Beautiful! Thank you.

Hi Michael! Please try again: http://www.matthiasmedia.com/tatvhb.

Thanks for this resource. However, the North American link doesn’t work.

Marc,

My apologies - just after I wrote the previous comment (#5) I received your e-mail with the SA article and a couple of links to articles on fine-tuning. I haven’t read them yet, but I’m assuming you sent them to me because they call Alistair McGrath’s figure of 10^40 into question.

Before I make any more comments on this post, I’ll get into some reading - it’ll probably be a few weeks. I’ll post another comment down the track if my reading causes me to change my mind on any of these issues.

Thanks,
Lionel

Hey Marc,

1a) You’re making big philosophical claims about “simplicity” and its relationship to theism and materialism. I’d just like to point out that yet again, you are talking here about philosophical presuppositions and a philosophical mode of thought, rather than empirical science per se. That’s OK by me, but the word “philosophical” seems to upset you a lot, so you should realise that’s what you’re doing.

1b) Ockham’s razor is more methodological than ontological, and is better stated, “pluralities should not be multiplied without necessity”

1c) We are looking for a “simple” solution to the gravity issue (a theory, a particle, etc.). The multiverse, by definition, is not simple in the same sense.

3a) Are you saying that scientists don’t care about empirical verification, i.e. real-world experimentation? By denying this, you’ve just pulled the rug away from the whole scientific enterprise as we know it.

3b) As I understand it, one of the key features of the the kind of multiverse that could solve the fine-tuning problem is that the individual universes are, like “bubbles”, causally isolated from each other. You’ve presented a possible empirical verification for another “universe” with causal gravitational connections to our own (this is M-theory, isn’t it?). But how could the existence of such a causally connected universe solve the problem of the fine tuning of our own universe? This kind of “weak” multiverse doesn’t seem relevant to the particular issue under discussion - but if you can show its relevance I’d be grateful.

4) You’ve previously challenged me to read more about the multiverse. OK, although I don’t think much hangs on it. Now I’m going to challenge you to tell me what historical sources you have used to conclude that it is only Christians like Alistair McGrath who have created the controversy about the multiverse. Clearly there are plenty of non-Christians who also have issues with its lack of empirical verifiability too.

5) You still haven’t offered any evidence to dispute what Alistair McGrath actually said. There’s really no point attacking him personally; you just need to show that he’s said something that’s actually wrong. I’m still waiting.

6a) All I was doing was advocating weakly against the multiverse on philosophical grounds. The context for my “advocacy” was a post where I was trying to show that arguments for and against a cosmic designer have little, if any, ultimate theological value. Your logic seems to be assuming that “philosophy” is the same as “theology”, and that somehow I’m using theology as a “basis” for disproving the multiverse. Your assumptions are incorrect, and indeed they make no sense of what I actually wrote.

6b) You have, yet again, seriously misquoted me. I never said “scientific enterprise is faith”. I was talking about your own quite reasonable trust (“faith”) in the scientific enterprise. That’s why I actually said, “we’re talking about faith—faith in the scientific enterprise, that one day it might explain things that it can’t currently explain.”

Hi Lionel,

To answer your comments:

1) We can not explain the gravity at the moment, but it does not mean there is a supernatural explanation to it. Occam’s razor states that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. A natural event is a simpler solution than a supernatural one (see gravity example), because cosmic designer just multiplies the need for explanation. Occam’s razor works against your suggestion.

3) You are creating your own definition “strict” sense of a scientific hypothesis. Scientists don’t care how the theory is disproved; there is no “strict” sense for them. Empirical test for a parallel world: observe, measure and calculate all mass and all the gravity effects of our universe (or locality). If the gravity is leaking out (in) of our universe (locality) it shows that there is something outside our universe.

4) The idea is of course controversial because so many Christians who don’t know anything about cosmology have started to talk against it (like evolution controversy). Alistair McGrath who is not a cosmologist or physicist is widely read and quoted and is creating this kind of controversy. Just like Galileo’s theories were only controversial because Christians created the controversy.

