Category Archives: Reflections

The Problem of Suffering

Posted on by
Reply

Probably the strongest objection to Christianity is the problem of suffering. It is a question that has emotional weight, and intellectually challenging, and it is difficult to find a response to this objection that can meet both the emotional and intellectual demands.

I guess to provide some context to this. This is not a problem that is unique to Christianity. Every worldview must answer this question – the atheist, the Buddhist, the Hindu all need to provide responses to the problem of suffering. So, to dismiss Christianity because of this issue is not really looking at the full picture, because you would also need to show that an alternative worldview would have a better answer to this problem. And this is indeed a problem.

Hindu’s answer to suffering is karma – that this suffering is brought upon ourselves by something we have done, whether in this life or an earlier one. At first this seems to be a satisfactory solution, there seems to be a sense of poetic justice about it. In many ways, this is how a lot of people wish the world did work. However, when we look at how suffering is inflicted on the righteous, and how evildoers seemingly get away with murder, it becomes hard to accept that this is the way the world really does work. When suffering is looked at up close, this solution becomes less and less tenable.

The Buddhist answer to the problem of suffering is desire – all of our suffering is caused by our desires, and if we can only rid ourselves of desire, then we can rid our lives of suffering. I think this is a more thoughtful solution than that of karma, and so it should, as Buddhism was a worldview conceived in response to Hinduism’s failings in adequately explaining suffering. However, I think it fails on two count. Firstly, there are desires that seem to be inbuilt in us, to eliminate the desire for food or water does not seem to be possible. Secondly, there are some desires that I question whether it would be good to eliminate – the desire to love others, and be loved, for example.

In my opinion, the atheist worldview has the most problems with this question, probably because it has had the least engagement with it. In a recent Unbelievable radio show, Richard Dawkins in a debate recounted a conversation between fellow scientist and atheist Peter Atkins, and Prince Philip. Prince Philip commented to Peter Atkins that “you scientists are awfully good at answering the ‘how’ questions, but what about the ‘why’ questions?” Peter Atkins response was “Sir, the ‘why’ question is just a silly question.” I was dumbfounded, and still am, that anyone could think this is a satisfactory answer. And I am even more surprised that Richard Dawkins thought it was so good that he would bring it up as ammunition in a debate. To me, it seems to be something of a “sticky bomb” that is more likely to blow up in your face than hurt the enemy. Now, I am sure that atheists have better answers to the problem of suffering than this, but on the most part, they seem to consist of denying that there is a problem. Which raises the question of why atheists bring up the issue as a problem for Christianity.

Which brings me to considering the issue of the problem of suffering for Christianity. I think the problem of suffering was brilliantly encapsulated in last year’s A Serious Man by the Coen brothers. This film looked at the life of Larry, a Jewish university professor who finds that his life unravels strand by strand over the course of the movie. A student unhappy with his given grade is attempting to bribe him, his previously secure tenure application is now under threat due to slanderous mail sent to the committee, his wife wants to divorce him to marry one of his colleagues – and wants him to OK the divorce so she can remarry, his neighbour is encroaching on their property line, and his unemployed brother gets in trouble with the police several times, all of which Larry finds himself financially responsible for. When a silver lining appears to arrive when one of the lawyers mentions there is a way  that, because he is an expert in property law, he can solve his property dispute in his favour, the lawyer promptly drops dead of a heart attack in front of him. It seems nothing can go right for Larry. So what does he do? He sees several rabbis about the problem. The rabbi’s answers to his problems, firstly that we should take time to appreciate all the wonderful things that God gives us, and secondly, that some things just can’t be understood, are unsatisfactory for Larry, and he cries out, “If he doesn’t want to give us the answers, then why does he make us feel the questions?” sums up the situation perfectly. Our hearts cry out in the midst of suffering that there must be a reason for it. The movie ends with a tornado bearing down on the midwest town, reminiscent of God coming down to talk with Job in the whirlwind.

And the great thing about the Bible is that the Bible does ask the questions of suffering. All through the Psalms we have people crying out to God about the inexplicableness of suffering. The book of Job is probably the most famous exposition of the theme, and it is pertinent to note that after forty chapters of inadequate explanations by Job’s counsellors, God does not answer Job’s question of why this has happened. But, after God spoke to Job from the whirlwind, Job’s heart was satisfied, and the questions didn’t burn in his heart any longer. Why was this?

God’s answer to suffering was not an explanation, but he showed himself to Job. And, if we think about this, this is the only answer that we really need or can understand. When a child is in pain, they don’t need an explanation of why they are in pain, they need someone to hold them and comfort them. A child needs to know that their parent is there with them, and that is what we need to. When we are in the midst of suffering, we need to know that we are not alone, that God is with us. This is why God spoke with Job. Job needed to know that God had not abandoned him. Once he knew that, the questions of why did not matter any longer.

