Category Archives: Culture

Can Science Determine Morality? Part 2

Culture, , ,

Thank you to Vicki Lorrimar for this post. Part 1 of the essay was posted yesterday.
The full version of this essay with references and notes can be found at Vicki’s Academia.edu page.

SamHarris_Moral LandscapeHerein lies one of the major problems with Harris’ reasoning. While science has the potential to provide us with substantial information concerning human well-being, it does very little when it comes to providing the necessary impetus to implement these insights in our lives. Even experts in neuroscience, psychology and behavioural sciences, with their superior understanding of cognitive biases, irrational behaviours and impulse control, make choices that are selfish, or prioritise fleeting pleasures over long term well-being. To argue that further advances in these fields will translate into greater well-being seems overly optimistic.

How would Harris have us obtain the motivation necessary to do what is right? He envisions a society in which hidden lie detectors keep us honest. Advances in neuroimaging technology will allow the monitoring of truthfulness in particular contexts e.g. the courtroom or job interview. Even Harris concedes, therefore, that while science might increase our understanding of human behaviour, and provide the technology to monitor it, external enforcement is required to actually motivate people to do the right thing. Robinson raises an interesting issue when she questions the identity of the invisible accuser. Whose assumptions will be programmed into these imagined devices?

Throughout The Moral Landscape, Harris often seems more concerned with providing a critique of religion than in establishing the sufficiency of science for determining human values. It is as if he believes that the latter conclusion will proceed directly from the former i.e. religion does not always produce ideal societies, therefore we must abandon it in favour of science as the true source of moral knowledge.

Harris’ analysis of religion in this volume is characteristically belligerent, not just atheistic but aggressively anti-theistic. He caricatures religion as the antithesis of intelligent thought, and selectively cites only the worst examples of faith in support of his argument. His understanding of religion aside, however, Harris is operating on the basis of flawed logic. He takes two disconnected arguments: (1) scientific research can provide information about what makes us happy and healthy, and (2) religion is often (in his view) responsible for impeding scientific progress and producing vast suffering, and combines them to arrive at his final conclusion that science alone can provide us with a sufficient and objective morality.

Harris argues that “religion and science are in a zero-sum conflict with respect to facts.” It is unclear how he has arrived at this conclusion without attributing it to his obvious distaste for religion. Several times in his account of the usefulness of neurophysiological research Harris argues that science helps – indeed, science can assist immensely in determining which measures might increase overall well-being. This does not eliminate religion from the moral sphere, however.

Harris also overlooks the fact that a lot of contemporary research into neural impulses and human behaviour is taken up by, or even funded by, marketing bodies interested in harnessing this knowledge to bring about increased sales of their products. This fosters a consumerism that concentrates wealth into the hands of fewer people and is likely to have a detrimental impact on natural resources – clearly not the road to greater human flourishing.

On the contrary, David Bentley Hart points out that certain advancements in science required the scientific mind to set aside religious “superstitions” regarding the soul and the image of God within – the development of nuclear weaponry, the eugenics movement, and medical experimentation on prison populations are just a few of the examples he gives us. Scientific progress does not have the morally pure track record Harris would have us believe.

Harris’ thought betrays a dependence on modern assumptions about truth and absolutes. Though he claims to be well-versed in philosophy; though in fact he completed an undergraduate degree in the field, Harris writes as if unaware of the postmodern shift. The Enlightenment quest for a universal epistemological foundation has been criticised by the likes of MacIntyre, and replaced with the view that rationality is tradition-dependent. The stridence of the New Atheist approach is rather embarrassing in the current postmodern climate of philosophical modesty and tolerance. With philosophers and theologians alike moving into a new paradigm in which appeals to universal reason and truth are replaced by contextual and narrative approaches to meaning and morality, Harris’ approach cannot help but come across as stale.

Though he diverges from the tired atheist argument that morality is simply the outworking of our evolutionary impulses, Harris’ approach fails to provide an alternative source for our concern over morality. It is true that scientific insights can assist in increasing moral knowledge; however they are not exhaustive. Not only is science unable to justify well-being as the concern of morality, it cannot provide the motivation to consistently overcome baser human instincts in making decisions that impact well-being. Our ethical choices must derive their meaning and conviction from another source.

