AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
I’ve just returned from my honeymoon. We spent two weeks driving around Tasmania, and had a terrific time. While there, I picked up a second-hand copy of “My Early Life” by Winston Churchill, a memoir describing his experiences to the age of about 30. I’m quite a fan of Churchill, and I found the book entertaining and fascinating. I was especially intersted to learn about his religious views.
Like many of his era (he was born in 1874), Churchill grew up never doubting the doctrines he was taught in the Church of England. However, his travels about the British Empire as a cavalry officer exposed him to many other religions. He and his fellow officers came to accept what he called “The Religion of Healthy-Mindedness”, which concluded that “if you tried your best to live an honourable life and did your duty and were faithful to friends and not unkind to the weak and poor, it did not matter much what you believed or disbelieved.”
He retained a soft-spot for Christianity, however, especially as presented by the Church of England. But his reading included authors such as Reade, Gibbon and Lecky who taught, “the depressing conlcusion that we simply go out like candles.” He was initially offended by this idea, but was gradually won over to it. He then passed through a “violent and aggressive anti-religious phase”, feeling very resentful of having been told so many “untruths” by schoolmasters and clergymen. He was in his early twenties at this time.
His unbelief was cured by his exposure to battle. Churchill found himself frequently praying at these dangerous moments, and found the practice helpful. His reason told him that prayer was absurd, however, “...the practice was comforting and the reasoning led nowhere. I therefore acted in accordance with my feelings without troubling to square such conduct with the conclusions of thought.” He recommends that people believe as they wish, so long as belief “cheers your heart and fortifies your soul.”
Churchill is neither the first nor last to suggest such a dichotomy. It’s an attractive option for those struggling to reconcile their biblical beliefs with our modern understanding of the world. Yet I believe this dichotomy is fatal to faith, as heart and mind will ultimately collide. We need to work hard at addressing the intellectual challenges thrown up against Christianity, so that no-one will be forced, like Churchill, to choose between reason and faith.
But it is very different for others, many of whom do not seem to care so much about questions like that.
I wonder if Churchill's comments that he kept praying even though reason suggested it was absurd, because it was comforting, gives a window into how many people work.
They are pragmatists!
I remember (I think) my philosophy lecturer at Moore College said the two typical tests of a worldview were consistency and coherence - consistency with the facts of the external world, and internally coherent in how the ideas fitted together.
But he suggested a third test: liveability. Is it a philosophy you can easily live out. If not, he suggested that this fact of pragmatic unliveability raised a question mark over whether there was some problem with the philosophy at a truth level (of consistency and coherence) even though you might not have worked it out yet.
We sometimes see this in the suffering question. E.g. If there's no God, and the world's just random, why does the injustice of suffering matter so much to us all? It's just the way it is, tough! But the fact that it matters so much and one can't live as if it doesn't, perhaps suggests the 'no God' philosophy needs revising.
Positively, maybe an experience like Churchill's invites reconsideration of what his reason said!
I believe these sorts of questions may be making a "comeback" of sorts - Keller's "The Reason for God" was a best-seller, for example.
Regardless, I think it's vitally important that we do the hard yards and work through these issues. Dickson has done stirling work in the area of NT historicity, and I feel that we are firmly on the front foot there.
I feel less happy about our response to the creation issue, caught as many of us are between Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins. I'd like to see more written and published on this subject, as well as the perennial "God and suffering" question.
One problem, I think, is that asking these sorts of questions is almost seen as a sign of spiritual immaturity, as if they are childish matters that ought to be left behind. I'd like to see some good minds re-engaged on these issues.
This is Stuart writing - not Kathryn. We left Sydney last week and I'm using her lap-top! I happen to be a great admirer of Sir Winston. I believe that he was the man that God raised up to lead our nation (GB) in its hour of desperate need. King George VI was a Christian who also fought against great odds and I still recall how he led our nation in prayer (over the wireless) at the time of the Battle of Britain. I know that it was God who delivered our nation in what was a truly miraculous way. When Billy Graham arrived in London - I think it was his second visit in 1954 - he was invited to meet Winston Churchill, and it was reported in the newspaper that Winston admired this young man who preached from the Bible and believed what it said, even though he personally did not embrace it. Thanks, Craig, for your research and comments. Stuart Broughton
Feeling Hegelian today Craig?
To quote Dawkins himself:
"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."