“Blessed wonder and surprising delight…”

Maybe it’s just me, but I assume that there is a time in all our lives when the thought strikes us that we are nearer our death than our birth. Of course none of us can ever know when we reach this point, because that would require knowing when we were going to die. Fortunately, for most of us this is unknown, if not necessarily unknowable. Perhaps such thoughts only come when one reaches a certain stage in life when statistically, the law of averages being what it is, we think we are at, or are beyond that point. This was brought home to me recently when I received a couple of projections from my pension company (there’s a big clue!). Their actuaries had calculated that I (probably) had about twenty years of life left. But then what?

Here we have a problem. It is at this point that the evil twins of materialism and naturalism demand  a high price. Materialism is a creed and therefore it is something to be believed. It is not something that is necessarily true. It proclaims that the universe only consists of stuff that can be seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled. Only matter exists and there is nothing else, nothing beneath and nothing above. Naturalism is the related belief that everything that is arises from natural causes, and therefore only natural explanations, that rule out a priori supernatural causes, are acceptable. Again, this is a belief. Many would hold that these two are the ruling beliefs of the age. And the problem is that even those of us who reject both of them are influenced by them.

Previous generations would have thought nothing of my "then what" question. Most would simply have spoken of heaven to come. Today we are patronizingly apt to claim that this was because they knew so much less than us, although they believed so much more. Now we know so much more, and consequently believe so much less. How easily their answer to “then what” is dismissed as just a form of superstitious wishful thinking. But this falls into two traps. The first is the chronological snobbery that C.S. Lewis defined as the “uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited”. The modern (or the postmodern, or post-postmodern) is inevitably right, the past is inevitably mistaken. Secondly, it leaves us ensnared in the trap of believing that somehow we no longer  believe. Certainly there are things that we no longer believe. But that is different. Materialism and naturalism are creeds that are believed. It’s not that we don’t believe, rather that we believe something different. We have ruled out all talk of heaven to come, not so much as unbelievable but as irrelevant.

But Christian believers, those who take seriously God’s self-revelation of His purposes in His Word, need to be a lot less coy about what we believe. It’s not that we believe and the naturalist and materialist don’t. We believe something different and need to be less shy about saying so. And perhaps there is no more important issue than our final destination and state. If it’s not up to much, we should be clear about it. If it is only just a little bit better than the alternatives, then that would be worth knowing. An informed choice can then be made about whether it can really supply the hope and comfort actually needed to offset the trouble we’re likely to face for being believers in it in the first place. But if it were to turn out that it is a prospect that is glorious and joyful (not words we’ve heard much in recent days), indeed if it were revealed to be full of “blessed wonder and surprising delight” then this is surely worth knowing too. A clear vision of such a state would surely be an important resource helping us in the here and now, as well as healing us in there and then.

In his book “Rejoice and Tremble”, Michael Reeves highlights some of the writing about heaven from the past, including some from Isaac Watts. Watts is perhaps best known today as a hymn writer; he wrote “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” and the Christmas carol “Joy to the World”. But he was also a non-conformist pastor, tutor, philosopher and logician, and wrote what became a standard textbook on logic (titled “Logic”!), published in 1724 and running to some twenty editions. It was widely used in universities such as Oxford and Yale, well into the nineteenth century. So he is not easily dismissed as an obscurantist medieval mystic. Indeed he was well aware of, and had respect for science. But he knew it had limits:

“What are the heights, and depths, and lengths, of human science, with all the boasted acquisitions of the brightest genius of mankind! Learning and science can measure the globe, can sound the depths of the sea, can compass the heavens, can mete out the distances of the sun and moon, and mark out the path of every twinkling star for many ages past, or ages to come; but they cannot acquaint us with the way of salvation from this long, this endless distress.”

So it is interesting to read what Watts wrote about heaven. He certainly wrote about it in terms rarely encountered today:

“In heaven the blessed inhabitants ‘behold the majesty and greatness of God’ in such a light as fixes their thoughts in glorious wonder and the humblest adoration, and exalts them to the highest pleasure and praise.” (“The World to Come”, Vol I, 1811, p389)

“When … the soul, as it were, beholds God in these heights of transcendent majesty, it is overwhelmed with blessed wonder and surprising delight, even while it adores in most profound lowliness and self-abasement.” (p390)

So there you have it. According to Watts, I can look forward to being “overwhelmed with blessed wonder and surprising delight”. Clearly he could be just plain wrong. But what he wasn’t was stupid, and therefore should not be lightly dismissed. As an answer to “what then”, it’ll do me.

