Sunday, 18 April 2021

Jesus, Philip and our identity

 Luke 24 36b-48(49)

The two disciples who had met Jesus on the road to Emmaus tell the apostles in Jerusalem:

36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your hearts39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms about me[i].” 45 Then he opened their mind to comprehend the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah must suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And, behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you – but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.

Lord, bless what I say that is true, and correct my errors in the minds of these kind hearers. Amen

With even the most prominent people, there can be confusions about identity.

Prince Phillip told the story of when he and the Queen (when she was still Princess Elizabeth) visited the US in 1951. Churchill had just won the General Election, and a splendid but somewhat confused elderly lady greeted the Queen with “I’m so pleased your father’s been re-elected!”

Somebody standing next to her said “No, No dear, that was Winston Churchill”. At which point the lady turned to Phillip and said “O I’m so pleased to meet you!”

But here there is no confusion about Jesus’ identity.  In Luke’s account, the women (inducing Mary Madgalene, Joanna and Mary the mother of James) who come to the tomb are told by “two men in dazzling apparel” that Jesus is risen, but when they tell the apostles they are not believed.  Then Jesus appears to two disciples (one called Cleopas) on the road to Emmaus. The Catholic & Orthodox traditions suggest that this is the same as Clopas in John 19, whose wife was one of the women at the Cross. But they don’t recognise him until he breaks bread with them and vanishes. So the two disciples rush back to Jerusalem to tell the apostles, who say “The Lord has risen indeed” and has appeared to Simon.  And then, for the first time, the risen Jesus appears in the midst of them.

Before we get onto this passage, its worth noting two important points. First, we’re pretty sure that Luke names his sources. Luke is saying: I actually spoke to Cleopas, Joanna and the two Marys; this is how I know. Secondly: all four Gospels agree that it was the women who first knew about the resurrection, but only Luke tells us that they told the apostles but were not believed. This is certainly not a story you would make up if you were trying to convince people of the resurrection! Nor if you were trying to show the heroic Acts of the Apostles in a good light. Luke includes it because he’s convinced it’s true, and important. (Luke BTW is full of stories where the women come off better than the men. He tells of Mary, Martha’s sister, sitting alongside the other disciples at Jesus’ feet – this is obscured in English translations but in the Greek, para-kathetheisa, it’s perfectly clear). And in Acts he pays a lot of attention to Priscilla, who I think was the author of Hebrews).

And while they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and said Shalom – It’s the normal greeting: it literally means “peace” but it doesn’t just mean the absence of strife, it is God’s peace, that surpasses all understanding.  The Psalm set of the day (Psalm 4) concludes:

8 In peace I will both lie down and sleep well

For You, LORD, solely, make me safely dwell.

But they are startled and terrified. Why? Well partly because (as we know from John’s Gospel) they kept the door locked for fear of the Jewish authorities. But also because they think they must be seeing some kind of ghost or apparition. Matthew, Mark (and John) all tell the story of the disciples being frightened when Jesus came to them walking on water, for the same reason. So Jesus does what he needs to do to prove to them that he is not a ghost. They can touch him, and he eats with them. This does not, of course, mean Jesus believed in ghosts, just that he knew what the disciples believed about ghosts. And then he explains:

Everything must be fulfilled that is written in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms about me.” Then he opened their mind to comprehend the Scriptures.

The whole of the Old Testament (the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms) points to Jesus, and only in the light of Christ opening our minds can we comprehend the scriptures.  The problem with the Pharisees and with the Jewish leaders was not that they didn’t know the scriptures – they knew it inside out!  But they didn’t comprehend them: the word (suniEmi) literally means “bring together” but in the NT it occurs 26x (and 8x in Luke/Acts) meaning comprehension or insightful understanding. All scripture must be read in the light of Christ. The Lord who has truly suffered, truly died, and has risen indeed!

There’s another interesting point in the Greek which doesn’t normally come across in translation. The NIV says “he opened their minds” but the Greek is singular: he opened their mind. Luke says in Acts they were “all continuing steadfastly with the same mind (homo-theumadon) in prayer” and Jesus in John prays that the disciples “may be perfectly one”.

Jesus says that his disciples are witnesses to these things, but he says something more. He is going to send forth the Holy Spirit (“the promise of my father”) on them and from then they will be clothed with power from on high and can go out from Jerusalem and change the whole world. As they did. The word for “send forth” is exapostellw the same root as apostle.

So what does this mean for us?  

It’s clear that something happened at the first Easter!  A tiny band of utterly demoralised followers of an executed Rabbi and wonder-worker, who never even wrote a book, became a movement that conquered the mighty Roman Empire and 2,000 years later has roughly 2Bn people worldwide. The disciples were very clear what had happened: the Lord had risen indeed!  And no-one has ever been able to offer a credible alternative explanation that fits the facts.

