Solving Environmental Problems

This arises out of a discussion (more an agreement) I had the other day with one of my tutors...

The fundamental problem with the environment is that people usually act in their own interests. If there is a publically available resource (for example, air or the sea), then costs caused by damage to that resource are shared between everyone, but benefits arising out of use of that resource belong to the person who used it. Hence cost/benefit analysis for any one individual or small subgroup (e.g. a country) tends to be skewed towards exploitation of the resource.

In order to prevent such environmental problems happening, we need to find a way of making the personal interest of the individual coincide with the best interests of humanity, as Adam Smith nearly did with capitalism where the interest of the individual coincides with the wealth of society as a whole, which is why it is such an effective way of making countries richer. And in the case of states such as China, we need to find a way to make the best interests of the government coincide with the best interests of humanity.

Jostein Gaarder - the Ringmaster's Daughter

When Jostein Gaarder is at his quirky best, he is magnificent, especially when showing wonder at the world around us. Sadly, he doesn't do that much in the Ringmaster's Daughter, his quirks don't quite work, and the book is a lot poorer as a result.

The main character is a boy/man who is very bright and has an incredibly fertile imagination - he keeps thinking of stories, but doesn't have the persistence to write a novel. So he sells his work, and ends up getting caught in a trap of his own making.

The main problems here from my point of view was that the main character wasn't that believable - I can cope with magical philosophers (as in Sophie's World), but in stories meant to be set in the real world, kids don't think like that. That, the fact there is too much sex for a Gaarder novel and the fact the twist is so incredibly obvious.

This seems to be Gaarder a very long way from his best.

Islamic Reformation?

Turkish muslims start looking critically at the Hadith. Good news - and about time too! That sort of criticism of religious traditions is best done from within a religion.

Tozer - Omniscience

God perfectly knows Himself, and, being the source and author of all things, it follows that He knows all that can be known. And this He knows instantly and with a fullness of perfection that includes every possible item of knowledge concerning everything that exists or could have existed anywhere in the universe at any time in the past or that may exist in the centuries or ages yet unborn.
A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy

Religious Pluralism

Time for some quotes on religious pluralism. Sorry for the lack of blogging - a combination of quizzing, work and my girlfriend getting back might be to blame.

First up, some unintentionally contradictory ones from the same page of an utterly awful book:

The infinity and ineffability of God-Mystery demands religious pluralism and forbids any one religion from having the “only” or “final” word.

Pluralism tells us that there is no “one” that can be imposed on the “many”.

Paul Knitter, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness

So, does that "one" which can't be imposed include pluralism then?

And a sensible one from Michael Green, which gets thought provoking too.

I find it ironic that people object to the proclamation of the Christian gospel these days because so many other faiths jostle on the doorstep of our global village. What's new? The variety of faiths in antiquity was even greater than it is today. And the early Christians, making as they did ultimate claims for Jesus, met the problem of other faiths head-on from the very outset. Their approach was interesting... They did not denounce other faiths. They simply proclaimed Jesus with all the power and persuasiveness at their disposal.

Michael Green

Coming into the Presence of God?

This is a case study of what I wrote yesterday about conservative / charismatic arguments.

What happens

One aspect of corporate worship which is very important to a lot of charismatics is spending quite a while singing and praising God, for example following John Wimber's pattern of call to worship, engagement, expression, visitation, giving. When done best, the "worship time" also often has prayers, silence and space for individual responses, as well as the opportunity to pray with others.

People find that when they do this, they often feel much closer to God, and are often challenged to live their lives for him to a greater extent, to the point where it can become the dominant element in what Christians do when they meet together.

How it is described

Because people feel much closer to God during this, it is often described in terms of us "coming into God's presence" or God "coming and visiting his people" or "the Holy Spirit coming".

Conservatives tend to hear these descriptions and point out that actually the person's status before God hasn't changed. Because they are often still reacting against medieval Catholicism, saying that performing certain actions gets us closer to God or God closer to us is completely anathema. And to an extent, they're right to say that (but it's worth noting Hebrews 10:15-25, which could plausibly be used in this debate but I've never seen used by either side. I don't think either Heb 10:22 or James 4:8 is talking about contemporary charismatic practice.) So from the conservative point of view, all that changes in such "worship times" is our feelings, not any reality, and hence there's no point to it.

