--> Often, when one seeks to understand a portion of Scripture, a whole host of views and interpretations claim to have the definitive understanding of the passage. It is the task of the preacher to discern which view fits with a proper understanding of the rest of Scripture. Sometimes this choice boils down to taking an interpretation that fits in with the rest of Scripture or taking a view that seems utterly incongruous with it. For example, consider the miracles of Jesus.
We can either ascribe Jesus' miracles as real, supernatural acts or; alternatively, as nothing more than natural phenomenon. The first of these two options harmonises with our understanding of who Jesus is, harmonises with the rest of Scripture and offers the most natural reading of these passages. The alternative view requires an unnatural reading of Scripture, lengthy explanations of the purpose of these miracles and a logic that would make any text meaningless. In these cases, it is not difficult to discern that the natural reading of the passage is the one that makes the most sense of not only these passages but other parts of Scripture too.
Often, however, this is not the choice presented to us in Scripture. The interpretations available, none of which obviously contradict central doctrines taught in Scripture, are equally feasible explanations of a passage but say entirely different things. For example, in Genesis 4:4-5 we are told of God accepting Abel's offering but rejecting that of Cain. There are two popularly cited interpretations of this passage. The first suggests that Abel brought God of his best ('Abel brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions' Gen 4:4) while Cain merely brought some of his fruits, not his best ('Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground.' Gen 4:3). In this reading, Cain's offering was rejected because of his heart - he had not brought his best to God. The alternative interpretation argues that God, in killing two animals to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness, had shown that he required a blood sacrifice in offerings from his people. Cain, in only bringing fruit, ignored God's requirement and his sacrifice was rejected.
In this example, we see two seemingly legitimate views presented. Neither appears to obviously contradict doctrine of Scripture and both are feasible explanations of the passage. Nevertheless, the first interpretation is a straightforward reading of the passage and chimes with other parts of Scripture (Heb 11:4 states Abel offered, not an acceptable sacrifice and Cain an unacceptable one but, 'a more acceptable sacrifice.' We also see other parts of Scripture see God accept fruit offerings and we are not told the purpose of Cain and Abel's offering, etc). The alternative view infers a command by God that was never expressed in Scripture before this point. It makes God appear very unfair (insisting on blood sacrifices without ever having explicitly said this is required) and does not harmonise with other parts of Scripture where God does accept non-blood offerings.
We can see a similar issue in Judges 11:30. Jephthah makes a rash promise to God that he will sacrifice the first thing that comes out of his house to meet him which subsequently turns out to be his daughter. One view suggests that Jephthah fulfils his promise and sacrifices his daughter to God. An alternative view suggests that in Jewish culture it was a terrible thing for a young woman to never marry. When Jephthah saw his daughter come out of his house, rather than physically sacrificing her, he merely sacrificed her virginity and the fact that she will never marry. The first interpretation is a natural reading of the passage and chimes with the theme in Judges (the children of Israel falling further away from God as the book progresses - Jephthah's act being an example of how far Israel were from God). The alternative view requires an unnatural reading of the passage, insists upon an in-depth knowledge of Jewish customs and practices and does not chime with the theme of the book.
In both cases, the adoption of either view does not lead to inherent heresy. There are no central doctrinal issues necessarily affected by taking any one of the suggested interpretations above. In this sense it is not a fundamental problem for someone to take any of the aforementioned views. Perhaps, however, specifically because no central doctrine is at stake there exists an assumption that all views on the matter are legitimate or, at least, not of such great importance (that is they can be relegated to 'secondary issues'). Therefore, to adopt any view on the passage is seen as quite legitimate and, at worst, a mere point of difference. This leads some to consciously make efforts to adopt a more academically intriguing view of a passage rather than the simpler, obvious one. It is as if some preachers feel they must have some 'special insight' into a passage that the ordinary church member might miss on first reading. Ultimately, this leads to the preacher adopting a very elegant view of the passage whilst missing the point entirely.
