It is really wet here today and a rainstorm warning has just been posted.  Heavy rain always brings problems in older buildings such as ours.  We have already discovered a couple of new leaks.  They are a nightmare to get fixed especially in this weather.  I thought it might be fun to post the notes of the sermon on Communion and Confirmation I mentioned in my last post.  They are notes and I have resisted the temptation to edit them too much!

I am pleased to say that after some technical problems, it is possible to hear sermons form my Church again very clearly via the web-site (www.christchurch.com.hk).  Yesterday, I was preaching about the Law, Christian freedom and ethics!

Today is the First Sunday after Trinity.  The Church’s calendar is rather imbalanced! For the past few months, we have been celebrating all the major festivals of the Church:  Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost and, last week, Trinity Sunday itself and with them the seasons around then.  Now we have stretched out before us the many Sundays of Trinity.  One poet wrote in a poem:

We have done with dogma and divinity
East(er) and Whitsun past,
The long, long, Sundays after Trinity
Are with us at last.

Before, however, we settle into counting the Sundays of Trinity over the Summer.  I want to delay the count by a week to think today of the meaning of a special day that was celebrated by many Christians on the Thursday just past.  If you lived in places like Brazil or Austria, on Thursday you would have had the day off work, because in the Roman Catholic Church, for example, Thursday was the Feast of Corpus Christi. Corpus Christi is Latin for the Body of Christ.  As the Church developed its liturgical Calendar for worship, it was obvious that there were going to be special days for celebrating of Lord’s birth, death, resurrection and ascension.  It was not until the middle of the Middle Ages that demand arose for a special day to celebrate the Sacrament of Holy Communion. It is true that on the Thursday in Holy Week, Maundy Thursday, Christians remembered how Jesus ate his last Supper with his disciples.  But we also remember how he washed the disciples’ feet and commanded us to love one another.  What Christians wanted was a day specifically to focus on the sacrament itself.

Not all Christians celebrate Corpus Christi, Roman Catholics do, some Anglicans do, the rest do not.  This perhaps illustrates the division and confusion amongst Christians about the meaning of what we call Holy Communion.  For us the Eucharist (another name for Holy Communion) is the central part of worship each week as it is in many Churches around the world.  For Roman Catholic Christians, the Mass (another name for Holy Communion or the Eucharist) is so important that it is celebrated daily.  Yet even for us who celebrate frequently, it is not always clear either why or what it means.

In the 16^th, there was an attempt at Reforming the Church in Europe associated with names such as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin.  But even these reformers couldn’t agree with each other as to the meaning of Holy Communion.  Luther and Zwingli fell out bitterly over it and the division, sadly, remains today.  Even in the Anglican Church, there are real differences as to the meaning of Holy Communion.

There is not enough time to go into details this morning about the meaning of the Eucharist.  Although can I pause advertise the Lent Bible Studies next year, which I provisionally intend to be on this subject.  I am responding to a suggestion after this year’s Bible Studies!

Basically though, the differences are between those who think that something is actually happening in Communion and those who see it more as a visual aid to help us remember Christ’s death for us.  Roman Catholics, for example, believe that the bread and wine quite really do become the body and blood of Christ.  Many evangelicals think nothing happens at all.

What we can be absolutely certain of is that the last thing Jesus did before he was arrested was to have a meal with his disciples that he commanded them to continue.  It wasn’t the Church who came up with this idea, but our Lord himself.

And while there is much that we do not know about the Early Church, we do know that they took this command of our Lord’s ‘to do this in remembrance of him’ very seriously, so seriously that we also know that in the mid-50s just 20 years or so after our Lord gave the command to his disciples, Christians in Greece were keeping it and celebrating the Eucharist.  And so it continues today. 

We know then that this is something our Lord wanted us to do and that from the beginning it is something that Christians have done.  In the first few centuries of the Church, Christians look it so seriously that they excluded people from receiving Communion who weren’t baptized or in good standing with the Church.  So if someone was a known sinner, they would be excommunicated that is, forbidden communion.  The Roman Catholic Church still continues this practice.

Nowadays, Christians who take the Eucharist very seriously go out of their way to include people pointing out that Jesus himself ate with sinners.  Judas who was to betray Jesus wasn’t excluded from the first communion.

