We watched WALL-E (2008) last night.

It's a great story. It's about planet earth, a planet that was supposed to be beautiful—in its landscapes, in the plants and animals it supported, and in the human civilisation that developed on it. But this planet had been left desolate, reduced to a heap of trash by the greed, futility and disconnectedness of the people who inhabited it. But it's also a story of hope. A love story develops between the central character, WALL-E, and another robot. And so powerful is this love story that it brings in its wake not only the re-humanising of humanity, but ultimately the renewal of the whole planet.

And it's a whole lot of fun too.

But what I like most about this story, as about any story, is the resonances it has with a far greater story...

It seems to me that the Christian view on marriage can easily be lost in the discussion. This view was expressed by Jesus when he said, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Mt. 19:6; Mk 10:9, ESV). Note that it says "God", not "the state".

What does this mean? It means that when a couple make their vows to each other, something else is happening. God is involved. God is joining them together. God causes the two to become one.

It means that the state needn't be involved at all. Nowhere in the Scriptures do we read of the state marrying people. (Nor of the church marrying people, in fact.) So, while it is immensely helpful if everyone knows who is married to whom, and therefore for the state to keep records of marriages, the state does not itself join people together in marriage. God joins them together.

But what if the state's definition of marriage is different to God's definition of marriage?

It certainly makes things a bit confusing. Some people might think they are married, when in fact they are not (because God has not joined them together). Or, conversely, some people might think they are no longer married to each other when in fact they are (because God had joined them together, and that hasn't been revoked).

The latter was the case in Jesus' day. The society had introduced "any cause" divorce (Mt. 19:3), where a marriage could be annulled for "any cause", not only for adultery (or other extreme breaches of the marriage covenant). But this wasn't the definition God was using. So what happened if a man divorced his wife (for "any cause") and then married someone else? In God's eyes, he was still married to his first wife, so in taking another wife he was committing adultery against his first wife. So Jesus said, "[W]hoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Mt. 19:9, ESV).

So how should Christians respond to the proposals for same-sex marriage?

For a start, we shouldn't panic. If the state's definition of marriage is wrong, that's not the end of the world. God will still join people together, using his own definition.

But if the state tries to overreach itself, then there could be cause for concern.

For example, if the state thinks its role is to define words, so that it would be illegal to use the word "marriage" with the "wrong" meaning, then that would be very worrying (not least for poor Humpty).

Or if the state thinks its role is actually to educate children (rather than simply to ensure that children have access to a good education), and if part of that state education is to indoctrinate children into a particular view of marriage, then that too would be very worrying.

But in terms of the definition the state uses when it writes a list of who is married to whom, I personally don't see that as too big a deal in itself.

After the cover, the first chapter—What Is a Worldview?—introduces the theme of the book, which is "an attempt to spell out the content of a biblical worldview and its significance for our lives" (p.1). A worldview is defined as "the comprehensive framework of one's basic beliefs about things" (p.2). Everyone has a worldview, which emerges "quickly enough when they are faced with practical emergencies, current political issues, or convictions that clash with their own" (p.4), and "our worldview functions as a guide to our life" (p.5). Unpacking that a bit more, Wolters introduces two key terms that will feature throughout the book: structure and direction. Our worldview tells us how everything is structured, and our worldview tells us about the basic direction things are taking through history.

So what might a biblical worldview look like? We could start with

the basic definition of the Christian faith given by Herman Bavinck: "God the Father has reconciled His created but fallen world through the death of His Son, and renews it into a Kingdom of God by His Spirit."

The biblical worldview presented in the book is one which takes

all the key terms in this ecumenical trinitarian confession in a universal, all-encompassing sense. The terms "reconciled," "created," "fallen," "world," "renews," and "Kingdom of God" are held to be cosmic in scope (p.11).

Now, this might not seem particularly out of the ordinary, but many (perhaps most) Christians would, in practice, tend to limit the scope of these terms. There would be a "sacred" realm and a "secular" realm, where the "secular" realm is perhaps not entirely fallen, not entirely reconciled, or destined to be discarded rather than renewed, and where the "sacred" realm is perhaps something over and above what God originally created. So, in order to distinguish this cosmic-in-scope biblical worldview, it is often called the reformational worldview, partly because it builds on some emphases associated with the Protestant Reformation, and partly because this worldview carries within it the hope that nothing of the created order will be rejected or replaced, but that the entire created order will be—and is being—reformed, renewed and restored: creation regained. (Another way of identifying this view of things is to say that "grace restores nature", p.12.)