It is clearly important for us to have intellectual preaching in our churches. This means that our preaching should reach a certain intellectual standard and should be able to stand up to scrutiny. It should not be overly simplistic and should not sidestep clear and relevant issues. However, we must guard against simply preaching the most intellectually elegant interpretation and treating it, by virtue of its academic creativity, as the most sound interpretation. Where the meaning of a passage is clear we should seek to teach it clearly. An academic insight into the Bible, and a very elegant interpretation of a passage, might make us feel as though we are working on a higher intellectual plane but this does not mean we have truly grasped the meaning of a passage. We must seek to guard against merely adopting intellectual interpretations of Scripture for the sake of ego and, instead, should seek to teach that which the Bible makes clear - even if it is a bit obvious and doesn't let us show off our intellectual capacity to understand God's word!
Monday 29 March 2010
Wednesday 17 March 2010
On this rock I will build my church
As contentious passages of Scripture go, few have been contested as much as Matthew 16:18. Some have sought to argue that the 'rock' refers to Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ. It is argued that Jesus was referring to the confession of all believers that he is the Christ therefore building his church on such confessions. Others have sought to argue that the 'rock' is a reference to Jesus himself (see Isa 28:16 and 1 Pet 2:8). Jesus is referred to in Scripture as a rock and it is argued that Jesus was stating that he would build his church on himself. Whilst both these interpretations are plausible they do not take a natural reading of the passage. A natural understanding of the passage would suggest that Jesus was actually referring to Peter.
If the 'rock' Jesus refers to is Peter himself, and a natural reading of the passage makes this impossible to escape, what are we to say this means for the church Jesus says he will build? The Catholic Church have interpreted these verses as the inception of the the papal office. In reality, the interpretations that see the 'rock' as referring to something other than Peter really came into existence in reaction to the Catholic understanding of these verses. As a way of distancing themselves from this teaching a misinterpretation of the passage was adopted. However, given that these verses clearly refer to Peter, can we establish that they were intended to create the office of Pope?
Where we look elsewhere in Scripture it becomes clear that Peter was in no way given an office above the other apostles. In Acts 15 we see, although Peter is present, the advice of James is followed and not that of Peter. We also note in Galatians 2:11-14 that Paul rebuked Peter openly because he "stood condemned." In rebuking him openly, Paul was showing that he had equal apostolic authority as Peter. Such a situation could not arise if Christ had appointed Peter as Pope as he would have been absolute and infallible (as is the teaching of the Catholic Church). However, we note here Paul rebuking Peter openly and this being correct. We also see Peter in 1 Peter 5:1 refer to himself as "a fellow elder" rather than one appointed to a higher office. We see no part of Scripture suggesting Peter was in a higher office than the other apostles. In fact, we see some verses which show Peter to be rebuked for error and others where he places himself on the same level as other elders in the church. As such, we must conclude that Peter was not instituted into some higher office.
Given this, if Peter is intended to be the 'rock' to which Jesus refers, but he is not being appointed to papal office, what is Peter being singled out for? Peter had shown himself to be firm and suitable for laying the foundations of the church. Does this mean that Peter was somehow raised above the other apostles? Of course not! Instead, Matthew 16:19 tells us exactly how Christ was to use Peter. Jesus states:
Peter was not given any office or power above and beyond the other apostles. We must note that the second half of this verse is repeated in Matthew 18:18 as an instruction to the rest of the apostles. Given that the other apostles have the same authority as Peter and were clearly instructed to take the gospel to the world how is Peter singled out in any way here? Ultimately, Peter was to be the first to open the door of faith to the world, to both Jew and Gentile alike. We see this happen in Acts 2:14-36 where, on the day of Pentecost, Peter is the first to stand up and address the crowds with the gospel. In this way, Peter is laying the foundations for the church. He was the first to share the gospel with the world and all future work would build upon this.