All of which brings me to Anglicans and to our own Church.  Historically, Anglicans have attempted a middle way in all this.  I will talk more about this in Lent next year.  We have sought to avoid extremes.  Anglicans in the past have said that anyone who is confirmed may receive Communion.

Let me pause for a moment to talk about Confirmation.  With the rise of infant baptism in the Church, the need was felt for a way for adults to confirm the faith into which they were baptized as a child.  At Confirmation, the Church confirmed God’s acceptance of that person.  It as at this point that people started receiving Communion.

Nowadays, the Church doesn’t demand Confirmation for a person to receive communion.  The trouble is this has led to confusion over the meaning of Confirmation and over when people can receive Communion.

Here at Christ Church many do not receive communion, but come forward to be blessed instead.  Also here at Christ Church, many have chosen not to be confirmed.  It so happens that we are now looking forward to our Confirmation service in the Autumn.

Now let me be clear.  Here at Christ Church we fully respect everyone’s privacy and right to decide for themselves whether and when they take Communion.  We also respect people’s right to decide for themselves whether they are confirmed or not.  Could I today as we remember Corpus Christi, however, ask this of you?

Please would you if you don’t receive Communion, think about why you don’t.  And if you haven’t been confirmed, could I encourage you to at least consider it.  Classes will be held before hand to help people think it through with no obligation to go through with it if they decide not to.  Communion and Confirmation are important to us and we would like to explain why.

For today I would to conclude simply by saying this.  Being a Christian is hard.  Life itself is hard.  Jesus knew this and gave us a means to find strength and sustenance.  We need physical food and we need spiritual food.  It is this that we believe God provides us at Communion as we receive the body and blood of our Lord.  Please think seriously about it and consider your own participation!

Communion and Confirmation

It is now very much the Summer season here in Hong Kong.  We get many visitors to Christ Church from all over the world and they often ask me how I like living in Hong Kong.  There is no problem answering.  Hong Kong is my home and the place I believe I am called to work and minister.  If, however, I was to be asked the one thing I find hardest to cope with living here, without hesitation I would reply: the heat and humidity of the Summer.  It really does get hot and even a short walk outdoors leaves you dripping wet!  Fortunately, nowadays, we have air-conditioning!  I have no idea how the British who came here in the days before air-conditioning coped, especially when I see pictures of them in very formal dress.

Yesterday, I was preaching on Communion and Confirmation.  It was Corpus Christi last Thursday and we are planning a Confirmation service for the Autumn.  One of the biggest issues for me before officially becoming an Anglican was the issue of infant baptism.  For years I struggled with the question of whether it was legitimate to baptize babies or not.  So much baptismal theology simply doesn't work when applied to infants.  In the end, I decided that historically the Church had baptised babies and that it shouldn't be an issue to keep me from being ordained an Anglican priest.

As I have wrestled with the issue in the years since ordination, while I have come to believe that it is valid to baptize babies, Biblically valid, paradoxically, I still don't think that what the Bible says about baptism can be applied to the baptism of infants.  To put it simply: adult baptism is not the same as infant baptism.  I don't think there can be any getting away from the fact that in the New Testament baptism is a choice made by the person being baptized, something that by definition isn't true when a baby is baptized.

It is to get over this that Churches such as my own have a Service of Confirmation when a person previously baptized can confirm for themselves the vows made on their behalf at baptism and when the Church can confirm God's acceptance of them.  The practical, pastoral problem here for me is that I can't persuade people to come to Confirmation.

To an extent this is a problem of our own making.  It used to be the case in Anglicanism that we would only admit to Communion those who had been confirmed.  There was then some incentive to be confirmed, although it is also true that we never saw many of those who were confirmed after they had been confirmed.  It was treated as a passing out parade.  Anyway, we decided as Anglicans, rightly in my opinion, that baptism was sufficient in order to receive Communion and so we now encourage anyone who has been baptized, whatever their age, to be receive Communion.

This means that many simply don't feel the need to go through Confirmation.  They confirm their faith each week by being part of the worshipping community and taking Communion.  The question then is, does it matter if people don't get confirmed?  It certainly matters to some in my Church who still think that Communion should only be given to the confirmed.  However, as I point out to them, that is now no longer an option. It also matters to Bishops for whom confirmation is one way of underlining their authority given that it is the Bishop who must confirm.  The actual answer, however, is, I think, yes and no!