Why it is actually a good thing

But that misses the point, and what is actually going on in "times of worship". Yes, sometimes there is manipulation of affections and induced ecstatic states and so on. But often there is something very important and valuable going on. I'm going to try to give a tentative account in more conservative language of what is going on.

It is good to spend time thinking about God and praising him. It is good to sing to him, and to sing to others about him. Yet our thoughts about God should not be dry and academic - if we think about God accurately, we should be excited about him and delighted in him. If we love God, we should love him, and that is not a merely emotional response, but neither is it less than an emotional response.

Music is a powerful way of thinking about God, because it uses more of us than just saying words does. Good songs should use our minds and our feelings, and our spirits. That means that if we sing about God or to God, we give more attention to him than we would do if we were just saying the same words, so it becomes easier to shut everything else out and focus on him. If we just sing one song then sit down, it is very easy to get distracted by the chairs or the person in front of us or something. So singing several songs in a row can be more helpful. In the same way, spending one minute studying the Bible is usually less helpful than spending 20 minutes, because our train of thought has more opportunity to think about what is being said.

So spending extended times singing about God can help us think about God more fully than having five songs split up by notices or sermons or whatever.

And it is good to prepare ourselves before studying the Bible, or before driving or swimming or anything else. So it makes sense to prepare ourselves before spending time thinking about God (call to worship). Id we are to praise God, it is good to be reminded and to remind each other of what God is like - that is the standard pattern in the Bible (engagement). On considering what God is like, the natural expression of that is to praise him (expression). And it is only to be expected if when praising God and aware of what he is like and his holiness yet nearness to us, we feel that nearness more consciously than when we are distracted by everything else around us.

To my mind it is a shame that those who spend time using extended times of music and prayer to contemplate and praise God do not describe the experience correctly, which leads others to avoid doing it altogether.

Pointers on Preaching

Dan Edelen has posted some questions for preachers on his blog (modified from some Mark Driscoll asked).

1. The Biblical Question: What does Scripture say?
2. The Theological Question: What does Scripture mean?
3. The Memorable Question: What is my hook?
4. The Apologetical Question: Why do we resist this truth?
5. The Missional Question: Why does this matter?
6. The Christological Question: How is Jesus the hero/savior?
7. The Praxis Question: So what are the next steps toward daily living out this truth in your life and mine?

How Conservative / Charismatic Arguments Happen

Here's a quick stereotype, which seems to be true far too often. I'll give a detailed example later.

1. a Charismatic who hasn't got a strong theological background but has a real love for Jesus has a valid and helpful Christian experience
2. that experience gets described theologically in a way that is clear to the people concerned, but is actually inaccurate in a strict sense
3. Conservatives come across this description and realise that it isn't theologically accurate
4. Conservatives conclude that the experience is wrong and/or dangerous
5. Conservatives miss out on the helpful and valid experience
6. Charismatics observe conservatives missing out on the helpful and valid experience and conclude that they are resisting the work of the Holy Spirit.

The big mistakes here are stages 2, 4 and 6. To prevent this stereotype from happening, charismatics need to learn to express their experiences clearly, and in a way that is theologically accurate and conservatives need to learn to see the strengths and validity of people's experience, even when it isn't explained clearly.

Case study here, on "coming into the presence of God in worship".

Edwards on Beauty

God is not only infinitely greater and more excellent than all other being; but he is the head of the universal system of existence; the foundation and fountain of all being and all beauty; from whom all is perfectly derived, and on whom all is most absolutely and perfectly dependent; of whom, and through whom, and to whom is all being and all perfection; and whose being and beauty is as it were the sum and comprehension of all existence and excellence: much more than the sun is the fountain and summary comprehension of all the light and brightness of the day.
Jonathan Edwards

There's a fairly easily accessible piece on Edwards' views of beauty here.

Great Bit of Materials Science

I really like this story on the BBC website, because it's a lovely bit of science. There's a solid that's made of small molecules with lots of hydrogen bonds, which means the molecules hold together well, and if you break it apart, it will stick back together really easily of its own accord.

The obvious problem is water - water sticks to hydrogen bonds very well, so there might be issues if it breaks then gets wet. It would be very hard to dry, and the water might muck up the resticking ability. But there might be ways round that, and it's a very very nice idea.