whatever humility means it surely includes an awareness that we might well be wrong about a point of theology or biblical interpretation.

Furthermore, many gay couples don’t agree that their relationships are sinful, so it isn’t as if they are “sinning wilfully,” as one person put it to me. Some more conservative Presbyterians have claimed that the issue is about the authority of Scripture. However, many gay couples agree with the authority of scripture, but they interpret certain passages differently. Christians disagree over many issues – and many of these issues are ones which I think are far more scripturally clear than this one. So, if a person confesses Jesus as Lord, if they are growing in Christian maturity, if they are valuable members of the church who care about the welfare of the other members, why are we denying them full membership? Even the inner circle of Jesus Christ himself included those who were to betray or deny they knew him.

There are many occasions when elders are right to be long-suffering about the public faults and sins of others. Many new converts, for example, can’t reasonably be expected to change overnight, and frankly we need to get rid of the notion that a sinner who converts on Saturday will come to church on Sunday looking and living like a brand new creation from the off. One church I know of was attended by a recently converted couple. They were living – and sleeping – together, had kids, but were not married. The church leaders didn’t discipline them. They were patient. They allowed them room to grow in maturity and understanding, to develop Christian friendships in the church, and then approached them with a question “hey, guys, why don’t you two get married! We’ll even help you pay for it!” And that’s what happened. Pastorally, this church got it 100% right, in my view. Sadly, there are some churches that would have sat them down, laid down the law from day 1, and probably would’ve never seen them again.

Some Presbyterians fear that permitting those in same-sex relationships to take full membership would amount to an endorsement of their lifestyle. However, that simply isn’t the case. Firstly, being in a same-sex relationship does not mean being in a sexual relationship. Even if it did, allowing them to be full members is not to publicly endorse a lifestyle PCI disagrees with any more than it agrees with the sins and faults of any other member or group of people who are entitled to full membership. For example, I am a communicant member of my local congregation and yet I publicly disagree with my church on numerous points of theology and practice. Moreover, I can be arrogant and condescending. This doesn’t disbar me from communion, nor does it mean PCI is affirming my views or behaviour. So, we’re not asking PCI to endorse same sex relationships. We’re asking them to be gracious towards people with which they disagree who are clearly brothers and sisters in Christ.

Dehumanisation

PCI has fallen into a familiar trap that dogs conservative evangelicalism: the inability to view homosexual people as anything other than homosexuals. Bob isn’t primarily viewed as an honest businessman who gives generously to the church and feeds the homeless. He’s viewed primarily as “Bob the homosexual.” No matter how great Bob is he will always be viewed by many Christians as nothing other than “gay;” a second-class Christian, if Christian at all. We have got to get away from this dehumanising practice and begin viewing people holistically. Being gay isn’t the defining characteristic of anyone, and it certainly shouldn’t be seen as a blight that nullifies or casts a shadow over everything else that’s good about a person. This is exactly what PCI is guilty of. They have effectively said “we don’t care what else is good about your life, your confession of Christian faith cannot be credible.”

These decisions demonstrate that PCI has a long way to go to reach out to LGBT people. The decisions were retrograde and unhelpful, and risk alienating not only those outside its walls but the many progressive voices within. Thankfully PCI already has a friend – the Church of Scotland – standing ready and willing to teach what it has learned. Now, how serious are they about “Building Relationships?”

Stephen J. Graham

 

Short Article 11 – Can Christians be Friends with Atheists?

JB Cachila (no, I’ve never heard of him/her either) caused something of a stir with a recent article in Christian Today which asked if Christians should hate atheists or could be friends with atheists.

In Cachila’s words atheists are “one of the most aggressive against the faith.” That said, the answer to the question “should Christians hate atheists is, thankfully, “no.” So far, so good. But can us Christians be friends with atheists? Well, according to Cachila, this depends on what we mean by “friend.” If we mean “one not hostile; opposed to an enemy in war,” then “yes,” we can. However, Cachila adds if by “friend” we mean “a person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, then on course, no. The Bible is very straightforward about this.” Cachila continues, “Friendship requires a sharing of interests…we must not allow them to influence our faith in God,” and then he quotes the Bible warning against being unequally yoked with unbelievers, and then ramming home what appears to be the chief concern: “We must take care not to let them take us away from Christ. We can be a friend to them, desiring God’s best for them, but we must not allow their unbelief to influence our faith in Christ.” For good measure the article finishes with the quote that “evil company corrupts good character.”