Yes, it matters precisely because, as I said at the beginning of this post, infant baptism is not Biblical baptism.  It is perfectly valid on its own terms, but, in the New Testament, Christian faith requires a commitment - a public commitment at that.  Confirmation, then, provides a means to make up for what is lacking in infant baptism.  Indeed, it could be argued that Confirmation is New Testament baptism without the water.

But no, there is nothing to say that this is the only means for making the public commitment that the New Testament requires.  If a person has made a decisive decision to turn to Christ in faith and repentance and is open about that in their life and witness, it is very hard to see why Confirmation should be a requirement.  Of course, this doesn't mean it can't be encouraged by the Church as a way of demonstrating that commitment liturgically.

It does mean that it is quite difficult to persuade people to join the Confirmation Service we are planning in the Autumn!

Having written about politics yesterday and in this the day of the General Election in the UK and as I look over my polling card for a totally pointless election in Hong Kong on May 16, I thought I would post an interview with one of the politicians I most admire in the world.

I don't always agree with her, but I always feel she knows more than me or most people anyway, and I would trust her as a person whatever her politics.  So sad she doesn't want to rule anywhere.  Here is a very recent interview with her.

BTW: anyone who can help me meet her let me know.

Condoleezza, respect!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArUKdqzLJYs

I have had a bit of a holiday from blogging for the past month.  Easter went well and we are now turning our attention at Christ Church to Ascension Day and Pentecost when there is quite a bit going on.

I was at Ming Hua, our theological college, yesterday, where the subjects under discussion were the Christian attitude to those in authority and to war.  Living in Hong Kong and coming from the UK, gives different perspectives on these issues.  The UK is, after all, at war in Afghanistan and Iraq and is going through a general election as I write.  While in Hong Kong, there is much argument and debate about attempts to change the way the Chief Executive is chosen here.  How involved, then, in politics should the Christian be and what should be our attitude to the various political issues of our day?

There are, I think, two extreme positions.  On the one hand, there are those who think that Christians, or at least the Church, should not be involved in politics at all.  As politics is about how the society in which we live is governed and organized, this seems to be an impossible position for anyone who takes the Bible seriously to adopt.  However, on the other hand, there are those who engage in politics wholeheartedly and think the Church should do the same, but whose approach is no different to anyone else involved in politics.  You wouldn't know they were Christians in other words.

What both these positions have in common, ironically, is that effectively they both leave God out of the picture. The first thinks that belief in God and involvement in politics don't mix.  The other keeps belief in God and political involvement separate.  If we see this world as God's world and if we believe we should love our neighbour as ourselves, it is hard to see how we can keep either God or ourselves out of politics.

But our starting-point, our ideology and presuppositions will be very different to those of the non-Christian, even if we end up voting with those who don't believe what we believe.  The Christian will never forget that this age is transient, under the judgement of God, and that all human endeavour, even at its best, is tainted with sin.  We will never, then, be able to give ourselves completely to any human political system or philosophy.

This is something that Christians in the west especially need to hear for there is the somewhat strange notion amongst some western Christians that freedom in a political sense and democracy are one and the same thing.  Consequently, if the Christian supports freedom, they should also support democracy.  I have often said I feel more free in Beijing than I do in London.  I can walk the streets of Beijing without fear of attack, for example, in a way I can't walk the streets of London.

Democracy is a voting system for deciding who should govern us.  It is not the same as freedom nor does it guarantee it.  It may be a good system, but to absolutize it is as wrong as it was in the past to absolutize the divine right of Kings.

It's Easter Saturday and we are getting ready for tomorrow.  This is the last in the series on God.  I think this is a good day for it.  Happy Easter everyone!

6. The Question of God: The Answer is Christ

In what we have been saying about God so far, the assumption has been that it is within the Christian faith that the answer to the question of God is to be found.  This seems to rule out any contribution that other religions may want to make.  In these relativist days, however, to suggest that there might be only one way, one truth, and one life to follow, if you are to come to God is considered arrogant and bigoted.  In what follows, I will attempt to explain what I think our attitude to other religions should be and, at the same time, bring our series on the question of God to a close.

