Essentials

Details

Written by: Dale Appleby

Book Review: Inventing the Universe: Why we can't stop talking about science, faith and God
Alister McGrath
Hodder and Stoughton, 2015

The “war” between science and religion has moved on, and this book is an attempt to move it further on, into a discussion that can be mutually respectful and enriching. McGrath traces his own transition from a fully assured teenage atheist to a convinced Christian. Part of this testimony involves a recurring and unflattering comparison between the Anti-theist group and his teenage over-simplified atheism. McGrath engages respectfully with a number of dialogue partners on various sides of the debate, including Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Mary Midgley and Roger Scruton. One of his aims is to correct outdated perceptions of the conflict between science and religion (it is a recently invented myth), although his chief opponent is the New Atheism which he claims is not traditional atheism, but actually Anti-theism.

The main idea is that science has limitations, as does religion. There are clear boundaries beyond which their claim to knowledge is false. The newscientism, really an ideology, wants to pretend that science can tell us about meaning (or the impossibility of meaning) and guide us in ethical and moral areas. McGrath ventures into psychology (do we have souls?), ethics, uncertainty in science, and the nature of knowledge, to clarify these issues. He also discusses briefly the problems of religion wanting to answer questions of science as in Creation Science, and has a very helpful discussion on Darwinism and evolution (both biological and social).

In all of this he proposes an old idea that religion, especially Christianity, and science are able to engage in a “narrative of enrichment” that allows both parties to contribute what they do best to a broad understanding of the universe we are part of. “This is not about inventing a make-believe universe, but about discerning the deeper levels of meaning and beauty that are already present within our universe yet which are too easily missed if we limit ourselves to one tradition of inquiry or to one map of reality.” (203)

The book seems repetitive at times, but the repetition mostly concerns McGrath's changes of mind over time. This, for me, was quite interesting so the repetition didn't become too tedious. The book ranges over a lot of different science, much of it up to date. Its main strength is to make clear that the Anti-theist agenda is based on an outmoded Enlightenment understanding of rationality, that the debates have moved on, that the later writings of Richard Dawkins and others are less and less reasonable and scientific, and that there is a lot to be gained by recognizing that science and Christianity have significant areas of understanding to contribute to each other.

Dale Appleby, WA

Details

Written by: Bp Tony Nichols

Book Review: The Gentle Answer
to the Muslim Accusation of Biblical Falsification
Gordon D Nickel
Bruton Gate, 2014 (2nd ed. 2015)

While the media reminds us daily of the challenge of resurgent Islam — not least to the secular West — as Christians we are reminded that Muslims represent the largest unreached people group - over one and a half billion people. Indonesia, our near neighbour, has over 200 million adherents of Islam.

Despite the awfulness of what has been done to our brothers and sisters in the Middle East and elsewhere, we need to remind ourselves that we have more in common with Muslims than with the secular humanism that is now the dominant worldview of our culture. With Muslims, we believe in one sovereign  Creator whose judgement we all face. Muslims too, honour Jesus as the greatest prophet before Muhammed. They believe he was born of a virgin, that he lived a sinless life, and that he will be a key figure in the final judgement.

There are, however, fundamental differences: most obviously in the understanding of the unity of God; in the understanding of the person and work of Jesus; in the diagnosis of the human plight, and, of course, Islam offers no saviour. These differences are rooted in a different understanding of revelation.

That is the issue addressed in Professor Gordon Nickel’s book. Both Christians and Muslims claim their respective holy books to be the Word of God. Muslims believe the text of the Qu’ran was inerrantly received and transmitted. The angel Gabriel dictated the words of the Qu’ran to Muhammed and what was recorded has been perfectly preserved to the present.

However, Muslims deny the reliability of the Bible, firstly because they say human authorship is not compatible with divine inspiration, and secondly because the text has been corrupted in transmission. Worse still, Muslim polemic regularly claims that the text of the Torah, the Psalms, the Prophets and the Gospel has been deliberately changed, not least to obscure the identity of God’s final messenger, Muhammed.
This is where Dr. Gordon Nickel comes to our aid with his scholarly The Gentle Answer to the Muslim Accusation of Biblical Falsification. Dr Nickel’s book sets out to answer in particular, the fierce accusations found in an influential Arabic work, first published in 1864, namely the Izhar al Haqq (which translates as “Demonstration of Truth”) by Rahmat Allah Kairanwi.

The book, which draws heavily on 19th century liberal biblical scholarship, has continued to provide ammunition for Muslim polemicists, not least in the subcontinent, through its Urdu translation.