The aim here is not to provide an argument in favour of any specific religion, but rather to evaluate Harris’ assertion that science alone can determine human values. Harris is most convincing when writing on his subject of expertise – neuroscience. It is true that brain studies are producing interesting insights into how we might improve our sense of wellbeing. Behavioural economics and the science of happiness are burgeoning fields. The existence of scientific facts about human nature that have important moral implications is not a new idea, but rather one that sociobiologists have been arguing for decades.

This does not pose any problem for religion, however, or for the existence of God. Harris’ zero-sum conflict is apparent only to him. There need be no antagonism between the capacity of science to discover more about what leads to well-being, and the role of religion in providing both the motivation and ability to integrate this knowledge into our lives. It seems that Harris’ antipathy toward religion causes him to overstate the potential of scientific research in determining morality, and to overlook its many shortcomings. The ’moral landscape’ envisioned by Harris is little more than wishful thinking on his part; when it comes to moral discourse, religion is likely to persevere.

Can Science Determine Morality? Part 1

Culture, Theology, , ,

Thank you to Vicki Lorrimar for this post. The full version of this essay with references and notes can be found at Vicki’s Academia.edu page.

sam_harris_by_obviouslycloe-d31edw6
Picture by obviouslycloe; see obviouslycloe.org

Many consider morality to be the purview of religion and not science. Stephen Jay Gouldarticulated this thinking best in his argument that science and religion each have “a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority,” and that these magisteria do not overlap. For those who subscribe to this view, science deals with facts about the natural realm, while questions of morality or purpose fall exclusively within the domain of theologians and philosophers.

Sam Harris, in The Moral Landscape, challenges this prevailing understanding that science has little to contribute to moral discourse. Instead, Harris defines morality in terms of human flourishing and locates a moral compass in biological sources. According to Harris, “only a rational understanding of human well-being will allow billions of us to co-exist peacefully” – and such a rational understanding precludes any input from religion. Drawing momentum from the current popularity of behavioural economics and the science of ’happiness,’ Harris argues that an increasing understanding of neurophysiology promises a morality that is entirely determined by science.

Harris departs from traditional atheist arguments concerning morality, which often invoke evolutionary pressures as the source of our moral code. Rather, Harris argues that we must often oppose these natural tendencies and transcend them through reason, for “our modern concerns about meaning and morality have flown the perch built by evolution.” He spurns moral relativism, the notion that moral truth does not exist and that right and wrong are merely constructions. The title Harris gives to his work represents his own understanding of morality – that there are multiple answers to moral questioning. For Harris, ‘the moral landscape’ describes “a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks correspond to the heights of potential well-being and whose valleys represent the deepest possible human suffering.”

Harris challenges the “firewall” that has been in place between facts and values ever since Hume drew his ‘is/ought’ distinction. Values, according to Harris, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood. As a neuroscientist, Harris considers the human brain to be the nexus of social, emotional and moral development. Beliefs about values and beliefs about facts seem to arise from similar brain processes – therefore values are derived from facts about how our brains interact with the world.

Harris proposes that advances in our knowledge in areas such as the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, the effects of social institutions on relationships, and retributive impulses will provide all the necessary tools to identify right and wrong with respect to human values. This leads him to suggest that morality is not philosophical or religious in essence but rather an undeveloped branch of science. “If there are objective truths to be known about human well-being… then science should one day be able to make very precise claims about which of our behaviours and uses of attention are morally good, which are neutral, and which are worth abandoning.”

Harris contends that “science can help us find a path leading away from the lowest depths of misery and toward the heights of happiness for the greatest number of people.” Chopra is quite right when he describes Harris’ account as “gussied up old-fashioned utilitarianism.” The inherent problems in such an approach have long been established in the literature. Ewing, for example, posed the question: “Suppose we could slightly increase the collective happiness of ten men by taking away all happiness from one of them, would it be right to do so?” Harris would answer ’yes’ – in fact he poses an even more extreme version of this question himself and answers in the affirmative. Harris does acknowledge the dilemmas arising from consequentialism, however persists in his belief that it must form the basis of morality.

The issue of individual justice aside, there remains in the utilitarian approach the challenge of discerning which actions will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. According to Harris, science is much more clear-sighted in determining the consequences of behaviour than we are! In reality, it is often difficult to weigh the far-reaching effects of any given action, another problem acknowledged yet not addressed by Harris.