Firstly, we need to acknowledge that individual members of other religions are often good, kind people whose commitment to their faith is every bit as sincere as is that of Christians to theirs.  Indeed, the commitment of some members of other religions puts Christians to shame.  Furthermore, the contribution that some people of other faiths make to the general well-being of human beings leaves many Christians far behind.

Secondly, we also need to acknowledge that Christians, past and present, have, on many occasions, got things horribly wrong.  On an individual level, we have not followed the example and teachings of Christ; our lives have not witnessed to him; and we have frequently been guilty of hypocrisy and sin.  On a corporate level, the Church has much of which to repent.  The Church has to accept guilt for its instigation of, involvement in, and complicity with injustice, exploitation, violence, and a general inhumanity.  Our behaviour, at times, towards those of a different religious belief to our own cannot be defended.  And should not be.

Thirdly, though, we ought, perhaps, to make a distinction between the Christian religion and the revelation of God in Christ.  Religion is what we human beings do.  Sometimes, we will get it right and our religion will be a faithful enactment of the teaching of Christ.  It will express our obedience to and worship of our Lord.  On other occasions, it will be entirely neutral, neither good or bad in itself, but capable of becoming either.  On still other occasions, we will get it entirely wrong, and rather than the Christian religion being something good or even just neutral, it will become something bad, even demonic, reflecting our continuing sinfulness, rather than our obedience to God.  On most occasions, it will be a blend of all three.

So, as an example of the good, we might cite the bravery and sacrifice of the early Christian martyrs, who stood firm against paganism and persecution at the cost of their lives as they proclaimed the Gospel of Christ.  As an example of something neutral, we might cite synodical government (or any form of Church government for that matter).  There is nothing wrong with it in itself.  At times, it might be a useful way to enable the Church to serve God.  At others, it might prove a complete waste of time and a barrier to the Holy Spirit.  As an example of something wrong, we might cite the systematic persecution and torture of one group of Christians by another at the time of the reformation.

To say that the truth is to be found in Christ is not the same as saying that the truth is to be found in Christ’s disciples.  It should be.  Sometimes it is.  Often it is not.

Fourthly, however, no matter how much we may recognize and acknowledge our failure and sinfulness, both individually and corporately, as Christians, we cannot compromise on what God himself has revealed to us in Christ.  For the Christian, what God has spoken to us in Christ is an absolute standard and completely normative in matters of faith and practice.  No matter how much we may go wrong in the process, our aim as Christians must be to be faithful to Christ both in what we believe and in how we live.

God is to be found in Christ and in Christ alone.  This was a central tenet in the preaching of the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers.  The Apostle Peter, when speaking to the Jewish authorities, says:

‘There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.’  (Acts 4:12)

It follows, then, that because God has revealed certain things to us in Christ, we cannot believe other things that contradict this revelation.  For example, we cannot believe that Christ rose from the dead and agree with Muslims, who do not.  We cannot believe in a God who is personal with whom we can communicate and agree with Buddhists, who do not.  We cannot believe in one God who alone is worthy of worship and agree with Hindus, who do not.

Some of the most basic Christian beliefs are absolutely incompatible with the beliefs of other religions.  We might agree on some things, but that does not alter the fact that we disagree on much more.  We might be able to work together in some areas, but that must not be at the cost of revealed truth.  If we claim to be Christians and recite the creed each Sunday, then, for good or ill, we are also saying, like it or not, that the other religions cannot be right, no matter how good or nice individual members of them may be.  In this respect, we need, humbly, to have the confidence to believe what our faith teaches us to believe.

When we declare our faith every Sunday in the Creed, we are declaring faith in one God and one Lord.  It is an inevitable consequence of this that there is one truth and that that truth is to be found in Christ.

But why all this emphasis on Christ?  It is because the question of God is ultimately not solved primarily by argument, debate, and discussion, necessary though they are.  And we do not find God by a consideration of the evidence, important though it is to examine it.  The answer to the question of whether there is a God is to be found in Christ.  Personally, we come to know this God for ourselves as we encounter him in and through Christ.  This is an encounter that everyone can have, and which everyone must have, if they are to answer the question of God for themselves.

