Why Did God Use So Much Space & Time?

A conversation came up the other day, in which I was asked why I thought God decided to spend such an inordinate amount of time and space to do His creating. Here are my thoughts on the matter.

Given that the universe is 14 billion years old, and that life has been evolving on this planet for over 4 billion of those years, one might reasonably ask why God chose to create nature over such vast expanses of time and space when He could have wrapped it up a lot sooner. I think the first thing to note is that in doing it this way, God has created a universe with lots of information that gets rinsed out in the mathematical wash. In other words, the notable things in the universe - like stars, planets, chemistry, biological life and, ultimately, humans - are highly unrepresentative of the exceeding mathematical profligacy in the rest of the universe.

This seems to be a truth reflected in the natural order of things: there is a plethora of thermonuclear spillage when planets are created; there are dozens of thorns for every rose; there are many more non-beneficial mutations in DNA than beneficial ones; there are millions of sperm that are unsuccessful alongside the one successful one that engenders a fruitful union in fertilisation. Even in the arts, or the economy, or in trade-based competition, or in sport, or in epistemology, the winners are far outnumbered by the losers.

How much truer that is of life in the universe too. To consider just how vast even our galaxy is; if you shrunk our galaxy to the size of the earth, then the solar system we inhabit within that galaxy would be about the size of a bowling ball. And as far as we know, we are the only life in that whole galaxy, maybe even the whole universe (a remarkable fact if it's true, given that there are around 1 billion trillion stars in the observable universe). One thing is abundantly clear: the special things in nature are very very rare and highly unrepresentative of the rest of the mathematical baggage in it.

The upshot is, there are many patterns in physics that are mirrored in human behaviour too, especially when it comes to power laws, and Pareto distributions. Perhaps the nature of the universe is some kind of symbolic representation of deeper truths related to God's creation story. Perhaps it's a part of the 'all good things to those who wait' philosophy, or a 'big rewards to those who work hard' philosophy, where value comes at a cost, and takes time and effort. All the most impressive designs in human terms require prodigious amounts of planning, foundational work and intricately executed design techniques that factor in the complexity of the whole project, not just individual parts.

Knowing how we emotionally and intellectually engage with reality at a human level, I can conceive of what might be behind the Divine wisdom of a vast, lengthy creation story, in which the banality of the gas, dust, rocks and gravitational and magnetic fields could represent a symbolic demystification of creation as a fait accompli event spanning much shorter execution time. Perhaps the vastness of creation is God's way of illustrating just how much cosmic magnitude went into the intellectual process - and how comparably meagre our own intellectual prowess really is in trying to fathom such a mind. Intelligence is, after all, the ability to explore avenus of possibility by sifting and selecting - so why should we be surprised if God exhibits this with the creation of the universe, like all artistic geniuses do? Perhaps we shouldn’t expect anything less.

We are told two big things about this creation in terms of God's cosmological masterwork: in Romans 1:20 we are told that "Since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." And in Psalm 19, we are told that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands". That is perhaps a good conclusion one can draw for why God used such vast amounts of time and space: they are the revelation of the huge mathematical permutations in designing something so complex: a design that has His fingerprints on it in the constitution of the mathematical bias written into nature's fundamental blueprint of a biased random walk. And if you don't understand how amazing a fundamental blueprint of a biased random walk is, you don't understand it at all. Consequently, a signature from God of that level of mathematical genius is going to require a physical substrate spanning vast stretches of time and space, just as a painter would require a vastly spacious canvas in order play out the exhibition of his artistic genius on a grand, iridescent scale.

Linking those two concepts together: the vastness of space and time, and the highly unrepresentative pockets of order painted onto a giant canvas of disorder - ask yourself this. Don't we feel that bit more special being one in a billion than one in a small group? If Jack says to Jill "I love you more than anyone in our social group" or "I love you more than anyone in our church congregation" we all know that that is not anything like as powerful as saying “I love you more than anyone else in the world”. The more unrepresentative a love is when it deviates from the mean of weighted experience, the more it is treasured as something amazingly rare, special and wondrous. Perhaps God’s capacious expanse of the skies and His chronologically extensive timeframe for dong His creation is an illustration of just how exorbitantly rare, special and wondrous we are.

Or maybe think of it in terms of the mathematically biased random walk - perhaps as redolent of our two beloveds, Jack and Jill, having no chance of meeting without their mutual friends getting together and making special arrangements for that to happen. Perhaps those two beloveds would have been lost without the intervention of those that loved them. And perhaps when we think of the vastness of the matter in the universe, that those particles would be 'lost' in the interstices of a prohibitively large search space without God’s intervening genius to bring them together with the blueprint of a biased random walk. The vastness of the universe and the broad timescales could well be an exhibition of the Divine genius (Romans 1) unlocking the vastly complex combination lock that helps gritty 'lost' matter 'become 'found' - like two beloveds finding each other against all the odds. God’s story is, after all, a love story between Creator and creation.

That’s my best conjecture for why God used an enormously complex, spatially vast, chronically extensive canvas to demonstrate His artistic genius: it is the genius of a rare, unique, profoundly beautiful, deliberate love story where that which is lost becomes found, and is embraced by the Creator through the Incarnation, just as when the father embraces his prodigal son on his return from the doldrums. The grandeur of the universe may well be a simulacrum of the entire gospel story: that the whole creation narrative is based on Christ dying for our salvation - and the mathematical cost of life, represented in the vastly expressive canvas of mathematical and physical nature, may be an illustration of the cost of life in terms of salvation - the price God paid for the creatures He loves. That is to say: our Father God has shown through His Son Jesus that He is willing to bear the greatest costs imaginable (Philippians 2:7, 2 Corinthians 5:21) for the things He loves - and that may be as true of the univeral nature of things as it is the individuals He created, and for whom He died.

Why God Probably Had To Be Male

The Church of Sweden has urged its clergy to use more gender-neutral language when referring to God, and to avoid referring to the deity as “Lord” or “he”. Their reason, as expressed by Archbishop Antje Jackelen, is to promote the use of more gender-inclusive language - “Theologically, for instance, we know that God is beyond our gender determinations, God is not human,” she said.