The next chapters look in more detail at the components of this worldview, looking at the structure and original direction of things (Creation) and then the story of the shifting direction of things (Fall and Redemption), before unpacking what difference this might make to our lives (Discerning Structure and Direction).

A substantial commentary on one of the synoptic gospels can easily fill its pages by concentrating on questions about the composition of the text and about the details of the historical events themselves, with constant reference to the other gospel accounts.

Strikingly, and refreshingly, Joel Green in his lengthy (928-page) commentary on Luke's Gospel shows no concern whatsoever with these questions. Rather, his overriding aim is to hear what Luke is trying to communicate, within the context of the Old Testament scriptures, and within his own historical and social context.

I've been reading this commentary very slowly for almost a year, mainly for personal reading, but also for a couple of sermons and a few Bible studies. Sometimes it's felt like a lot of reading, but I've never found myself wading through irrelevant material. Instead, I've been repeatedly struck with how rich Luke's Gospel is in its portrayal of Jesus.

So what, for Green, is the message of Luke's Gospel? Throughout the commentary, our attention is drawn back to Jesus' inaugural speech, in which he stated his own mission, "To bring good news to the poor ... to proclaim release to the captives" (4:18). "Poor" is to be understood not simply in material terms, but as those who are socially poor, marginalised, oppressed, rejected, and weighed down by sickness or the guilt of sin, and "release" is to be understood not just as setting free from whatever might hold someone captive, but in terms of full inclusion in the community of God's people, often demonstrated by a communal meal.

This sets the tone for the rest of the gospel, in which Jesus' mission is seen to be diametrically opposed to the way his society was ordered. Those at the forefront of the culture were concerned simply with their own status, and had no room for someone who preached and lived a message that involved losing one's own status for the sake of those on the margins of society. The climax, of course, is Jesus foregoing any status by dying an ignominious death on the cross, in order to bring release, forgiveness and full inclusion to those who were bound by sin.

While reading the commentary, I've been challenged to think about how Jesus would speak to our society. Is his message as diametrically opposed to the way our society functions as it was to the society in which he lived on earth? I think it is. Our society is built not so much on social greed (status), but on economic and personal greed (money and pleasure). But Jesus' message is just as radical, calling us to a total rethink of our whole value system. Once we have received Jesus' welcome and forgiveness, we are to value our resources (including our money) as opportunities to benefit those in need, and thereby to gain true riches in the economy of the age to come, rather than as opportunities to advance our own position in the economy of the present age.

• How do we gain true knowledge? Through science – by asking the elite scientific experts to share their wisdom.
• Why do we want that knowledge? So we can develop the technology to control the world (even including human behaviour).
• Why do we want to control the world? So we can have constant economic growth.
• Why do we want constant economic growth? So we can all live in a consumer paradise.

More here, and in various talks on the WYSOCS recordings page.

I think he's onto something, though I suspect many in the West would live as if the second statement is true ("enjoying material possessions is all that matters") while not being so sure about the first ("physical nature is all there is").

I've been watching some lectures on political philosophy: Justice, with Michael Sandel. The episode below is about John Locke (1632-1704), and his very influential idea of people's inalienable rights to life, liberty and (bizarrely) property, ideas which were (coincidentally) formulated around the time that Europeans were colonising North America, and claiming its land as their own.

It seems that these quirky ideas about private property are still in vogue today, particularly among some (not all) who take the label "libertarian", and that there is a connection between holding these views and denying climate change. At least, that's what George Monbiot and Matt Bruenig say.

Conclusion: philosophy really matters.

[W]ork is not, primarily, a thing one does to live, but the thing one lives to do. ... A ... consequence is that ... we should no longer think of work as something that we hastened to get through in order to enjoy our leisure; we should look on our leisure as the period of changed rhythm that refreshed us for the delightful purpose of getting on with our work.

