How a Bible Tweet Led to a Battle for Free Speech
As Räsänen points out herself, one does not need to agree with her beliefs to agree that everyone should have the right to speak freely. As Räsänen waits for the ruling of the Court of Appeal, expected before November 30, a lot lies at stake. The verdict will reflect the state of regard for free speech in Europe. This is one to watch as a cautionary tale – not only for Europe, but for the rest of the world as well.
You Might also like
-
The Bounds of Knowledge and What God Wants Us to Know
The depths of God and his word are too deep – even the things he has revealed in his Word – for a finite mind to grasp all in full. And yet God has revealed himself in his Word, we can know what he intends for all men to know, we can grasp – any one of us – the essence of what he has chosen to reveal. We may never know everything, but we can all know what God wants all of us to know.
As regular readers will know, I not so long ago came off twitter. You can search this blog, if you’re bothered, to find out why. I much more recently decided to jack in Facebook too. I haven’t said specifically why and, frankly, don’t intend to either. But I am away from them both.
Particularly with twitter, much less facebook which I was on much less, I sometimes find myself wondering what I am not seeing or hearing. I don’t worry about that for long because, frankly, I remember what I was seeing when I was on it. FOMO being what it is, you wonder what you’re missing and then, when you find out (or just remember), wish you hadn’t bothered. Clickbait is built entirely on this principle and twitter is not far behind. What of significance on twitter won’t eventually make it to the usual news channels? What that isn’t significant do I really need to know?
But this led me to thinking about something else related. The bounds of what we can know. Or, rather, the bounds of what we should know. Is it the case that there are things that we are just not meant to know? Things that might, in actual fact, be deeply unhelpful and problematic for us to know? The Bible is unequivocal that the answer is yes. There are things we cannot know and there are things that are not good for us to know.
Job, in his reply to God, says:
I know that you can do anythingand no plan of yours can be thwarted.You asked, “Who is this who conceals my counsel with ignorance?”Surely I spoke about things I did not understand,things too wondrous for me to know.
There are things we don’t know that are simply too big for us to comprehend.
Indeed, Moses – speaking to the children of Israel in Deuteronomy – makes clear, ‘The hidden things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and our children forever, so that we may follow all the words of this law.’ There are things that God purposes for his people to know, and things that are hidden from them and are not for them to know. King David, speaking of the knowledge of God and how he knows the innermost thoughts of mankind, says ‘This wondrous knowledge is beyond me. It is lofty; I am unable to reach it.’ Trying to get to the bottom of the knowledge of God is not possible for us.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Book Review: Bavinck on Science
Ultimately, it is only when scientific investigation is directed and grounded upon Christian presuppositions that it is capable of achieving what it was designed by God to achieve. In contrast to secular science, Christian science always ends in doxology, for the God who gave us the means to study the world is the one to whom all glory rightly belongs. While Christianity and Science is certainly not a book for all, it is an excellent resource for those with a scholarly bent. I suspect its enduring significance will be manifest when debates concerning the relationship between science and Christianity are reignited in years to come.
In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the works of Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). Bavinck scholars in the likes of James Eglinton, Cameron Clausing, Nathaniel Sutanto, and Greg Parker have made significant contributions to the field, not only in their analysis of Bavinck’s theology, but also in providing contemporary translations of his works. Christianity and Scienceis one such translation, which we can be thankful to Sutanto, Eglinton and Brock for producing! I think the book is worth purchasing if only to read the 39 page ‘Editor’s Introduction’ which summarises Bavinck’s work and underscores its relevance for today.
At its heart, Christianity and Scienceshows the Christian foundations that lay beneath the study of science. Bavinck insists why they are necessary if the discipline of science is to flourish the way God intended it to. Bavinck intendedChristianity and Scienceto be read as a companion to Christian Worldview, which he wrote as a biblical response to modernity and the challenges facing believers at the turn of the 20th century (A new translation of this work was published by the aforementioned scholars in 2019!). Though I cannot comment on the quality of translation itself given my inability to read Dutch, the subject matter of Christianity and Scienceis as relevant today as when it was first penned.
The central thesis of Christianity and Scienceis that Christians have in Jesus Christ an anchor not only for salvation, but also truth itself. Bavinck writes: “The apostles of Jesus planted the banner of truth in that world of unbelief and superstition. After all, the Christian religion is not merely the religion of grace. It is also the religion of truth.” (p. 50)
By implication, science is not to be seen as a secular discipline to be undertaken in separation from theology. Rather, it is only because we bear the image of a loving God that we have the capacity to study the world using scientific methods. Yet, we live in a time when many continue to insist that faith and science are separate entities, with even many Christians treating them in such a way. Bavinck insists that this must not be so.