Faith in fantasy…..

I rather like Matthew Parris, one of the columnists for The Times. He’s a thoughtful fellow, who has the good sense to share some of my prejudices (or is it the other way around?). We don’t agree about everything, but his analysis is often thought provoking, and that’s useful. Usually he comments on the political issues of the day and other ephemera. But on Saturday (behind a paywall), on the first day of a new year, and because it was the first day of a new year, he asked for forgiveness “for discussing those deeps rather than the surface storms”; he was referring to those deep, great underlying currents which “shape history”. The basic conundrum he decided to tackle was why nice people can champion wrong causes, and wrong’uns can sometimes do the right thing. This he finds perplexing. But what he really had a problem with was notions of good and evil.

His problems are, in part, due to a number of assumptions he makes. Among these is the notion that good and evil have no independent existence; the words “good” and “evil” are only adjectives and should not be used as nouns. This springs from the related notion that there is nothing outside of ourselves, by which he means explicitly (this is how he ends his column): “no demons, no Heaven, no Hell, no cosmic forces of good and evil, no battle between darkness and light”. As he claims in his final sentence “There is only us”. Along the way to this assertion however, he writes approvingly of Augustine. Now, you would find it difficult to find someone in history who would more violently disagree with his concluding statement. Augustine was only too aware of, and conceptualized, all the things that Parris claims don’t exist. He was utterly convinced that there is not only us. What Parris specifically approves of in his column is the thrust of Augustine’s statement in his “Confessions” that “I still thought that it is not we who sin, but some alien nature that sins within us” (Confession10:5). In other words there was a time when Augustine thought that he wasn’t the problem, but some power acting on him. Parris’ central claim is in agreement with this; there is no such force, no such power. Such an idea is a fantasy mainly got up by the Christians (and Muslims for good measure). There is just us, and the things we do. The real question, which he claims others persistently dodge, is why then we act as we do.

I am always intrigued when atheists, even cultured and intelligent ones, take up with approval what Christians teach. Of course, Parris can’t possibly approve of everything Augustine taught, and that’s why he misses some of the answers that are to be found in Augustine’s writing. Augustine knew he was not as he should be or as he could be. In the Confessions he recounts what happened to him as he was struggling with this, specifically with his “impure life”. Part of his struggle was that he was not able to do anything to deliver himself from the distressing condition he found himself in, any more than a drowning man can rescue himself. But he recounts how he heard a child’s voice chanting “take up and read”, which he took to be “a Divine command” to read the Bible. He immediately went off and found Paul’s letter to the Romans (which as it happens he had been reading) and read from Romans Ch13 “..put on the Lord Jesus Christ…”. The effect was stunning:  “…it was as if a light of relief from all anxiety flooded into my heart. All the shadows of doubt were dispelled.” (Confessions 8:12). What he is recounting is one of the most famous conversions to Christianity in all of history and literature. Augustine would go on to be one of the most important Christian theologians.   

What Augustine found in Scripture was an account of how we are all marked by a bias against how the God who made us and sustains us would have us think and behave. Our wills are warped; we’ve become “wrong”. But there’s nothing we can do about this for ourselves. We need the intervention of God’s grace to bring about our rescue and that’s what Augustine experienced for himself in a Milan garden. There had been an internal battle going on, and it was resolved when Augustine accepted the grace that he was offered in Christ. But there is also an external battle going on in that there is an adversary who’s whole project is to trip us up and keep us away from the grace that would rescue us. This mixture of our nature, and both internal and external battles helps explain much of our behaviour, in both its good and bad aspects. All of this, Parris asserts, is fantasy. But his is an assertion not an argument. And the problem is that it leaves him perplexed. Denial of God, Heaven, Hell, good and evil is all well and good. But it has all the hallmarks of an unproductive approach. There is something to be explained, and this approach does nothing to explain it. What Augustine found in the pages of the Bible was a powerful explanation. Now this, in itself, doesn’t make it true. But what he then came to experience was God speaking to him personally through His word the Bible. To quote Paul in Romans again “..faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17). This is not at all about dead propositions on a page, dry and dusty arguments providing a proof in words for a particular view of good and evil. This is a combination of an objective explanation (something outside of us) and the subjective experience (something inside of us) of God speaking to us for Himself.

So if you wanted a project for 2022, one that will leave you less perplexed at the end than at the beginning (and certainly less perplexed than dear Matthew Parris) - “take up and read”. Bibles aren’t hard to find. You can get recent translations (like the NIV and ESV) free, online. And you can easily pick up analogue Bibles (probably for free) in a church nearby, or in all good bookstores (probably for cash). Or you could place your faith in Parris’ fantasy that there is only us.

Christmas Reflections 2021 #2 Not just a baby…..

The world still spins on its axis and there are no obvious signs of it ending any time soon. Neither of these observations means that it won’t end any time soon. Mind you, given current conditions, the continuation of the world in its present state is not unalloyed good news. The virus continues to spread and kill, the planet warms, racism continues to exclude and oppress, poverty for many continues to grind, political tensions rise. None of this is good, even if the main impulse at this time of year is to direct our gaze away from these realities and coo contentedly as we imagine a well-fed infant, sleeping soundly albeit in a feeding trough wrapped in cloths (not clothes). But this infant will shortly become a refugee in another country to escape violence. He will grow up probably having the circumstances of His birth questioned (“his mother was unmarried when He was conceived, y’know”), and to be discriminated against because of the end of the country He apparently hailed from. And then a lot of other things will happen. There is a hard edge to the Biblical narrative that we think of as the first Christmas, and it gets harder as the story progresses. It is the history of a life very definitely lived in a world eerily familiar to us.

In reality, ours is a world of predicaments. Some are petty and trivial, and barely deserve the description. Some are excruciating and perplexing and admit to no obvious solution. Whether to wear or not wear a mask at an indoor gathering really should not be on the list. The fact that it is in many parts of the rich and educated world is one small sign of how ridiculous things are becoming. There are many reasons why some insist they will not wear a mask. Apparently for some it is a matter of demonstrating that they have an inalienable right to choose, and to demonstrate that they are possessors of such a right they choose to act nonsensically. It would be no denial of their right to choose to wear a mask, but apparently freedom is only demonstrated by wrong choices. Of course they feel free to choose because they don’t understand their predicament. The problem is dangerous, but it is invisible. The virus can’t be seen, smelt or touched. It is only revealed by one or more of a constellation of symptoms, and (in an admittedly small minority) an inability to breathe effectively even in an intensive care unit. As most of us don’t work in intensive care units, we don’t see the daily life and death struggle to breathe in such places. Numbers, rates, probabilities, statistics, just don’t communicate effectively enough the predicament. Not feeling in peril means things like mask wearing and vaccination come to feel like impositions rather than means of rescue. And this partly explains why what happened at Bethlehem is so easily misconstrued.

If you don’t feel the seriousness of a situation, you are unlikely to feel any particular necessity for rescue. If I tell you the baby born in Bethlehem was actually not just any old baby (not that there are such things) but one stage in a cosmic rescue mission, it’s unlikely to strike you as particularly relevant to you. So it is easy to accept the line that Christmas is a quaint cultural festival; a probable kernel of historical truth wrapped in multiple layers of myth, but nothing more. After all, a relevant rescue mission would suggest some level of peril, and you don’t feel in any way imperilled. And certainly not in a manner whereby a baby could possibly be of much help. But what if, as with the virus, you couldn’t see, hear, touch or even normally feel the threat that you face? Attempting persuasion with propositions probably just won’t cut it. Nevertheless, here goes.

The thing about the baby born in Bethlehem, in this world although admittedly some time ago, is that it provides a point of contact between two narratives. One is the narrative of the Living God, as He reveals it in the Bible; the other is a competing narrative that there is no such being and the Bible is a story book for children and the inadequate. But let’s stick with God’s narrative for the moment. Our world is spoiled and is not as it should be. This spoiling involves all of us as we are spoiled too (from His point of view). As He’s God, and we’re not, this rather matters. Because the problem – let’s call is S for short – is so fundamental, and because S is an outrage and an affront to God, the only real answer is to bring the current state of affairs to an end, and recreate things as they should be. Because He's God He can do this. But then what of you and me? That would mean an end of us (remember we’re part of the problem). But at some point, still in our future, that’s what is going to happen. And so that’s the predicament we face. Now we could rail against the injustice of it all, but that wouldn't solve the predicament. We could just ignore it and wish it away, it does all sound a bit remote and ridiculous. But if there were anything that could deliver us from our predicament, ignoring it wouldn't make sense.