The Church’s approach to an intelligent carpenter is usually confined to exhorting him not to be drunk and disorderly in his leisure hours, and to come to church on Sundays. What the Church should be telling him is this: that the very first demand that his religion makes upon him is that he should make good tables.

The Old Testament included a ban on lending at interest. Instead, a person's capital could be used by others as part of a profit-sharing agreement, or through a rental or hire agreement.

Way back in 1993, economist Paul Mills published a paper on this biblical prohibition of interest. The paper focuses on the bad consequences of an economy based on lending money at interest, as follows:

1. It is unjust and destabilising. Unjust, because the lender gets no reward for lending to a successful business and (generally) suffers no harm from lending to an unsuccessful business. And destabilising, because lending at interest encourages further borrowing and investment during a growth period and places high burdens (causing bankruptcies) when profits are low.
2. It encourages the allocation of finance to the safest borrowers (e.g., large firms and wealthy individuals) rather than to the most productive borrowers. This is a consequence of the first point.
3. It encourages financial speculation in assets and property. "When the price of an asset in relatively fixed supply begins to rise, buyers borrow to purchase more of it," and I think we know what happens next.
4. It leads to an inherently unstable banking system. Banks can guarantee the savings they hold only through the possibility of government bailouts.
5. It encourages a "short-termist" investment strategy. "[T]he pervasive influence of interest tends to bias business investment towards quick-return, short-term projects even though longer-term, more risky ones may offer greater benefits in the long run."
6. It concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands. "Interest automatically acts to transfer wealth from net borrowers to net lenders. Not surprisingly, the former tend to be the less well-off and the latter tend to be the richer members of society."
7. It leads to a rapid flow of financial capital across regions and countries.

The question now is: how can ordinary members of society support a shift away from an interest-based (and debt-based) economy? Probably there are some answers out there...

J.S. Bach, Mass in B minor, Gloria

Credit: CERN

As folk at CERN prepare not to announce the discovery of the Higgs boson (apparently), other folk have been discussing whether it's worth the money.

On the Today Programme, Lucie Green and Adam Rutherford discuss the cost of figuring out how the universe works, making the assumption (understandably) that for some reason we actually want to understand how the universe works.

Meanwhile, on the Guardian website, Jon Butterworth seems to argue that this kind of research is valuable because the technology of the future will be built on the fundamental physics of today, and because if we are good at solving this kind of question (such as whether the Higgs boson exists), we will probably be not too bad at solving other (more useful) questions.

But if you leave the economic, technological and societal spin-offs to one side (and factor that into the cost), is there any value in simply knowing stuff about the universe, such as what we are made of, how big the universe is, and how we got here?

Surely the answer to that must be "yes". Tell anyone that you are doing research in astronomy, and they find it fascinating. (In my experience, they then go on to tell you about some recent discovery that you knew nothing about, which is always slightly embarrassing!) Research into fundamental questions about the universe really does make a positive difference to people's lives.

But how does this happen? How exactly will my specific piece of research enrich people's lives? And how do we figure out how much new research we need? Do we even need any new research, or do we know more than enough already?

Answers appreciated!

Summary 1

1. God is perfect.
2. We are not perfect (sin), and we cannot achieve perfection by our own efforts.
3. We will spend eternity either with God ("heaven") or apart from God ("hell"), depending on whether or not our problem (imperfection) has been dealt with.
4. The good news is that God sent his Son, Jesus, to make a way for us to be made perfect. He did this by dying to take away the sins of those who trust in him and by rising from the dead.
5. If we stop trusting in our own efforts and trust in Jesus (if we "repent"), we will be forgiven and spend eternity with God.

Summary 2

1. God created the world so that we would know his love and live in harmony with each other and with the world around us.
2. We do not love God and we do not want to live in harmony with each other and with the world around us (sin), and we can't fix that problem ourselves.
3. At some point, God will sort out all the problems in the world, and we will spend eternity either here on the earth ("earth"), or we will be thrown out ("hell"), depending on whether or not our problem (unloving heart) has been dealt with.
4. The good news is that God sent his Son, Jesus, to make a group of people who will know God's love and live in harmony with each other and with the world around them. He did this by dying to take away the sins of those who trust in him and by rising from the dead.
5. If we receive God's gift of a new heart (if we "repent"), we will be forgiven, and we can begin a life of love here on the earth that will last for all eternity.