As such, the 'rock' in Matthew 16:18 is clearly speaking of Peter himself. However, this was not a statement to set Peter apart from the other apostles in a special office or with greater authority. Rather, Peter was being given the honour of being the first to take the gospel to the world. Upon the foundation he was to lay Christ would build his church.
If the 'rock' Jesus refers to is Peter himself, and a natural reading of the passage makes this impossible to escape, what are we to say this means for the church Jesus says he will build? The Catholic Church have interpreted these verses as the inception of the the papal office. In reality, the interpretations that see the 'rock' as referring to something other than Peter really came into existence in reaction to the Catholic understanding of these verses. As a way of distancing themselves from this teaching a misinterpretation of the passage was adopted. However, given that these verses clearly refer to Peter, can we establish that they were intended to create the office of Pope?
Where we look elsewhere in Scripture it becomes clear that Peter was in no way given an office above the other apostles. In Acts 15 we see, although Peter is present, the advice of James is followed and not that of Peter. We also note in Galatians 2:11-14 that Paul rebuked Peter openly because he "stood condemned." In rebuking him openly, Paul was showing that he had equal apostolic authority as Peter. Such a situation could not arise if Christ had appointed Peter as Pope as he would have been absolute and infallible (as is the teaching of the Catholic Church). However, we note here Paul rebuking Peter openly and this being correct. We also see Peter in 1 Peter 5:1 refer to himself as "a fellow elder" rather than one appointed to a higher office. We see no part of Scripture suggesting Peter was in a higher office than the other apostles. In fact, we see some verses which show Peter to be rebuked for error and others where he places himself on the same level as other elders in the church. As such, we must conclude that Peter was not instituted into some higher office.
Given this, if Peter is intended to be the 'rock' to which Jesus refers, but he is not being appointed to papal office, what is Peter being singled out for? Peter had shown himself to be firm and suitable for laying the foundations of the church. Does this mean that Peter was somehow raised above the other apostles? Of course not! Instead, Matthew 16:19 tells us exactly how Christ was to use Peter. Jesus states:
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (ESV).What are the keys to the kingdom of heaven? We know this to be the good news of the gospel. Peter then was to be given the gospel to take to the Jew and the Gentile.
Peter was not given any office or power above and beyond the other apostles. We must note that the second half of this verse is repeated in Matthew 18:18 as an instruction to the rest of the apostles. Given that the other apostles have the same authority as Peter and were clearly instructed to take the gospel to the world how is Peter singled out in any way here? Ultimately, Peter was to be the first to open the door of faith to the world, to both Jew and Gentile alike. We see this happen in Acts 2:14-36 where, on the day of Pentecost, Peter is the first to stand up and address the crowds with the gospel. In this way, Peter is laying the foundations for the church. He was the first to share the gospel with the world and all future work would build upon this.
As such, the 'rock' in Matthew 16:18 is clearly speaking of Peter himself. However, this was not a statement to set Peter apart from the other apostles in a special office or with greater authority. Rather, Peter was being given the honour of being the first to take the gospel to the world. Upon the foundation he was to lay Christ would build his church.
Saturday 13 March 2010
How should we sing when we sing to the Lord?
There is much contention over the issue of music in the Church. It is generally accepted that singing is to take place as part of our corporate worship. Indeed, the Apostle Paul states, in two separate places, that we are to sing as part of our worship to God. To the church in Colosse Paul states:
Before we can deal with the issue of what we are to sing we must firstly establish why we are to sing at all. In the verses previously mentioned, singing is linked to praise and thankfulness. Ultimately, when we sing, we are to sing praise to God. This should be a heartfelt act of thankfulness in light of God's goodness to us. Even Paul and Silas, though beaten with rods and imprisoned, sang hymns to God. If what Paul states is to be believed, that we should "rejoice in our sufferings (Rom 5:3, ESV)," and Peter echoes in 1 Peter 4:16, then we must naturally conclude that even in imprisonment Paul and Silas were singing praises to God with thanksgiving. As such, we can establish the principle behind singing in worship as that of thanksgiving and praise.
