The one about the blind men and the elephant

Perhaps you've heard this kind of reasoning before:

There can’t be one true religion. Each may have some truth, but no single one of them can be true. To say that one is right and the other is wrong is appalling, narrow-minded and arrogant.
Christianity, by making an exclusive truth claim, is a danger to a tolerant, peace-loving, progressive society.

Or something along those lines anyway...

Let's talk about elephants

There is an elephant in a room, and there are a bunch of blind men around it. Each of them can touch only one part of the elephant. And you are looking on.

The first man touches the tail – ‘ah, it’s like a snake with rough skin’ he says. The second man touches the leg – ‘it’s kind of firm and solid’ he says. The third man touches the side ‘it’s all hard and scaly’ he says. Their descriptions of this elephant are similar, yet different. And they proceed to have an argument about what the elephant is.

Each man grasps a part of the elephant – so in a way, they are all right. But of course, their descriptions are incomplete - so in a way they are all wrong. They can’t all grasp the whole elephant, even though they think they can.

But herein lies the problem. You can only know the blind men can only grasp part of the elephant unless you can see the whole elephant. To say that all religions have part of the truth, that none can have the whole truth (and therefore there can be no true religion) is a big step. To say this, you need to see the whole elephant. The whole truth.  

 

Everyone believes exclusive truth…

Christians are often portrayed as primitive religious people scrabbling around for truth, with the tolerant secularist as the arbiter. An arbiter who calls them to be more humble - just like them in fact - because after all they can only grasp part of the truth.

And yet, what such a person is claiming, is that they can see the whole truth the religions of the world are groping after. How does a secularist get to have such superior knowledge?

In the interests of being inclusive (and I do not deny that often intentions are good) they are saying something very exclusive. That they have this spiritual take on ultimate reality. And it is right and my take is wrong.

To be honest, both the secularist and the Christian think that their take on spiritual reality is superior to the other. Both of us believe that the world would be better off if the other adopted our version of it.

So guess what, we’re both exclusive!

…but not everyone acknowledges it.

The difference is, as a Christian, I acknowledge my exclusivity.

Secularists are being just as exclusive as I am, but they’re not being consistent, claiming ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusivity’ when it suits.

Because everybody has exclusive views.

Therefore let’s not talk about secularists being inclusive and Christians being exclusive.

The real question is – whose exclusive views most lead you to love and serve others? Which set of exclusive beliefs will lead to peace on this earth?

What we learn from Miss World

Our cultural narrative gives us the aspiration is to be inclusive and tolerant and to work for 'world peace'. But secularism isn’t succeeding.  Secularism leads to disappointment; dreams turning to dust; relationships failing; misery and despair abounding. Emptiness and loneliness are the scourge of our culture which seeks to fill itself with money, sex, entertainment and ‘things’.

When people say that we should all have our own truth, you can ask ‘so how’s that working out for you then?’ You can ask where the certainty and assurance for this profound belief statement comes from.

Only in the gospel will the narrative people long for actually come to fruition. Only the gospel offers the assurance, because we come to a king who sees the whole truth, because he made it. We don’t need to grope around hoping that we find truth. Instead the One who is Truth, Jesus Christ, stepped down into history and died in our place that we might know him and know real peace, real purpose, both in this life and the next.

When truth is revealed, telling others isn't arrogance. It's kindness.

Which exclusive truth do you believe?

A 5 week series at Barton Evangelical Church entitled ‘I don’t know what to say’ begins this Sunday at 6.30pm. See here for details.

This blog is based on a talk given by Tim Keller in 2006 to the Desiring God National Conference.






Elephant image from Google images - Kidney International Himmelfarb, J.; Stenvinkel, P.; Ikizler, T. A.; Kakim, R. M. The Elephant in Urema: Oxidant Stress as a Unifying Concept of Cardiovascular Disease in Uremia, Kidney International, 2002, 62, 1524-1538. Artist - G. Renee Guzlas (2002)

Is your church producing volunteers or leaders?

In many churches I have been involved in, leaders have already upped and left. They’re not there anymore.

Not that they all physically drift.

Many are still sitting there, week after week. But in their heads they’re gone.

They were looking for challenge, for something worth giving their lives to. But they've concluded that they won’t find it in the church. 

So they settle into being a volunteer, giving their creativity, passion and drive to something else – like their job, or football team, or hobbies.

Volunteers or leaders?

Why is this happening? Is it because deep down as church leaders what we REALLY want is volunteers who execute our own vision and keep the church machine running? To lead home-groups? To head up a new project that the elders have decided would be a good idea?