If a consequential approach to ethics were to be accepted, is well-being the most appropriate criteria by which actions are assessed? The term itself is rather vague, although Harris appears to employ it interchangeably with happiness and human flourishing. All religious and philosophical notions of morality are reduced to a common concern for well-being. Harris imagines an unlikely scenario in which an honour culture might result in a high level of human flourishing, and concludes that killing for the sake of honour would then be morally acceptable. This moral reasoning appears dubious at best.

Even if maximal well-being were considered a sufficient basis for morality, we must ask how this end goal is selected in the first place. Harris claims that “once we begin thinking seriously about human well-being, we will find that science can resolve specific questions about morality and human values.” However, what directs us to consider human-wellbeing seriously? Science does not supply us with the notion that well-being should be our ultimate concern – Harris has arrived at this conclusion by some other means.

Let us again assume for now that the optimisation of human well-being is indeed an adequate foundation upon which we may construct an ethic. In yet another statement of his thesis, Harris argues that “science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want – and, therefore, what other people should do and should want in order to live the best lives possible.” Having attained such knowledge, how do we then put it into practice? We already know that driving our cars at reduced speeds, or removing unhealthy sugars from our diet, has a positive impact on well-being – but this does not stop many people from speeding on a regular basis or reaching for the slice of cake instead of the piece of fruit. There is a significant gap between knowing what is right and doing what is right.

Continued tomorrow

Meanderings…

Books, Culture, ,

Hunsinger, Barth with Charity CoverThe other day I found a few interesting articles while browsing – something I don’t get to do often enough, it seems…

“Barth Wars” at Princeton?
My copy of George Hunsinger’s new book arrived on Monday, and I hope to read it as soon as semester is over and the marking is in. I had opportunity to meet with both George and Bruce McCormack at Princeton during my visit last December. Perhaps the word “war” is a bit rich, but the interpersonal friction between the two eminent Barth scholars is sad. I have learnt a great deal from both and respect them both very highly, even if I don’t agree with them on every point.

On Marriage and Millennials from First Things

To my students, the authors of “What is Marriage?” are making a troubling move, reducing the purpose of marital sex to its reproductive function. What they seemed less able to recognize is that they have inherited the inverse: a view of sex with little meaningful connection to procreation. And once such a view of sexuality is embraced, there is not much foothold, aside from appeals to biblical authority, to support the conjugal understanding of marriage.

Another book that I enjoyed but also found funny was Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible. It was funny because his sociological approach highlighted in a humorous way, the way evangelicals often use the Bible. This even-handed review treats the book fairly, and rightly suggests that Smith has caricatured evangelicals as a group. Smith’s attack on the word “biblicism” is perhaps too general, even though he carefully nuances what he means by the term. I still think that “biblicism” is okay, if what is meant by the term is a respect for and commitment to the authority of Scripture. Obviously there are different models for understanding that authority. One weakness of the review is that the author does not really engage with Smith’s constructive chapter on christological interpretation.

Speaking of Scripture, the theme and Call for Papers for next year’s Los Angelos Theology Conference has been announced: The Voice of God in the Text of Scripture. If I lived in North America, I would go. As it is, I will wait for the book…

Women Apologists

Culture, Theology,
Image: Jeremy Cowart
Image: Jeremy Cowart

The April issue of Christianity Today has two interesting articles on women engaged in teaching and practicing apologetics. Apparently this is somewhat unusual since apologetics has often or even usually been a male domain. The first article, “The Unexpected Defenders” tells the story of five women, all associated with the Master of Arts (Apologetics) degree at Houston Baptist University. Part of the interest in the article concerns the unique approach to apologetics adopted by these women (cultural apologetics),  as well as exploring what these women bring to the practice of apologetics as women.

Ultimately, apologetics is driven by love. You have to love people enough to listen to their questions and do the hard work of finding answers for them (Nancy Pearcey).

The second article, “The Oxford Revivalist,” shifts attention to the UK and to the work of Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics program director, Amy Orr-Ewing. Her story is quite amazing and well worth reading.

“Without women we wouldn’t know what happened at the Cross,” says Orr-Ewing. “John’s there, but all the other witnesses to the words from the cross are female. And women are the first witnesses to the Resurrection. If you’re a Christian, you believe the Lord arranged for that. That’s not unintentional. That’s amazing.”