This leads us back to the question 'what are we to sing?' It seems clear that we are to sing songs of thankfulness and praise to God. If Paul and Silas were singing such songs in prison, rejoicing in their suffering for Christ, it would seem natural for us to want to sing these songs both in our suffering and wherever we experience the grace and goodness of God. This covers all of our experiences in life. We are continually experiencing the grace and goodness of God in a variety of ways, not only on a daily basis but, on a minute-by-minute and second-by-second basis. However, when we lose sight of this - perhaps understandably in the midst of suffering - our example, and indeed the instruction given in Scripture, is to rejoice in our sufferings and give thanks to God. When we are suffering we are to rejoice in our suffering (Rom 5:3, 1 Pet 4:13) and when we are not suffering we should be giving thanks to God for his goodness to us. Therefore, we must conclude that we are to sing songs of praise and thanksgiving to God.
Beyond this example there is little for us be dogmatic about when it comes to singing in worship. Psalm 150 suggests that the instruments we employ for praising God are all acceptable. David lists instruments that would cover most types available today. He mentions trumpets, lutes, harps, tambourines and cymbals specifically. He also speaks of pipes and strings as groups of instruments acceptable for praise ending the Psalm with the well known statement "Let everything that has breath praise the LORD! Praise the LORD! (Psa 150:6, ESV)." The suggestion in this Psalm is that all instruments are legitimate in the worship of God. There are those who suggest that we should sing unaccompanied hymns. This Psalm teaches that we can praise God with a variety of instruments. Others teach that only specfic instruments are acceptable in worship. This Psalm suggests that pipes, stringed instruments, tambourines and cymbals are all acceptable for the worship of God. The inference in this Psalm is that there are no restrictions on the instruments employed in the praise of God. We are simply told "praise the LORD!"
Although the Psalm teaches that there are no restrictions on the instruments with which we may praise God this does not mean that we must use them all in our worship. As such, those inclined to use many instruments should not sneer at those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to employ only a few. Likewise, those who only employ a few instruments, by virtue of the statements in Scripture, should not sneer at those who employ many. Instead, we should recognise this choice as nothing more than the matter of preference it represents.
There are some who are drawn to many instruments playing lively songs of thanksgiving and praise. There are others who are drawn to a more understated, quieter form of worship. The Bible only teaches that we should give praise and thanks to God in song - the way in which we do this is up to us. The Christian accompanied by an organ with his hand in his pocket may be no less thankful, and in many cases may be more thankful, to God than the Christian with his hands in the air singing loudly along to a band. The louder our praise is not necessarily a reflection of greater thanksgiving in our heart. We should recognise that the Biblical teaching is for us to give thanks and praise to God in song. In the same way as different people are drawn to different styles of music, individual Christians may be drawn to different styles of worship. In either case, God is concerned with the thanksgiving and praise in their heart rather than the instruments and volume with which they outwardly show it.
We must conclude then that our singing must be praise and thanksgiving based. How we achieve this is up to us. The Bible does not insist on a style of worship but instead insists on praise and thanksgiving being directed towards God. Where our praise and thanksgiving is heartfelt the outward way in which we express it is little more than a matter of preference.
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your heart to God (Col 3:16, ESV)To the Ephesian church Paul says:
be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord in your heart (Eph 5:19, ESV)Throughout the OT we see many instances of people singing to God with the book of Psalms largely given over to this. James also states "Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise (Jam 5:13, ESV)." In Acts we are told "Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God (Acts: 16:25, ESV)" whilst they were in prison. Throughout the Scriptures we see instances of people singing to God and it seems clear that we are also to sing as part of our worship today.
Before we can deal with the issue of what we are to sing we must firstly establish why we are to sing at all. In the verses previously mentioned, singing is linked to praise and thankfulness. Ultimately, when we sing, we are to sing praise to God. This should be a heartfelt act of thankfulness in light of God's goodness to us. Even Paul and Silas, though beaten with rods and imprisoned, sang hymns to God. If what Paul states is to be believed, that we should "rejoice in our sufferings (Rom 5:3, ESV)," and Peter echoes in 1 Peter 4:16, then we must naturally conclude that even in imprisonment Paul and Silas were singing praises to God with thanksgiving. As such, we can establish the principle behind singing in worship as that of thanksgiving and praise.