When people stop behaving like volunteers it gets risky. ‘They might try something and fail’ we can say. Or, 'They have too many ideas'. Or, 'They're too difficult to manage'. We may even feel threatened by their potential.

Grow and release leaders

In a recent article Mike Breen said this: ‘A volunteer is someone who executes someone else’s vision. A leader is someone with a vision of his or her own’

So the challenge is: are we raising volunteers, or leaders? Do we squash creativity and vision from our congregations, or do we identify, equip and release them as leaders to their missional frontline?

Of course, a centralized vision is powerful, and is by no means wrong. My church's vision is big, exciting, faith-stretching. We are seeking to:

GROW so that we can effectively
EQUIP and release disciple leaders to lead in the cracks of society that God has placed them in order to
IMPACT our culture for the sake of Christ

We are in this together. We are committed to pray, give and serve in order to see this vision come to fruition. And yet it allows the freedom and permission for leaders to grow and be released. We can do this by being…

…a leader who is first and foremost a disciple …

Real leaders don’t demand that volunteers follow them. They don’t have to. Leadership isn’t taught but caught. Instead they live as disciples and through their integrity demonstrate a life worthy of imitating. Just like Jesus did.

…who releases ‘un-lead’ leaders…

Real leaders teach people to stop looking to them to tell them what to do. Of course, we teach submission to authority, an essential part of being a leader. This is not a call for loose cannons. But the overall vision of the church needs to be able to accommodate people who have passion and vision which is tested and agreed on being from God.

…equipping them for their frontlines…

Real leaders equip people for works of service where they spend their time. The city will be impacted when ordinary Christians in the cracks of society live out their faith rather than tying them up in the church building with a vision they are not passionate about in the first place.

…giving them permission to try (and maybe fail)

Real leaders believe we’re not doing something worthwhile if it doesn’t involve risk.  And yet risk-aversion (or being overly British) means that we prevent people from getting anywhere near failure.

I am convinced that the church should be at the forefront of releasing creative, gospel-obsessed, passionate leaders who are given permission to try - and even better - to try and fail and then go again.

My failures

This year my family has been given space to ‘risk’ starting a missional community. We’ve gone for it. By many standards we have ‘failed’. Am I glad we went for it? You bet I am. It’s now no longer theory. I have grown. My pride has been punctured (because when we started this was the RIGHT way to do things!). Now I’m tasting it, and I am so grateful for the opportunity to risk time, reputation and finance to see the Kingdom advance.

So will we be leaders who manage risk, constrain people to be part of OUR vision and develop obedient volunteers? And in so doing, find leaders are long gone?

Or will they be gone because they have been commissioned to risk outside the church’s four walls?

Will we ask leaders questions to see them become society-impacting, disciple-multiplying leaders?

Questions like these:

What is God saying to you?

What are you going to do about it?

How can we pray for you, resource you and encourage you in your God-given vision?

What do you think? Is this something you can relate to?

Does abortion = murder?

Abortion is a very emotive issue. And yet it is one that I often shy away from. But not today. I trust this will be a helpful discussion rather than a hindrance.

 

The World Health Organization estimates between 40 and 50 million abortions are carried out annually worldwide, approximately 125,000 every day.

 

If abortion is removing a clump of cells which belong to the pregnant mother (akin to removing a gallbladder or something similar), as perhaps many of you will think, then perhaps it is ok. And it certainly isn’t murder.

And perhaps you’ll decide right now not to read on.  

But if abortion is the removal of a human being, then it begs the question: is it murder? And if it is, then how should one respond to that?

There are 3 issues that spring to my mind when considering whether abortion is the killing of an unborn child.

 

1.     People seem to…well…they seem to know

I’ve been present at the ultrasound of my 3 children. 'Look, there’s the arms. There’s the head. Oh, it’s giving me the thumbs up!! 5 fingers, 5 toes, a heart, a stomach, a brain. It’s a…..It’s a….It’s a….baby!'

 

It’s a person.

The devastation when we went for our 12 week scan for our first baby. Again, fingers, toes, a head, 2 arms, 2 legs. But no heartbeat. “I’m so sorry, you baby died perhaps 2 weeks ago”. Despair. Horror. Why us? Why now? There’s still an empty place around my table. There should be another voice calling me. ‘Daddy’. ‘Daddy’. But my baby isn’t here.