Two Articles on Sexual Ethics

Culture, , , , ,
gay_liberation_monument_manhattan - Sculpture by George Segal
gay_liberation_monument_manhattan – Sculpture by George Segal

Two interesting articles over at First Things. What is of interest to me in both articles is the question of what constitutes marriage, and more fundamentally, what the “good” of marriage is.

The first article (“Sex and Danger at UVA”) is a response by two senior academics to the University of Virginia’s response to the now discredited Rolling Stone article of December 2014 which reported on a supposed gang rape and rape culture at the University. The article argues that the University is complicit in the development of a destructive culture of sexual practice that is harmful, especially to women. The article navigates the difficult relationship between women’s choice, which the authors want to affirm, and the (quaint-sounding?) idea that women must be protected from rapacious attitudes, practices and environments which is the main burden of the essay. Their argument hangs on the implicit idea that the political culture based on rights and freedom is insufficient to secure the kinds of relationships between the sexes which are mutually beneficial and honouring. Habits, practices and structures which help form virtuous patterns of character and interaction are required.

The second article by Peter Leithart (“The Failure of Gay Marriage”) questions what gay marriage will do to marriage itself, and suggests that its impact will be negative. However, he does not assign the blame for this to the gay community. Rather, it is the result of heterosexual attitudes adopted decades ago which value marriage primarily as a romantic attachment.

“The whole set of fundamental, irrational assumptions that make marriage such a burden and such a civilizing force can easily be undone.” This is a powerful argument, but doesn’t give sufficient weight to a point that Schulman acknowledges early on: The fact that “romantic marriage” was invented by heterosexuals, and the detachment of sex from marriage and marriage from kinship was accomplished long before anyone began seriously proposing gay marriage. Gay marriage may further damage marriage; but heterosexuals damaged marriage nearly beyond recognition all on our own.

Why Study Theology?

Culture, Theology,
The Evangelist St. Matthew with his symbol, the angel (The National Library of the Netherlands)
The Evangelist St. Matthew with his symbol, the angel (The National Library of the Netherlands)

I found the link to this story which appeared a couple of years ago in The Atlantic on the ACT website. Entitled “Study Theology Even if You Don’t Believe in God,” it argues that theology is still the “Queen of the Humanities” because “theology is the closest thing we have at the moment to the kind of general study of all aspects of human culture that was once very common, but is now quite rare.”

To study theology well requires not faith, but empathy. If history and comparative religion alike offer us perspective on world events from the “outside,” the study of theology offers us a chance to study those same events “from within”: an opportunity to get inside the heads of those whose beliefs and choices shaped so much of our history, and who—in the world outside the ivory tower—still shape plenty of the world today.

I do not agree that one can study theology well without faith. Without faith, I think theology devolves to religious studies rather than theology. But here I am showing my bias. Her central point, I think, still stands, all the more in a world where the humanities are marginalised in favour of other more robust and ever-so-practical disciplines, such as business, law, and the sciences. I am all for business, law and the sciences, but I fear the loss of the humanities threatens us with the loss of our humanity. While instrumental reason can effect vast changes in our understanding and utilisation of the world and its resources, it may do so at the expense of those very factors which constitute us as truly human. According to businessdictionary.com, instrumental rationality is the dominant mode of thought in the industrialised world, and works by reducing all factors in any situation to “variables to be controlled.” Such reductionism sounds somewhat like the unjust judge of Jesus’ parable: “I fear not God nor respect man.”

Theology protests such reductionism by insisting that humanity is created in the image of God, to serve as a steward in God’s creation, ordering all things to God’s good purposes. Theology reflects upon the nature, origin and destiny of humanity and the human community within the orders of creation and redemption. Such reflections serve to limit human greed and hubris, and so the uses toward which instrumental reason may be devoted. The study of theology can serve as a bulwark against the dehumanising features of modern technological society, helping us retain a vision of what it means to be human, instead of seeking to be gods.

Roger Olson on Authenic Christianity

Culture,

OlsonRoger has posted a good little list on his blog about what constitutes authentic Christianity. The first item on the list is negative: that is, it stands as evidence against authentic Christianity…

The very first thing I look at is how much the church reflects the culture around it. I don’t mean in its facilities; I mean in its ethos. In America that means: To what extent does the church reflect consumerism, materialism, competition to “get ahead” of others, “success in life” as defining status, tolerance and self-esteem as goals, and “American exceptionalism?”