Apparently tomorrow is "Not Ashamed Day".

I'm trying to work out whether I should be ashamed of that.

Not Ashamed is a website, declaration, logo, range of clothing and accessories and a host of other things, by which Christians can say that we are not ashamed of Jesus Christ. And quite rightly so. Jesus is very precious to us, and has given us more than we could ever describe, and we sincerely believe that he (and he alone) offers genuinely good news to all people and to the whole of creation.

But it seems that part of the purpose of the campaign is to make sure that Christians are not only not ashamed, but also not shamed. And this makes me uncomfortable.

When we as Christians are persecuted, mocked and marginalised, we are shamed. That is, other people are ashamed of us and of our Lord. And when we suffer such shame, we should rejoice, as our Lord clearly commanded us (Mt. 5:12 etc.), and as his apostles clearly demonstrated (Acts 5:41 etc.). That is what it means to take up our cross and follow the persecuted, mocked, marginalised and crucified Messiah.

Now, it is clear that those in the Not Ashamed campaign are most certainly not rejoicing when it seems that Christians are being marginalised in our country. Why not? Well, this could be because of a deep sadness that the country seems to be rejecting the good news of Jesus Christ. Or, alternatively, it could be because those in the campaign are, in fact, ashamed to suffer shame along with their crucified Lord. I can't tell which it is.

So let's not be ashamed. Not ashamed of the gospel (Rom. 1:16), and not ashamed to suffer shame for the sake of the gospel (2 Tim. 1:8,12,16; 1 Pet. 4:16).

The first two chapters make the case for Christian social involvement, which finds its roots in the character of God, who "upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry" (Ps. 146:7-9, NIV), in the reign of God, and in the grace of God. On the reign of God, "The Bible is the story of God re-establishing his liberating reign over the world", and in the Lord Jesus Christ "The new age of liberation has begun in the midst of the old age of death" (p.26). And on the grace of God, "The more we understand the wonderful grace of God to us in our need, the more our hearts will be open to the poor and marginalized" (p.30). How remarkable then that so much contemporary Christianity in the UK has so little concern for the poor! So often our faith becomes no more than a private faith, having retreated from the public realm centuries ago in the wake of the Enlightenment.

However, social action alone is not enough, because the case for evangelizing the poor is strong. We must consider the priority of the future, and the fact that people have an eternal destiny in the resurrection. So people's most pressing need is the need for reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. It is important to maintain the centrality of proclamation of the Good News in meeting this need. But what is the relationship between social involvement and Gospel proclamation? Evangelism and social action are distinct activities, but proclamation is central, and evangelism and social action are inseparable, simply because "In our involvement in the lives of others we cannot choose to ignore their social needs" (p.66). The "text" of our Gospel proclamation takes place in the "context" of loving actions and loving community.

Chapter 5 looks at social involvement and the kingdom of God: if there are improvements in social justice, does that mean the kingdom of God is advancing? (This was the thinking behind the 'social gospel' movement of the early 20th Century.) It is true that God has been sovereignly working throughout history, bringing many good things through what is known as his 'common grace', even where people do not acknowledge him. "But the coming of Jesus represented something new: the coming of Jesus meant that 'the kingdom of God has come to you' (Luke 11:20; see also Mark 1:14-15; Luke 17:20-21)" (p.80). So how should we speak of this new work of God? Following the New Testament, we can say that the kingdom comes secretly, not in glory and triumph; the kingdom comes graciously in this present age, and not (yet) in power and judgement; the kingdom comes through God's word, forming a new community shaped by this word; and the kingdom will come in glory, when Jesus once again appears on the earth.

So what is this good news to the poor? First, is is a message of liberation. God's reign of justice and peace is good news especially to those who are enslaved in any way at the present time, whether that is economic, physical, social or spiritual. It is primarily a message about future liberation. "But the new regime has begun among Christ's community of the broken. The Christian community is the place of liberation" (p.87). Second, it is a message of grace: "God's promise of forgiveness and liberation does not depend on our status, education or wealth" (p.97). And, third, it is a message of community: "the coming liberation of God is anticipated in the liberating relationships of the Christian community" (p.97).