I confess that this article struck me a piece of fearful sectarian bile which Christians should immediately reject as contrary to the spirit of Christ. Moreover, the tone of the article, intended or not, is pompous. We might treat atheists as our nice little conversion projects but we aren’t really to treat them as, well, human beings with an inherent dignity and worth. Atheists? Yuck! Nothing but evil company that will corrupt your good character! Cachila is correct about one thing though – friendship is built upon bonds of mutual affection. But why cannot there exist bonds of mutual affection between Christians and atheists (or members of any other non-Christian faith?). As a Christian I find myself quite naturally forming bonds of mutual affection with all sorts of non-Christian people, and one of my best friends growing up was an atheist. We played football together, snooker, went on holiday (to a Christian camp!), and to this day I regard his influence in my life as a massively positive one. In fact, he it was that kick-started my interest in philosophy. If anyone had my back, this guy was it, but neither of us managed to convert the other, and in fact we never tried. We were just friends.

Furthermore, Cachila’s musings strike me a contrary to the spirit of the Jesus I read about in the Bible. This Jesus despised and rejected the religious establishment. He fraternised with “tax-collectors and sinners” and partied with prostitutes (as did his followers). Seemingly, the Christ of the gospels had no qualms about forming bonds of affection with unbelievers. There was simply no arrogant elitism or petty fear-mongering when it came to Christ’s social relationships.

It seems the fear of losing one’s faith lies at the root of Cachila’s aversion to fraternising with atheists. This point is mentioned three times in quick succession in the article. Lots of things can affect our faith, and not always for the worse. I’ve found my interactions with atheists to be an incredibly positive one and remain a Christian after all this time. If I was asked what has been the biggest negative influence on my faith I would answer, without having to think about it, other Christians, particularly those I had the misfortune to become associated with in the “Word of Faith” movement. That said, the greatest ongoing threat to my faith is myself, not atheists or people of other religions! My own reading and thinking – including the works of Christian philosophers – has been the biggest driver of my faith, for good and (according to some, perhaps) for bad. Atheists have often kept me sharp and have been a wonderful check against any unthinking dogmatism on my part. As for the moral charge of being “evil company,” that is ludicrous. I have no reason at all to regard atheists as less moral than Christians. In fact, I have far more frustration with Christians in this regard, and let’s face it our history is often not one to be morally proud of! The vast majority of people live to some degree of success in accordance with the golden rule, and we all mess up from time to time.

The sort of fearful slander against “atheists” as destroyers of the faith or corrupters of character is pure, unadulterated bile. I invite all my Christian readers, if they haven’t already, to come out of their insular bubble and embrace a big wide world of many wonderful people. You’ll be pleasantly surprised at what and who you might find. It’s a much better existence than quaking in your boots behind the cold walls of an inward-looking church.

Stephen J. Graham

Good Friday Licensing Laws & The BBC – A Short Rant

This year the Republic of Ireland will for the first time in 90 years be able to have normal pub/bar services on Good Friday. But Northern Ireland still lags some way behind: bars are not permitted to serve alcohol until 5pm. It causes annual consternation and the issue is debated every single year without fail. On the one hand there are pub owners and restauranteurs who would like the licensing conditions for Good Friday to be relaxed, and on the other side we have a motley crew of fundamentalist ministers and politicians with a serious religious fundamentalism streak.

To me the issue is simple: there should be no tighter licensing restrictions on Good Friday than any other day. Having licensing restrictions as we currently do serves no useful purpose. It doesn’t prevent Christians (I’m a Presbyterian, for those who don’t know) from celebrating Easter as they see fit, and a change would be enormously beneficial to those who run bars, hotels, and restaurants, work in tourism, or just wouldn’t mind a rum and coke with their lunch.

BBC Talkback – presented by William Crawley – had a debate the other day about our archaic licensing rules. Those defending the status quo had nothing new or reasonable to say. Politician Alban Maginness called for a “balance that is respectful of Good Friday [and] can accommodate to some extent the interests of those involved in the alcohol trade.” Respectful of Good Friday? It’s a day of the week! I don’t think it really cares much about it. It has no feelings to be respected. Or, consider Pastor Paul Burns: “I believe we have to have a time of celebration where Christian people are allowed to remember the death of their Lord.” Well, who’s stopping Christians from celebrating Easter as they see fit (again, I’m a Christian too!)? No one is going to force Christians into a pub and force single malts down their throats! The level of debate was hardly top-notch.

