TAKING GOD SERIOUSLY

I have begun to teach a class on Christian beliefs and practice using my book on the summary of John Stott’s teaching. Thirty-eight of us gathered together and discussed the following questions arising from the first chapter on God.

First of all, we discussed how the Christian relates to atheists, agnostics and the secular world view which denies or is indifferent to the existence of God? Those who reduce reality to nothing but its material components tell us nothing about its meaning. Donald M. Mackay, a research scientist specializing in the functioning of the brain at the University of Keele in England, debunked the fallacy underlying many scientific arguments against Christianity. He called it ‘nothing buttery’.

“Its current philosophical label is ‘ontological reductionism’. Nothing-buttery is characterized by the notion that by reducing any phenomenon to its components you not only explain it, but explain it away. You can debunk love, or bravery, or sin for that matter, by finding the psychological or physiological mechanisms underlying the behavior in question.” (Donald M. Mackay, The Clockwork Image, p.43)

To illustrate his point he asked an electrician to tell us what is on the board of a neon sign. The electrician can give a careful description in electrical terms what makes the sign work without telling us the meaning of the sign. He can fail to mention the advertisement or message of the sign. The illustration demonstrates that scientific language can give us an accurate, technical, nothing but, explanation without giving us the whole story, the point or significance of the apparatus. A scientific description of the universe is limited to the components but doesn’t tell the whole story of life.

 Raymond Tallis is an atheist who rejects the view of fellow atheists who reduce our significance to atoms and molecules. He claims that the great unexamined orthodoxy of our day is that a purely scientific account of human nature and identity is possible which is the only valid explanation and account of everything including the deepest questions about human nature. (Tallis, Aping Mankind)

Alister McGrath sees us as a complex reality which requires us to understand ourselves from multiple perspectives. It is simplistic to take the view of biologist Francis Crick who defined human beings in purely neurological terms, that our joys and sorrows, memories and ambitions, our sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules, that we are nothing but a pack of neurons. The same is true of Richard Dawkins’ view that we are essentially machines which are controlled and determined by our DNA.(McGrath, Born to Wonder: why are we here and why does it matter?)

This scientific view of life is very limited, shallow and superficial. It does not do justice to the nature of human life, its meaning and purpose. Science addresses itself to ‘how’ things function. Scripture is preoccupied with ‘why’ questions. To follow the science is to lead us into a dead end.

Secondly, we discussed the view of those who deny the existence of God and yet regard themselves as spiritual? They seek meaning through emotions, energy forms, new age and transcendental spiritualities. It can end up in magic, science fiction, astrology, Gaia worship and demonology. Destructive evil can result from dabbling with spiritual forces, crystals and pagan rituals which are the subject of movies and occult literature which is prevalent in many bookstores.

Thirdly we explored our understanding of the universe as divinely created rather than random mutation? A purely materialistic view of the universe denies the reality of the Big Bang origins and the need for the Source of Life to begin all things.

Fourthly, we affirmed the special nature of human beings as compared to animals? We have qualities derived from being made in the image of God that distinguishes us from animal life. We have reason, conscience, free will and the capacity to love others which makes us like God and unlike animals. Our own self-consciousness strongly confirms this truth.

Fifthly, we discussed the practical implications of God as Holy Trinity? The early church fathers used the term perichoresis for the relationship within the Trinity as the fellowship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – a form of intimacy. Jesus applied this understanding to the fellowship of Christians as one, “That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.” (John 17:21) Bernard of Clairvaux described it as the Father kisses the Son and the kiss is the Holy Spirit. It is a dynamic relationship like a dance. We ourselves are a triune unity of body, mind and spirit. God is personal and organic not a mathematical unity. We are made in his image.

Sixthly, what comes into your mind when you think about God? Light, Love, Truth, Power, the Source of all Life, Father.

Lastly, we discussed our understanding of “the fear of the Lord” or being “God-fearing?” Holy reverence as Mary expressed in Luke 1:46-55, “His mercy extends to those who fear him.” God is to be taken seriously not flippantly. “There is too much shallow frivolity and irreverence in the world, and even in the Church, today. Men have pried open so many locked secrets that there is little left which they regard as sacred. Even in religious circles many people seem to be characterized by an inane bonhomie which has neither depth nor substance. People have so lost sight of the unfathomable majesty of God, that they have tended to become over-familiar with him. They imagine that they can link arms with him as if he were their partner on the golf course. Such people God scatters in the imaginations of their hearts. His mercy is rather on those who fear him. The Virgin Mary was a simple, devout, God-fearing maiden; we must follow her example if we hope to share her experience.”