|
Knotty Problems
We would love to hear your comments and thoughts on these articles, which also appear in The Net, the parish magazine for Corfe and Pitminster.
|
|
Written by Sue Green
|
|
Friday, 18 December 2009 14:55 |
|
So, here's a question: do you have to switch your brain off to believe in God. Are science and logic totally opposed to the interesting, but unprovable, tenets of religion and faith, as Richard Dawkins and others would have us believe?
I reckon that down the centuries the waters have become muddied as Galileo tried to teach the Pope theology (he wasn't totally the innocent party in that affair!) and religious people tried to clamp down on scientific advances because it upset their notion of the universe.
Having trained as a scientist, I have never felt the deep divide that some perceive. It seems to me that both science and religion are seeking after the truth. Neither discipline knows all that much of the total that is to be known, and should therefore display a reasonable degree of humility. Most importantly, the means of seeking truth, and the kind of truth sought, are so different that we should be wary of mixing them up.
There is little point, for example, in asking a chemist to give you the chemical formula for love; nor is it reasonable to ask a theologian to explain the miracles of Jesus in purely scientific terms. Most people find a purely reductionist form of science - people are just self-concious collections of molecules walking around - as being distinctly short of the whole truth. Is love really nothing more than a chemical/ biological/ evolutionary response? Similarly, we struggle to fit the stories of the Bible - perfectly acceptable in their own time - into our quite rigidly scientific culture.
I think we need to remember two things: that science is constantly changing, and growing, and that theories are put forward and later retracted; and that religion is no more that a glimpse off an immense possibility and that we can see so little.
So, over to you! Do you find that the discoveries of science make it hard to believe? Or do you find the Bible hard or irrelevant in a scientific age? Please add your own comments.
|
|
|
November's Knotty Problem |
|
|
|
|
Written by Sue Green
|
|
Sunday, 01 November 2009 00:00 |
|
In my article, Thinking Aloud for November, I offered our churches as places of prayer for our community, and also asked you to pray for your church. But this begs the question of what on earth prayer is, and what we think we are doing when we pray.
It can be easier to say first what prayer is not. Prayer is not telling God things that might have escaped his notice - God already knows. Prayer is not asking God to suspend or reverse the laws of nature. Prayer does not mean that those most prayed for have a better chance of recovery than those not - for if we believe that, we believe that God has favourites. Prayer does not change God's mind.
Hmm .. so it's a real waste of time, then? No - because although we're not telling God anything new, we are bringing before him people and situations that deeply concern us. We are sharing with God our deepest hopes and fears because God is our best friend and, in any real relationship, we share what's going on in our lives. No - because although we're not asking God to change the laws of nature, it seems to me that the quantum nature of the universe means that God may have the opportunity to touch and influence his world directly. No - because although prayer does not 'change God's mind' it can change us. One of the great saints - Teresa of Avila - said that 'to be in the presence of God in prayer is to be changed'. For reasons beyond our understanding, God has chosen to do most of his work in the world through us - we are his hands, his feet, his eyes in this world. To pray is often to be called to action. To pray is often to have our own mindset and our own understanding changed.
So, as we pray (without ever hoping to see it in our own lifetimes) for world peace, we invite God into our lives to make us more peaceable, tolerant, understanding people. As we pray for someone we love to be healed, we connect ourselves with them in love, give them our mental and spiritual support, ask that we might all know God's presence with us in our struggle. As we pray for spiritual strength to live our lives, God will most surely give it to us.
|
|
September's Knotty Problem |
|
|
|
|
Written by Sue Green
|
|
Tuesday, 01 September 2009 00:00 |
|
Life is never straightforward, never black and white, but full of messy situations where we wonder what is the right thing. Here we have a chance to try and think some of them through, and also apply the wisdom we find in the Bible to help to make things clearer.
I thought that we might start with something that's been talked about a lot over the last months - the issue of pay - and see whether we can bring more light than heat into the situation.
In this country over the last ten years, average income has increased, but pay inequality has increased. For an adult receiving the National Minimum Wage and working a 40 hour week, before tax pay is less than £12,000 p.a., while we are aware of some high earners receiving millions a year. That people should be paid more for possessing skills and talents, or for investing time in higher education, seems fair and just - but surely there comes a point where the disparity in income is unjustifiable?
Also interesting is the people we choose to allow high salaries - and I say 'choose' because I don't think that society is entirely powerless in all this. We choose to reward very highly some people in the sporting world; successful actors and TV presenters; those who actually control and make money within our system. We choose not to reward highly those who take care of us when we are old or ill; those who grow our food; people who supply us with clean water and sanitation. We seem to live in a society which takes the basics for granted and rewards those who provide the things which are less necessary.
This is not a society which has a basis in Christian values. The prophet Amos has some very harsh things to say about a society which allows luxury for some while others barely scrape a living. Jesus himself told a story where some worked picking grapes for a whole day; others for part of a day; some for just an hour. At the end of the day, all were given a day's wages - which would be enough for them to live on and very little more. Should a good society make sure that all have the basics before some work is agreed to have extra value? And who should we value in our society?
If you would like to have your say, add your comments and thoughts using the link below.
|
|
|
Written by Sue Green
|
|
Thursday, 01 October 2009 00:00 |
|
There has been a great deal in the media in recent weeks regarding the balance between justice and mercy following the release of al Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber. While I don't want to get mixed up in the complexities of that particular case, it seems well worth while thinking through some of the issues and strong emotions raised by it.
The two extremes of the arguments surrounding al Megrahi seem to have been, on the one hand, that he showed no mercy, and that therefore no mercy should be shown to him and he should die in a foreign land, separated from his people (as most of his victims did). On the other hand is the argument that he has been given a life sentence, and served all but a few months of it, and that he should be allowed to return home to be with his family, including his very elderly mother.
What, if anything, does the Christian faith have to say to such issues of justice and of mercy?
First of all, God limits the punishment that can be meted out. The famous 'eye for an eye' quotation is not a decree saying that this is a correct punishment, but God telling us that the punishment must never, ever exceed the crime, thus avoiding escalating tribal feuds. God also makes it clear that he is the final arbitrator, and that he will dispense 'justice with mercy'.
Both the teachings and the life of Jesus show us that understanding, forgiveness and mercy must always play a part to temper justice. We must remember that sentences passed on the guilty also have the effect of punishing the innocent - their families.
Some crimes are of such a mind-numbing viciousness that our instinct is that no pain or degradation is too great a punishment for such a person. Christianity shows us that Jesus died even - maybe even especially - for such people. There is always the possibility that they may realise the enormity of what they have done and feel genuine remorse for their deeds. The justice given to such people - which may well mean that they must be kept under lock and key as a danger to the rest of us - should still be mixed with mercy, hoping that they might be changed. The hard attitude, which writes people off with no hope for their future, and which finds some comfort in revenge, is a mindset that can only increase the sum total of human unhappiness. Compassion and mercy, hard though they are, give hope of a better world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|