For reasons fundamentally only known to Himself, and only partly revealed to us (but to do with His character as opposed to any external necessity), God has provided a means by which we can be rescued from this predicament. By fixing S in individuals, the process of being made fit for the world that will follow can be inaugurated. The baby born in Bethlehem is part of the mission that makes this possible. And this is where the two narratives collide. Because there really is a Bethlehem, and there really was a baby. To deal with S, there is a price, a cost that has to be paid. Being affected by S incurs an obligation that must be met before there can be any question of being part of the world that is to come. But self-help is not an option. After all, by nature we are all so caught up in the counter-narrative that there isn’t even a problem. Other than what is revealed in the Bible, God’s narrative, we would be unaware of our predicament, and therefore blissfully ignorant of our obligation. But the baby born in Bethlehem, grows to adulthood and takes that obligation on Himself as a substitute, and offers individuals freedom from the obligation, thereby fixing S. 

Thus, only to see a baby is to miss the bigger picture, to miss (and to miss out on) the rescue mission. Rescue offered to all, because all are in a predicament and facing disaster because of S. To substitute appropriate Bible words for S, Jesus becomes a Saviour to deal with Sin. More than a baby, a rescuer. All fine and good. Except you probably neither see it, or feel it. Even though the pandemic should have taught us all about our vulnerability, and the fragility of life as it is for all of us. All this talk of sin and rescue sounds much less compelling than sticking with stories of perpetual babies. Except that in due course Christmas will be followed by Easter. And that’s a whole different story.

Christmas Reflections 2021 #1 Grimness again……

Reflecting on last year’s reflections seemed like a good place to start this year. One of them centred on the grimness of the original events which eventually led to us celebrating Christmas (along with the advertising of the men from Coca Cola). You can obviously read that particular post again should you be so inclined. Here we are, our second Christmas in the pandemic, and things have taken a potentially ugly turn with the advent of the Omicron variant of COVID19. At least last year we had the effects of the vaccine campaign to look forward to. Then along came Delta, and now Omicron, complete with partial vaccine escape. Who knows how bad it will turn out to be? Apparently, at this stage, no-one. But once again we are facing restrictions - the Netherlands has just gone into “lockdown” again, with other European states perhaps about to follow. Some people are wondering what to do for the best in terms of how to celebrate Christmas with family and whether they can travel any distance or not. Meanwhile, protests are growing over restrictions (in Government and on the streets), and the antivaxxers are still making their voices heard. All of this is before we get to political instability and problems with integrity at the heart of UK politics, and stuff that really matters like Russian forces massing on the Ukrainian border and the growing climate crisis. In the face of all this, it is tempting to put one’s fingers in one’s ears and hum a happy tune before hunkering down with a stack of Christmas DVD’s, pigging out on mince pies and hoping that it will all turn out alright somehow. That would be naïve, and probably self-defeating. Eventually all the DVD’s would be watched, and a diet consisting of only mince pies is almost as unhealthy as a dose of COVID in a twenty-year-old. But funnily enough there is some Biblical warrant for an approach that, at least superficially, seems a bit like this (without the calorie count).

If you’ve been to many carol concerts, nativity plays or watchnight services, you will inevitably have encountered readings from Isaiah’s prophecy. Isaiah seemed to know an awful lot about both Jesus’ birth specifically, and His life and character more generally. This leads some to deny that the book of Isaiah could possibly been written when apparently it was written – hundreds of years before the events themselves. Of course if the Living God revealed things to Isaiah, things in his future which he may very well not have understood himself, that has big implications for how we understand the Bible and the events thus foretold. But puting that to one side, Isaiah Ch 11 vs 1-9 has been on my mind of late. Here, in what were probably grim circumstances, Isaiah invited his original audience to look up and look forward. While the bulk of Isaiah’s message was that things were going to get grimmer still for his nation of Judah, in 11:1 he writes about new life that will spring from what will look like a dead, inert tree stump.

It becomes clear in v2-5 that Isaiah is not referring to an event, nor to an institution, but to a person who is to come. He tells us that “the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him” (11:2). Aspects of this person’s inward character are described: He will have wisdom, understanding , counsel, might and knowledge; all qualities singularly lacking from leaders in Isaiah’s day. And He will be marked by the “fear of the Lord”, a phrase that is repeated for emphasis. What was an aspiration for others, would be a daily reality for Him. Who could this possibly be? After Jesus was baptized in the Jordan by John, Matthew records the Spirit descending and “coming to rest on Him” (Matt 3:16). Shortly after this, as Jesus began his public ministry, He attended a synagogue on the Sabbath and read from Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me…”. And then He said “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). Jesus was observed to be, and claimed to be, the one who was promised in Isaiah 11:1 – the one on whom the Spirit of the Lord rested. He is the one who fulfilled the promise of Is 11 along with those other staples of carol services like Isaiah 7:14 “..the virgin shall conceive..” and 9:6ff “..for unto us a child is born..”. But then Isaiah goes a bit weird.