5a) Alistair McGrath molecular biophysics who ironically ranted that Richard Dawkins should stay away from religious discussion because Dawkins does not have a theological education. You seem to take his word for a cosmological question that he without a proper training offers.

5b) You claim that you are not strongly advocating against the multiverse on theological grounds, but you write about it in a theological article advocating that “scientific enterprise is faith” or “the multiverse is a philosophical theory”. Sorry, you link the multiverse and theology, and dismiss multiverse not based on scientific ground; I have to conclude that your theology influences your view on this.

Scientific American article is aimed for ~lay people. It is not a scientific paper, but I’ll sent you also scientific studies of fine tuning.

Hi Lionel,

Thanks for the posts - just read them now.

Providentially, earlier this week I went to the Sydney Observatory and had the evening tour on a cloudless night.  It was wonderful, and had me praising God for the billions of stars flung into the sky!

Besides chatting to the tour attendant about the reason why Pluto has suffered his poor end, we got talking about so-called Dark Matter.  And what was most interesting about that conversation was that the tour operator suggested that it was a matter of faith which scientists placed on the concept of Dark Matter.  Which reminded me about our ultimate presuppositions when observing the universe (or multiverse!?). 

I’m very glad for having the eyes of my heart opened to see that it’s God’s glorious creation!

Hey Roger,

I blame the multiverse for the fact that Douglas Adam’s fifth book in the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Trilogy (whose subject matter was, in fact, the multiverse) was so woefully dull and unfunny compared to its predecessors. Perhaps there’s an alternate reality where the book is funny.

Hey Marc,

To answer your comments and questions in order:

1) The fact that the co-incidence of certain phenomena is “unexplainable” is usually used as a piece of evidence supporting a more comprehensive, hitherto unrecognised, reality behind the phenomena. As far as I can tell the only proposals for the comprehensive reality behind the co-incidence of physical constants currently on the table are a cosmic designer, and the multiverse. The multiverse theory is pretty complicated (and therefore, e.g., fails Ockham’s Razor). But I never posited the fine-tuning argument as a logical knock-down argument for God - I introduced it as an a possible “proof” with significant problems, and then went on to discuss the problems. I stand by what I originally said.

2) I’m using the word “faith” the same way the Bible does - to mean “trust”. Sometimes “trust” is instantly testable, sometimes it isn’t immediately testable. Trust can apply in many different areas of life. It seems you have a different definition for faith. I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to point out that your definition of faith isn’t the Bible’s definition, nor mine.

3) By the “strict” sense of a scientific hypothesis I mean the empirical, rather than the theoretical or mathematical, sense. You’ve only mentioned a theoretical / mathematical test. If you can show me an empirical test for the multiverse that is actually possible to carry out, I’ll change my mind.

4) Here’s the blurb on the site: “The idea of a multiverse is still controversial, some argue that it isn’t even science, because it is based on an idea that we may never be able to prove or even see. But what might a multiverse be like, why are physicists and cosmologists increasingly interested in it and is it really scientific to discuss the existence of universes we may never know anything [sic]?”. From memory, these are the questions that Melvyn was exploring, and I didn’t hear any particularly convincing answers to the last one.

5a) There’s no point giving me Alistair’s job description: the issue we’re discussing is whether he’s right or not about the figure of 10^40. As it happens, Alistair is a quite widely read author with, among other things, a PhD in molecular biophysics. So in my mind he’s trustworthy as a basis for my rather simple purposes of describing a “proof” that I think has some very limited value. I’ve so far been happy to take Alistair at his word on this one. If you show me some hard evidence that “Physicists working on this problem disagree” that the number is 10^40, I’ll change my mind. Maybe the article from Scientific American will help - but see my comments below.

5b) Since I don’t think a lot ultimately hangs on the truth or falsity of the multiverse theory, I haven’t invested massive amounts of time in reading lots of detailed scientific literature on it. I’m not strongly advocating against the multiverse on theological grounds; I’m just saying that from what I’ve read and heard it’s not very convincing (at least, not yet). I’m quite willing to be convinced, but so far you haven’t pointed me in the direction of any empirical proof.