And this is our answer to suffering. In our lives, we have an assurance from God that he is with us, that he will not abandon us. And for the wider world, we are God’s ambassadors, his representatives, and it is our role to be there when there is suffering, to show those who are suffering that God has not abandoned them, that they are no forgotten by God, but that God does indeed hear their cry, and that he does respond.

Storytelling Animals

Posted on by
Reply

Christianity Today has a great article on how first-person storytelling is the new buzz in the club scene in New York, and its Christian roots.

The simple answer is because we are “storytelling animals,” to use Green’s term. “A hunger for stories is built into our DNA.” Or as Allison put it: “Oral storytelling is so hard wired into the way we make sense of it all and how we find the meaning in our lives.”

More encouragement for us to tell our stories of how Jesus has transformed our lives.

More Movements Not Bigger Movements

Posted on by
1

Last month I participated in a discussion in response to a post on Brian Barela’s blog looking at the role that ministry mode evangelism plays in our movements on campus.

I think that ministry mode evangelism is an important element in our movements on campus but I do not think that we are ever going to fulfill our mission unless we can move beyond ministry mode evangelism into the two other modes (natural mode and body mode).

My concerns rest largely on two points. The first is that while ministry mode evangelism is essential in starting a movement, it is extremely difficult to have true spiritual multiplication in a campus setting without natural and/or body mode evangelism. The second is that unless our students learn natural mode evangelism (through us or others) they will be frustrated in their evangelism efforts beyond campus. I want to focus on the first of these points in this post.

Many of you will also be familiar that once a campus ministry gets to a certain size it becomes extremely difficult to grow beyond that point. In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell talks about the law of 150, where once a group gets larger than 150 it begins to lose effectiveness. He cites many examples such as military unit sizes, Hutterite communities, etc which will divide or split up instead of exceeding this number in a group. The reason given for this is that beyond this number it becomes difficult for a person in the group to know everyone else and their relationship to each other.

Why is this important? Because the gospel travels faster along existing relationships. Evangelism where there are already existing relationships is also more likely to result in disciples. And one of the keys to building momentum in a movement is that momentum being visible. In a group of 150 a dozen disciples will be noticed and can have an impact. In a group of 15,000 much less so.

Bob Hopkins, from Anglican Church Planting Initiatives talks about a strategy they have been running called Clusters, where they aim to form mid-sized missional communities, who reach a group who share a common bond. (You can listen to him talk about it here.) One of the key things about this group is that it is mid-sized – not a small group and not a large group, and the key reason for that is so that everyone can still know each other. He also suggests instead of starting up a group, to find a group that already has a common bond, whether it be geographical (eg people living in the same apartment block) or interests. Those of you who have received CCC training should now have the key words “target area” and “affinity grouping” lighting up in your brain.

In fact, this was one of the key strategies used in the early days of CCC. The very first outreach that Bill and Vonette Bright did was to a sorority group at UCLA. Moreover, this was Paul’s strategy, he would go to different towns and start a church in each town. One of the difficulties we have faced in the last 20 or 30 years on campus has been that the campus has grown so much. In the 1950s the UCLA campus had about 15,000 students. Now it is close to 40,000. Even so, Bill Bright understood that if CCC was going to grow, what was needed was more movements, not bigger movements, and so CCC expanded into universities across the country, and eventually around the world.

The point being that if we are going to reach campuses of thousands of students, we need more movements, not bigger movements. We need to be identifying and locating “target areas” on our campus where we  can start a movement. Ideally, if we can identify target areas that are in the “150″ range then we can minister in these settings and allow the gospel to spread along natural pathways within the group.

Perhaps one way we can overcome the resistance that we find to going past the “150″ size in our movement would be to split the movement on campus. To have separate movements for each faculty or hall of residence.

In all of this, ministry mode evangelism is still important. Each target area needs to begin with intentional missional activity ie ministry mode evangelism. However, once we have a critical mass, the key to starting the movement is natural mode evangelism, where we utilize the existing relationships within the target area for the gospel.

So what do you think? Can more movements on a single campus help us to better reach the campus?

Don’t Worry, Be Human

Posted on by
Reply

At the 2009 World Science Festival Bobby McFerrin participated in a panel discussion on music and the human brain. During this discussion he demonstrated how the audience anticipated the notes of the pentatonic scale without being told and ended with “I can go anywhere in the world and audiences get that.” (watch the video below)

World Science Festival 2009: Bobby McFerrin Demonstrates the Power of the Pentatonic Scale from World Science Festival on Vimeo.