In answering the charge that Jews and Christians have falsified the Bible, Dr Nickel makes many helpful points. Firstly, he establishes that the Qu’ran itself makes no such claim. Rather it speaks of the earlier Scriptures with great respect. Secondly, this respect for both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospels is echoed by the earliest Muslim commentators. Their criticism is of the Jews of Medina who failed to recognize the Messenger of Islam, despite the promise of his coming.

With regard to the charge of a corrupt transmission of the Biblical text, Dr. Nickel cites the remarkable discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947) which shows that the Hebrew Scriptures have been transmitted faithfully since the second century BC.  Likewise with regard to the New Testament documents, the abundance of manuscript evidence exceeds anything that Muslims can show for the Qu’ran or for the subsequent biographies of Muhammed.

Moreover, Dr Nickel is able to cite many earlier exegetes of the Qu’ran who spoke frankly of the incompleteness of the Qu’ran and of the lack of unanimity concerning its interpretation.  With regard to the reliability of the Qu’ranic text in current use, the scrutiny applied to the Bible’s transmission is avoided.

In the final section of The Gentle Answer, Section 4 (Chs. 19-24), the author deals with the central truths found in the trustworthy Bible, truths which Muslims deny — about Jesus as the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy: the suffering Servant King foreshadowed by the Prophet Isaiah, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,  the Messianic Son of God, and the promised Holy Spirit. These are the teachings which provide the raw data for the doctrine of the Trinity — one God in three persons.

Much debate between Muslims and Christians has been characterised by fierce hostility, not least from the Muslim side. The Gentle Answer invites Muslims into a mutually respectful conversation based on the contents of Qu’ran and the Bible. I commend to you this scholarly but accessible book as a very useful resource for sharing Christ with Muslims and for answering the objections which are commonly raised. Professor Nickel fulfils his stated aim expressed in 1 Peter 3:15-16:

“In your hearts reverence the Messiah as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in the Messiah may be put to shame.”

Bishop A.H. (Tony) Nichols, WA

Details

Written by: Dale Appleby

Book Review: Trapped in the Gap: Doing Good in Indigenous Australia
By Emma Kowal
Berghahn 2015

Emma Kowal describes herself as a ‘native ethnographer’, by which she means an anthropologist studying her own kind. Her own kind in this book are ‘White anti-racists’, a term she defines carefully. By ‘White’ she doesn't necessarily refer to skin colour, rather it applies to those who ‘willingly and unwillingly, knowingly and unknowingly, participate in the racialised societal structure that positions them as 'White' and accordingly grants them privileges associated with the dominant Australian culture.’ (11). Anti-racist is defined from an anthropological perspective as ‘a culture, discourse and identity’.

Kowal is studying a group of health workers like herself (she worked in the Northern Territory as a doctor and is now Associate Professor of Anthropology at Deakin University). These are 'White anti-racists' who are trying to do good in Indigenous communities, and who want to be distinguished from past attempts by colonial settlers such as missionaries and the Assimilationists. Her own experience of working in the field led her to see that there was deep questioning as to whether they were actually doing anything to 'close the gap'. Was it just another colonial enterprise? One of the workers she tells of critiques herself by saying, ‘nearly every health promotion message she advocates conflicts with the social practices of the Aboriginal people she works with.’ (7).

There is a gap between the promises of liberal multiculturalism and the experiences of Whites who seek to help the Indigenous minorities. That is where many of those most committed to do good are trapped. Why are they trapped? Partly because of the way they understand themselves.
The understanding of 'difference' between Indigenous and non–Indigenous is part of a set of beliefs held by ‘non– Indigenous, left-wing, middle-class professionals who work in Indigenous affairs’. Kowal's term is 'remediable difference' – ‘a difference that can be improved.’ These beliefs affirm the positive value of the culture of Indigenous people, recognize the problems that stem from dispossession, displacement, intergenerational trauma, and the responsibility of the Australian people and governments for the problems and the obligation to help. 'Self-determination' and 'community consultation' are crucial to this set of beliefs.

One of the tensions for White anti-racists is between equality and difference. ‘...the beliefs of White anti-racists are underpinned by the idea that Indigenous people are distinctively different from White people (difference), and … that White people have both the ability and an obligation to improve the lives of Indigenous people (equality).’ There are distinctions in 'difference'. Some difference is good (the traditional culture), some is bad (the things that need to be erased in order to 'close the gap').

Serious questions arise at this point. ‘..when we close the gap and make Indigenous people statistically equal to non-Indigenous people, could we be making them less Indigenous?’ Is this a form of assimilation? One of the ways out of this dilemma is to see the problems as essentially structural. We are not changing the people only the structures that cause their disadvantage.