Science versus Christianity?
Today it is almost assumed that science and Christianity are in conflict. Many believe that science deals with facts, whereas Christianity deals with fiction. Science deals with objectivity, while Christianity deals with subjectivity. Science presents evidence, whereas Christianity demands faith. Bavinck destroys these false dichotomies and gets to the heart of the issue. According to Bavinck, faith and reason must be understood as two sides of the same coin.
Bavinck wrote in the shadow of Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859), in a socio-religious climate which saw naturalistic ‘science’ as the emancipator of man. Nevertheless, it would have been helpful if Bavinck had presented a theological and philosophical critique of Darwinian Evolution and its incompatibility with the Biblical creation account. After all, this is often the crux of the science-Christianity debate. Nevertheless, the principles and presuppositions presented in Christianity and Sciencecan certainly be applied to the evolution/creation debate.
While Bavinck never uses the term ‘scientism,’ this philosophy is the bullseye of his work. Scientism is the notion that ‘science alone can render truth about the world and reality.’ Yet, as apologist Frank Turek aptly put it: “Science doesn’t say anything — scientists do.” Therefore, when conflicts between science and Christianity appear, our instinct should not be to throw aside Scripture in pursuit of ‘science.’ Rather, we should analyse the arguments through the lens of God’s Word, recognising the theological implications of the issue at hand.
While scientism does not have the same momentum it had during the heyday of Richard Dawkins, many still hold to its erroneous presuppositions. The post-Christian, postmodern society in which we find ourselves continues to bear marks of its faulty presuppositions. In many ways, Bavinck’s critiques of scientific positivism — the 19th century dogma which argued all knowledge can be gained apart from supernatural revelation —can be applied to scientism today.
All science is conducted through the lens of a worldview, and Bavinck is adamant to emphasise this. He writes:
As such, by its very nature, each religious confession lays claim on the entire world. If each religion is accompanied by a certain view of the world and humanity, of nature and history—which it always is—then through this it binds the whole of a person’s life and also, specifically, [his] science. The degree and extent to which science is bound to these religious convictions can differ, but the principle is always the same.
Read More
Related Posts: -
How Should We View Our Children?
Truly, our children are an undeserved gift from God. God could have chosen others to become parents of your children. Instead, God chose you to be a parent of your children. Let us then thank and praise God for our children. May we never regard them as a burden but as a blessing from God—from whom all blessings flow. And may God grant us grace, as we train up our children in the way they should go, so that when they are old they will not depart from it (Prov. 22:6).
I cannot recall how many times I met people who honestly told me that they did not want to have children because children would just interfere with their lives. They viewed children as a burden, rather than a blessing. In fact, a certain woman frankly told me that she was too selfish to have a child. She did not want to have a child, because she knew it would mean an inconvenient life.
Do you know how many babies are aborted per day in the U. S.? The answer is heart breaking—approximately 3,700 babies per day. And 93 % of all abortions happen generally because of inconvenience. Listen to the following statistics:
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
In other words, if you were to ask 100 mothers who aborted their children, “Why did you abort your child?” A large number of them would probably say something like this: “Well, because that baby in my womb would just interfere with my education or career.” Or, “I don’t want to have an inconvenient life.”
What?! You aborted your unborn baby simply because you didn’t want to have an inconvenient life?! Of course, it can be inconvenient to have a baby. You will experience sleepless nights as you nurse your baby in the middle of the night or rock your sick baby to sleep. You will have additional expenses, messes to clean up; and, your days will not always go according to your schedule. Children can indeed “interfere” with some of our plans.
Of course, it is difficult to raise a child. Being a parent comes with great responsibilities (you provide for your children, take care of them, train them in the way they should go, correct and discipline them, and the list goes on and on). Such responsibilities are not always easy to do, especially if a child has a physical or mental disability.
And, of course, it can be stressful to have children. Kids can sometimes be annoying. They can test your patience. Having children requires sacrifice. You need to sacrifice your time, your comfort, and sometimes your dreams. Oh, but the joy of parenting surpasses its stress and sacrifice. The blessing of parenthood outweighs its discomfort.
My wife and I have five children. Yes, I don’t deny the difficulty of parenting.
Read More
Related Posts: