Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts

Some thoughts on reincarnation

Books on reincarnation cite a significant pedigree. And the idea has pervaded history, becoming increasingly prominent during the last few decades in the west. Hearing this and reading accounts of individuals who have remembered past lives can easily leave the Christian wondering whether there is truth here after all.

The following has been written for a church member I am seeing who has admitted she holds to reincarnation. A number of things can be said in response.

Problems with reincarnation
It does not resonate with what it means to be human.
Reincarnation affirms an impersonal end that neither corresponds with human nature or instinct. Although it is said that the individual’s soul-life reincarnates, they are not the same individual in the sense that we understand identity, not least, because they may have previously been an animal. Moreover, their destiny on reaching perfection is to be absorbed into an impersonal reality. This is a far cry from the Christian hope of resurrection in which the individual becomes more fully themselves, and lives in community in a perfected world. Whereas this resonates with who we are now and what our humanity cries out for in this life, reincarnation essentially denies this.

It does not resonate with our sense of justice and compassion.
Reincarnation can lead to a callousness over suffering, stating that its cause is the impersonal justice of karma and therefore it is deserved for one’s acts in a past life. Moreover, it implies differing degrees of humanity. Some who believe in reincarnation may act inconsistently here, and care for the suffering. Nevertheless, the caste system in India shows only too well where the logic of karma leads. By contrast, Jesus affirmed the dignity and equality of all human beings as made in God’s image, and the injustice of much suffering as we are sinned against.

It logically leads to despair.
Reincarnation offers little hope of deliverance from suffering as it anticipates a huge if not unending period of reincarnation before attaining perfection. One can only hope in the face of death, to be reincarnated in a better context. But there can be no guarantee of that, and one can be led to great fear over what one’s sins in this life might lead to in the next, and to deep despair in trying to do enough to ensure the much needed progression. Indeed, in not knowing what happened in one’s previous life, one cannot never know if they are doing better or worse. Essentially reincarnation is therefore a system where salvation is granted according to human works that our consciences tell us we will never manage to do. By contrast, Jesus spoke of salvation by grace, where simple but sincere belief and trust in his identity and work grants free forgiveness of sins and, with it, the certainty of eternal life with no return to this harsh world.

It potentially encourages evil.
Reincarnation encourages evil by removing any idea of personally giving account for one’s actions. The individual will rarely be aware in the next life of the previous one. And so they can be tempted to act as they wish, knowing that although karma may dispense some justice, they will never be conscious of it as the person they are now. This cannot be said of Christians who really believe there will be a judgment day in which all we have done will be revealed and called to account by a personal God.

Evidence against reincarnation
In some senses, all the above points stand against reincarnation in showing that it just doesn’t resonate with our instincts. However, our instincts are always an ambiguous and more debatable test of truth. More firm are the following two points.

It does not deliver what it promises.
Reincarnation assumes moral progress within humanity, yet this just isn’t seen. The idea of karma is that the experiences of the present life help us learn from the previous one and ‘work off’ the bad so that we progress towards perfection. Logically this should mean humanity gets better and better, and strikingly so, considering the billions of years life has existed. However one only needs consider the horror of the two world wars or the depravity found in any city to recognize that the evidence is strongly against such a claim. Indeed, the pockets of civilization that do seem more morally advanced are those with a Judao-Christian heritage. And where that is being eroded, a moral regression is being witnessed.

It contradicts God’s own teaching.
This must be the decider for the Christian. We have significant evidence that Jesus was God made man: The coherence of the Bible in predicting and pointing forward to him, Jesus’ wisdom, his character, his miracles and resurrection all combine to prove his claim. And as the Son of God who returned from death he is the only one fully qualified to teach on life, death and what lies beyond.

Those who propound reincarnation try to read it into the pages of the Bible and place it on the lips of Jesus. But any straightforward reading of the gospels recognizes that on almost every other page Jesus says something about a judgment day to come, followed by either hell or the kingdom of God in a perfect world. Moreover, he affirms not our need to better ourselves to attain salvation, but our need to come to him for forgiveness. Moral change is then to be motivated out of love for him, not a desire to receive a better incarnation.

By authorizing the Old Testament and the apostolic writings we have in the New Testament, Jesus also points us to the many ways they contradict and challenge the idea of reincarnation. As already mentioned, we might consider in particular the fact that as those in God’s image, human beings are created as set-apart from other animals. To suggest that the same soul might incarnate an animal in one life and a human being in the next is therefore to deny the distinctions of creation.