In 11:6-9 the scene shifts. A different world is portrayed, different from the time when Jesus lived, and different to our world. Wolves dwelling with lambs, and leopards lying down with goats! Whether the wolves and lambs, leopards and goats of v6 are metaphorical or literal hardly matters. In either case, where previously one was predator and the other prey, in this new world things are different. Lions will apparently be no longer interested in eating fattened calves. Indeed, at a basic, even biological level, things will be transformed: lions will eat straw (v7). And a particular enmity that has been present from near the beginning of humanity’s existence will be absent from this future world. In v8, the ancient hostility between snakes and even young children (we might call them “offspring”) will in that day no longer exist. Older children, who you would expect to have learned a thing or two, won’t develop a healthy fear of poisonous snakes, nor will they be at risk from them (v9). In this imagery, there are quite deliberate echoes Genesis 3:15 but with a twist. Gen 3 is the account of the fall of man, and the entry of sin into a perfect created order. As a result a snake is cursed because of its role, and one element of this is enmity between the snake and the “offspring of the woman”. But in Is 11:8 a world is described in which that enmity has been removed. But how to get from where we are to this new world?

If you’ve ever gone walking in the English Lakes, or the mountains of Wales, or in the Scottish Highlands, you’ll have had the experience of looking at distant peaks. It is often difficult to get a sense of the distance between them, and you can see nothing of valleys between them. Here, Isaiah has the same problem as he looks down the corridors of time and sees two peaks. We know that the first part of this chapter (the first peak) refers to Jesus – because Jesus Himself tells us. That was in Isaiah’s future, but is obviously in our past. The first advent was a promise made, and we know it as a promised kept. Jesus was born, lived as the one portrayed in Isaiah 11 vs 2-5, and died as the suffering servant Isaiah also tells us about in Ch53 – “pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities” (53v5). But there is a second peak, far off in the distance from Isaiah’s perspective. This is a renewed world, a world without sin and the enmity it produces, full of the knowledge of the Lord (Is 11:9). This is a world yet to come, lying in our future. Our response to Jesus and His first advent determines whether we will gain entry into that perfect world that is yet to come. Christ came before, exactly as promised. He will come again (as promised) to “judge the world in righteousness” (Acts 17:31), transforming everything. The fulfilling of the first promise provides a rational basis for trusting the second.

When things are grim, the return of the celebration of Jesus’ first advent reminds us to look up and anticipate His second, and the world that it will inaugurate. Much better than DVD’s and mince pies.

Numbers game: Christianity in retreat…?

The end of December is an interesting time of year for all sorts of reasons, some more logical than others. It marks (although somewhat arbitrarily) the end of the year and so tends to be a time for reflection on the year gone by. Currently the memory-fest that is the BBC’s “Sports Personality of the Year” show is on the TV. And of course it is Christmas time, even although the Christmas movie channels went live in mid-October. But I shall try and suppress any further bah-humbuggery. One phenomenon that appears at this time of year is of course an upsurge in religious, specifically Christian, activity and imagery. And this apparently against a backdrop of a claimed precipitous decline in Christianity in the UK and the US – at least according to some headlines.

New figures from the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) prompted the Religious Affairs correspondent of The Times to headline an article “Losing our religion:Christians poised to become a minority”. Similar stories appeared in various US news outlets similarly prompted by a Pew Research Centre report. In the UK the 2011 census “found that 59.3 % of the English and Welsh population were Christian”, but in updated 2019 figures on a much smaller sample this had fallen to 51% - hence the story. In the Pew data there had been a 12% drop in those self-identifying as Christians between 2011 and 2021. Mind you that drop was from 75% to 63%. Do these numbers mean anything? Well, no and yes.

The notion that as I walk around south Liverpool every second person I encounter is a Christian is laughable. I don’t mean in any way that I live among particularly evil, nasty or even generally unlikable people. By and large Scousers are a friendly and helpful bunch up close and personal. But, friendliness, helpfulness and general likability are not the key criteria that determine whether one is or is not a Christian (although one hopes they are observable characteristics in Christians). This of course simply raises the criterion question, one that always dogs self-report surveys. And here there is a really big problem. In a YouGov survey conducted in 2020 in a large UK sample (N=2169), only 27% said they believed in “a god”, and 41% neither believed in “a god” nor in a “higher power”. Only 20% believed that Jesus was “the son of God". In fact, in that particular survey, 55% did not regard themselves as belonging to any particular religion. Cleary somewhat at odds with the ONS numbers.