This is no doubt on the back of a socio-cultural trend towards “accepting difference of all varieties", where people can more easily "be supported to accept their own gender identity or sexual orientation and that of others". Even accepting this as a good basis for humans, that does not necessarily mean that it naturally translates into a good basis for engaging with Deity - after all, we know from Jesus that things that apply to humans do not necessarily extend to applying to God ('My kingdom is not of this world').

The church is claimed to be something over and above human construction (although it is full of human construction too) – it is thought to be a body that represents the bride to Christ’s bridegroom. Hence, in those terms, even at a metaphorical level, sex is important; particularly as Jesus instructs us to pray to Our Father.

Obviously there is no doubting Jesus' maleness - in becoming a man He took on all the properties of manhood (even sin right at the end on the cross), and there is no difficulty whatsoever in referring to Jesus in the masculine third person pronoun 'Him'.   

But why did God the Father refer to Himself in terms of maleness? Is it perhaps the case that being (I presume) something spiritually beyond our comprehension, He may have indentified Himself in terms of maleness in recognition of our difficulty in conceiving a neuter singular indefinite personal pronoun that departs from the ‘He’ or ‘She’ concepts (I don’t think we would wish to refer to God as ‘it’ - and both male and female being made in His image indicates Divine transcending of sex). 

But that doesn't satisfy much, and I'll try to explain why. If God is transcendent of sex, and we can call God 'Him' or 'The Father', can we equally well call God 'Her' or 'The Mother'? I think you'd be hard pressed to find even a feminist Christian who would say this is not a problem.

Similarly, to say that sex has zero importance must be to admit that God could have equally well chosen the incarnation to be in the form of a woman instead of the male Jesus.  Instead of Jesus on the cross as the Son of God, imagine a women on the cross as the Daughter of God - I don’t think many Christians would think that is the same religion.  It would probably more closely resemble the worshipping of Aphrodite or Iris or Athena, which may have qualities that Christianity does not, but it wouldn’t be Christianity at all as we know it. 

I am not making any comment on whether the religions centred around goddesses or ideas centred around ‘mother’ nature are better or worse than the more patriarchal religions, but if the majority of Christianity's leading figures are seeking to retain the status of God as Father and Christ as Son as central tenets of the faith, I think we would be hard pressed to deny that this is entirely consistent with scripture.

And I can equally see why if Christianity departs from God as Father and Christ as Son it could easily lose other core elements that make up its very essence. Perhaps those wishing to retain maleness in Deity are doing so more as a humble fault than out of allegiance to patriarchy - after all, they might be fearful that if the church cedes more and more of its uniqueness and fades into the background of an increasingly watered down, individualistic modern culture it may not have many pearls left to share. 

With Christ at the head (bridegroom) of the church we are dealing with ‘male’ and ‘female’ not merely as facts of nature but as shadows of deeper dimensional realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Given the foregoing, it is not that we have chosen that God should be Him not Her, it is more likely that it was chosen for us by God – and that to consider the church only as an analogue to, or as having qualitative importance with, the other socio-political institutions in the world is to diminish some of its power and gravitas. 

And just as in his epistles St Paul often seems to be giving exhortations regarding the severity of the message of grace being impeded or disfigured by cult practices (the example of the instruction against women speaking in church in the letter to the Corinthians is not a universal edict to be taken doctrinally, but specifically as a portent against the Aphrodite cult, which was rife with prostitution, and priestesses immersed in the Christian church who were indulging in their own brand of heterodoxy and heresy), I suspect that the notion of God as Father and Christ as Son is central to the creation story in ways that none of us yet understands except perhaps in terms of creation as a shy adjunct of God's relationship with His creation.

I may be over-interpreting things here, but when scripture refers to Christ as our bridegroom, and Jehovah as our father and husband, perhaps this is to set a template for our understanding some of the characteristics of God in terms of characteristics of maleness. Perhaps it is redolent of the male archetype as maker, protector, provider, leader - the kind of qualities that women seek in men, and children seek in parents - also being the kind of qualities that created creatures seek in their Creator.

You may object that these roles of men and women in nature are mere human constructs, and because of which we have imputed those properties onto the Divine - but I think that may be getting the causality backwards. Because if you are alert to reading between scripture's lines, you'll find that God uses pretty much all His most profound methods of communication through the conduit of human constructs.

Animal sacrifices were part of tradition long before Go instituted it into Hebrew culture as part of a covenant. The same is true of war, prophecy, governments, kingdoms, priesthoods and, most importantly here, the practice of crucifixion. The cross on which humanity had its sin forgiven was a barbaric human practice that God used to demonstrate His love for humankind and to draw us closer to Himself.

And I have a feeling that that is also the case regarding God's maleness in terms of our salvation and a relationship with us - He has co-opted human elements as conduits through which He can reveal Himself as our maker, protector, provider, leader and saviour of the world. No doubt our understanding of this is but a shadow of the full profundity of the reality, but that's my best guess as to the relevance of God being a He and not a She.

Perhaps a final illustration will help if you're still on the fence with this one. Imagine you're at Golgotha about to witness Jesus die slowly on the cross. Your strongest instinct would be to help him down, but I can conceive of a situation where, however difficult, you could be talked into letting him suffer and die because what he's doing is a noble act of sacrificial love that will save the world.

If the situation was the same except for the fact that the person on the cross was a woman, I can't think that leaving her up there to die slowly would be something we could ever feel was instinctively right - I cannot imagine that any onlooking man or woman would be absent of the overwhelming feeling that if someone is going to go through this barbarous, lengthy period of intense suffering and death, that it ought to be a man volunteering Himself up there in her place - not by coercion, but by the strongest compunction imaginable - like a husband doing so to save his wife, or a father doing so to save his son, or a Creator doing so to save His creation.

The Genius Of Christianity: Pascal's Wager - Placing A Bet On Whether God Exists

Pascal's Wager is one of the most famous philosophical propositions in history, but it is also one of the most widely misunderstood. Pascal’s Wager is quite simply this:

‘If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing - but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will have lost everything. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist’.

At face value there is so much wrong with this argument - namely, that it makes no mention of which particular God this applies to; that one cannot choose what one believes; and that even if one could choose one's beliefs, a person that tried to strike up a belief in God through this artificial method would not impress God much at all.