But, wait a minute…why on earth was “Pastor Paul Burns” invited by the BBC – our “public services broadcaster” – onto a show to preach to the nation? Pastor Paul Burns runs a tiny church in a small residential area in southeast Belfast. He holds no political office, has no established religious position, heads up no umbrella organisation, and has absolutely no significant community standing. Can someone at the BBC please explain why he was brought on to their show to discuss an issue and speak to the nation? Pastor Paul Burns has made the headlines before, of course, and typically embarrasses himself with silly and irrational outbursts. Consider, as Exhibit A, his stupid remarks about the “pornographic” window of underwear shop Ann Summers: https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/ann-summers-defend-dark-desires-8737694

He’s certainly not the sort of person to contribute to issues of broad public concern. Why does the BBC treat its listeners with contempt by inviting nobodies on the lunatic fringe of society to contribute to issues of public interest? Needless to say I have written to the BBC with my concerns and am currently awaiting their response, which I will post here.

Stephen J. Graham

Here is the BBC Reply:

BBC Complaints – Case number CAS-4860476-FZG2SR
B

bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk

Dear Mr Graham

Complaint – Talkback (CAS-4860476)

I am responding to your complaint about the Talkback programme which discussed licensing laws as they apply to Good Friday. You are unhappy that Pastor Paul Burns appeared on the programme.

Talkback exists as a platform for our listeners to debate the issues of the day. While you describe Pastor Burns as a “nobody”, we do not characterise contributors to the programme in this way. Anyone who calls our programme has the potential to make it on air and anyone we invite on the programme is there to add something to the debate. The coverage Pastor Burns received was proportionate and appropriate within the context of the discussion.

Kind regards,

Adam Smyth

Editor Radio News/Digital News

BBC NI

**********************

They didn’t bother addressing the basic question: WHY was Pastor Paul Burns invited on? Presumably the BBC doesn’t just grab people at random off the street? No justification has been given, though that’s no surprise from an increasingly arrogant organisation who don’t feel the need to justify their editorial decisions to anyone.

**********************

I have emailed a follow up to my original complaint:

“In his response Adam Smyth didn’t actually address the substance of my complaint. He says “Talkback exists as a platform for our listeners to debate the issues of the day. While you describe Pastor Burns as a “nobody”, we do not characterise contributors to the programme in this way. Anyone who calls our programme has the potential to make it on air and anyone we invite on the programme is there to add something to the debate. The coverage Pastor Burns received was proportionate and appropriate within the context of the discussion.” Pastor Paul Burns was NOT just someone phoning in. He was actually invited into the studio as part of panel discussion/debate and I’m wanting to know – in light of his lack of any political/religious/social/community standing – he was given such a position. Presumably the BBC doesn’t just grab anyone off the street? So, why Pastor Paul Burns and not any of 101 other people who actually have some social standing and wider support. Why is Pastor Paul Burns being given such a platform? Why not me? Why not my best friend’s granny? Why not the guy in my cornershop who smells of cannabis? Why not Jim who drives the 11C bus at 8.33AM? You can’t control who phones in – nor should you – but you can control who is invited into the studio. Don’t Talkback listeners deserve a higher calibre of commentator than a random small-time pastor? Stephen”

Stephen J. Graham

My “Supernatural” Dreams

Randal Rauser recently had a poll on twitter asking if people had ever had dreams they considered to be supernatural in origin. I answered “no,” despite previously believing that certain dreams I had in the past were indeed of supernatural origin – messages from God. Without much further comment I wanted to present several examples of past dreams I had. I know that in sharing this some people will think these are amazing and wonder how I ever came to abandon my belief in their supernatural origin, while others will read these examples and perhaps laugh at how stupid I was ever to believe them. Make of them what you will. I will probably write an article in the near future about dreams generally and why I no longer believe they are of supernatural origin.

Dream 1

During the first semester of my first year at university I was struggling to fit in all my revision work for my end of semester exams. I left myself with only 2 days to prepare for a Church History exam, in which I would have to write 4 essays in 3 hours. There would be about 10-12 questions on the exam paper, I needed to answer 4. What topics should I cover in the short space of time I had? I prayed asking for help, and that night I had a dream:

I was approaching a river and at the bank of the river stood a female friend of mine. She was about to be baptized by Saint Patrick but there was a large crowd of people approaching who sought to prevent her baptism and do her harm. For some reason, I don’t know why, I knew that in the dream this friend of mine was a montanist.

When I awoke I decided on 4 topics for revision – Saint Patrick (which I knew would be on the paper anyway because the Presbyterian ministerial students had to answer the question on Saint Patrick that appeared every year) – baptism in the early church – montanism – and persecutions of the early church. When I went to do my exam there was a question on each of these topics.

Dream 2

This was a similar situation, but occurred during the 2nd semester of my 1st year. This time it was Introduction to the New Testament and the paper was made more difficult by the fact that you couldn’t just answer any 4 questions, but rather you had to answer 1 question from each of 4 sections. This meant you couldn’t answer 3 questions on, say, the gospel of Mark. Your knowledge had to be so much broader and this meant you had to revise many more topics to be guaranteed to be able to answer at least one from each section. I prayed to God to let me know if there was anything else I needed to study. I had a dream:

In the dream I was sitting at a table with a single piece of paper. At the top of the paper it said “Authorship of John’s Gospel.” That was it.

I revised the topic of the authorship of John’s gospel, and lo and behold this was the only topic I was able to answer in that section of my exam paper.

Dream 3

This was a different kind of dream. I was pondering whether or not to marry my then girlfriend and was advised to pray about it to get God’s opinion on the matter. I had a dream:

I was entering a large hall, and at the middle of the hall sat a figure whose face was obscured – blank, like the features had been smudged off. I sat in a chair opposite this figure and the chair began to tilt back so that I was staring at the ceiling. On the ceiling I could read words of instruction that were scrolling in front of my eyes like credits at the end of a movie. When I awoke there was only one line of this message I could remember: “You are to marry Zena”

I’ve been married to Zena for 14 years.

Dream 4

I had been attending a Word of Faith church and was becoming increasing uneasy with much of the teaching and practices of that church and its leaders. I prayed that God would give me insight into the heart of that church. The church was at that time called “Living Rivers.” I had a dream.

I was standing at the bank of a mighty rushing river that was flowing down a hillside and into a forest. The waters swept everything along that got in the way. Suddenly, however, the river stopped flowing and dried up. Puzzled by this I began walking upstream to see what was the problem. At the source of the river was a large tap that had been turned off.

Since a Christian friend who also attended that church had made an appearance in this dream I told him about it. His interpretation was that this river was running purely on manpower (symbolized by the tap) – it wasn’t natural/God created. He said he felt the same about the church. All the pretense of spiritual power was just manufactured.

I ended up leaving this church, though not because of this dream.

So there we have it – several dreams I once thought were supernatural in origin. I’m going to resist the temptation at present to comment further on them.

Stephen J. Graham

The Date of Billy Graham’s Death is of no Prophetic Significance

Does the date of Billy Graham’s death have “prophetic significance” for the church? That’s the question raised by Claire Musters in a recent article for Premier Christianity Magazine, (https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Why-the-date-of-Billy-Graham-s-death-could-have-prophetic-significance-for-the-Church). Musters begins with a statement made by Anna Graham Lotz, Billy Graham’s daughter, in which Lotz claims her father’s death is a sign of the end times.

“I believe from heaven’s perspective that my father’s death is as significant as his life, and his life was very significant. I think when he died that was something very strategic from heaven’s point of view. And I know that before the foundations of the world were laid February 21st 2018 was the date that God chose to take my father home. Why? I had a sweet friend who urged me to look that up on the web, so I looked up what was significant about that day and I found out that February 21st 2018 is the day when Jews focus on scripture readings that focuses on the death of Moses.

“Moses was the great liberator – he brought millions of people out of bondage to slavery, got them to the edge of the Promised Land and God took him to heaven. Then God brought Joshua to lead them into the Promised Land to take them home. My father also was a great liberator; he brought millions of people out of bondage to sin and he gets us the edge of heaven, the edge of the Promised Land and then God has called him home.

“Could it be that God is going to bring Joshua to lead us into the Promised Land, to lead us to heaven? And do you know what the New Testament word is for Joshua is? It’s Jesus. I believe this is a shot across the bow from heaven – I believe God is saying wake up Church, wake up world, wake up Anne. Jesus is coming. Jesus is coming. And Jesus said…in Matthew 24:14 when the gospel is preached to the whole world then the end will come.”

One could be forgiven for simply writing this off as gross narcissism on the part of Lotz, as if the entire world revolves around her father – it most assuredly does not. In any event, it illustrates the silliness of these kinds of prophetic pretensions. It’s a form of Christian stargazing, a kind of holy reading of the tea leaves, in which one reads into an event what one wants to find there. There is nothing remotely significant about the date on which Graham died. In fact, had Graham died on any other date we could quite easily read into that some sort of religious significance. Take my birthday – 31st May. There are events that happened on this day that could be given religious significance with nothing other than a little imagination: for example Rome captured the first wall of the city of Jerusalem (70AD), and Adolf Eichmann (the Nazi SS officer who helped organized the extermination Europe’s Jewish population) was executed for his crimes against humanity. Or select any other date, perhaps my friend’s birthday – 20th July. On this date we got the first moon landing in 1969, and the US Viking landed on Mars (1976). I’ll leave it to the imagination of the reader to think how dying on these dates could also be construed as having “prophetic significance.” The world has been around for a very long time and there are billions of events every single day. It really isn’t difficult to play such a game.

This sort of imaginative reading of the signs of the times is all the rage in prophetic circles, and always has been. Predictions that the “end is nigh” have rambled on now for two millennia, in utter disregard to what Jesus himself said on the matter. Yes, that’s right, even God incarnate didn’t seem to know the time and date of his return. What chance then for Lotz and the motley crew of wannabe soothsayers bumbling along in her wake?

In her article, Musters points out that others have made similar prophecies concerning Billy Graham (hardly a surprise given that he’s been one of the most significant figures in US evangelicalism for over half a century). She points out that, in 2011, Maurice Sklar suggested Billy Graham’s death would be prophetically significant, adding – with a classic gloomy prophetic flourish – that there would be financial disasters, wars, terrorism and rioting in America, and “all-out war in the Middle East.” In typical “thus saith the Lord” prophetic style, Sklar (God, it seems, in this case) spaketh thusly: “I am taking Billy Graham home to heaven soon. When you see this, know that my time of grace for the Gentile nations is coming to a close.”

It all sounds very specific, until you think about what he is actually saying. It doesn’t take a professional historian to tell us that the history of humanity has been one of financial disasters, wars, terrorism, and rioting. Such things are routine for our species and predicting them is hardly a sign of divine insight. “All out war in the Middle East?” In 2011 that was hardly an unlikely event! (Did “all out war” happen, anyhow? Not to my mind, but there’s been enough war and unrest to allow the prophetic pretender to claim his proclamations are coming true). Moreover, did it really take a word from the Lord to tell us that Billy Graham was soon going to die? Graham was, after all, 92 years old when that prophecy was given.

It’s always the same old vague prophecies – there are rarely any specific details given, and when that happens the prophetic words turn out to be flat-out false. Witness Harold Camping’s constant specific predictions concerning the date of the end of the world, (or the Jehovah’s Witnesses for that matter also). But that doesn’t stop every wannabe soothsayer from jumping on the prophetic bandwagon. Musters mentions also “controversial preacher Benny Hinn.” A quick look at Hinn’s prophetic track record is telling, including his prophecy that the 1990s would see the collapse of the US economy, the death of Fidel Castro, and the homosexuals of the world destroyed by fire. This is, of course, the same Hinn that engages in multiple fake claims of divine healing, who travels the world gladly taking money from the sick and impoverished on the implied promise of divine healing, and who once preached that each person of the trinity was actually 3 persons, thus turning the trinity into a conglomerate of 9 persons. One might be forgiven for thinking that Hinn’s Hotline to Heaven is experiencing a technical fault. But on this occasion concerning Graham, he keeps it nice and vague, such that his proclamations could be interpreted in many ways and thus could be claimed to fit all manner of subsequent events.

In the final analysis Musters simply writes, “Ultimately, only time will tell whether the finer details of the prophecies are true.” However, there are no finer details. The prophecies are of such a nature that pretty much anything that happens can be squeezed to fit and then subsequently claimed to be a fulfilment. Specific details are the bane of any prophetic ministry, but sadly we rarely ever find them, and things are no different here. There isn’t the slightest scrap of decent evidence that any of these pronouncements should be taken more seriously than 1000s of others that have been made in the course of Christian history. Perhaps wisdom dictates taking a leaf out of Jesus’s book rather than making a silly spectacle of yourself by feigning knowledge that even the Son of God didn’t claim to have.

Stephen J. Graham

For some tricks of the prophetic trade, see my article: https://stephenjgraham.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/ten-prophetic-techniques-to-amaze-your-friends/