This leads us back to the question 'what are we to sing?' It seems clear that we are to sing songs of thankfulness and praise to God. If Paul and Silas were singing such songs in prison, rejoicing in their suffering for Christ, it would seem natural for us to want to sing these songs both in our suffering and wherever we experience the grace and goodness of God. This covers all of our experiences in life. We are continually experiencing the grace and goodness of God in a variety of ways, not only on a daily basis but, on a minute-by-minute and second-by-second basis. However, when we lose sight of this - perhaps understandably in the midst of suffering - our example, and indeed the instruction given in Scripture, is to rejoice in our sufferings and give thanks to God. When we are suffering we are to rejoice in our suffering (Rom 5:3, 1 Pet 4:13) and when we are not suffering we should be giving thanks to God for his goodness to us. Therefore, we must conclude that we are to sing songs of praise and thanksgiving to God.
Beyond this example there is little for us be dogmatic about when it comes to singing in worship. Psalm 150 suggests that the instruments we employ for praising God are all acceptable. David lists instruments that would cover most types available today. He mentions trumpets, lutes, harps, tambourines and cymbals specifically. He also speaks of pipes and strings as groups of instruments acceptable for praise ending the Psalm with the well known statement "Let everything that has breath praise the LORD! Praise the LORD! (Psa 150:6, ESV)." The suggestion in this Psalm is that all instruments are legitimate in the worship of God. There are those who suggest that we should sing unaccompanied hymns. This Psalm teaches that we can praise God with a variety of instruments. Others teach that only specfic instruments are acceptable in worship. This Psalm suggests that pipes, stringed instruments, tambourines and cymbals are all acceptable for the worship of God. The inference in this Psalm is that there are no restrictions on the instruments employed in the praise of God. We are simply told "praise the LORD!"
Although the Psalm teaches that there are no restrictions on the instruments with which we may praise God this does not mean that we must use them all in our worship. As such, those inclined to use many instruments should not sneer at those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to employ only a few. Likewise, those who only employ a few instruments, by virtue of the statements in Scripture, should not sneer at those who employ many. Instead, we should recognise this choice as nothing more than the matter of preference it represents.
There are some who are drawn to many instruments playing lively songs of thanksgiving and praise. There are others who are drawn to a more understated, quieter form of worship. The Bible only teaches that we should give praise and thanks to God in song - the way in which we do this is up to us. The Christian accompanied by an organ with his hand in his pocket may be no less thankful, and in many cases may be more thankful, to God than the Christian with his hands in the air singing loudly along to a band. The louder our praise is not necessarily a reflection of greater thanksgiving in our heart. We should recognise that the Biblical teaching is for us to give thanks and praise to God in song. In the same way as different people are drawn to different styles of music, individual Christians may be drawn to different styles of worship. In either case, God is concerned with the thanksgiving and praise in their heart rather than the instruments and volume with which they outwardly show it.
We must conclude then that our singing must be praise and thanksgiving based. How we achieve this is up to us. The Bible does not insist on a style of worship but instead insists on praise and thanksgiving being directed towards God. Where our praise and thanksgiving is heartfelt the outward way in which we express it is little more than a matter of preference.
Thursday 11 March 2010
Treasures on earth?
In our modern culture there seems to be an expectation that people should seek to buy property. There is a sense in which one should buy a house, wait for its value to increase and then sell it in order to move into a bigger property. It is on this basis that the recent credit crunch was portrayed as an utter disaster. Mortgage lenders restricted lending and the value of property dropped. Many are now struggling to get a foot on the property ladder, those who already own houses are concerned that their property value has severely decreased and ultimately that they have lost money.