We are about to celebrate Easter.  Easter tells us that God took pity on us, that he had mercy on our ignorance and our inability to find him on our own by our own efforts, and that he came instead to find us and show himself to us.  When we look at Christ, we are looking at God.  Philip, one of Jesus’ disciples, said to him:

            ‘Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.’

Jesus reply to him says everything that needs to be said:

            ‘Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.’  (John 14:8-9)

May each one of us find for ourselves the answer to the question of God in the only place that it can be found - in Christ. 

5. The Question of God: The Problem of Which God

Church leaders have expressed concern recently at the extent to which people are turning from Christianity to new age religion, astrology, and the like.  It should come as no surprise.  For years now, the church has gone soft on traditional Christian belief.  It has encouraged people to reinterpret Christian theology and to bring it up to date.  If we do not seem to believe in our faith, it is no wonder that society at large should decide not believe in it either.  All that our attempts to make Christianity relevant have done is to drive people back to what used to be believed before Christianity ever came on the scene.  It is rather ironic that young people should see pagan beliefs as more relevant to them than Christianity.  So much for the desire to be modern.

The problem, though, is a real one.  There can be little doubt that religion is back on the agenda.  Interest in spirituality is high, but the choice of faiths and the variety of spiritualities on offer is bewildering.  When it comes to religion, we are faced with a religious supermarket.  It is perhaps no surprise that people are adopting a pick ‘n’ mix approach to religion.  A bit of Christianity, a helping of Buddhism, a smattering of astrology and - hey presto!- instant religion.

It was not always so in Britain.  It was always the case that the world was full of different religions.  There have always been many competing religions, and Christianity has always had to struggle to be heard on the world stage.  It was once the case, however, that the average believer in the pew could choose to ignore the existence of other religions.  Living in Britain in the 19th century, you were unlikely to encounter any other religion besides Christianity.  This is emphatically not the case today.

Firstly, we see and hear of other religions on our televisions and radios; we read of them in books, newspapers, and magazines.  The world has become a global village, and all of us are increasingly aware of what is happening in other parts of it.  We are conscious today of a variety of religions.

Secondly, immigration has seen the arrival in Britain itself of other world religions.  We do not have to go to the Indian sub-continent to meet Hindus or to the Middle East to meet Muslims, members of these and other religions as well are now British citizens, living and practising their faith in most major British cities.  To drive through some cities, in the 1990’s, is to see not only the church and cathedral, but also the temple and mosque.

The question, then, is a real one.  Which god?  Which faith?  And, why my god?  And, why my faith?  Christians have to determine their attitude to other religions more so today than ever.  Broadly, one of three basic types of approach can be adopted.  All we can do here is summarize them.

Firstly, there is the pluralist approach.  This sees all religions as, in principle, equally valid.  Each religion in its own way expresses the human search for God and represents what has been discovered about God.  On this approach, no one religion can be said to have all the truth.  Consequently, our task is not to convert, but to listen.  We, as Christians, certainly have things that we can share with members of other faiths, but we have things to learn from them as well.  Inter-faith dialogue, joint services, and a search for common ground characterise this approach.

Secondly, there is the inclusivist approach.  This is probably the most common approach amongst Christians at the moment.  On this approach, the Christian faith is seen as the most complete revelation of God.  But that does not mean that we should completely disregard other religions.  They may not be in as full a possession of the truth as us, their understanding may be partial, but what they have is valid in as far as it goes.  We still want members of other religions to come to faith in Christ, but we recognize what is of value in their religion.  They may not have as much as us, but that does not mean that they have nothing.

Thirdly, there is the exclusivist approach.  Nowadays, this seems bigoted and intolerant, but, traditionally, it has been the approach of the Church to other religions.  On this approach, Christianity is the only true faith.  All other religions are in error.  They may be honourable attempts to discover God (equally, they may not be), but in any case, they are still wrong.  Anything that is true in another religion is true only inasmuch as it agrees with Christianity.  So there is nothing Christians can learn about God that they cannot learn from their own faith.  Our task, then, is not to listen to members of other religions, it is to convert them.