The problem here is of course we have to distinguish between the meaning of the word “Christian” in the Biblical sense, and the other senses in which the word is used, such as the ethnic or cultural senses. For what it’s  worth, my view is that it’s the Biblical sense that matters, because rather a lot hangs on it (big stuff like one’s eternal destiny). We have the first recorded use of the word in the New Testament. at Antioch in the first century AD (Acts 11:26). It was probably initially used as an insult; a label given to followers of the “the Way”, disciples of Jesus Christ. And probably few in their “right mind” would want to be thus  labelled. The people to whom the it was originally applied share a number of characteristics with those to whom it appropriately applies today. They made certain claims on their own behalf, and behaved (or aspired to behave) in certain ways. Their central claim (and for that matter my central claim) was (and is) that they (and I) knew (know) Jesus. That should be understood to be different to the claim to know about Jesus. Anyone can (and everyone should) read the Bible, which goes into considerable detail about Jesus, detailing His birth (hence Christmas), His death and resurrection, and His ascension. Knowing about Him is not difficult. But knowing Him is a personal, subjective experience to which individual Christians give witness. And I really do mean know Him in the same way as I know others – whether my wife, children, other relatives or friends.

It is this personal relational aspect that many of those self-identifying as Christians in surveys are probably a bit hazy about. This "knowing" is a two-way phenomenon, and He will only be known on certain grounds. To deny that God is, and to deny that Jesus is God is tantamount to denying that you know Him. It denies who He is, denies His own claims about Himself and completely undermines His central purpose in being born, living and dying the way He did. In His own day, Jesus had various interactions with religious people who by definition were not Christians. These people certainly knew about Him, and many of them in a much more direct way than is possible today. They knew other members of His human family, they knew the town He came from, and other people who grew up with Him, and they heard for themselves from His own lips what He had to say. But even although they stood in front of Him, and conversed with Him, it turned out they didn’t know Him (see John 8:19). And He clearly warned that He would say of many who would claim to know Him, and even do things in His name, that He never knew them (Matt 7:21-23).

Now with all due respect to many who would self-identify in a survey as being a Christian, they are not (and would not claim to be) Christ followers in this sense of knowing Him. They are claiming a far looser association with Jesus, or perhaps no association with Him directly at all. The only link is perhaps with some (human) institution or an even looser association by virtue of an immersion in a culture that is broadly still Christian-like. And if fewer respondents think this is a sensible basis on which to tick the “Christian” box now than previously, this tells us precisely nothing about the state of Christianity properly defined. But that doesn’t mean that it tells us nothing.

As Tom Holland goes to great lengths to show in “Dominion” (not exactly reviewed here), the cultural effects of Christianity are pervasive in the West even still, although probably in decline. Many of course will not lament such a decline. But some, including some atheists, are beginning to murmur that this could throw up lots of thoroughly unwelcome outcomes for society as a whole. Meanwhile, don’t worry too much on behalf of us Christians. We won’t be going anywhere for a bit yet (probably).

Missed metaphor......

Here was me thinking I would just do a quick search on the subject of metaphor and its uses (mainly because I heard Noel Gallagher talking about metaphor in song writing on the radio this morning). I know we all enjoy a good metaphor. I know we all often employ metaphors, including the famous  “sick as a parrot” overused by football reporters. How little I knew. Metaphors, and the discussion of them, are a seething ocean…. See what I mean?

The ubiquity of metaphors in language leads neatly to the notion that metaphor is somehow basic to how we think. Indeed, in what is considered by some to be a classic, paradigm-shaping book published in 1980, “Metaphors we live by”, Lakoff and Johnson claimed exactly that. Metaphors are not just features of language, ways we seek to communicate with each other. They are rooted in basic biology and baked into the way we think, allowing us make sense of the world around us. Indeed, there is empirical evidence that they might do more than this. Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2011) showed that by exposing participants to particular metaphors, it was possible to influence how they thought about particular scenarios. So, comparing a “crime wave” to either a “wild animal preying on” or “a virus infecting” a community, altered their views about how to deal with crime. It’s a short step from this to the idea of using metaphors as “dog whistles” in political discourse (another metaphor). Usually this a charge made against political opponents. But the politicians have worked out that using metaphors in this particular way provides the kind of plausible deniability that they can deploy against their opponents while stirring up (there I go again) their political base. It turns out that this is all hotly contested stuff.