This culture seems to have found its way into the Church. There is an expectation, even amongst Christians, that one would naturally seek to get a foot on the property ladder and even move into bigger property as the value increases. Many show their bias towards this thinking by referring to renting as 'dead money' but buying as 'an investment.' Some even seek to spiritualise the decision by claiming that buying a house is 'good stewardship.' However, how far can we say that this is really true?
Of course, if we are offered the choice between owning or renting a house, both houses having minimal differences and the cost being identitical, it is perfectly reasonable for us to buy. However, how often is this the case? In reality, to buy a home we must firstly save up a sizeable deposit, then take out a mortgage often 4 or 5 times our yearly salary and then pay interest on top of the value borrowed for 25-35 years. When one factors in the costs of maintenance and building insurance on top of this the price of buying a property is mammoth. Can we justify this amount of money as Christians?
The first point to consider is that the money spent on our property benefits only ourselves. When we tie up considerable sums in owning property we tie up money that could otherwise be directed to Christian work. If we rented, instead of bought, how much more money would we have available to give to the church, missions and evangelistic outreach?
We must also consider our motives for buying a house. Some cite the need to own property in order to provide for their old age. Jesus told us, however, not to worry about tomorrow (Mat 6:25-34) and not to store up treasures on earth (Mat 6:19). If we are concerned about the future and are sinking vast sums into our homes as a result we are failing to heed Jesus' command. Some buy into the culture of getting larger and larger properties. This, however, runs contrary to the parable of the rich fool (Lk 12:16-22). Indeed, how much more would we have to give to the Lord's work if we did not tie our money up in our homes? Moreover, is it right for us to put our money into our home in the hope that it will increase in value so that we can get a larger one? It seems that the teaching of the Bible is clear on these points.
It is also possible to argue that taking out a mortgage is a form of gambling. Many people find themselves in dire financial straits because they have calculated the affordability of a mortgage based on current rates of interest but, when interest rates change, they are unable to maintain payments. People gamble that the rate of inflation will stay low enough for them to afford mortgage repyaments. Not only is there risk involved in taking out a mortgage but the stakes with which we are playing could not be higher. Ultimately, this could run into the tens of thousands.
We must also consider how much more difficult it is to answer God's call when we are tied into property. To be called to overseas mission or into the pastorate in another part of the country is all the harder to follow when we first have to concern ourselves with selling our house. In fact, it is quite conceiveable that many would consider themselves unable to answer the call if they could not first find a buyer for their home. How skewed our logic becomes! The call of God becomes second to the sale of our property.
This skewed logic runs deeper. Some in the Church argue that going into debt is wrong. Nevertheless, where their mortgage is concerned they have a blindspot. They encourage people to take out sizeable mortgages on the one hand whilst sneering at the use of a small overdraft facility or loan on the other. Such a view is hugely inconsistent! It is almost as if a mortgage is, by some token, not considered debt despite the mammoth sums involved. If we do not believe mortgages are wrong then we cannot suggest that these other types of loan are wrong. If we insist that loans are wrong then we must equally insist mortgages are wrong. We cannot have it both ways and yet because of the property culture we seek to make it so.
So, can we as Christians really justify buying houses? It may be possible, in certain circumstances, to say that it is justifiable. Nevertheless, we must conclude that a worldly culture has infiltrated the church. Instead of relying on God we rely on our investment for the future. Instead of giving from the first of what we have, when our salary initially comes in, we give from what is left over, when we've made our mortgage payments. Is this the culture we should have adopted in the church or should we seriously reconsider whether it is right for us to buy our own home?
This culture seems to have found its way into the Church. There is an expectation, even amongst Christians, that one would naturally seek to get a foot on the property ladder and even move into bigger property as the value increases. Many show their bias towards this thinking by referring to renting as 'dead money' but buying as 'an investment.' Some even seek to spiritualise the decision by claiming that buying a house is 'good stewardship.' However, how far can we say that this is really true?