Assuming it’s legal, I’d love to receive the article (you can contact me here). However, from words and phrases in the introduction to the article (e.g. “may have emerged”, “Assuming they exist”, “these findings suggest”), I suspect it’s not a strictly scientific paper, but rather a summary of speculative thinking of some physicists based on certain proposed theoretical possibilities of current physical theories. Don’t get me wrong; imagination is a good thing. Scientific enterprise thrives on imagination and speculation, and it’s very entertaining to boot. But if the introduction is anything to go by, it’s not particularly an empirical proof of anything - yet.

Hi, Lionel,

Sorry if I misrepresented the logic of your post. I just don’t follow your logical link from the God of the Bible to the creation of our universe.

Re “at least, not yet”. Even if these are “unexplainable” it does not logically follow that a god must be behind it.

When you use the language like “faith in the scientific enterprise” it makes me wonder if that “faith” means the same in religious context. Using this kind of language is not helpful as scientific facts are testable unlike religious faith claims (fallacy of equivocation).

If you really think that multiverse theories are not hypothesis “in the strict sense” can you please show why those are not falsifiable? It is of course irrelevant if we cannot falsify those today. Anyways as I mentioned before that I know at least one suggested test how to verify/falsify if our universe is right next to another parallel universe.

You claimed that your information comes from In Our Time BBC podcast. I listed that episode couple of weeks ago and I don’t think it advocate that “scientific enterprise is faith” or “the multiverse is a philosophical theory” or that multiverse theories is not testable. Can you tell me what they said that you actually used in your article?

Alistair McGrath is not a cosmologist or physicist, he is a Christian apologist. He is not the source you should use to make fine tuning claims. Can I ask why you are skeptic about multiverse theory if you have not studied it? Many Christians seems to strongly advocate against it based on theological ground without ever bothering to read any scientific papers about it.

January 2010 issue of Scientific American shows for example how a universe could support life without the weak nuclear force. If you are interested in that I can email you that article.

Hi Lionel,
<blockquote>The multiverse theory is complex, physically and philosophically, and it seems to me to be the last resort of the desperate.<blockquote\> But it’s the first resort of a huge chunk of science fiction. Alternate history is popular at the moment, although, sadly, not as much as chick lit with fangs.

PS here’s the tantalising introduction to the article about looking for life in the multiverse in the Scientific American. Since I’m not a subscriber, I can’t read the entire article, but I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has read it. The introduction suggests that the article is full of fascinating, suggestive but very tentative speculation.

Hi Marc,

Thanks for your comments - since I’m not an astronomer or cosmologist, I’m very happy for experts to check my facts and correct me on these technical points.

The final paragraph of your comment is a complete misrepresentation of the logic of my post - the logic of my post is actually the other way around.

It’s important for me to reiterate the reason that I brought up these cosmological arguments in my post. I’m not mentioning them because I think they’re knock-down arguments for the existence of a deistic God. I’m mentioning them as examples of possible arguments for a cosmic designer that have very limited, if any, ultimate value. I’m not, in the end, very impressed with these cosmological arguments for the existence of a designer. As I said, I can see that they could have some validity, but even if they do, they don’t in the end tell us very much about the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus Christ.

Since I don’t think a lot hangs on these cosmological arguments, I haven’t thoroughly chased down all the footnotes about them, so I’d be glad for somebody with more technical knowledge to prove me wrong.

Now, you’ve also misrepresented me in your selective quoting of the details of my post. I actually said that the 20 constants “can’t be explained as a coincidence—at least, not yet”. The “at least, not yet”, which you left out when quoting me, is crucial to my argument. I’m not saying it’s theoretically “unexplainable”, just that it’s currently “unexplained”. I do concede that the coincidences might be explained at some point in the future as mutually interdependent in some kind of physically explainable relationship, a “theory of everything”, for example. But at the moment, as far as I can tell, they haven’t been (do you have evidence otherwise?). What this shows is that we’re not dealing here with knock-down scientific evidence against the existence of a designer; we’re talking about faith—faith in the scientific enterprise, that one day it might explain things that it can’t currently explain. It’s a reasonable faith, because the scientific enterprise has proved to be remarkably fruitful in the past. But it’s still faith.