Another item on his list is certainly challenging:
True community manifested by sharing lives and property is another mark of corporate Christian authenticity. By “sharing property” I don’t mean communalism or collectivism but the practice of taking care of each other, hospitality, holding loosely to “personal property” so as to meet the genuine needs of others in the church.
What do you make of his list?

Driving Music

Culture
Jimmy Fallon gave a credible performance of "Old Man" as and with Neil Young.
Jimmy Fallon gave a credible performance of “Old Man” as and with Neil Young.

See the clip here

Yesterday and today I was in the car for between seven and eight hours, driving down to Cranbrook and back. I was there to participate with the pastors and leaders of our churches in the Great Southern and had a really nice time with them. Our topic was “Spiritual Formation as the Task of the Church.” Perhaps I will blog about it sometime. These pastors and leaders are doing a wonderful and important job in their small town churches.

At times on a long drive I have listened to audio books or even lectures. This time, though, I followed my usual practice of choosing some music. My choice always depends on the kind of mood I am in. This time, I think I was in a folky kind of mood. This is what I chose:

1. The Essential Simon & Garfunkel – Probably not the best for long distance driving, but some great classics here, as well as some very mellow folk-poetry. Favourite track: I am a Rock.

2. George Harrison, Let it Roll – a posthumous collection of his post-Beatles work, except for three live renditions of While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Here Comes the Sun, and my favourite track, Something. Shame it didn’t have a few of his Wilbury contributions.

3. Les Miserables, The Original London Cast – It still grabs me everytime. This most powerful of musicals is an artistic rendition of divine grace embodied. I think that is what Hugo intended, and the songwriters have done his literary masterpiece justice with this musical-dramatic masterpiece. Favourite track: sorry, can’t choose just one; I Dreamed a Dream and Bring Him Home for pathos and beauty, and One Day More for dramatic and creative mastery.

4. Bob Dylan, Tempest – From the beautiful voices of the London cast to Dylan, who can’t sing to save his life, and never could. Now, after five decades of abusing his screech, it’s worse than ever, but I still love his work. This 2012 album continued his late-career renaissance, and includes his 14-minute tribute to the loss of the Titanic, and a poignant tribute to John Lennon. Favourite track: Tempest, with Duquesne Whistle a close second.

5. Neil Young, Harvest – The 1972 classic blues-rock album bristles with amazing tracks. My favourite? Why choose just one? Today is was probably Heart of God, but could just as easily have been Alabama or Out on the Weekend or Harvest or Old Man or…

6. And as I made it back to the city – Creedence Clearwater Revival, 25th Anniversary Collection – only got to about track 10 before I made it home, but more blues-rock, this time more upbeat. Favourite track: Someday Never Comes.

Next time I have a long drive on my own, I am thinking I might pull out Rolling Stone’s Top Ten Albums of all time. Or maybe better, my own Top Ten… I wonder what would be on that list? Beggars Banquet, IV (Led Zepellin), Beatles for Sale (Rubber Soul? Hard call, this one; just about everyone says Sgt Pepper is the greatest album of all time; … nah), Highway 61 Revisited (or Blood on the Tracks?), Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Hotel California, Tapestry, Songs in the Key of Life?

What would be on your list?

 

A Dilemma for Theological Education

Culture

Catholic Theological EducationJohn Olley sent through this interesting article on the situation of theological education in the United Kingdom. He commented that what is happening in the UK has already been happening here in Australia for some years. Certainly the article suggests that a residential model of theological education/ ministerial training has been the norm there, whereas I don’t know many such schools here. An obvious and continuing issue facing theological institutions is financial pressure, something compounded by government policies which allow private institutions to offer degrees, but then do not fund all the degree programmes offered, or demand compliance regimes difficult for smaller institutions to sustain.

The article indicates other pressures: shrinking church constituencies, a “re-tribalisation” of evangelicalism (an interesting topic in its own right), and fundamentally, the changing context of ecclesial vocation.

Ineson believes that future theological education will look very different. ‘We’re going to need to train many more ministers, both lay and ordained, and these will need to be people who know how to encourage the ministry of all the people of God, not just do it all themselves,’ she says. … They will need to have experience of leading teams. They will need to be people who know how to handle and lead through change as the context of ministry and church life shifts rapidly in the next few years. They will need to be adaptable…My guess is that there will be more creativity in the way training is done.’

The massive changes in the socio-cultural location of the church and in the ministry context demand high levels of practical wisdom and skill for those who would be ministers. Many pastors have said something like, “Almost everything that consumes my time in daily ministry, I had to learn after I had already finished my theological education.”

This is an ongoing tension in theological education: trying to achieve the kind of academic breadth and depth required to sustain theological reflection and godly discernment over the course of a lifetime, while also equipping ministerial candidates with the kind of practical wisdom and skills required for ministry in challenging contexts.

A real partnership is required between seminary and churches with give and take on both sides. Substantial Christian and theological formation cannot occur only in the seminary, for Christian spirituality and life is lived out in the contexts of the community of faith and in the world. The seminary exists for the church and needs the church.

Does the church likewise need the seminary? Many today question this, but I (obviously!) believe that the seminary is also necessary for the ongoing life of the church, for the training of new ministers and lay persons, for the careful examination of contemporary trends in the light of the gospel, etc.

Ineson believes that strong theology must not be compromised for the sake of hands-on experience. ‘We still need good theology…so we do need good theological colleges with well-trained, committed faculty members, able to publish and supervise higher research; where academic rigour is maintained and we continue to discern how God’s word in the Bible speaks today. That only comes through devoted study.’

What good is the seminary? How might we tackle this fundamental tension
at the heart of theological education? What do you think?

Courage & Compassion

Culture,

Sydney Seige

This article has been published in the current issue of the Advocate (Baptist Churches WA, February, 2015)as "Courage & Compassion: Faith in Times of Terror."

2014 was a tough year: the mysterious loss of MH370, the criminal shooting of MH170 over Ukraine, terrible conflicts in Syria and Palestine, ebola, the devastation of the murderous Islamic State, the siege in Sydney’s Lindt Café, the murder of 132 children and nine teachers in a Pakistani school, the tragic killing of eight children in Cairns…

2015 has started in a similar way with the murder of Parisian journalists, and slaughter of over 2000 villagers in Nigeria by Boco Harum. What does discipleship look like in days of terror?

We find some answers to these questions in Psalms 8-11. This little collection meditates on what it means to trust God in terrible times. Psalm 8 speaks of our dignity as God’s creation, crowned with glory and honour. Psalms 9-10, however, cry out to God because the “man who is of the earth” is violent, causing terror. In Psalm 11 the king’s counsellors ask, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” and advise him to “flee as a bird to your mountain!” But David refuses to go; even in the face of threatening and dangerous circumstances David is convinced that the Lord reigns, that God will ‘arise’ to judge the wicked and put an end to their evil. And so David trusts and David stays.

Taken together, these psalms provide a vision of life for uncertain times. They proclaim hope in the present and eschatological triumph of God who is enthroned in his holy temple, and who will establish his sovereignty over all creation. Further, the psalms declare the promises that God will be a refuge for his people, and that they shall experience his protection and reward; the Lord loves righteousness and the righteous will behold his face.

This is the bedrock conviction of biblical faith: The Lord reigns! (see Psalm 96:10; Isaiah 52:7). This conviction, deeply grounded in the Scriptures, generates faith and trust, and so also the prayer, patience and courage we find in these psalms.

Further, these psalms present a picture of God’s character as one who is merciful and just, who favours the vulnerable and stands against the wicked. God’s people are called to emulate this character. If God loves justice, his people will aspire to live justly. Since God cares for the vulnerable and shelters the oppressed, so his people will also learn compassion for the afflicted. Over against the pride, greed and violence of the wicked, God’s people will practise humility, contentment, gentleness and peace. They will, however, also stand against the oppressor to defend the needy.

Finally, the psalms presuppose a faithful community which preserves and sings these psalms and prays these prayers, and remembers these promises, and lives this hope. Together the people of God dare to embody the vision of Scripture in the midst of a world of conflict and terror. In particular, they pray as the psalmist prays, crying out for God to ‘arise,’ or, in New Testament language, to pray Thy Kingdom come! Like David they refuse to flee. Rather, they stay as David stayed. The community of God’s people will be present to the afflicted, ministering to them and in solidarity with them. They will also be present to the wicked as a testimony against their ways. They not only pray Thy Kingdom come! but live the ways of the kingdom. In the midst of a world of violence and terror Christians are called to be prayerful, present, and practising the gracious and righteous character of God.