But if there is good news to the poor, is there also good news to the rich? There is. The message of Jesus exposes the lie of consumerism, and in its place gives us the good news of Christian contentment. From 1 Timothy 6, this good news is an invitation to find your joy in God, find your security in God, enjoy God's good creation, and live for God's new creation, as part of a gospel-centred life.

Having now "looked at the case for social involvement" in chapters 1 and 2, "how it relates to evangelism" in chapters 3-5 "and to the content of the gospel" in chapters 6 and 7, chapters 8-10 "consider something of the 'how' of social involvement" (p.119).

First, Christian social involvement will be marked by welcoming the excluded. "Poverty as marginalization means that the first responsibility of the church in relation to social involvement is to be the church — a place of welcome and inclusion" (p.137f.).

Second, Christian social involvement will be marked by strengthening the powerless. "Poverty as powerlessness means that social involvement should be about strengthening the weak" (p.138). "Good social involvement involves more than providing for the poor. We want people to regain their God-given dignity as human beings made to contribute to community life. So at the heart of good social action is the participation of those in need" (p.148).

Third, Christian social involvement will be marked by following the crucified Lord. "Often it is assumed that if Christians can get their hands on the levers of power, then all will be well" (p.149). This was the thinking behind "Christendom", and that mindset still continues into the present. But "Christians are called to follow the way of the cross" (p.149). "Christian ministry ... is conducted through the upside-down, unpredictable power of the cross. It is conducted through weakness and dishonour" (p.150). So as the church "gives witness to the good news of the kingdom in this way, it may well be that it is persecuted. The church enters the political realm not to make itself powerful or secure, but to be weak and vulnerable in love; to be in solidarity with those who are weak and powerless" (p.161).

So can we make a difference? Yes, by the grace of God, we can indeed make a real difference. But we need to have realistic expectations. While we seek eagerly and diligently to help the poor, we need to remember that "sin is a universal trait of humanity — both rich and poor" (p.169). The exploited people of today can quite easily become the exploiters of tomorrow. So, as Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you" (Mark 14:7, NIV).

Only in the eschatological future will poverty be eradicated. But even now within history this future can be glimpsed. And it is glimpsed among those people whose rebellious hearts are being transformed by the grace of the gospel. It is glimpsed in the community in which the rule of God has begun to take shape. ...

We may see reform in society; we may not. The important thing is for the church to witness to the coming liberation of God. We are called to be the jubilee community in which the poor are welcomed, included and strengthened. We are the place of earth where God's future can be seen (p.175-6).

[Jesus] looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury; he also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. He said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on" (Lk 21:1-4, NRSV).

[J]ust as Jesus indicts the religious leadership for consuming the homes of widows, so now he laments the travesty of a religious system that has as its effect the devouring of this widow's livelihood. Note that in no way does Luke suggest that Jesus finds the widow's action exemplary or praiseworthy. How could he, when the religious system was supposed to care for such as these (cf. Acts 6:1-6), not render them utterly destitute? Jesus' mission is to bring good news to the poor, including this widow, not to impoverish the poor even further (Joel B. Green, "The Gospel of Luke", 728).

For most of my banking life, my choice of bank has been a matter of convenience and cost. If a bank has lots of branches, doesn't charge much for its services, and gives a decent interest rate, that was enough for me.

But I've been increasingly uncomfortable with this. After all, the bank looks after my money, and I am responsible for how my money is used. I wouldn't want my money to be used to make me rich through investing in the manufacturing of weapons for corrupt regimes, through destroying the planet, or through gambling on the food markets and making poor people starve. But I would have had no problem with my bank doing exactly that.

So we're in the process of transferring from Barclays to The Co-operative Bank, largely because of the Co-op's ethical investment policy (and, admittedly, because banking with the Co-op is just as convenient as banking with Barclays). See "The Co-operative Bank Ethical Policy" a few pages into this, or the video below.

I was going to say more in this post, but fortunately Jeremy at Making Wealth History has done the job for me, in a post about Bank Transfer Day (UK version), which is encouraging people to change their bank on 5 November. Will you be one of them?