What are we to say about all this?  More than can be said here!  The following are brief observations.  Firstly, as Christians we can safely reject the first approach.  To say that all religions are equally valid goes against so much Christian teaching as to render it incompatible with Christian faith.  Furthermore, to argue, as some who take this approach would, that all religions are essentially saying the same thing is not only wrong, it is silly!  The different world religions do not agree with one another.  Indeed, they frequently contradict each other.  The person who thinks that all religions are the same does not know much about religion.

Secondly, Christians have to avoid intolerance.  There is no place in the Church for bigotry.  We must recognize the sincerity of those whose beliefs and practices are different to our own.  We also have to recognize with shame that many members of other religions live better lives than we do.

Thirdly, though, the issue is not whether Muslims, for example, are sincere or whether Hindus live good lives.  The issue is one of truth.  We live in an age which hates the idea of truth.  Everything is relative.  We do not like to think that there is one truth.  We prefer to think that there are many different ways each one right for the person who chooses to take it.  We want to allow different beliefs and alternative lifestyles.  As Christians, we have tended to follow the spirit of the age and have gone, instead, for a faith that emphasizes feelings and individual fulfilment.  What matters is what matters to me.  What is true is what is true for me.  But that is not Christianity.  What is true is what God says is true, irrespective of whether I experience it, feel it, or believe it.

The Bible stresses the importance of truth.  Jesus said: ‘you will know the truth and the truth will set you free’ (John 8:32).  Christians believe that God has revealed the truth in Christ.  Christians make many mistakes, they fail often, but that does not alter the truth of God’s revelation of Himself in Christ.

Is it just me ...

My first Bible was the King James Version.  It is still the version that comes to mind whenever I think of a passage.  So, initially, I was quite excited to learn that celebrations were being planned for the 400th anniversary of its publication next year.  Excitement, however, turned to incredulity and then, I have to say, something bordering on anger, when I went on a website dedicated to the celebration. (www.2011trust.org)

Here they have Richard Dawkins - a militant atheist, no less - extolling the KJV!

One of the biggest struggles I have had in the past has been with those who think that Church services should be in Shakespearian English.   Many who argue thus - not all, I accept - are more concerned with a cultural elitism than with hearing the Word of God.  Richard Dawkins sums it up in a phrase:  'The Bible doesn't have to be tied to religion.'

This website in its very promotion and celebration of the KJV has demonstrated why we can't any longer use it in public worship.  We simply cannot be identified with this sort of snobbery.

Here is another quote from the website:

Professor Dawkins was asked why he wanted to participate in the initiative. "You can't appreciate English literature unless you are steeped to some extent in the King James Bible", he replied, "people don't know that proverbial phrases which make echoes in their minds come from this Bible. We are a Christian culture, we come from a Christian culture and not to know the King James Bible, is to be in some small way, barbarian".

Unbelievable!

Holy Week is proceeding apace!  Hard to believe that tomorrow is Maundy Thursday.  Below I post the next in the series about God.  I will post the remainder over the next few days.  You may remember me writing that these were a series I did for Lent some time ago, but they are still what I would want to say on the subject now!

4. The Question of God: The Evidence of Revelation

In our thinking about God, I have been arguing that there is evidence all around us for his existence.  But many people do not see it or do not respond to it.  This raises the question of how people are to come to believe in God.  This question at once brings us to the heart of the problem.  The  assumption in much of the discussion about believing in God seems to be that it is us who have to do the work, that it is up to us to find God.

This assumption lies behind a lot of religious thinking both outside the church and in it.  In contemporary religious studies, religion is often portrayed as human beings’ search for God and for meaning in their lives.  The different religions in the world, then, are to be explained as the different stories of our quest for something beyond us.  Alternatively, from a Christian standpoint, people will be urged to believe in God, to think about the importance of faith, to consider the arguments, to see their need and to act.  This sort of understanding can result in a presentation of the Christian faith that is based on what we can discover about God.  It can also begin to seem that if we make the effort to think through the arguments, experiment and engage with religion then, eventually, we will find God.  God is there and it is up to us to find him.