Please tell me more about the January 2010 issue of Scientific American. Are they arguing that life could arise in other universes with different physical constants? That would be interesting.

Much of my information about the multiverse comes from science broadcasts such as this one. While there are some theories around that people claim can test for the existence of the multiverse, my distinct impression is that this is still very much in the realms of speculation and so I have no qualms about sharing in the general and quite healthy skepticism about the enterprise. People are coming up with quite interesting ideas about possible tests, which is an important and valid thing to do, but as far as I can tell it’s still all in the realms of rather imaginitive theorising and mathematics rather than verifiable empirical “science”. It is not a hypothesis “in the strict sense” (another important qualifying phrase that you left out when quoting me). My point is that there’s no experiment that actually has been conceived within the realms of current empirical scientific possibility (beyond mathematics or speculation) that could test for the multiverse itself. OK, I believe you that there are tests for string theory, but this is (as you say) merely a “stepping stone” towards a possibility that may (or may not) have future value for proving or disproving the multiverse, not a test for the multiverse itself.

My information about the actual details of the fine tuning of the universe comes from Alistair McGrath’s Science and Religion: An Introduction (1998). McGrath may well have updated the figures in his later book A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology (2009), which I haven’t read. Again, I’d be happy to hear from anybody who wants to correct me about these details (or, of course, to correct McGrath).

Lionel Windsor,

Let’s do some fact checking here:

You claimed “20…constants… work together…can’t be explained as a coincidence”. You need to show that these constants are not locked into those values together to claim an unexplainable coincidence.

You claimed that “if any one of these [20] constants had been a tiny bit different, life couldn’t appear”. Can you please show some evidence as scientific research has shown that life could appear in different conditions? Just read the Scientific American January 2010 issue for great insight.

You claimed that if the force of gravity was even slightly different by a colossally tiny factor (1 part in 10|40), no life-supporting stars could exist. Physicists working on this problem disagree with you. Could you please provide some evidence for your view?

Scientists working on multiverse problem disagree with your claim that “the multiverse is a philosophical theory” and “the multiverse is an act of faith; it’s not a scientific hypothesis”. The multiverse is actually a scientific hypothesis as it can be falsified. You can do the math and falsify it. Scientists have actually falsified several types of the multiverse options.

You claimed “that there’s no experimental test that anyone has conceived that could possibly prove it or disprove it”. Can you please show some evidence to support this assertion? Several string theory tests have been suggested and one has already been conducted to test to string theory which is a stepping stone to test to some types of multiverse theories. And several methods have been suggested to test the possibility of multiverses.

So your conclusion is wrong that multiverse theory is philosophical and faith based. Jumping to conclusion that there is a deistic god instead of a group of spirits behind this is a faith based assertion. And jumping from deistic god to the God of the Bible does not logically follow. I think your premises are wrong and the conclusions do not logically follow.

There are probably a lot of reasons why people are not engaged in worship services.  I think you hit on some of them, Dianne.  Here are a few off the top of my head:

1.  The person is not regenerate.

2.  I don’t think we adequately grasp or believe that worship takes place in the Jerusalem above, around the very throne of Jesus Christ and through his mediation.  How can that be boring!

3.  We haven’t done, at least in America, a good job of communicating the truth that worship is a dialogue, between the Lord and his people.

4.  Sometimes our songs or liturgies are not worthy of heartfelt singing because of errors or poor content or music.

5.  All of us are prone to going through the motions, and this possibility increases in churches where there is a set liturgy.

6.  We don’t seem to understand very well how God is truly experienced, and how necessary the Word is in experiencing God.  The two articles about experiencing God by John Woodhouse (recently posted on the Sola Panel) could help us a lot.

I am concerned that many people think that God is with them in his Spirit – but may not appreciate/believe we are to gather around his word – we are to come “to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” and must “not refuse him who is speaking.” (Heb 12).
Re singing.
I take it that our singing is our response to the glorious gospel. Therefore if singing is not ‘hearty’ then I would first ensure that the gospel is central in our gathering and so in our songs. If the gospel is not central to our songs we can’t expect right heart response.