But Pascal meant something better and more profound than that; and in his Pensees - sections of which are, in my view, among the best Christian writings of the last 2000 years - Pascal lays out his wager not as a trivial each way bet, but as an encouragement to pursue Christ, and think intelligently when doing so.

Pascal never intended his wager to be about God as an undefined concept, He meant it to be about Christ, and he understood better than most that Christ wants every part of us; He wants to live inside of us and help us fulfil our potential, and He wants to make us more like Him. He did not die on the cross for us to make a half-hearted appeal - He died and rose again so that we could experience the spirit of Christ within us, so that we could fully imbibe all that the divine has to give us

In Pensees, Pascal had the following to say about belief in God if it turns out God doesn't exist: "But what harm will come to you from taking this course? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, doing good, a sincere and true friend”. This can be taken as a comment about those who profess belief as much as it can those who don’t, because Christianity has virtually nothing to say to the man who is happy to acknowledge it as part of his daily background but makes no attempt to grow in Christ.

Thus it is probably better not to believe at all than to adopt an indifferent sycophancy which merely hopes in the end for a divine hand-out (this is suggested with Christ’s words in Revelation 3 about the dangers of being 'lukewarm'). After all, those who live their lives by this principle are no closer to the genuine rewards of Christianity than those who passionately repudiate it.

Given that we humans believe only what seems sensible to us (we cannot force ourselves to believe something if it doesn’t seem right), and that we infer from experience, from perception, from feelings and (hopefully) from rational enquiry, I am inclined to believe that Pascal’s wager was a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy - which reads: behave as though you believe in Christ and you will gradually start to become more Christ-like – and when you do He will start to reveal more of Himself to you. 

In other words, Christianity is the one offer we have from all the holy books to test the strategy of God by having the guts to try to emulate Him. Further, its genius shows it to be the very life force that will best give you fullness of life – and it is presented as self-affirming by having two complementary forces; one part shows the divine presence through our choosing to have a relationship with God, and the other shows the divine presence by our having to courage to try to live up to the standards and fail. To that end, Pascal's wager is like an invitation to the start of a journey of which you can only see the first few steps.  

Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?

Matthew 16:25-26

A few years after I became a Christian in my early twenties, a realisation occurred to me about the genius of Christianity: the Christian qualities are such that even if the supernatural claims of the faith turn out to be false, we should still choose the Christian way anyway, because it is the best thing in the world.

The genius is in the presentation and in the seduction of the power of what faith does - it involves the understanding that Christianity presents us with the best and most blessed way of living your life - therefore if you live that way you are made better off because of it anyway, and will begin to understand why it is true. To that end, a development of Pascal's wager is betting on the best way to live your life, and in doing so dovetailing the pursuit of the truth with the truth itself thereby being assimilated into your life in the process.

Now instinctively this might sound anathema to an unbeliever, but only until you begin to see that actually Christianity is a remarkable thing it itself. One of the many reasons I believe in Christ is because all the good and great things in the world - even things that have no direct connection with Christianity - can be had as a Christian, and all of the bad and undesirable things in the world - by which I mean things that human beings generally all agree are bad - are things from which Christianity says it's best to distance oneself.

Consequently, then, one of the ingenious qualities of the Christian faith is that even as an unbeliever one can connect oneself to any of its positive qualities and at the same time constantly enjoy things that are of benefit to oneself and humankind anyway. That is a sense in which one can wager that Christianity is the truth - live as though it is and you'll soon start to realise that it is.

Perhaps an analogy will help

I was just trying to think of an analogy for my above comment about the rewards of mirroring Christianity. Here's one. Suppose you meet a young man, unapprised of matters of the heart, and you want to tell him what being deeply in love with a beloved is like. Up until now, he only knows what casual dating is like, so you set about explaining to him what the joys of love feel like. Then a few months later he starts dating a girl he really likes, and he gets all the warm tingly pleasures, feelings of fondness, but hasn't quite mastered how to take his nascent love to an even deeper, more profound level, and is not even sure if all the effort is worth it.

Now here's where you can tell him how to take the path that will edify and enrich him. In order to find out what a deeper love is like, he is going to need to practice things that are at first quite alien to fledgling minds, but once practiced, soon reveal themselves to be the epitome of human delights. For a deeper love with his beloved, he will need to learn how to forgive wrongdoings, master contrition, perfect the art of putting the beloved before himself, and exercising patience, kindness and understanding at a level he hadn't previously comprehended.

And although the path won't be entirely smooth - we are all flawed humans, after all - what he'll find is the more he tries to imitate love, the more he will feel like he is love, and the better the self will be in becoming. In wearing love's shoes, which seem tight at first, he will begin to find himself fitting into them more comfortably, until he hardly even notices he has shoes on. The most comfortable shoes are, after all, shoes you hardly notice you are wearing. In imitating love, he will begin to co-opt its fundamental qualities, and that is analogous to what imitating Christ is like. 

As some of you may know, there is a very famous book series that captures this sentiment. Picture the scene; it’s C.S Lewis’s Narnia tale The Silver Chair – the protagonists are under the thrall of the Green Witch – stuck in her underground domain they are getting desperate, and they begin to doubt the power of the more heavenly world above.  At this point Puddleglum the marsh-wiggle gives the following speech:

'One word, Ma’am.  All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst of things and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things–trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. .Then all I can say is, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just four babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can, even if there isn’t any Narnia. So we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland’.

The upper world is Aslan's world, which of course represents what Christ drives us towards in a relationship with Him. Just like Pascal’s wager, Lewis in stating what we could call ‘Puddleglum's Wager’ - which is saying that even if Jesus isn’t God it is still a better life pursuing the world envisaged by Christ. It is a probabilistic venture based on the wisdom of Christ even aside from the supernatural – and it calls for a courage that many find difficult, because it asks us to ‘be perfect’ even without the entrusting support of the supernatural. 