One of the other panelists talked about how he thought our human preference for consonance over dissonance (ie harmony)  seemed to be hardwired or pre-programmed into the human brain. Other animals have no preference for notes to be in harmony, only us.

The idea of universal truths existing in music is not new. The Pythagoreans of ancient Greece thought that music held the secret mysteries of the world, and there is an amazing mathematical structure to musical scales, and the way notes combine.

This got me thinking about the things in our world, and especially in the way that we as humans relate to it, that seem to point to a meaning behind everything. Let me give a few examples:

  • Music – as just discussed is a uniquely human activity, and the truth of music (ie harmony, melody) seems to be something that we have discovered, as opposed to invented.
  • Mathematics – another truth of the universe that humans have discovered. Maths is something that could almost be considered axiomatic. Geometry and number theory are things that we cannot imagine our world without.
  • Logic – another axiom of our universe that humans have discovered. Logic underpins much of our communication and thinking.
  • Beauty – Humans alone seem to be able to appreciate the aesthetic quality of something, whether it be a work of art, or the splendour of our environment.
  • Morality – Humans seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong, good and evil that we use all the time to filter our interaction with the world.
  • Story – Humans are storytelling creatures. We tell stories and record them for posterity, whether orally or in writing.
  • Religion – Humans are innately religious. The oldest archaeological site (over 10,000 years old) has indications of being religious in nature. Every culture around the world has concepts of the afterlife and the supernatural.

To me, these seem to be indicators of the image of God in us, and his mark on his creation. What do you think? Are there others that should be added to the list?

The Evolution Creation battle

Posted on by
Reply

Over the years I have wandered amongst a number of the different views on Creation and Evolution, although now I would probably say that the theological and scientific problems posed by theistic evolution are less than those encountered by the other views. The most disturbing thing for me though, is where the issue is raised to the level where it is considered to be a key article of our faith. Science and the Sacred (The blog of Biologos – the organization started by Francis Collins) has published a link to a survey of seminary professors on their perceived barriers to evolution. By far the largest barrier was the perceived contradiction between a literal reading of Genesis 1-2 and evolution, making up 44% of respondents. However 46% of respondents had no problem accepting evolution.

When paired with a recent survey showing 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher being, it becomes apparent that the drumbeating on both sides of the issue is not representative of a “faith vs science” conflict, given that about half of the people on both sides see no such conflict.

The Gospel and the Chinese mind

Posted on by
Reply

At the beginning of September I got the opportunity to attend Oxford In Asia, which was a three day conference on apologetics run by Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. This was a very stimulating time of discussion, learning and networking. However, probably the most significant outcome for me was the realization of how much of our apologetics misses the Chinese mind. There were sessions critiquing Western philosophy from a Biblical viewpoint, and one session, which was entitled as looking at the Eastern view, however, the only worldview that was engaged was the Indian pantheist worldview. I knew that China had a rich history of philosophy from such schools as Confucianism and Taoism and was surprised and disappointed that these were not touched at all, especially as this was a conference situated in Hong Kong, to train Hong Kong Christians. As a result, I decided that I need to learn about Hong Kong philosophy and thought and maybe I need to do a bit more of the hard work of finding out how the Chinese mind relates to Christian thought. To start off with a bought a book called A Short History of Chinese Philosophy and in the introduction of the book it mentioned how “Chinese philosophers were accustomed to express themselves in the form of aphorisms, apothegms, or allusions and illustrations.” My mind straight away turned to the Hebrew wisdom literature such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and even Jesus’ teaching is more similar to this sort of teaching that the propositional arguments found in the classical Greek philosophy, which has formed the basis of much of the western approach to philosophy. In the process of reading I have also learned some of the reasons for the attitudes that my colleagues in Hong Kong have, that had previously been a mystery to me. This is going to be an area where I am going to have to continue to learn so that I can better communicate the gospel and disciple Hong Kong students.

Screwtape Letters

Posted on by
Reply

banner728x90
Focus on the Family Productions is releasing a radio theatre version C. S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters I have an audio cassette version of The Screwtape Letters read by John Cleese and found them very entertaining to listen to in the car. Obviously, the first question that pops into your mind when a radio production of such a monologuish sort is attempted is ‘Who is going to play Screwtape?’ and the answer, which I found encouraging, is none other than Gollum himself – Andy Serkis.

This production however is taking the script a little more liberally by introducing some extra scenes between Screwtape and Wormwood and giving speaking parts to ‘the patient’ (John) and his love interest (Dorothy). I don’t think anyone need worry that the piece is being sanitized for secular audiences, though. After all, this is a Focus on the Family Productions piece and, let’s face it, if you want to remove the references to hell and devils you’re not going to have any story at all here.