But what if 'agency' was also a significant factor? Remediable difference assumes that Indigenous agency (choice) will mirror the values and choices of White anti-racists. But what if Indigenous people were 'radically different'? What if they had radically different priorities and values to White people? One of the difficulties is that Indigenous people don't always seem to want to follow the values and behaviours that White anti-racists think they should.

A paradigm shift away from self-determination is also under way. The Intervention challenged the principles of self-determination. Remedialism has replaced remediable difference. Cultural difference will no longer be relevant.

Another threat to White anti-racists understanding is the concept of the 'authentic Indigenous voice'.  Pearson and Langton have been instrumental in ‘ending the fantasy that Indigenous people at a community, regional or national level present a unified view.’ (163)

‘The dilemmas … described in this book illustrate the broader contradictions of liberal multiculturalism.’ (165) They reflect the crisis of universalism, particularly of a universal human nature.  Culture theory recognises multiple ways of being human. Differences between groups and their behaviours could now be regarded as mere difference. Not difference related to a universal norm or even the norms of another culture. No longer 'remediable difference'. Just 'culture' without any power relations implied.

Possible alternatives? Decouple Indigeneity from disadvantage and marginality. Loosen the definition to include all kinds of Indigenous people. Redefine it to free it from its opposition to whiteness and from its anchor to the past. Perhaps allow multiple identities or layered (Pearson) identity. For White anti-racists an alternative politics could explore non-stigmatised, non-settler identities. ‘A more reasonable goal may be a plurality of identity … which would reject the idea of mutually exclusive categories without abandoning categories altogether.’ (169).

Like Peter Sutton's The Politics of Suffering, Kowal's book confronts a disturbing reality. The Gap is not closing. And the attempts by White anti-racists don't seem to be helping. Her idea is that part of the problem is how White anti-racists define themselves, and part of this problem is how they define the Indigenous people they are trying to help. Her solution lies in the area of new definitions and understandings of identity. Her suggestions are tentative. The debate is still fluid. Christians have something to say about this.

Dale Appleby, WA

Details

Written by: Chris and Karen Webb

Chris and Karen Webb have been working as CMS missionaries in Broome for nearly two years now alongside the Broome People's Church.
Essentials asked them about their ministry and the kinds of things they have observed so far.

Ess: What kinds of backgrounds do the people come from? And what languages do they speak?

Webbs: Quite a diverse group of people attend Broome People’s Church (BPC). BPC is primarily a church for Aboriginal people and the congregation members represent many cultural subgroups - town people, bush people, coastal people, inland people, those who speak traditional languages and those who don’t. Most people come from communities or areas in the Kimberley where there have been many decades of Protestant mission activity – places in the vicinity of Halls Creek, Fitzroy Crossing, Derby and One Arm Point. They have varying levels of education, economic status and literacy skills.

Read more: Making it Work in Broome

Details

Written by: Mark Thompson

Mark Thompson argues for the propriety of taking a stand in theological controversy. Indeed he argues that it is not merely permitted to Christians, but that in times of sore need it is a mark of great Christian leadership.

Dr Mark Thompson is the Principal of Moore College, Newtown NSW.

1. Three great stands

In the mid-fourth century the bishop of Alexandria looked increasingly isolated as a supporter of the decisions of the Council of Nicaea in 325.

As a young man, Athanasius had been present at the Council and he was committed to its view that Scripture teaches the Son is as much God as the Father is. One little word captured the sentiment, though for twenty-five years or so Athanasius avoided debating that word. It was the word homoousion, ‘of the same substance’. The Son is of the same substance as the Father — not another substance, not a derived substance, not a created substance — and because he is of the same substance, he is worthy of the same honour and obedience and worship as the Father. Because he is of the same substance, he is able to save us. That was the confession of the 318 bishops who gathered at Nicaea. It was Athanasius’ confession (he only became a bishop three years later). But following the council, one by one the bishops of the ancient church were persuaded to abandon the term and the Emperor himself spoke against it. In what is most probably an apocryphal tale, Athanasius’ servant is supposed to have come into his room one morning agitated and exclaiming ‘Athansius, do you not know the whole world is against you?’ And Athanasius is reported to have said ‘Well then, is Athanasius against the world’. Athanasius contra mundum — it is a Latin slogan that has become synonymous with integrity, with a willingness to stand up and confess the truth no matter what the odds. It meant having the courage to stand alone. It is one of the stirring stories of church history. It energises people even today. And one of the reasons for that is that in the end, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (eight years after Athanasius’ death), he was vindicated.

Read more: When to Make a Stand. Part 1

Details

Written by: Chris Appleby

Essentials Summer 2015