There is just no way then that someone who believes in reincarnation can affirm Jesus’ authority to teach us, nor say the Apostles’ Creed recited every week in church: “I believe…he will come to judge the living and the dead…I believe…in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.” To read reincarnation into these statements is to do some significant linguist gymnastics that does no justice to their original intent. The question arises therefore: Will we accept Jesus’ authority to teach us, or deny it for the sake of our own uncertain feelings or the teachings of mere humans?

The danger of reincarnation
This is now apparent. It keeps people from receiving God’s salvation. Jesus was adamant that this can only be received if we (1) recognize that we can never be good enough to deserve or earn it, (2) believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, proving him to be his Son and King who will one day judge us, (3) come to him for mercy and with a willingness to change our lives out of love for him.

By contrast, reincarnation requires us to deny a judgment day and with it the need of God’s forgiveness. It therefore requires us to look to what we can do to be saved, rather than to what Jesus has done. In short, it keeps us from God’s salvation.

But what of the experiences people have of past lives?
It is striking in reading accounts, how many have given them under the fairly strong leading of others who have ‘drawn out’ or even suggested the stories, whether in formal sessions of past life regression or informal comment on the experiences the individual is having. We should be very cautious indeed of this. Our dreams alone show how powerfully the mind can recall or even create ideas and situations on the basis of things we may not even remember seeing or hearing. Moreover, those who already have a leaning towards reincarnation can only too easily interpret a powerful sense or experience in those terms, when it could well be explained by other means.

As Christians, however, we must also acknowledge that although many stories of past lives may be explained purely at this level, demonic powers can also suggest all manner of ideas, particularly when an individual opens themselves to contact with spiritual beings as many within the New Age movement do. There is, in fact, a striking similarity between the accounts of physical manifestations that have taken place as people have recounted past lives, and the manifestations I have personally seen in the context of demon possession.

The way ahead
I hope it is clear that there can be no possibility of truly following Jesus and holding to reincarnation. In the end, the question comes down to one of trustworthiness. Will we accept that he is the Son of God and so the ultimate authority on issues of life, death and beyond? Or will we give our own experiences or the ideas of others this status? There is great temptation to choose the latter. But I hope the points above, and our own awareness of how uncertain our experiences and the ideas of others are, will keep us from it. As mentioned, the stakes are very high in this.

Piper on George Whitfield Part II

Now finished this lecture. Lessons from the second part?
  1. Whitefield's preaching was densely doctrinal. When once considers its impact, we see that a prayerful reliance on the Spirit of God to give understanding is what is needed for our preaching in an increasingly illiterate age, not a dumbing down of the message.
  2. Whitefield unashamedly preached the reformed doctrines of grace. Again, this reliance on God doesn't mean we have to shy away from the hard truths of the gospel.
  3. The most thought provoking point: Whitefield was fallible in supporting slavery in the US. Yet by pressing the need to evangelise the slaves, he did more for their cause and dignity than perhaps any other at the time. Why? Because he stressed that they had souls too, that they could flourish just as much as anyone else with Christ and with education. This put me to thinking, that whereas political correctness balks at the idea of evangelism, the very concept is truly affirming of people's equality and dignity. Eg. to say one shouldn't evangelise Muslims say, or those living in another country, becomes a form of racism in which they are denied a fair opportunity to accept or reject Christ. Or it simply patronises people in suggesting they are not as capable as the Westerner in being discerning about what they are hearing. As so often, the irony of liberalism is that if it is to be consistent, it must end up critiquing itself.

Evolution and the BBC

I still have a number of reservations about the compatibility of Genesis with evolution as it is propounded today. Nevertheless, I am also provoked at the lack of willingness by the media in this 'year of Darwin' to even acknowledge that there are many bible believing Christians that do see a compatibility.


The following was written in our church magazine to try to address this.


Fridays we receive a news magazine. It contains an item entitled: 'It must be true, I read it in the tabloids.' The assumption is of course that the tabloids are notoriously untrustworthy. Reflecting on various documentaries over the last months, I wonder whether another item deserves inclusion: 'It must be true, I heard it on TV.'


In a year in which we remember the diligent research of Charles Darwin, it is ironic that programs presenting the issues he raises are allowed to be so biased. Watching them, one would assume that Darwin somehow dealt religion a fatal blow. We are certainly led to believe that before his arrival Christians had always held that the world was created in a literal six days, and that after his work they stubbornly refused to give any credence to the evidence he produced.


Yet this is demonstrably false. Origen (3rd century) and Augustine (4th century) are two of the most formative early Christian thinkers. Yet both held that the six days were intended to be read figuratively. A Jewish theologian named Philo lived around the time of Jesus. His writings show that this view was current even then. And numerous Christian thinkers since the time of Darwin have seen the Genesis account in just this way.