There is the issue that singing can be enthusiastic but not of the Lord - with engaging tunes and distorted theology.
In the face of poor singing we need to preach and pray that the gospel would grip the hearts and minds of people.

(I do acknowledge that poor song leading, poor tunes can impact, also quality of acoustics of buildings etc.)

I am interested to explore why people in the pews may not be engaged.

Di

Hi everyone. I’m with Claire. Whatever else we do in thinking theologically about our assemblies, we need to be engage ourselves in the pews.

Half-hearted singing as a typical response by a believer is terrible regardless of our personality types. Singing whole-heartedly, with lots of gratitude in our hearts and so on, seems right to me.

In regards to Di’s question:

Does everyone here agree that we are a gathering around the word of God? or is something else being thought?

Would it be more precise (though long-winded) to say we are gathering around God himself, present by his Spirit, as he addresses us in his word?

I would argue that the church is heavenly, and that Christ’s church is gathered around him in heaven (Heb. 12:22-24).

When Christ’s heavenly people gather together on the Lord’s Day they do so for two primary reasons: worship and fellowship.

Of these two main purposes, worship is the harder to biblically prove.  Gathering for fellowship is easy to prove from verses like Hebrews 10:24-25:  “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”

Meeting together for worship is proven from the Lord’s institution of the Supper, when he said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”  The word “remembrance” is an allusion to the fourth commandment, and the fouth commandment was not simply a day of rest, but also a day of observance or worship, as a comparison of Exodus 20:8 and Deuteronomy 5:12 shows.

Therefore, worship is all of life, but also something we observe through Word and sacrament on the Lord’s Day.  But fellowship is also a key reason for meeting together.  Both vertical and horizontal aspects are important in our gatherings.

Hi Di,

Just to clarify, I’m not saying that aspects of our church meetings are either horizontal or vertical. The whole of life has a vertical God-ward dimension. But if we are speaking or singing words addressed to God (or about him), as we should be doing when we come together, then being mindful that this is what we are doing and doing it in a way that reflects that spiritual reality doesn’t distort what we’re doing.

And I would say it highlights the grace of God in the gospel, rather than sidelines it. (Though I confess I’m not sure I understand your point here.)

You may be right, that we need to do more work on the notion of praise, but in the meantime I’m sure it’s not singing ‘Tell out my soul’ or ‘How great is our God’ with little enthusiasm or conviction! Do we really want to say to God “yes, you’re great, but I can’t get too excited about it’?

Some thoughts…
I find that the horizontal/vertical categorisation of church activities is unhelpful as it tends to distort the nature and dynamic of each activity and also tends to sideline the grace of God in the gospel.

Does everyone here agree that we are a gathering around the word of God? or is something else being thought?

My hunch is that we need to do a lot more work on the notion of ‘praise’.

cheers di

Hi Mark and Ellen,

Responding to Mark several posts ago: I don’t think we’ve given our church meetings a ‘bland’ purpose so much as horizontal one. That is, somehow we’ve been so keen to emphasise (rightly) that worship involves the whole of life that when we come together as believers we don’t quite know what we’re doing, beyond encouraging one another and hearing the Bible taught. Obviously these are not ‘bland’ purposes – but if Christ is with us when two or three are gathered together in his name, and God’s people are commanded individually and corporately to praise him, then there should be a vertical dimension to our meetings as well as a horizontal (which I take it, is what you’re saying).

It’s because of this that Ellen’s earlier comment that ‘we’re at church to praise God to each other as part of our upbuilding, not as an end in itself’ can’t be right on its own.

We do encourage one another as we praise God (that’s why our praise must be intelligible cf. 1 Cor. 14:15-17) but surely our praise more than a means to this end. If the chief end of man and woman is to glorify God then our praise (in thanksgiving, proclamation, song, and prayer) has a purpose independent of its impact on others – it is an end in itself – but in God’s kindness we also glorify him as we build each other up while we praise him!