Georges Lemaitre was a brilliant cosmologist who showed in 1927 that what we now call the Big Bang provided a solution to Einstein’s equations. This idea was strongly resisted – it sounded far too much like Creation (and Lemaitre was also a Catholic Priest) but in 1965 scientists discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation which is essentially the echoes of the Big Bang throughout the Universe.

In a somewhat similar way, we too are witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection. We cannot see the event itself, any more than cosmologists can see the actual Big Bang: but can read the careful accounts of Luke and others, drawing on eyewitness testimony. And we can also see for ourselves, nearly 2,000 years later, the echoes of the resurrection throughout the world. “Clothed with power from on high” we, as a church, are called to proclaim the Gospel, so that (to use Peter’s words from Acts) “times of refreshing may come from the Lord”.

This is not simply an individual effort. We are all called to play our part in the Body of Christ, each with the gifts we are given. We are not all evangelists, but we must all support the spread of the Good News in the ways we are best able. It is a collective effort, best achieved when we are “all continuing steadfastly with the same mind in prayer.” And remember, we are not on our own. Jesus says (Mat 18.20) “for where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them” -the same words as Luke uses in this passage.

Archbishop Justin said this of Prince Phillip: “He knew who he was, and his faith was central to who he was and how he lived his life. He worked out his call to serve and follow Christ in the context of his own unique calling.” None of us has anything like that public profile. But we are each equally beloved in God’s eyes. God cares for each and every person just as much as He cares for the most celebrated. We each have our own unique calling, to serve and follow Christ.

This is our story. This is our song. This is our identity. And let us pray, that as we serve, and as we help to bring the good news to people who need it so badly, they will be inspired to say, without any confusion, “O I’m so pleased to meet you!”


Monday, 22 March 2021

John Polkinghorne 1930-2021 may he Rest in Peace & Rise in GLORY!

 

I'm sorry not to have posted this earlier.

As many will know, John died on 9th March after a long illness.

May he Rest in Peace

and

RISE IN GLORY!

Sunday, 10 August 2014

Can we really claim that there are religious explanations to things that are not attainable to science?

I’m a physics researcher at the University of XX and have been following the science religion discussion for fifteen years. So great thanks to John for his work on the subject! Your site also seems armed with quite a good understanding the Q&A section covers a lot in a concise and thoughtful manner.

I have a question that has been on the back of my mind for some time now: Can we really claim that there are religious explanations to things that are not attainable to science? I mean, science in itself basically tries to explain everything. I have read several works on the subject, but have not found any reasons why science in principle could not touch on meaning and purpose etc. As science is not too well defined (what is science and what is not, problem of demarcation) and religion as well is not too well defined either, its hard to see any principled reasons as to why they could not overlap, even completely.

So, at some point, if and when science will try to touch on something Christianity also clearly explains (like meaning, purpose and morals), I think we should not surrender that area to science but in fact claim that we have a better explanation than the scientific one.
To put it more clearly, at which point do we make a stand against attempted materialist explanations as they will try to progress and cover all of life and experience? If we make a stand, and because current science accepts only materialist explanations, should we change science to accept non-materialist explanations, or should we claim that this, admittedly religious explanation, is a better explanation than the scientific one, and the scientific explanation should be abandoned?

Science doesn’t try to explain everything. It focuses on questions that are tractable using the scientific method, with experiment and mathematical formulation.

Of course Science can “touch on” almost everything because almost any question of interest has some adjacent questions which could legitimately be considered scientific. So you could do a scientific study of the prevalence and diffusion of beliefs about values (say) or about genetic or neurological factors that were associated with such beliefs, or the mechanisms by which such beliefs were held. But these could not tell you whether the beliefs were morally or philosophically valid unless you had some additional premises which were by definition extra-scientific.

In particular science by definition cannot explain why the scientific method should work so well in our universe. Almost everyone agrees that the (region of the) universe in which we live is exquisitely fine-tuned for life. This leads to fascinating scientific questions (such as my MaxHELP hypothesis) but whether this is God’s creation or some cosmic fluke is not a scientific question.

An off switch for consciousness

I saw online that scientists have found an 'off switch' for consciousness in the brain and some of my materialistic-minded friends claim this is proof that there is no soul (that all that makes mind/consciousness is entirely in the brain and permanently gone after death). Does the discovery support that or are they making a logical leap?

Haven’t seen this report but we all know there is an “off switch” if you hit someone on the head hard enough so I don’t see what difference it would make if there were other such “switches”.

Yeah it's fairly new. Basically they were trying to cure a woman of epilepsy by placing electrode in her brain. One of them inadvertently gave them the ability to turn her consciousness on and off. I kinda felt the same way you said in your reply--but I am always second guessing myself (wondering if I am pre-biased as a Christian and such, I want to be fair to all sides not just my own). In the end I kinda felt that this doesn't prove consciousness is trapped in the brain (a potential alternate explanation to me seems that this off switch was just temporarily breaking the soul's/consciousness' connection to the body - granted this view can't be laboratory tested). I just wanted to run it by someone else to make sure I wasn't hastily jumping to a conclusion based on pre-bias :-).