This was the question posed by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig at the start of his lecture yesterday at Imperial College, London. The title of the talk was "The evidence for God", and it was part of his "Reasonable Faith" tour of the UK. Here's a video of the talk:

Below is an outline of Craig's talk, mostly taken verbatim from his words or his overhead slides. After each point, I give a brief analysis, along with what I think I might have liked to have heard as an alternative. His stated aim was to provide arguments that point away from naturalism and towards belief in God.

1. Why anything at all exists

Contingency argument

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. The universe exists.
3. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is an external, transcendent, personal cause.
4. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal cause.

Analysis. The implicit premise (that the universe does not have necessary existence) would not be true if the universe is the "brute fact" of reality, on which everything else depends, and which has and needs no explanation. This argument therefore offers no challenge to the true die-hard naturalist.

Alternative. Many would-be die-hard naturalists do not realise that their view of reality is coherent only if the existence of the universe is a "brute fact", with no explanation. This is worth making clear: just as God is a "brute fact" in the Christian view of things, so is the universe a "brute fact" in the naturalistic view of things. Not everything the naturalist believes can be justified through evidence and reason.

2. The origin of the universe

Cosmological argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Analysis. Premise 2 would not be true if the universe is the "brute fact" of reality. If the universe is the non-dependent reality on which everything else depends, then it did not begin to exist. And it makes no sense to use the laws of logic to argue against this, as Craig did for premise 2, because the laws of logic would themselves be dependent on the physical universe for their existence (it is impossible to have more than one "brute fact" of reality).

Alternative. It is worth pointing out that if the universe is the "brute fact" of reality, then what we think of as the laws of logic must have emerged from the physical properties of the universe. So when we think of the impossibility of the existence of actual infinities (one of Craig's arguments on premise 2), that must be showing us the limitations of logical laws in a purely physical universe.

3. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life

Teleological argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Analysis. Craig did not present water-tight arguments for premise 2, so if I believed that the universe was the "brute fact" of reality, I would not agree with it.

Alternative. It is worth pointing out, as Craig does, that a coherent belief in naturalism will point strongly towards either a theory of everything (which has not been discovered) or towards a multiverse (which has not been observed). The goal of all of this would be to show naturalists where their beliefs take them, and hopefully to make them feel a bit uncomfortable with this, and to show how Christian theism is perhaps more affirming of our everyday experiences of reality.

4. Objective moral values and duties in the world

Moral argument

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore God exists.

Analysis. Once again, the die-hard naturalist would disagree with premise 2.

Alternative. It is worth pointing out that a coherent die-hard naturalist view would be at odds with what we naïvely think to be the case (here, that objective moral values exist), and that Christian theism would be a more comfortable basis for our naïve beliefs about morality. (This does not mean that Christian theism is therefore true!)

5. The possibility of God's existence

Ontological argument

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (we call "God") exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.

Analysis. This is quite heavy stuff, but it boils down to this: God exists if the concept of logical possibility exists, and if the properties that make God great also exist. But this leaves us with one of two possibilities. Either God is dependent on logical possibility (and plenty of other things) for his existence, in which case God is not God, or God created logical possibility (and plenty of other things), in which case the argument is that God exists if God exists!

Alternative. I think I'd leave this one out.

6. The historical facts concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus

1. There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples' belief in his resurrection.
2. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts.
3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.
4. Therefore the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.

Analysis. I think the die-hard naturalist would want premise 2 to read "is arguably the best known explanation". With those changes, the argument doesn't follow.

Alternative. It is worth pointing out to the naturalist that as they approach the supposed evidence for the resurrection, they are not doing so as open-minded enquirers. Rather, their beliefs in naturalism demand that the explanation for the evidence must be a naturalistic explanation. As above, the aim is to show what a coherent naturalistic view of reality looks like, and to show (hopefully) that a Christian view of reality seems to fit more closely with our naïve interpretations of the evidence around us.

7. The immediate, personal experience of God

1. Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted as basic beliefs not grounded on argument.
2. Belief that the biblical God exists is appropriately grounded.
3. Therefore, belief that the biblical God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded on argument.