Hi Ellen

Thanks for sharing again.

My plea is for a purposeful God-ward focus in our gatherings.

If this is what Old Testaments saints did; and this is what we’ll be doing in eternity, then surely we should be doing it now.

This is not to the exclusion of serving one another - not at all!

I first wrote on this back in 2003 here: http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/archive/indepth/786a/

There is not much more I would add even now. I realise of course many disagree - that’s fine - so long as we can love and respect one another at the same time and continue learning with all humility.

Mark

My view is a bit different, and as it happens my minister preached about church today from I Tim 3:15.  He had three points
We are God’s household, so we as a church ought to be like a loving family, where people serve and help each other to grow up into Christ (ie, church isn’t all about the sermon but about everyone ministering).  Then we are the church, the earthly gathering that reflects the heavenly reality of our presence with Christ, so we ought to be regular attenders.  And we are the pillar and foundation of truth, proclaiming the gospel to the world, individually as well as corporately. 
It seems to me that praise is not a separate thing but intrinsic to these ideas, and that worship occurs when God’s word is proclaimed in an atmosphere of brotherly love. (Note that Rom 12:1 is in the context of serving the body.) Therefore, I’ll stick with seeing church as meeting together to encourage one another, with my role being to serve however I can.  This is not a bland purpose:  it is love.

While I carry no particular brief for various of the Crusaders, someone like St Isidore of Seville seems more relevant to the formation of their political views than Constantine (who for one thing I doubt would be all that keen on the sacking of his eponymous city.)

Four young men, all past ministry apprentices, in today’s language, went with Afgan Border Crusade in the early 1980s to investigate Jesus discipleship ministry ways there. I was one of those men. I was privileged to be tutored by Alan Tippett for a year prior to going, benefited from Wycliffe training and had prior experience in making disciples on campus and with grads. Little did we know what to expect. I set myself the goal of going through primary school civics texts, daily bible reading and study (following Ken Short’s example) on top of daily language learning. This was the early days of non traditional work ie outside compounds and with a discipleship focus. We quickly learnt the need for understanding, love, patience, kindness, the need to rejoice, realism, prayer, discipline and that suffering was as daily aspect of life. What am I saying - cast out the notion of conquest, convert, colonise/control and focus on rejoicing and worshiping our Lord and growing a servant heart. Let people see you as Jesus followers, be involved in their lives, live at their level, listen.  Within two years our visas were cancelled, I was sick and we returned. A lost cause. No way!!! To undo the legacy of the Crusades, and there are modern day parallels, involves rethinking deeply - this remains a current need. A substantial biblical training (theo college) and teaming up with like minded people are essentials. We were weak on these fronts. However, we all did have a disciplemaking passion. ... My two cents.  Yes, I returned did a triple major in cultural anthropology and now in retirement I am at theo college- full time! Kill the notion of retirement as a western world, twentieth century invention ... WE have a job to do!!  Go for it Peter Bolt an excellent initiative. This should be a standing task force!

I appreciate this article alot, as I had just listened to an old Dick Lucas audio series from St. Helens Church in London in which he spoke against John Wimber and his LACK of preaching of Christ Crucified.

I did not know who John Wimber was, and from the article and comments I can now see why Dick Lucas was not very impressed by Wimber.

I should say that as far as bible teachers go, Dick Lucas is my all-time favorite and has been most influential in my growth as a christian.

The problem Lucas asserted was that Wimber claimed to see all through the NT that it spoke of healing people to be the priority of christianity. Thge fact is, however, that all through the NT we in fact find the exact opposite. That we are called to take up the cross of Christ, and suffering is something much more likely to take place in the true believer’s life. Main reason being that are salvation is not completed until we have our resurrection bodies, and that simply has not happened yet.

Saying that we are all supposed to be healed makes many christians fearful that they are doing something wrong or that they “don’t have enough faith” when they don’t get healed or go through persecution or suffering, when in fact the NT says all through it that suffering and persectuion is normal for the believer.