But back to the business of sensible communication. In part, metaphors are useful because they can helpfully illuminate (like good prose), while having a degree of flexibility (they lack the precision of propositions). They can also be used to encapsulate something complex in relatively few words (usually by alluding to an image) and are therefore an economical means of communication. And they can help us grapple with things that are so complex that we cannot understand everything about them, while highlighting what we can understand. And they necessarily engage the imagination in a way other types of language often do not. When you get to thinking about it, Christians (or perhaps even religious-minded people in general) should be at home with them.

The Bible is replete with metaphors, and the reason for at least some of them isn’t too hard to fathom. If the Bible is the primary means of revelation by which a transcendent God, who is a completely different form of being from you and me, makes Himself known to us, then it is hardly a surprise that metaphor is to the fore (as it were). In fact most of our language about God must be metaphorical. Some metaphors are in the form of straightforward anthropomorphisms – Scripture speaks of God’s hands and eyes even although as a being who is spirit He does not literally possess hands and eyes. Others find their meaning within Scripture itself.

In the Old Testament history of Israel, we find the basis of many significant New Testament metaphors. For example, in order to be safe from the punishment that was to fall on Egypt as the climax to a series of plagues, the enslaved Israelites had to take a lamb and sacrifice it. The blood of this lamb, when applied to the doorways of their houses would protect them from what was to happen. This deliverance formed the basis of the Passover feast which was to serve as a reminder of, and pointer to, this great event in their deliverance.

When Jesus appears near the Jordan thousands of years later, John points at Him and calls Him the Lamb of God (John 1:29). In a sense that’s all he has to say. A whole host of images and associations immediately come flooding to those familiar with such language. But they are not looking a young sheep of course. As they look to where John is pointing they find themselves looking at a man. The power of metaphor. And even although this is early in Jesus’ public ministry, there is perhaps an even earlier allusion that employs this same metaphor. It is one that I had entirely missed.

It’s nearly Christmas, and all this week at Bridge we’ve been presenting “the Christmas Journey” to school children – basically a presentation of the Christmas story. I know that it’s only the first week in December, but to be fair we’ve been enduring Christmas movie channels since September. It has always struck me as odd that an angel tells a bunch of shepherds that a baby wrapped in “swaddling cloths” is a sign (Luke 2:12). I suppose it could simply have been that this is how they would know the baby in question was “the” baby as opposed to “a” baby (although presumably the fact that said baby would also be in a  feeding trough would also be a bit of a giveaway). But someone pointed out to me this week that it has been suggested that the shepherds weren’t just any old shepherds; they were “Levitical” shepherds. And they were specifically tasked with raising lambs for sacrifice up at the temple in Jerusalem, lambs that had to be perfect. These were not strictly speaking Passover lambs for the most part, but that’s where the flexibility of a good metaphor is useful. To increase the shepherds' chances of producing quality lambs (i.e. without “spot of blemish) and decrease their losses, lambs would often be birthed in special shepherds' caves in the vicinity of Bethlehem, and then bound in cloths (swaddling cloths) to prevent cuts, bruises and other damage. This, in effect, identified them as sacrificial lambs. So, now the direction to go and look at a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths takes on a whole new significance. These particular shepherds looking at that particular baby, triggers all those metaphorical associations that John would highlight about thirty years later.

We don’t know if the shepherds made all of these connections. Nor do we know when Jesus first disciples managed to get their heads around what John said. But this particular metaphor is worth bearing in mind for the next few weeks.

Why does science matter?

Although it’s really my last post that prompted this one, I am admittedly returning to something I’ve blogged about before. It was a while ago, so I won’t take it personally if you can’t remember what those particular posts were about. I’ll try not to repeat any of the specifics here as you can obviously go back and read them (eg here and here). But having opined about why theology matters (about which I know relatively little), it seemed only fair to reflect on what I spent most of my adult life working in.