Analysis. Before presenting this syllogism, Craig said something like this: "You can know that God exists apart from arguments, simply by experiencing him." I would agree with that.

Overall analysis. There is a lot of excellent material in Craig's presentation. But by presenting his case as a series of logical inferences based on premises that are not self-evident (especially for the naturalist!), I think he overstates his case. Craig does not present a logical argument for God (a cursory reading of the outline above would suggest that he does). Rather, he shows how a consistent and coherent belief in naturalism is at odds with a lot of things that we might naïvely believe (such as the existence of objective moral values), and that Christian theism can lend support to those beliefs. I think this approach is more compelling, and that is why my favourite chapter of Craig's "Reasonable Faith" is the chapter on "The absurdity of life without God", in which he takes this approach. This style of presentation would lead more naturally to Craig's final point, which is basically an invitation for his hearers to investigate further, and to ask God (if he is there) to reveal himself to their hearts.

Photo by Andrew Magill

A moment's thought may have led you to think that speaking of the markets doing this or that is just shorthand for speaking of people choosing to buy or sell things. So "a downturn in the markets" or "market collapse" would mean that people are choosing to act in ways that have direct and often predictable consequences for other people.

But no! If you thought that, you were thoroughly mistaken. The markets (rather, the Markets) are self-governing and inflict themselves on us in often capricious ways. And lo, we have sinned against the Markets and must repent.

So here I offer a prayer of confession that we can recite to the Markets.*

Almighty and most merciful Markets,
We have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sources of woollen garments,
We have followed too little the devices and desires of our own hearts,
We have offended against thy materialist laws,
We have left unborrowed those things which we ought to have borrowed,
And we have bought only those things which we needed to buy,
And there is no debt in us;
But thou, O Sovereign, have mercy upon us, miserable consumers;
Spare thou them, O Gold, which confess their defaults,
Restore thou them that are penniless,
According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Henry, our Ford:
And grow, O most merciful Markets, for our sake,
That we may hereafter live a greedy, irresponsible and profligate life,
To the increase of our eternal prosperity.
Amen.

* with apologies to Thomas Cranmer, and thanks to Phil Walker for various improvements.

Photo by James Emery

In Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock is situated on a famous rock known as Temple Mount. The rock is so called because it used to be the site of the house of the God of Israel, otherwise known as the Temple. It was the wise man, Solomon, who first built this house on the rock.

By Jesus' day, Solomon's house on the rock had been destroyed, and replaced by the second house on the rock, which was then known as Herod's Temple. It was a symbol of hope and security for the Jewish people, who viewed it as a sign of God's presence and blessing. But this house fell (and great was the fall of it) in AD 70, at the hands of the Romans.

Here are some very familiar words that Jesus spoke on another mount:

Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it (Mt 7:24-27, ESV).

After re-loading your website home page a few times, I found on it the following quote by Ariane Sherine: "All children should be free to grow up in a world where they are allowed to question, doubt, think freely, and reach their own conclusions about what they believe." As an evangelical Christian, I wholeheartedly agree.

However, you recently acted as signatories to a statement about creationism and 'intelligent design' that asserted that

There should be enforceable statutory guidance that [creationism and 'intelligent design'] may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.

This strikes me as contradictory. Many people believe that creationism or intelligent design are scientific theories. (Moreover, some people also believe them to be true!) Will you encourage children to reach their own conclusions on the matter?

Yours sincerely,

Anthony Smith

Update 22 Sep 2011: Todd Wood has written a Letter to Great Britain in response to the campaign. It's a good read!

Anyway, this typically perceptive post from Vinoth Ramachandra outlines some of the problem:

Ten years on, media commentary on 9/11 is legion, while other events, equally horrific, are quickly forgotten. Three days after the 9/11 attacks, Howard Zinn, the distinguished American historian and author of A People’s History of the United States, wrote: “The images on television horrified and sickened me. Then our political leaders came on television, and I was horrified and sickened again. They spoke of retaliation, of vengeance, of punishment. I thought: they have learned nothing, absolutely nothing,  from the history of the twentieth century, from a hundred years of retaliation, vengeance, war, a hundred years of terrorism and counter-terrorism, of violence met with violence in an unending cycle of stupidity.” Read more...