The quintessence of its magic is in another altogether unexpected form; roughly this; ‘Don’t worry if you cannot believe that there’s a God’ just believe you have the courage to act as though there is one, and by your failing to live up to the standards you’ll increase your probability of belief’. That really is the genius of Christ – and shows precisely His coming to earth just once was more than enough for humankind to fall at their feet and believe. With this, you can see why Christ assured everyone that for anyone who asks it will given to them -

"Seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

Puddleglum's speech also touches on the ontological argument posited by Anselm and Descartes, and develops it along the lines of this: if Narnia does not exist, then fiction is more stupendous than reality - and as fiction cannot be more stupendous than reality, Narnia must be real. To translate that into Christian thinking, if Christ's claims are not based on Him being the truth, then Christ's fiction appears to me to be more stupendous than any truth out there.

I personally know of no better way to live, or no greater standards to which I’d want to adhere. I’m on Jesus’ side even if there isn’t any Jesus to lead the Christian world. If I’m guilty of making a play-world, then all I’ll say is this – I fancy that the play-world into which I’m immersed and to which I’m committed licks the other ‘real’ world hollow. 

There may be some who object on Paulian grounds – citing his epistle to the Corinthians as evidence against this wager – “And, if in this life we have hoped in Christ only, we are more to be pitied than all men” (1 Corinthians 15:19).  But there is no reason to suppose that this contradicts the wager. What St Paul means by our being ‘pitied’ is in relation to the costs of being a Christian, not in acting out the Christ-like template in our own lives. Don’t forget Jesus says that faith will divide families and cause us much discomfort. 

We are even told of a dying of the self, which in prospect sounds unsettling. If it turned out that there was never a resurrection, then the trials, tribulations and ridicule to which believers were subjected by others would have been a history of experiences with no ultimate reward. That is why the talk from St Paul of ‘pity’ comes into it. To deny the power of the wager would be to deny that what Christ taught was not a template that is good in itself, when most clearly it is. 

In recognising the Christ-like template as the best we can achieve, the wager is twofold; if Christianity is true then our acting as though it is true by reflecting Christ will provide the best chance of our seeing its truth. If Christianity is false then Jesus still represents the pinnacle of ethical thinking, and remains the model on which we should base our worldview.

When We Do Bold & Unusual Things

Sometimes, out of the blue, I do bold and unusual things – things that I use to escape my own sin for a moment to make a point of how powerful Christianity is. Here's an example of what I mean.

I remember being in the Forum in Norwich with friends; and one friend, a sceptic of Christianity, was talking about what a troubled world God has created. I said something along the lines of: “Hey, the world is broken, but it’s human sin that has broken it, and each of us knows how we can make the world a better place”.

I then proceeded to show my friend what I meant. “Look how easy it is to make people smile and brighten up their day” I said, as I took him for a quick tour of making people happy. For the next 20 minutes, we went on a happiness escapade, during which time I showed how much strangers smile when you stop them and compliment them.

I showed him the happiness of a couple when you go into a restaurant and pay for their meal and tell them you just wanted to do something nice for them; I showed him how much better people feel about themselves when you go into their shop and say how lovely you think their art is or how much you admire their window display; and I showed him the joy of an elderly couple sitting in Hay Hill for whom I’d just bought an ice cream and told them I wanted them to accept it as a gift because they look like a lovely couple.

Naturally, we can't do this sort of thing every hour of the day because we’d soon run out of money. But things like compliments, kind words and thoughtful words don’t cost anything, and they are available to us at all times, whenever we like.

Next time you’re feeling down on the world, go and do some bold and unusually lovely things for complete strangers, and you’ll see how easy it is to make people happy and brighten up their day. And, of course, it will bring joy to your own day too, because you can’t pour out happiness on others without spilling a few drops on yourself too.

I think this sort of thing is a little of what Christ means when He encourages us to pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.” Not that we could ever reconstitute an earthly world of heavenly bliss where there is no sin or suffering, but that in our honest and heartfelt prayers we don’t find it very difficult to get a sense of what we must do to make the world better than it is.

Heaven, I suppose, won’t just be the blissful reconciliation with God - it will be a full understanding of the vast gulf between divine grace and human sin, and a more lucid understanding of how much we depend on grace in the here and now. And it's the sense of love and grace that can motivate us to do bold and unusual acts of kindness, and make earth a little bit more Heavenly in the here and now.

Where The Genius Of God Is At Its Most Brilliant

One of things I'm often trying to convey about Christianity is what a story of genius it is. That is to say, the Incarnation - God becoming man and suffering and dying for us - is such a profound work of genius that it speaks of a God who pulled off a creative masterstroke. Once one gets past a superficial consideration and gets right to the heart of what is going on here, the Incarnation is the only claim about God that makes any kind of rational sense to me, and without which I would probably remain fairly theologically ambivalent.

You'd need to have something of the Divine about you to make up such an account like the Incarnation - and therefore believing it to be a real piece of history one gets to tap into a little bit of understanding of the genius of God. Think for a minute about how astounding this really is; God, who is awesome enough to create the entire universe and everything in it, demonstrated an act of such grace-filled humility that He allowed Himself to be governed by, abused by, humiliated by, tortured by, and ultimately put to death by people whose only power over Him comes by the very power He gives them in the first place.

We find this account in John's gospel, where, when Pilate thinks the captured Jesus is refusing to speak to him declares "Don’t you realise I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” To which Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” What He's effectively saying is, "Hey, I have the power to put you in your place, but because I love you I'm going to grant you the freedom to mess up, and then use your bad deeds to offer you and everyone else the free gift of salvation."

There are countless things about reality to marvel at, to be astounded by, and to be challenged by - but for me that one little passage of time in history compresses the whole genius of God into a succinct reality more than anything else I know (along with the nature of mathematics, although that evokes a quite different feeling). You probably can recall when President Nelson Mandela had the political power to condemn the people that maltreated him but chose to forgive them. God does this on a universal scale.

The creator of the universe hung up on a cross being tortured by people whose only power comes from the grace of the God they are torturing, and begging the Father for their forgiveness because Divine love understands fully that "they know not what they do" is the moment in history, for me, when the corporeal and the Divine interlock, and when the Christian faith does its most illuminating work in shining light on the truth of God.