From a Biblical point of view, this is not at all satisfactory.  First of all, it is not God who is lost, we are.  Secondly, spiritually, we lack the means to come to God.  Thirdly, even if the evidence were as bright as bright could be, we would not be able to see it because spiritually we are blind.  The theologian who has done most in the twentieth century to remind the church of this is Karl Barth (1886-1968).

Barth was born at Basel.  After studying theology at the universities of Bern, Berlin, Tubingen, and Marburg, he became a Reformed minister in Switzerland.  It was while pastoring a church in Switzerland that he wrote a commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.  It was to establish him as one of the major theologians of the twentieth century.  He was to become a professor at several German universities until, after conflict with Hitler, he was dismissed by Hitler in 1935, and became professor of theology at Basel until 1962.  Pope Pius XII described him as the greatest theologian since St Thomas Aquinas.

Barth rejected all theology that put the emphasis on human beings and what they did, and stressed, instead, what God has done and still does through revelation.  God, for Barth, is utterly transcendent and wholly other.  Stressing the sinfulness of human beings, he pointed out that men and women had failed to find God because of their sin, and so God, in the person of Christ had come to us, had sought us out, and had unconditionally welcomed us into a relationship with himself.  In the Gospels, after all, it is the shepherd who seeks the lost sheep, not the lost sheep who seek the shepherd.  In Christ, then, God reveals himself making it possible for people to believe in him.
 

And that said Barth is still how it is.  We do not now find God, not even in Christ, by our own reasoning and efforts.  It is not that God made the truth known in Christ, and it is now up to us to find it.  It is still necessary for God to reveal himself to each one of us separately.  This he does through the preaching of the good news of Jesus Christ.  In Christ, God calls each of us to himself and makes it possible for us to come to know him.  Left to ourselves we would only ever stumble around in the dark.

But what are the consequences of this for our examination of the evidence?  We have been arguing that there is evidence for God.  Well yes, indeed there is.  We, however, have chosen not to see it and now have become unable to see it.  St Paul describes human beings as being spiritually blind and therefore unable to see the light of the Gospel (2 Corinthians 4:4).  Does this mean, then, that considering the evidence is a wasted effort?  No, just not enough.  It is right to show people that there are good grounds for believing in God, but more is needed.  We must ask God to open people’s eyes to see the truth of the evidence.  We must ask God to draw people to himself through the message we proclaim.  Jesus said that no-one can come to him unless drawn by the Father who sent him (John 6:44).

So where does this leave human reason?  Firstly, it means that reason alone will never and can never bring people to God.  We need a spiritual renewal if we are to be able to enter into a relationship with God.  Secondly,  human reason is in any case limited because we as human beings are limited.  There are limits to what we can know and understand.  This is not a message that we like to hear.  We are encouraged to think that there are no limits to human understanding.  Sadly, the very fact that we are mortal, confined to a body and given over to death, with a brain that cannot absorb everything shows that there are limits.  When it comes to God, we are never going to have the mental capacities necessary to understand him fully.

Thirdly, however, there is a vast difference between saying, as I have been, that we cannot find God through reason and saying that belief in God is unreasonable.  Simply because something does not seem to make sense to us, does not mean that it does not make sense.  Furthermore, once we have come to faith, we are in a position to see and understand more than before.  Indeed, it should be an absolute priority for every Christian to grow in their understanding of God.

Someone who is very helpful when it comes to understanding the relationship between faith and reason is St Anselm (1033-1109).  Anselm was born in Italy.  At the age of 26, he entered the Benedictine monastery at Bec in Normandy.  Shortly after, in 1063, he became the prior of the monastery.  He was prior for about 15 years and then became the abbot.  In 1093, he became the archbishop of Canterbury.  Anselm believed that it was revelation, not reason or experience, that gives us the content of the Christian faith, but the believer can then seek, by the use of his or her reason, to understand more fully what he or she believes.  By examining the Christian faith in this way, we can come to see how rational it really is. 

In a famous passage Anselm wrote:

‘I am not trying, Lord, to penetrate your sublimity, for my understanding is not up to that.  But I long in some measure to understand your truth, which my heart believes and loves.  For I am not seeking to understand in order to believe, but I believe in order that I may understand.  For this too I believe: that unless I believe I shall not understand.’  (Prosologion 1)

May God grant us the faith to believe so that we too may understand.