However, there are a couple of issues we have to deal with first. Although it’s common to talk about “science” as though it is a single institution, it really isn’t. There is no single body that polices a rule book, and the reality is that there is no single agreed definition or set of rules. There is also no single agreed scientific method. It used to be thought that a single recipe for doing good science might be either discoverable or definable, and that a single, coherent method could be established. And of course the philosophers got busy trying to cook one up. But with due respect to the likes of Francis Bacon, John Locke, William Whewell, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, none of them really produced anything that you could pull off a shelf, apply to a problem and obtain a “scientific answer”. Indeed the most many of them managed was an attempt at describing what scientists actually did. This is an interesting exercise in its own right. Mind you, it has always seemed to me that they were overly infatuated with physics, from which they drew many of their key examples. If of course science is just one thing, and there is a single method, then why not start with an area of science that seems to have delivered. Perhaps this explains why “big physics” is often reported in the media and is supported by such massive sums of public money (over the last decade the UK has invested an average of £152M per year in CERN alone). Biology has usually suffered in comparison. The philosophers didn’t seem to like biology that much, it was maybe too wet and messy.

It’s odd, but all this philosophical effort, individually and cumulatively, has had relatively little impact on the activities of scientists themselves. By and large they just got on doing “it”, and apparently quite successfully. It looked like there might be a common core of things that were a good idea, things like collecting evidence, forming tentative explanations, and then testing these rather than just blithely accepting and asserting them. But single, codified, rigorous method? Not really. Occasionally, individual scientists were influenced by reading about what they were supposed to be doing in the writings of one or more of the aforementioned philosophers or thinkers (many of whom were not themselves scientists). They might try to construe their activities in the sort of terms they had read about. But this all tended to be rather post-hoc. Suspiciously, such accounts tended to crop up in books written at the end of careers, as though they were a relatively recent discovery.

Now this all may be a good or a bad thing. But part of the problem is that relatively few pure science degrees (particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world) provide a rigorous introduction to the intellectual procedures involved in science. There are lots of lectures, lots of learning about great previous experiments, occasional attempt to repeat them and so on. Such degrees are certainly fact-packed (and very often great fun too – mine was!). But as to the principles of how your thinking was supposed to operate, one was rather expected to simply imbibe or intuit this. To be fair, this is a criticism that has so often made, that in many degree programmes today there may be an optional module in the philosophy of science. But it is rarely a key component of the education of a young scientist. And this has the disturbing consequence of a highly skilled but philosophically unsophisticated workforce.

None of this means that science (in its various forms) has been generally unsuccessful; clearly it hasn’t. But one unwelcome effect has been the unfortunate inability of many of us scientists (and I include myself in this) to helpfully articulate why science has been successful, what its product has enabled, and why this all matters. What we often end up with is hubristic, triumphalist babble that can sometimes seem  more like paternalistic propaganda. Scientists do all have skin in the game of course, because many of us earn our money from the scientific enterprise. And the source of that money is very often hard-pushed taxpayers, and in the case of the health and clinical sciences, patients. When we try to explain what we’re up to and why it matters, we can sometimes sound rather as though we’re saying that you should simply trust us (and keep paying us) because we know what’s best, and it would be far too complicated to explain to you.

Now there is a sense in which this is true. These days the technical details are often complicated, and a degree of trust is required. But the problem is that because we have not articulated well enough or often enough how science works (in its various forms), trust is now rather lacking. This is illustrated by the range of responses to the undoubted success of the vaccines developed to combat the COVID19 pandemic. The mRNA vaccines that have been so successful are the product of a completely new approach to vaccine development that emerged from years of patient and largely unheralded basic science, working out the details of what goes on in cells at a molecular level. The speed at which this led to highly effective vaccines coming into use and saving lives was unprecedented. And yet, all over the world there is significant resistance to their use and a marked reluctance to their uptake.  

Part of the problem is that science doesn’t exist within a bubble. The “modern” world that science both grew up in and helped to shape, has now morphed into a very different context. Intellectual authority is now a weakness and trust has been undermined. We now have facts, duly established by tried and tested procedures (technical and intellectual) duelling in the media with alt-facts (opinion, suspicion and assertion dressed up as facts). And the individualism that stemmed from the same revolution that gave rise to modern science, means everyone is an expert who has to understand the evidence, even when everyone really isn’t an expert and really can’t weigh the evidence in an appropriate way.

Science really is the best way we have to generate certain types of reliable information of critical importance. It cannot answer any and all questions, but it has and can answer some really important ones. At the edges of course, there is scope for debate as to what is and what is not an appropriate question that can be answered scientifically. Over-claiming, often by prominent scientists, or putting down other approaches in non-scientific domains (like theology among others) has done science no favours. But make no mistake – science has mattered in the past, is making a big impact now, and will be needed in the future. It will continue to matter - bigtime.