Evolution doesn't therefore prove the Bible wrong. If true, it simply suggests that those who think the Bible’s portrayal of creation was always intended to be read more like a poetic account of history than a scientific one, are probably right. This is not to say that there are no Christians thinkers who take a different view. No, the problem is with the decision to focus only on these people, and on the extreme ones at that.


So it seems that a compatibility between modern science and Christian faith is just not controversial enough for airtime. And the desire for controversy is not limited to this subject alone. For example, the apparent controversies highlighted in the early episodes of Channel 4’s history of Christianity were debunked years ago, and are in no way a threat to what has always been believed about Jesus.


This Easter we remember the death and historical resurrection of Jesus. John finishes his account of these events by writing: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20v31).


Let’s be more discerning with what we hear on TV. There are very good reasons indeed for believing that the God who made this world entered this world in Jesus, and that he gives eternal life to those who turn to him. Can I therefore invite you this Easter Day to join us at church, and consider this authentic and wonderful message of Jesus with us.

The benefits of Christianity

So often the liberal west demonizes oversees mission. Certainly abuses did occur. But the irony is that Christians in the developing world are deeply thankful for those who risked life and limb to bring the life-changing culture-transforming message of Jesus to them.

As a breath of fresh air, Matthew Parris (an atheist) has written an article reflecting on the good Christianity has brought to Africa. It is worth a read, and reflects the fact that the Christian gospel renews people into a more truly human humanity that can only be the cause of good.

Let's pray that as this "light shines before men" that they would "see these good deeds, and praise our Father in heaven" (Matt 5v16).

To read the article click here.

The reason for God

As summer holidays loom, I’m sure that many of you are looking forward to that slower time of year in which space can be found for ‘other things.’ Many I know look forward to some summer reading; and with that in mind, I thought I’d offer a book recommendation this month.

When I was training for ministry, one of my lecturers wisely said “If you are going to read someone’s position on something, find the best proponent of that position and read them.”

Against the backdrop of the numerous books written over the last two years that debate God and religion, I am therefore delighted to have recently read what I consider the best modern defence of Christian belief.

Dr Timothy Keller’s ‘The Reason for God’ really is quite superb. It is on the New York Times bestsellers list and is already being called ‘a modern classic.’ He properly understands and engages the struggles many today have with Christianity, and he does so with a model of gentleness and respect.

The second half of the book gives an overview of basic Christian belief, whereas the first half answers the major objections Keller finds people raising: Christianity and other religions, the problem of suffering, whether Christianity is repressive or responsible for injustice, the difficulty we have with the idea of judgement, whether science has disproved Christianity, and whether the Bible can be taken literally.

Publishers Weekly writes: “Keller mines material from literary classics, philosophy, anthropology, and a multitude of other disciplines to make an intellectually compelling case for God. Written for skeptics and the believers who love them, the book draws on the author’s encounters as founding pastor of New York’s booming Redeemer Presbyterian Church.”

The book needs to be read thoughtfully. However Keller has a knack for putting complicated things simply. Whatever your current convictions, I do hope you will invest in a copy. The reason for God is soon to be published in the UK by Hodders, but can currently be bought from Amazon or from the Good Book Company (0845 225 0880). If you wish to order it from a book shop, it is published in the US by Dutton (ISBN 978-0-525-95049-3).

When one considers the huge claims of Christ and the impact they have had on world history, I hope it is not too much to suggest that it is wise for everyone to carve out some time at least once in life to properly consider those claims. As the sun shines this summer, I do hope you might string up a hammock, find a comfortable spot under a tree, and take in this great book.

Keeping the grey matter working

If you haven't yet found it, see this link for FREE ipod/mp3 access to all Reformed Theological Seminary lectures - including much John Frame, Don Carson, Doug Kelly, Jim Packer and others. If you want to dig deeper in the faith, you couldn't do much better.

Why not set yourself the goal of listening to a lecture a week and work through the various courses?

Pass the word and enjoy.

The Dawkins Delusion

Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

By ALISTER McGRATH
Daily Mail on-line
9th February 2007

He is a 'psychotic delinquent', invented by mad, deluded people. And that's one of Dawkins's milder criticisms.

Dawkins, Oxford University's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, is on a crusade.

His salvo of outrage and ridicule is meant to rid the world of its greatest evil: religion. "If this book works as I intend," he says, "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." But he admits such a result is unlikely. "Dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads" (that's people who believe in God) are "immune to argument", he says.

I have known Dawkins for more than 20 years; we are both Oxford professors. I believe if anyone is "immune to argument" it is him. He comes across as a dogmatic, aggressive propagandist.