The genius of it is that it is the only reality that could properly satisfy the narrative of an all-powerful, all-loving God retaining complete sovereignty over creation, yet simultaneously lowering Himself to be sufficiently involved in the story that He can provide a salvation offering that fully conjoins His omnipotence with His Divine love and grace in a way that we can understand.

The genius of Christ is that He provided His creation with the emotional route to Divinity by way of giving us the above to respond to. And if that wasn't enough, He also gave us another glimpse of His genius by exhibiting perfect evidence that He is the cosmic mind behind the mathematical patterns in the universe.

 

On Morality & C.S Lewis's Fleet of Ships Analogy

The other day I was reminded of one of C.S Lewis's chapters in Mere Christianity - a chapter called “The Three Parts of Morality”. Some readers may be familiar with it. In this chapter Lewis lays out what he thinks is a good Christian analogy for how “the human machine” goes wrong, by which he means at an individual personal level (failing at becoming as moral an individual as possible), at a level between humans in interactions (failing at treating each other as well as we can), and overall in terms of a broad human teleological purpose (the Christian narrative for human beings as created creatures in the eyes of God).

The analogy Lewis presents is of human beings resembling a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The fleet may be unsuccessful because of internal failures within the ships, or it may fail because the formation of the fleet is upset:

"The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another’s way; and, secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions, they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order, they will not be able to avoid collisions."

 

We all know this is true about both individuals and groups alike - be they religious congregations, political parties, office teams at work, and so forth. If a group is not in a decent state of harmony, with the individuals in order with each other, then it will be an unsuccessful coalition. And if the individual's inward machinery is not in a good state then personal failures upset the cooperation of the group. But here is where things get even more interesting, because while both Christians and non-Christians alike pretty much agree on the wisdom of the above, there is a third element to the analogy upon which they may disagree - the question of whether the fleet of ships is heading where they ought to be heading.

 

This is where C.S Lewis tries to draw out the distinction between the Christian narrative and ordinary human progression. Ordinary human progression may result in our ships working fine internally, and many may even sail in proper fleet formation, but alas they still may not arrive in the right place at the end of their journey.

 

Now all analogies come with limitations, and sometimes Lewis's are overly simplistic, but this one has some interesting connotations, because purely in considerations of human morality (which I think is a human invention in its entirety) the direction of the fleet is more of an unplanned one with no observable end destiny. That is to say, if you'll forgive the introduction of another analogy, human progression is more like the formation of a grand, sumptuous ensemble musical piece over time - it evolves gradually with plenty of bum notes and discordant chords, but along the way the more pleasing sounds survive and are added to the mix as we retain the good and throw out the bad over a long evolutionary percentage game.

 

The Christian narrative, then - being a grace-centred narrative - must, as far as I can see, be equivalent to God using the internal machines of our ships and the evolved formation of the fleet to steer us all in the direction of the destiny of grace-inspired salvation for all (Eventually! There will doubtless be some huge struggles of resistance at the end, rather like stubborn patients who won't take the medicine that will make them better).

 

Observing the rough waters from above, it certainly will look as though among the fleets of harmony there are all kinds of groups heading off from the main trajectory: and if we zoomed in further we would see all kinds of bad machinery in the internal workings of the individual ships. But to me, Christianity speaks the truth about God's amazing love and grace in promising us all the free gift of salvation in the shape of a secured and assured destiny for our ships to travel towards - a destination guaranteed 2000 years ago on the cross.

 

That, for me, is how we disentangle the knotty issue of Christian goodness and what for many people seems to be a human set of moral and ethical ideas that appear to serve God His redundancy notice. Looked at properly, human morality is analogous to the individual interworkings or our ships and the fleet trying to sail harmoniously together. And the destination to which we are all headed is the universal free gift of salvation awaiting us at the end of the journey. And if that seems like a strange mixing of two distinct narratives, remember that the Bible is full of examples of God using human ideas to convey His love for us - most prominently the crucifixion, which is a human invention but one which God uses to show humankind that we are all included in His love and grace.

 

The Problem of Evil

The most popular and long-standing objection to God's existence is a modus tollens argument that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent then evil should not exist in the world. The standard Christian response has always been that there is a big battle going on between good (those on the side of God) and evil (those on the side of the Bad One), and that thanks to God's awesomeness good will eventually triumph over evil. What they mean is that God is opposed to evil but that for now He will allow Satan to corrupt creation until Kingdom comes.

God will be the ultimate victor over Satan (as the book of Revelation explains), but if God is so opposed to evil why does He allow it to happen when He has the power to stop it? The question becomes even harder when we dig deep into the Bible and find not just that God doesn't discontinue evil, but that at times He seems to actively encourage its appearance. The story of Job tells us how God allowed Satan to subject Job to all kinds of hardship, including taking away his possessions, killing his family and afflicting his body with sores. Later on God also allows Nebuchadnezzar to rule a Babylonian Empire that subjected the disobedient people of Judah and Jerusalem to all-conquering torment and hardship.

The answer to the question of why if God opposes evil He allows it to happen is apparently that He will use all things, including evil, to show us His love, grace and goodness. Even the cross, which is the primary exhibition of God's love, grace and goodness, is the result of God allowing evil to subject Christ to torture and death.

Consider when Shakespeare writes a tragedy, like Macbeth or King Lear, that pits goodness against badness. Shakespeare writes badness into Lord and Lady Macbeth's characters to demonstrate, among other things, how the selfish pursuance of power and ambition corrupts those with little self-control. Similarly, Shakespeare uses the badness of Edmund, Goneril and Regan in King Lear to show the goodness of Cordelia.

The difference between God and Shakespeare here (well apart from the fact that Shakespeare is a flawed human and God is perfect) is that while we never see Shakespeare make an appearance as himself in his plays, we do see God make an appearance in His own creation story in the person of Christ. So it's not just the case that God allows evil to happen in the world, it's that He allows himself to be subjected to it through the person of Christ for our salvation.

Christ being the light that allows Himself to be subjected to darkness may well be a good metaphor for why God allows Satan to run amok in these present times. Without darkness we would have only light, and no way to distinguish the light as being distinct from an absence of light. If it is the light of Christ that enables us to know God, it is the darkness that enables us to see the light of Christ.