On an unrelated note, who do you and John consider solid sources for information on the historical study of Jesus? I started looking up some stuff and it seems like there is a lot of mine fields out there with different people with axes to grind. From what I've seen some stuff is generally agreed on (Jesus was crucified, his followers claimed his resurrection pretty quickly, roughly half of Paul's letters are guaranteed to be by him) but the rest seems hard to discern since everyone claims to be only following the facts despite their position...

My son-in-law is a global expert in this general area (electrodes in brains etc..) and a strong Christian. Of course the relationship between the soul and the body is quite elusive and hard to pin down.

Christians are not committed to the idea of an “immaterial soul” which is a position of Greek philosophy and very un-Jewish. We believe that we will be resurrected into new bodies and that Jesus is “the first fruits of those who sleep”. I’m fond of the analogy of a piano and the music it plays. If you smash the piano the music stops but it can always be played on another piano. A great piano piece (say the Waldstein Sonata) clearly exists, even though it requires a piano to play it. And studying the physics and chemistry of a Steinway, whilst very interesting, will only give very limited insights into the music of Beethoven.

Tom Wright is the best person on pretty much all the NT stuff. He says that the Pauline letters are probably all genuine.

Inflation and fine-tuning

With the recent discovery involving the Big Bang/Inflation I read that at least some scientists say it's almost impossible for there to not be multiple universes now. What's your guys' take on the recent discoveries and does it impact the anthropic principle at all?

On the BioLogos forum Physicist Gerald Cleaver wrote an article explaining the 10+1 expanded view of string theory (especially in Part 5 of that series). In Part 5, he seems to make the case that String Theory is all but proven which means multiple universes are all but proven. Is this a widely shared view? What is your guys' take on it? Does this have any potential implications for the anthropic principle?

The observations certainly strengthen the case for some kind of inflation but although almost all cosmologists accept the idea of inflation now there are still enough loose ends that I suspect the Nobel Committee will want more actual evidence. There could be many other ways in which these observations could have come about. And there are plenty of un-answered questions about how and why inflation was turned on and off.

As for String Theory being “all but proven” that’s only true in the sense that it isn’t proven at all. There is plenty of deep mathematics in string theory but the question is whether it corresponds to physical reality or whether it’s some kind of shadow-play as it were.
Inflation doesn’t abolish the fine-tuning problem at all - chaotic inflation might but that’s a different story.

God of the Gaps

I'm 25 years old and not much of a scientist but recently I've been coming across more and more people connecting God and conciousness together. The points they make are usually along the lines of "if scientists find out how conciousness works, then it proves God doesn't exist" - because, they say, conciousness is the last God of the Gaps.

I was wondering if either of you, being scientists, agree that conciousness is the last God of the Gaps. I don't think so, simply because if God created all things natural, I think it would be wasteful to not use the natural things he'd created and I don't think it disrupts the idea of a brain connecting with spirit. Do you believe there is a strong link between the human brain and God?

Another thing I've come across is a split view where one side say lots of scientists believe in a personal, loving God and then others sayings practically no scientists believe in God. Being closer to the field of science, how do you feel the idea of any deity sits with the majority of scientists today?

The idea that “if scientists find out how X works it proves God doesn’t exist” is so obviously false that you only have to state it to see that it is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying “if scientists don’t know how X works it proves God does exist”.

To find out how X works, scientifically, means to show that it is the consequence of certain scientific laws which we have good reason to believe are true, or at least good approximations, in our (region of the) universe. Theists say God, as the Creator of the Universe, made whatever fundamental laws these laws derive from. Materialists say the fundamental laws just happen to be the case. Science obviously, can never settle this question, which is philosophical.

Most scientists at present tend to be materialists, though by no means all. Surveys suggest that academics in Western universities are less religious than the general population, with scientists being rather more religious than “arts” academics. This probably has something to do with temperament and maybe that academics tend to be more male and more left-brain dominant. It says nothing about the truth of a belief whether or not it is fashionable.

Religion as a logical structure

What do you think about regarding science and religion as follows? Thus, religion is an a priori logical structure with the following three features: 1) It is applicable in any possible world that runs by law-bound causal power, and 2) It is centrally concerned with what objects in such worlds should do to survive, and 3) It has empty place-holders that can be filled in with empirical information about our world, or whichever particular world we choose to be concerned with. And science is an effort to fill in the said empty place-holders with empirical information.
I appreciate that, at first sight, these pictures of what science and religion are might seem contra-intuitive. But I have worked it all out in fairly considerable detail. Would you perhaps think that my idea is worth looking into?

Religion is about relationships with God and others.
The logical bits are theology.