In fact, most people who have scans who I meet talk about seeing their baby on their screen. But did you know that when women unsure of keeping a pregnancy go for a scan they are often advised not to look at the screen? ‘Are you sure you want to look?’ the sonographer will say.

Why do they say that? If it is only a clump of cells? Why the emotive language surrounding abortion if it were just another operation? It seems like something more is going on.

Last year we read here about the tragic case of John Andrew Welden who tricked his pregnant girlfriend Remee Lee into taking an abortion pill pretending it was antibiotics. The article uses the words “unborn baby,” “abortion pills,” and “murder.”

So, if a woman asks for an abortion pill signed for by a doctor it is called choice? But a man hits or tricks the pregnant woman then it is murder?

Confused? I certainly am.

 

2.     The evidence of science

Some facts. A foetus has human chromosomes derived from human gametes. It moves, breathes, grows, reproduces, excretes and feeds. Brain function, as measured by EEG, is present in the foetus about six weeks after conception. Responses to tactile sensation (e.g. fist forming) can be observed at seven to eight weeks' gestation. At nine to ten weeks the foetus squints and swallows; breathing movements begin at eleven to twelve weeks. By 16 weeks he will respond violently to stimuli that you or I would find painful. 4D imaging and amazing films like this one are amazing. Is that really a person? If not, what is it?

If medical science points to the foetus as a living being, then even if people disagree on the details, should the foetus be given the benefit of the doubt? And if it is a living human being, then would ‘killing’ it be considered murder as it would be in any other case?

 

3.     The evidence of the Bible

This will only hold if you consider the Bible to be the ultimate authority.

It seems that the Bible points to the conclusion that human life begins at conception and that, like other human life, a foetus is made in the image of God and worthy of the utmost respect, protection and empathy. Indeed the Bible makes many specific references to life before birth, for example:

God called Isaiah (Is 49:1) and Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) before birth and formed Job 'in the womb'. (Job 10:8-9, 18-19). God knitted us together in our mother’s womb (Psalm 139:3-4). Perhaps the most staggering claim it makes is that God became a baby in a mother’s womb and that he would grow up as a child as we do. By inference, therefore, Jesus identifies with the unborn and the preborn.

The biblical position is that an unborn child has dignity; they are made by God and known by God. The Bible also calls those who trust in Jesus to give special protection to the weak and the vulnerable in society.

 

Why are you even asking the question?

You might now say: “Why are you asking the question? Are you trying to shock? Are you trying to belittle and judge those who have made painful and difficult decisions to abort their child? Are you calling them murderers”?

I guess that I’m simply seeing where the logic takes us.

If you believe the above is rubbish, that abortion is not a problem and we should carry on as we are, then you will find my question irrelevant. The answer will be ‘no’ and I’m sure you can present many arguments to support your belief (which I haven’t got space to cover here).

But if you find that yes, you think it may well be murder, then the question of what to do with that belief is a valid one. Because if you truly believe something it will affect your actions.

 

If you believed that 189,000 people in the UK a year were being led quietly into clinics to their deaths you might raise your voice and say something. If you believed they were innocent and defenceless, you might raise your voice a little bit louder.

 

Why do they stay quiet?

 

So if people believe this, or even that it might at least be a possibility, then why do they stay quiet?

 

Is it because they fear a backlash?

Is it because pretending the issue isn’t there means they can get on with their daily lives and remain untouched and untroubled by what would by definition have to be termed a genocide?

Is it that they have been convinced by the argument that it would be a greater evil to deny women the equal right of reproductive freedom (a greater evil than murder!?)?

 

The noisy ones

 

But there is a small minority who do not stay quiet. Who are not browbeaten by the pro-choice lobby, but who see abortion as the human rights issue of our day.

They raise awareness.

They challenge our lawmakers, pointing out that by the letter of the law 96% of all abortions are illegal.

They seek to offer unbiased advice and support to women facing unbelievably hard decisions, providing an alternative to commercial organisations who have a financial interest in aborting their child.

They seek to address the root causes of the problem including:

Irresponsible young men who are as much involved as women.

The lack of potential adoptive parents.

The isolation of many women who feel pressured into abortion as they feel they have no other option.

Education in our schools which counts abstinence before marriage as a laughable impossibility

They bear the cost of their stand to their reputations, to their careers and to their comfort.

 

So is abortion murder? I would say that it is for you to carefully consider, read around, pray about, and decide for yourself.

 

But whatever your conclusion, the final question for all of us must be: will my beliefs affect the way I act and respond to such an important issue?