Church-Sponsored Expensive Bulls**t

Whenever you hear people tell you that you're making too much of a fuss about young earth creationism, and that you're wasting too much of your time arguing against it and trying to expose the nonsense of its adherents, you might like to know this little bit of news I found out (by accident).  

Answers in Genesis labels itself a “Christianity-defending ministry” with a $20 million budget - and its primary focus is on exposing “the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas.” Yes, that's right - a ministry set up entirely to argue against standard scientific facts has a budget of $20 million with which to propagate its falsehoods.

Its Creation Museum in Kentucky, which depicts humans living alongside dinosaurs, employs over 300 people - and in order to market their fundamentalism as successfully as possible, Answers in Genesis apparently pays some of its key front men as much as $900,000 a year (as of 2013).

And if all that didn't depress you enough, today I read about the life-size Noah's Ark Theme Park called Ark Encounter that exceeds $100 million, and makes a showcase out of deceiving children and their credulous parents. This is a disgrace - to evidence, to logic, to facts, to reason, and to truth - an absolute disgrace.

When you think of the numerous ways that Christians can use the church's (God's) money for social good - let's say, buying Bibles to give to countries that are short supply of them, helping feed and clothe homeless people, investing in the charity sector either at home or aboard, to name but three - this AIG-sponsored vanity project of bulls**t is a very ghastly use of funds.

It is for reasons like this that we never ought to be complacent in just letting these inward looking ill-informed blockheads get away with such shameful and financially wasteful distortions of facts and truths.

The Difference Between Biblical Facts & Biblical Truths

When scientists learned about the atom, electromagnetism, and genetics they were learning things that had been true of nature long before humans understood them. By a similar measure, Mount Everest had been the tallest mountain and the Nile the longest river long before we existed to name and identify them thus.

The Christian accounts recorded in the New Testament are accounts that convey powerful truths about Christ and about God's love that apply to all time. But equally, the fact of the Incarnation where God became a man in a human body and subjected Himself to pain, fear, temptation, upset, detachment, torture and death for us is not something that would have been a fact in, say, 350BC.

This is the distinction between New Testament facts and New Testaments truths. The facts are things that happened in history and would not have been facts a few hundred years previous, whereas the truths are truths that exist outside of the linear nature of time. The Bible is a book that uses facts as a mirror to reflect God's eternal truths.

The Resurrection Seems The Most Likely Historical Truth

When I read the New Testament, and surrounding works by 1st century writers, it seems a lot easier to believe that the resurrection actually happened than it does the contrary view that it didn't. One big reason why this is so is because the account of the resurrection occurred in the backdrop of two ruling groups, the Jews and the Romans, who would have wanted with all their will and might for it not to be true.

That is to say, the resurrection was a huge threat to their power and sovereignty. The Christian movement proclaiming Jesus is Lord would do a lot to undermine the Jewish authority, as lots of its proponents were from among their ranks. Similarly, the Romans had every reason to be concerned about rebellion as proclaiming Jesus as Lord undermined their allegiance to Caesar as the object of deification.

The easiest and most convenient way for the Jewish and Roman authorities to derail the emerging Christian faith would have been to produce the dead body of the crucified Christ, and proclaim the resurrection false to all the eyewitnesses of the time. But nothing of the kind was done. Couple that with the sheer number of Christians who underwent torture and death to secure the truth of Jesus' divinity, and the historical argument becomes even more compelling.

 

Why would so many be willing to be martyred for their faith and refuse to renounce it when doing so would have made their lives easier? We all know people who die for what they believe to be true, but I know of no one who has died for something they believe to be false. And why did they believe Jesus' resurrection to be true when there were so many opportunities and incentives to falsify it by so many self-interested people? The most likely answer, for me, is that it is true.

The other thing that's clear from reading both the Old and New Testaments is that although there is Divine choreography overseeing the proceedings, there is also the granting of quite a free hand in the writing process. The free hand afforded in the years after Jesus' resurrection and ascension would have very much been based on the oral traditions of the time, and as time passed there would have been the increased freedom for mistakes and discrepancies. The further from the event we travel in time the higher the probability of inaccuracies, both honest mistakes through memory loss, and dishonest corruptions of the texts.

But what we actually found was that as time went on the cohesive narrative became not less strong, but stronger, in fact - precisely as you'd expect to see if the incarnated Christ is the pivot around which all else in creation revolves. Naturally, distant history takes us beyond the realm of proof, but for me it does offer us grounds for reasonable faith and trust in Him.

 

Happy Easter!

Here's A Good Way To Arouse Your Suspicions

Here's a tip I find useful in life. While of course it's necessary to examine the content of people's claims to check for faulty reasoning and factual errors, it is also quite informative to examine their accompanying attitude too. In other words, if a certain claim is being made, it's always good to ask: what would be a reasonable concomitant attitude be alongside that claim? If the claim and the attitude seem commensurate, there is often, but not always, a good chance that the claim being made is a reasonable one. However, if the claim and the attitude seem not to be commensurate, there is often, but again not always, a good chance that the claim being made is an unreasonable one.

A couple of examples spring to mind. Suppose you meet someone who likes to go around preaching hellfire, believing the majority of the world's population is damned to an eternity of torment. What would be a reasonable concomitant attitude alongside that claim? An obvious one would be deep sadness, another would be mournful regret - after all, if you believe much of the world is currently going straight to hell, surely that's about the worst thing imaginable, so why would you be anything other than terribly upset and heartbroken about such a proposition?

 

Yet you'll notice most hellfire preachers are not like that - they appear to exhibit a smug satisfaction hardly consistent with the terrible news they are sharing, which makes me think their view isn't reasonable. This extends more broadly to any kind of Christian faith built around humility. How strange to find so many people paying almost no regard to the biggest crisis in the world, people who don't have enough food, drink and shelter to survive, yet obsessing all the time about the so-called 'disgrace' of two people of the same sex loving each other in a stable relationship.

Another example I find is green people who treat fossil fuels as though they are comparable to some kind of ghastly bodily secretion. Yes it's good when technological advances wean us off the current dependency of fossil fuels for so much of our industry, but to be so averse to these raw materials in the way that exhibits not even the faintest appreciation for how important they've been in our achievements is a dead giveaway that the person is probably not a reasonable one on this matter.