Check out the website, (where they’added some nice touches of humour to the buttons, etc) where there are some introductory and teaser videos as well as a hilarious twitter dialogue Screwtape is available for order now and includes all 31 letters (The John Cleese version only had 27) as well as 10 songs inspired by Screwtape and a bonus DVD with behind the scenes videos.

Should be fun!

Creation – Charles Darwin Biopic

Posted on by
Reply

On September 25 the Charles Darwin boipic will open in UK theatres (it’s expected in NZ on April 1, 2010; no date yet for HK). By all accounts this is a well-made and well-balanced account of his life and discoveries. The following is an article from Nick Pollard of The Damaris Trust on evolution and it’s relation to atheism to accompany the release of the movie.

Nick Pollard says: If atheists think Darwin killed God they are not thinking widely enough.
“You’ve killed God, sir,” says Huxley to Charles Darwin in the forthcoming film Creation (UK release date 25th Sept). “Darwin has delivered a fatal blow to religion,” says Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society in a Daily Telegraph article related to the film.
They are quite wrong. Those who think that Darwin’s theory can be used to establish the non-existence of God are missing the point. Well, at least three points out of four, actually.
We are conscious human beings, living in a world full of life, within a universe of matter and energy. If someone wishes to argue that there is no God then they have to answer at least four questions about our existence (only one of which is tackled by Darwin’s theory). What is the origin of the universe? What is the origin of life? What is the origin of biological diversity? What is the origin of consciousness?
Put in this wider context we see how Darwin’s theory only tackles the third of this big series of important questions. Whether or not Darwin’s theory is a true explanation of how biological diversity might have evolved from a common ancestor, all this could tell us is something about the process by which the variety of life developed. It cannot, in itself, tell us anything about the existence or non-existence of God.
So let me lay down a challenge to such atheists and ask them to stop making unfounded assertions about God’s existence just from one particular view of one quarter of the big questions, and to consider the bigger picture, including the other three questions.
First, the origin of the universe. When we look at the universe around us we have to ask ourselves, “Why is it here at all?” Why does anything exist rather than nothing? Even if we had an established theory of the possible processes by which parts of this universe may have formed – such as stars, sandstone and even species – that doesn’t tell us why those processes happened. Even if we can establish how the laws of nature could lead to such developments within the universe, that doesn’t tell us why those laws exist. Why not another set of physical laws? Why any physical laws at all? Why does anything exist rather than nothing existing?
Second, the origin of life. When we look at the various forms of living beings that exist in this world we have to ask ourselves, “How did life begin?” Even if we had an established theory of the possible processes by which complex life may have evolved from simple life through the natural selection of mutations in reproductions, that doesn’t tell us how reproductive processes began in the first place. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection can only work on a self-replicating system where variations in the product of the replication might be more or less fitted for survival. But how did the first self-replicating, naturally selectable organism arise? How did we get from non-replicating matter to self-replicating, naturally selectable life?
Third, the origin of consciousness. When we look at the people who live around us (and, indeed, at ourselves) we have to ask, “Where does consciousness, and all that flows from it, come from?” Even if we had an established theory of the possible processes by which the complexities of the human body may have developed, that doesn’t tell us why we have a conscious awareness, why we have such a strong sense of morality, or why we have the capacity to reason. It is interesting that Darwin himself, in the last decade of his life, began to doubt the reliability of the human brain. If, according to his theory, the brain has evolved because of survival rather than for truth, would it have the capacity to address metaphysical questions with any level of reliability? Why should we trust anything it says about the big questions of morality and meaning? And (here is a real problem for anyone who wants to argue for atheism) what is our basis for trusting the brain’s capacity for any high level reasoning at all – such as the level of reasoning required to consider the existence or non-existence of God? Perhaps, for the atheist, this question is logically unanswerable?
Nick Pollard, co-founder of The Damaris Trust. For more resources related to the film Creation (UK release date September 25th) see www.damaris.org/creationmovie

Our World Is Changing

Posted on by
Reply

First saw this video in Singapore in October. At that time it was for in-house viewing only. seems it has gone public since then.

It talks about the respective birth rates of the European and American world versus that of the Muslim immigrants and the implications for the future of those populations.

One comment a friend of mine made was that now is the time we need to be sharing the gospel with these Muslim immigrants. He is right – it is impossible to get a missionary visa to many Muslim countries, but it is a simple matter to get such a visa to a European country and witness to those people there. Or even simpler to reach out to the Muslim immigrants around us (and that opportunity is available to us now more than it ever was before.)

So, what should we be doing?

Hat-tip Keith Davy

[Update: Snopes has a rebuttal of the claims in this video]