Of course, back in the Sixties, everyone who mattered was telling us that religion was dead. I was an atheist then. Growing up as a Protestant in Northern Ireland, I had come to believe religion was the cause of the Province's problems. While I loved studying the sciences at school, they were important for another reason: science disproved God. Believing in God was only for sad, mad and bad people who had yet to be enlightened by science.

I went up to Oxford to study the sciences in 1971, expecting my atheism to be consolidated. In the event, my world was turned upside down. I gave up one belief, atheism, and embraced another, Christianity. Why? There were many factors. For a start, I was alarmed by some atheist writings, which seemed more preoccupied with rubbishing religion than seeking the truth.

Above all, I encountered something at Oxford that I had failed to meet in Northern Ireland - articulate Christians who were able to challenge my atheism. I soon discovered two life-changing things.

First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life.

I kept studying the sciences, picking up a PhD for research in molecular biophysics. But my heart and mind had been seduced by theology. It still excites me today.

Dawkins and I both love the sciences; we both believe in evidence-based reasoning. So how do we make sense of our different ways of looking at the world? That is one of the issues about which I have often wished we might have a proper discussion. Our paths do cross on the television networks and we even managed to spar briefly across a BBC sofa a few months back. We were also filmed having a debate for Dawkins's recent Channel 4 programme, The Root Of All Evil? Dawkins outlined his main criticisms of God, and I offered answers to what were clearly exaggerations and misunderstandings. It was hardly rocket science.

For instance, Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?

Many people discover God decades after they have ceased believing in the Tooth Fairy. Dawkins, of course, would just respond that people such as this are senile or mad, but that is not logical argument. Dawkins can no more 'prove' the non-existence of God than anyone else can prove He does exist.

Most of us are aware that we hold many beliefs we cannot prove to be true. It reminds us that we need to treat those who disagree with us with intellectual respect, rather than dismissing them - as Dawkins does - as liars, knaves and charlatans.

But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut.

The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor.

The God Delusion is similarly full of misunderstanding. Dawkins simply presents us with another dogmatic fundamentalism. Maybe that's why some of the fiercest attacks on The God Delusion are coming from other atheists, rather than religious believers. Michael Ruse, who describes himself as a 'hardline Darwinian' philosopher, confessed that The God Delusion made him 'embarrassed to be an atheist'.

The dogmatism of the work has attracted wide criticism from the secularist community. Many who might be expected to support Dawkins are trying to distance themselves from what they see as an embarrassment.

Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins's crude stereotypes and seemingly pathological hostility towards religion. In fact, The God Delusion might turn out to be a monumental own goal - persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer.

Alister McGrath is professor of theology at Oxford University. His new book The Dawkins Delusion?, co-authored by Joanna Collicutt McGrath, is published by SPCK at £7.99.

Maddy McCann

As I write, Madeleine McCann is still missing. Her abduction is a parent’s worst nightmare, and the attention given it has highlighted the pain that must be felt by innumerable parents in the developing world whose young ones are abducted for the purposes of slavery, war or worse.

It is when faced with such horrors that our initial instincts frame the question: “How could anyone believe in a loving God?” But I want to briefly and gently suggest that these horrors actually point in the other direction.

You see to ‘believe’ that there is no loving and so moral God has two particular consequences: The first is relativism, in which right and wrong, good and evil are simply what we (or today’s consensus) decide them to be. Assuming that there is no God to define or reveal absolute truth, morality is seen to be fluid. And at the very least this fosters a world where people are more ready to destroy the happiness of another for what “feels right” for them. The second is fatalism in which there is no acknowledgement of “right” at all. The infamous atheist Richard Dawkins recognises this, writing:
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
The thing is, few if any, live as consistent relativists or fatalists. We instinctively recognise that there are goods and evils that should be good and evil for all people and all time. Indeed, we can’t live without this being the case to some extent. Moreover, we find ourselves rightly outraged at wickedness and provoked by injustice. Yet these feelings have little warrant in the universe of Dawkins, whereas they find an explicable source if there is a loving God in whose image we have been made.

Having said this, Christians are convinced that belief in such a God rests on a firmer foundation than our instincts: Jesus – a man who claimed to be God on earth and who verified that claim with the profundity of his teaching, the supremacy of his character and his ability to do what only God could. It was this Jesus who taught that there will be an ultimate accounting for every act we do, and this Jesus who displayed the deepest love by dying to enable those who follow him to be forgiven their own wrongdoing and enter a perfected world to come.

This is not to say that questions do not remain about why this loving God might allow Madeleine’s abduction - but it is to recognise that he will not allow such things forever. Can I reassure you then? There really is hope.