The reality is, we are not actually running out of resources - the greens are making a mistake in their analysis (as I explain here in this blog post). But even getting into the head of a green person and pretending they are right about the imminent shortage of fossil fuels, a proper attitude to this should not be what you usually find, it ought to be sorrow that such a vital resource is in the last stage of its utility, gladness that humans have been able to use this resource as such a vital vehicle for the progression-explosion we've seen over the past 150 years; and appreciation for how the free market of trade and competition is continually engendering more and more efficiency in a way that resembles nature's law of least effort (most parsimonious energy expenditure).

But generally greens evince none of these attitudes - they instead have a disproportionately doleful attitude to fossil fuels, focusing only on the comparably exiguous amounts of bad that have come from our increased progress, standard of living, and well-being.

So while I'm highly unlikely to make unbalanced blanket claims about what is a peculiarly large number of people, it is at least reasonable to consider that if the vast majority of these hellfire preachers and greens have such different attitudes to the expected ones, we ought to be suspicious not just of their motives, but of their conclusions too. Credible attitude indicates credible conclusion is not an unimpeachable heuristic - but it's one to which we are wise to give proper consideration when simple logical and evidential correction won't quite do the trick.

Christianity & The Legalisation Of Prostitution

One interesting question I sometimes ask is; "Is there any moral position you hold as a Christian that you wouldn't hold as a non-Christian?". There are probably a few cases, but one that springs to mind today is the recent debate about legalising prostitution (and by prostitution let's just refer to the act of trade between a willing buyer and a willing seller - not exploitative or abusive or non-consenting areas of the sex trade).

As a libertarian I think people have the right to do what they want in terms of a mutual transaction between two willing agents, providing that action harms no others - so on those terms I wouldn't be too against legalised prostitution.

However, as a Christian, I understand God's biblical intention for sex and marriage, so I would not want prostitution legalised, because that would legitimise and make more socially desirable an act that I believe God wants to be implicitly between two beloveds in marriage. For that reason I'm against legalising prostitution.

 

Be Careful About Getting Offended On God's Behalf

America has just legalised same-sex marriage, and while this makes lots of people happy, it is bound to be a real affront to many. My advice to those affronted is quite simple: stop getting offended on God's behalf about things that are none of your business. People suffering in poverty is your businesses - why not focus more attention on that?

I find it quite peculiar that so many Christians are consumed by issues like homosexuality, women bishops, divorcees remarrying, and those kinds of issues with which so many church members are preoccupied. I don’t know why they get so uptight about these things, because virtually nobody that peddles this propaganda really believes it - it’s just the case that they have been swayed by the impetus of the cultural power that underwrites these issues. 

Christians think they are against them, because it’s so easy to create a mental label and then proceed to attack that label – but I think it’s simply the case that the belief that they are against them is more empowering than their actual level of objection. One is reminded of Coleridge’s criticism; “You do not believe; you only believe that you believe”. 

I believe, based on what my recesses tell me, that I went to a Middle School disco in 1985. I haven’t given the matter much thought for years. If someone asked me how sure I was that the disco was in 1985, I’d say I think it was, but I might be a year or so out. If you proved to me that the disco was in 1984 I wouldn’t be very alarmed to find out I was one year out, because I don’t hold the belief rigidly.

That’s what I think the issues of homosexuality, women bishops, divorcees remarrying, etc are like for those who get upset about them – they believe their beliefs are honestly felt, but I think if you asked them to subject themselves to some brutal self-honesty you would find that those beliefs are more culturally driven – rather like an infection that gets passed on from Christian to Christian. Put it this way – if you’d have given these people a Bible and left each of them alone with it from childhood on a desert island with a lifetime supply of food and drink, I don’t think you would find when you returned in 30 years that they had adopted all these prejudices.

I think the reasons are fairly straightforward – why on earth should you be bothered about whether a homosexual couple decides to express their love for one another with a civil partnership? Why should you care if a once divorced woman finds love again and wants to express that love by getting remarried in a CofE church? Why get so uptight about the many talented women who demonstrate their gifts and abilities in church leadership? Why should Catholics care if a couple wants to use contraception, or if a non-Catholic wishes to take communion in a Catholic Church when visiting the church? These people aren’t doing any harm to you. 

What does anybody actually gain from condemning a woman bishop or a homosexual couple?  Nothing, as far as I can tell.  What they lose though is a lot, because humans really ought to minimise suffering as much as possible – and believe me, people who are ostracised or marginlised do suffer the effects of this stigmatisation. They are made to feel like they always have to be on the defensive – and many times they come away from church life quite hurt and despondent. 

Here’s the other thing; no one is saying you have to accept homosexuals or divorcees or women bishops – if acceptance really isn’t in your constitution then you are free to think as you see fit. But I think you would be more blessed and emotionally renewed if you could find it in your heart to accept those you denounce. Your hostility isn’t going to make a gay man straight, nor will it turn a female vicar away from the church. But your refusal to publicly condemn and your willingness to keep it as a private frustration will be a good thing – because it admits the humility of saying ‘I might be wrong about this issue, so I’ll err on the side of caution’. By all means let us speak out against things we feel called to challenge; but let’s use some sense of prudence is working out what the real core problems are. Then it might become clear that people’s gender or past mistakes or sexual orientation are none of our business.

In order to give yourself the best chance of making a sound judgement, try this little exercise.  Whenever you are arguing for or against what you feel to be one of the big issues, pretend you have to put yourself in the shoes of the person with whom you disagree. Next, use all the knowledge and brainpower you have to argue his (or her) position for him on his behalf. One cannot easily fail to appreciate the other person’s position once one has made an honest and persuasive effort to defend it. There is something quite noble in trying to defend the position opposite to one’s own; it will certainly help the formation of a balanced view, and will either give you better reasons to justify your original belief or it will give you a perspective of the opposite belief that you didn’t previously have. Either way your position is strengthened, and your life journey will be more enriched.

When Ignorance Is Sometimes Best

In a week of mourning over the tragic deaths of the Christian members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church in Charleston, we have also seen the most powerful earthly example of Christian love there is - showing love, grace and forgiveness to someone who deserve condemnation - just as Christ did for each and every one of us.