I know I am not putting this in the best possible words, and thats not a surprise since I am no Dick Lucas or Don Carson. I wish I was as good a speaker as either of those two legends, but I am not.

So I just want to say your article has been very helpful for me in making Dick Lucas’s point. Reading what Wimber had to say perfectly completes the excellent teaching given by Dick Lucas.

Hmm, no more comments. I was hoping there would be some comment about the response from Jack Deere. One thing I found interesting was that at the beginning of the Briefing article linked above is the following sentence:

<i>The discussions, which lasted just under three hours, were requested by some Sydney people who had reservations about the Signs and Wonders ministry.</i>

But in Phillip Jensen’s response to Jack Deere’s article (included at the end of Deere’s response) Jensen asserts:

<i>The meeting at your hotel was arranged
on the instigation of some of your
Australian supporters, not on our initiative</i>.

This is not to criticise Phillip Jensen, but merely to illustrate a clear mistake (or clear lack of clarity) on the part of those who “reported (and reflected) only what we heard and observed”. I’m afraid the writers for that edition of the Briefing don’t come out looking the best from this exchange. But I would be interested in other people’s views…

Hi Ellen

I think that encouragement and building up happens because of praising God and submitting to his word together.

If I make the praise of God and submitting to his Word my first aim as we gather, then there will be tremendous encouragement and inspiration to go on praising and submitting in the week to come.

Mark

But Mark, meeting to encourage one another IS a high purpose.  The body is there to serve and build itself up in love.  I think we’re at church to praise God to each other as part of our upbuilding, not as an end in itself.

Or have I misunderstood you?

I was directed to a Youtube version of Carl Sagan’s Small Blue Dot speech today (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnFMrNdj1yY&feature=related).  I immediately thought of Douglas Adams too.  There’s an assumption that most of us don’t have a right perspective on our place in the universe, but Christians, and Jews before them, have had it right all along.  And we even have a God who is mindful of us…

Very interesting to read your comments re those in the pews at church.

I think part of the issue is the confusion there has been about church.

We have so downgraded the importance of the praise of God to the meeting with one another, that the bland response reflects the bland purpose we have attributed to the gathering. If those leading don’t have a high view of the significance of the service, then those in the pews won’t either.

And sadly, little thought is given to the flow of services; so a confession or creed is ticked off as things which should happen, but with little or no thought to their placement in the service and little or no introduction

I have also been in church for communion where so much time has been spent telling me what this IS NOT, that it can hardly mean anything by the time we participate!

Just a few thoughts.

Every blessing,

Mark

Hi Peter

I agree with the need to do serious history and unmask propaganda (though, as I’m sure you’re aware, if one is serious about the task then one will read more than just Stark on the crusades).

But I’m not sure about the relevance of the crusader’s violent actions to the gospel of Jesus, except that these were people who presumably misappropriated Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom of God (with its nonviolent ethic and its path of suffering leading to vindication) under the influence of Constantinianism.

Rob

Hi James,

I would say that Psalm 8 is a good example of special revelation (of God as creator and YHWH as Lord of Israel) properly interpreting general revelation (of God’s majesty displayed in the heavens). I.e. Calvin’s “spectacles” are at work here:

Just as old or bleary-eyed men and those with weak vision, if you thrust before them a most beautiful volume, even if they recognize it t of be some sort of writing, yet can scarcely construe two words, but with the aid of spectacles will begin to read distinctly; so Scripture, gathering up the otherwise confused knowledge of God in our minds, having dispersed our dullness, clearly shows us the true God.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.vi.1

Do you think so?

Thanks Lionel,
Just been thinking about this issue after we had a lecture on revelation (Special vs General) and looked at Calvin, Barth and Brunner’s views.
How do you think they impact Ps 8? (I agree though, Ps 8 is very majestic and humbles us)

Hi Karen, apologies about the name. My bad. (Do people say that anymore?)

After writing the previous comment, I looked up the Vineyard response. Here’s a link to Jack Deere’s response to the Briefing. http://joshuatongol.com/images/stories/Josh/jack deere response.pdf (you can find it at some Vineyard websites as well). At the end Jack Deere notes that he contacted Phillip Jensen before publishing his response and includes Jensen’s reply.

