First a bit of back story. I spent a lovely few days in
Sheffield last week seeing my sister, brother in law and niece. The trip was
marred only by an altercation with a drunk Geordie on the journey home. I won’t
go into it as it is the subject of an angry letter to Cross Country Trains at
the moment (oh, how I love writing angry letters!) but in short I asked him to
be quiet and he thought it was okay to threaten me in terms a Police Officer
later told me would be grounds for a prosecution under a Public Order offence.
It’ll go no further as (and this is the point of this blog) I had a killer
line. I was like ‘zing’ and he was like ‘ow’. People nearby were like ‘BOOM’ whilst
a nearby 1930s era jazzman was totally ‘swank-y’ (that last one might not be
true).
Faced with this guy who wanted to hurt me I simply said ‘are
you only annoyed with me simply because I said you might be wrong?’ It had a
weird effect on him. I’m not going to claim it changed him (he mooned me on his
way out – not pleasant) but he did leave me alone. I remember the words purely
because it then got me thinking – how happy are we to stay in our camp, our way
of thinking? How likely are we to go and find new things that challenge us? And
by that I don’t mean read or listen to something that we know we’ll like. By
that I mean go out and engage (not just listen to, or read, but actually engage)
with something which we know will present a worldview or an idea that we find
wrong, or abhorrent.
Let me give you a couple of examples. I remember often talking
to individuals during my (first) time at University who had conclusively
decided that God didn’t exist. However when I asked them which miracle of Jesus
they liked least or which part of the Bible they found most disgusting I would
be met with plain ignorance. They liked to think they had done the research but
the reality was they really hadn’t.
Another example, this time from totally the other side of
the tracks. I have many friends who are convinced six-day creationists, who
would say that the world is, give or take, 6-10,000 years old. Now I happen to
disagree with them but, when I would talk to them about the issues raised in
biology and the difficulties of biogeography to their thinking, or the topic of
speciation, they would look lost. They, like the students above, didn’t know
their stuff.
Now I’m not here to blow my own trumpet (Blackadder joke
here) and I certainly wouldn’t claim to know much about anything. However I
would like to think that I do read around topics, looking into different points
of view and trying to understand them (hoping through that to rebuke them of
course!).
My point is not to focus on me though. Instead, it is to
challenge myself and everyone else to go out and look at other options to the
way you think, written by people you completely disagree with. Through engaging
with their ideas we will all become more informed individuals. We may even
change our viewpoint on something because of what we discover. But that is the
wonderful thing about learning – we should all be prepared to do it and we
should all be prepared to be changed through it.
I’m a bit of a quote fan, so here are two quotes that I love,
the first of which I had stuck on the wall of each of my rooms during my
undergrad years. It is from a 13th century Arab named Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi,
who simply said ‘he who has not endured the stress of study will not taste the
joy of knowledge’. Put simply, learning must be worked at. The second is from
the biblical book of Proverbs – ‘An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and
the ear of the wise seeks knowledge’. The wise do not stop learning. None of us
should gain wisdom and then sit still, but instead we should go on to learn
more.
To go back to the train and the man with a desire to show me
his bottom, we should be willing to accept we might be wrong and listen to
other points of view. That man thought he could resort to threats, and to be
fair to him he probably doesn’t know anything different. We should be able to
listen and engage, disagree and move on, respect differences and understand
points of view as we learn more about each other and the diversity of opinions
we all hold.
Debate warmly encouraged
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your blog and felt I should contribute. When you deal with Female Bishops could you possibly deal with the fact that the Queen is the Head of the Church of England. I propose that Her Majesty is the rather large white elephant shaped spanner that all budding evangelical Anglicans may perhaps find sitting in their proverbial works. But would be interested in hearing the opposing argument.
Also, Cheap shot at young earth creationists. Cheap. The idea that the majority are unread is both untrue and unkind. I know you pose simply your friends in such a light but it does suggest a wider stereotype. Professor of Thermo Dynamics at Leeds University is just one example of a young earth creationist who may have read more science than you. Perhaps.
Some people can entirely be unread poorly argued and right. One such example could be when I posed a simple question about the contradiction facing old earth creationists if death existed before the fall. This question was to a senior minister at a large Evangelical Anglican Church in Newcastle, the response, "Adam probably trod on a spider" did seem slightly weak. Maybe this person was poorly read and right. Or well read and poorly argued, or well read well argued but misunderstood by me. Hmmm.
Thank you for the opportunity to ponder theological and philosophical debate I will return to my realm of lines and dimensions.
I hope you will not assume upon my positions based on whom I defend. I hope you will again visit A small independent evangelical church in the east of Newcastle some time.
Regards
Daniel
Hi Daniel (Dyer? Sorry if that doesn't make sense, it's just that I always try and work out who I am addressing!). Thanks for your response.
ReplyDeleteI'll deal with the woman bishops thing another time, especially the difference between 'bishop' and 'Supreme Governor', which is the title the Queen holds. It goes all the way back to the prayer book drafts under Elizabeth I, when theologians had to deal with exactly the same problem!
As for the young earth creationists, my apologies if I offended you or anyone else. It's a habit I seem to have and one of the main reasons I left full time ministry. Some of my closest friends hold to this view. Some of the pastors I love dearly (including yours, if you are who I think you are ...this sounds like a spy novel now, doesn't it!) hold to that belief. I picked it becasue a lot of my non-Christian friends read this blog and I didn't want to seem like I wasn't willing to outline things within the Christian fold that I don't agree with.
On six-day creationism though I simply think it is wrong and yes I do think a lot of people who hold to that way of thinking are uninformed on many points of science and scientific thinking. The classic Second Law of Thermodynamics argument doesn't stand up under scrutiny because that Law only describes closed systems, something which the Earth is not seeing as it receives heat, light and other forms of energy from the Sun. It would be wrong of me though (and out of line with this blog post!) if I wasn't to say I am willing to listen to points of view that challenge my thinking. A few years ago I read Dr Morris' book 'The Genesis Flood' and only last year I read Paul Garner's 'The New Creationism', both of which were interesting but not convincing. My opinions certainly do not mean that I think any less of them or do not value their brother- and sister-hood in the gospel, anymore than I would not want young earthers to think of me as a 'second class' or, indeed, non-Christian.
But, to deal with this fairly, I would add that it is the same from the other perspective, where one holds on to chance and randomness a reason for existence and a basis for morality (also the argument that it isn't chance but a system doesn't hold water when one considers where a system can come from an explosion out of nothing). Theories have holes, holes that will either be filled in or blasted through with firther research and growing in knowledge. Simply holding onto dogmas without thinking through their repercussions is dangerous and is the basis of this blog post
Thanks Mark,
DeleteYes I am Mr Dyer, sorry for coming across as some form of anonymous spy Dyer, my blogging is amateur to say the least.
I am by no means offended, far from it. And even if I was, who cares. Being offended is key part of any fully developed debate. Thank you for establishing your reading on the whole young earth debate, because as you said, that is to be in keeping with your blog. I also understand you don't want your blog to turn into a battle ground for the first chapters of Genesis. Plenty of people in American doing that already.
It is great to encourage debate as you do. Maybe you should start a Luther-esqe discussion evening, I have often pondered such a thing. The occasional meeting of right thinking Christians, to simply discuss without having to worry about being divisive in front of young Christians. I mention Luther for the obvious need of a sense of humor(albeit with less fart jokes) and of course German Beer.
You are entirely right though. As the majority of debates that go on tv are not utilizing proper principles of logic. Youtube Russell Brand vs Peter Hitchens, for an extreme example of how traditional debating can be treated.