I think it is in these wonderful acts of Christian faith that we'll find the answers to some of those difficult Bible verses, like the one where St Paul says we are to be like infants when it comes to evil (1 Corinthians 14:20). I think we must place this alongside Jesus saying that we must become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3), as there are clear parallels between the two. Children have many excellent qualities, and it is those child-like qualities that we should emulate in our faith. We should be reliant on God in the same way a child relies on a parent, and we should always be enquiring just as children are always enquiring about the world they live in.

But being told to be like children in our love towards God is in no way to be taken that Christians are to be innocent and unapprised of worldly things. For we all know that Christ also says to be as 'shrewd as snakes' as well as being innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16). We should search and rely on God as a child searches and relies on a parent, but we should also be shrewd and wise on our Christian journey too.

Perhaps the grace-filled response of forgiveness we are seeing by those who lost loved ones in Charleston is a perfect example of how, and why, it is better for us to be like infants in being innocent and unapprised of evil. This has parallels with St Paul's instruction in Romans 16:19, to be "wise in doing right" and to "stay innocent of any wrong". In remaining innocent of the motivations of the evil mindset, the victims' families are steering well clear of any motivations of their own to respond quid pro quo. In other words, they are allowing the power of Christ's love to subsume their motivations to the extent that evil is always giving way to love and grace.

And it's in those microcosmic demonstrations of Christ's love and grace on earth that we get the hint of what the world would be like if we all behaved that way and had the same motivations - the template for which was laid down by Christ himself on earth, with His teachings, miracles, death and resurrection.

The Trouble With Humanism Is Humans

We often hear talk in the UK of injecting more humanism into our society in an attempt to rescue us from the archaic social cancer that is religious belief. Humanism is a non-religious ethical life stance that commits to development and human wellbeing on the basis of reason and naturalism.

The upshot is, humanists are a group of people that want to cut the supernatural out of ethics and decision-making. The problem with being a humanist is that it involves the tricky business of trusting human beings - which is ultimately going to leave us in trouble.

There are two ways we can trust humans: one is in what we can achieve, and two is in how we behave. It's quite easy to trust humans in the first sense. Our achievements are phenomenal: we've built big cities, travelled into space, mastered global travel and communication, learned how to treat the sick, lifted millions out of poverty - and with the Internet we have all the world's knowledge at our fingertips.

Alas, it's in the second sense, in our behaviour, that humans are so very hard to trust. However much we advance our scientific achievements and improve our material living standards we are always going to have to face up to the reality that at our worst we humans are pretty selfish, ignoble, inconsiderate and unkind creatures.

That's why even if I wasn't a Christian I could never be a humanist - I think humans are as much of the problem as they are the solution. We are so incorrigibly wretched inside that we can never be the solution to the problems of being human, just as gravity can never be the solution to a skydiver having difficulty opening his parachute. Gravity of course is the reason he needs his parachute just as our human brokenness is the reason we need so much more than humanism. We need Christ, in fact.

Scripture: When The Literal & Non-Literal Seamlessly Blend

Most Christians - at least in the circles I roll - do not think that Adam and Eve were real people. This is quite a rational viewpoint: human evolution has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, and given that any so-called speciation that would make proto-humans distinct from humans would have occurred at the population level not at the individual level, it is highly unlikely that there were two first humans.

What's interesting though is that when one holds this view, they are struck with a corollary question: how far should our belief of non-literal people extend in the Old Testament? What about Cain and Abel, Noah, Jacob, Joseph, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samson, Samuel, Saul, Job, David and Solomon? Anyone who believes Adam and Eve are not literal people must then ask themselves something like this - "Which of these do you think are literal people, and if you think some are and some aren't, where is your conceptual cut-off point?"

If we read the Old Testament from Genesis to, say, to 2 Chronicles, then if taken all literally we can more or less map the genealogies from the Adam figure to the David figure. But in not taking it all literally we then find ourselves having to engage in some conceptual demarcation, and this involves getting right to the heart of that tapestry of conveyance and maybe sorting through various lenses of conception simultaneously.

When reading the Bible, do you have to assume a point at which symbolism becomes history? For example, if taken literally the genealogy of Adam can go all the way to Joseph, which includes Abraham and Isaac - the 'seed' that leads to Jesus. Also, you can read into the scripture that Moses is the 7th generation from Abraham. Some will say they believe it is literal from Abraham onwards, but what about Terah his father, and Nahor his father? One can't just cut it off at Abraham without considering the rest of the lineage that preceded him. It's easy to say we believe x is non-literal and y is literal, but if we take the Old Testament in book order we need to consider what it is we're doing.

So, how do we manage our reading of the Old Testament and conceptually demarcate our history from our non-history? I have a suggested answer - one that points to a few truths that are bound to seem utterly strange to a post-Enlightenment person steeped in the logic of the Greeks and the empiricism of Bacon, Locke, Berkeley and Hume.

Part of the understanding required is the understanding that in ancient traditions, particularly oral traditions, the narrative being conveyed is a blend of fact and fiction, where profound truths are disseminated in a way that requires interpretative qualities beyond the headlights of the kind of rigorous historical and scientific analysis we moderns are used to. Given that life itself is so richly analogical, metaphorical and narrative-laden it is no wonder that we are insistent that a deep understanding of the Bible won't come to anyone who trivialises its dynamic nature and is blind to its analogical, metaphorical and narrative-laden power.

Thus I would contend that Old Testament figures like Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah, Jacob, Joseph, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samson, Samuel, Saul, Job, David and Solomon are such an agglomeration of history, myth, legend, analogy, metaphor and theological aetiology that we can't hope to pin them down to simple historical/non-historical analyses. That's not to treat them all the same, of course - there are evidently different extents to which the above applies to Adam than, say, David.

What's clear, though, is that while God 'breathed' His influence onto the writing of scripture over the many centuries of its composition, He allowed His word to be subjected to the limitations of creation, and the concomitant human fallibility that comes with it. The Bible is, of course, a created artefact, not to be seen as co-equal with God - and as such, the very notion of scripture being God's word is abstractly analogical to illustrate His power and influence over the written dispensation of Divine truths in language we can understand.