Sandy, I have been involved in a Vineyard Church before, and I myself am critical of many aspects of the Vineyard movement. I am also not keen on Jack Deere’s involvement with certain parties after he left Vineyard. However, I think it is clear to see that much of the criticism found in the Briefing had more to do with acceptable differences in theological understanding than any heretical views reported by the Briefing articles.

For example, the shocking assertion that Jack Deere didn’t even know what the gospel was turns out to be Deere’s explanation that he was in the middle of working through the specifics of the “gospel of the Kingdom” spoken of in the gospels as opposed to the gospel presented elsewhere in the New Testament - a distinction acknowledged (and I would argue better understood) by many people today.

For all of the Vineyard’s faults, one of the things I admire (and causes me to take what comes from certain people involved seriously) is the willingness to accept where they stuff up - and that includes the evangelistic evening you attended as seen in Deere’s response. I think what this exchange shows is the way that churches (and not just the Vineyard) sidelined the gospel <i>often</i> while concentrating on other topics, instead of incorporating the gospel into everything a la Tim Keller (my favourite practioner in that sense).

Ramble ramble. I need to go to work. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

On page 2 of The Briefing #49, June 1990, the editors reported both the way the “Wimber” edition sold out, even the extra 1600 printed.

They also mentioned a number of people who wrote to express their disappointment, including quoting extracts from 3 who were critical of aspects of the critique.

Speaking personally, I was a 21 y.o. first year theological student at the time, from a little Anglican church with a charismatic influence in the youth group. I still love my time there and stay in touch with the people whenever I can.

We young adults had been introduced to Mr Wimber’s books, Power Healing and Power Evangelism, which I naively just swallowed without discernment.

The Briefing’s critique led me to attend one of Wimber’s public meetings at the Sydney Showground. Now trying to be more discerning, but still trying to be positive, I was sorry to say that although Wimber spoke warmly of Jesus and the kingdom, the message of the cross and the way of suffering (both for Christ and his followers) was completely sidelined. Not denied, but sidelined, and this on an occasion when people were invited to repent and trust in Christ.

The emphasis on so needing signs and wonders just did not feel like knowing “Christ and him crucified” as the power of God for salvation (1 Corinthians 1-2).

On such a central issue, I am still grateful years later for the men who spoke out in The Briefing in defence of the gospel.

Aggressive I would reject.

Plain-spoken I was agree with.

And in fact, if I recall correctly, it seems they modeled very clearly a personal and private effort at addressing the issues before doing anything public.

Hi Ali!

A simple search doesn’t reveal the answer easily; I’d have to hunt through the archives, which I don’t have time to do at present. Do you happen to have the link?

(P.S. Please use your full name for all future comments as per our comment policy. Many thanks!)

Yes, I remember those articles. Very aggressive in their attitude from memory, though they had some interesting points.

Did the Briefing ever respond/link to the Vineyard response to the articles? A few different recollections and points of view emerge.

Hi James,

A good question; I’m not really sure if it’s possible to separate the two out, because the bloke in the Psalm is already a believer in God; and the entire astronomical enterprise itself has been deeply influenced by Biblical thought.

Having said that, there are plenty of non-Christians who will assert that astronomy teaches us how small we are. Maybe they’re all unconsciously influenced by the word of God when they say that? Well, maybe, but I reckon it’s just kind of obvious. It’s not a huge spiritual leap to look at the data about how massive the universe is and conclude that we’re small and insignificant. Of course, it’s quite another thing to understand this insignificance as a positive thing, and then to find our true significance / greatness in the right place. At this point (verses 5 onwards), the Psalmist is clearly referring to the biblical view of creation, not to his own observations (e.g. observations about zoology wouldn’t have taught him that “everything that passes along the paths of the seas” is under human dominion).

Is it astronomy that teaches us that we are very small or the Word of God that interprets those observations for us? Ps 8 gives us the ‘spectacles’ to see the significance (both smallness and greatness) of our place in the amazing universe. Thoughts?