Of course, if we are offered the choice between owning or renting a house, both houses having minimal differences and the cost being identitical, it is perfectly reasonable for us to buy. However, how often is this the case? In reality, to buy a home we must firstly save up a sizeable deposit, then take out a mortgage often 4 or 5 times our yearly salary and then pay interest on top of the value borrowed for 25-35 years. When one factors in the costs of maintenance and building insurance on top of this the price of buying a property is mammoth. Can we justify this amount of money as Christians?
The first point to consider is that the money spent on our property benefits only ourselves. When we tie up considerable sums in owning property we tie up money that could otherwise be directed to Christian work. If we rented, instead of bought, how much more money would we have available to give to the church, missions and evangelistic outreach?
We must also consider our motives for buying a house. Some cite the need to own property in order to provide for their old age. Jesus told us, however, not to worry about tomorrow (Mat 6:25-34) and not to store up treasures on earth (Mat 6:19). If we are concerned about the future and are sinking vast sums into our homes as a result we are failing to heed Jesus' command. Some buy into the culture of getting larger and larger properties. This, however, runs contrary to the parable of the rich fool (Lk 12:16-22). Indeed, how much more would we have to give to the Lord's work if we did not tie our money up in our homes? Moreover, is it right for us to put our money into our home in the hope that it will increase in value so that we can get a larger one? It seems that the teaching of the Bible is clear on these points.
It is also possible to argue that taking out a mortgage is a form of gambling. Many people find themselves in dire financial straits because they have calculated the affordability of a mortgage based on current rates of interest but, when interest rates change, they are unable to maintain payments. People gamble that the rate of inflation will stay low enough for them to afford mortgage repyaments. Not only is there risk involved in taking out a mortgage but the stakes with which we are playing could not be higher. Ultimately, this could run into the tens of thousands.
We must also consider how much more difficult it is to answer God's call when we are tied into property. To be called to overseas mission or into the pastorate in another part of the country is all the harder to follow when we first have to concern ourselves with selling our house. In fact, it is quite conceiveable that many would consider themselves unable to answer the call if they could not first find a buyer for their home. How skewed our logic becomes! The call of God becomes second to the sale of our property.
This skewed logic runs deeper. Some in the Church argue that going into debt is wrong. Nevertheless, where their mortgage is concerned they have a blindspot. They encourage people to take out sizeable mortgages on the one hand whilst sneering at the use of a small overdraft facility or loan on the other. Such a view is hugely inconsistent! It is almost as if a mortgage is, by some token, not considered debt despite the mammoth sums involved. If we do not believe mortgages are wrong then we cannot suggest that these other types of loan are wrong. If we insist that loans are wrong then we must equally insist mortgages are wrong. We cannot have it both ways and yet because of the property culture we seek to make it so.
So, can we as Christians really justify buying houses? It may be possible, in certain circumstances, to say that it is justifiable. Nevertheless, we must conclude that a worldly culture has infiltrated the church. Instead of relying on God we rely on our investment for the future. Instead of giving from the first of what we have, when our salary initially comes in, we give from what is left over, when we've made our mortgage payments. Is this the culture we should have adopted in the church or should we seriously reconsider whether it is right for us to buy our own home?
Wednesday 10 March 2010
To what extent should the Church be politically active?
Before we begin to answer this question we must first make a distinction between the Church and the individual Christian. When we refer to 'the Church' we are ultimately referring to a body of Christian believers. We may use the term to refer to either a local church, a body of believers congregated in one particular place, or in reference to the worldwide church, the body of believers existent worldwide. In either case, 'the Church' refers to a body of believers. This is distinct from the individual Christian, by which we mean one solitary believer. The Church is made up of many individual Christians - as a body we refer to them as 'the Church' but as individuals we refer to them as individual Christians, or believers.
Let us firstly consider the role of individual Christians in politics. We know from Acts 22 that the Apostle Paul enacted his rights as a Roman citizen and it was perfectly legitimate for him to do so. As British citizens we have rights that we should feel free to enact, just like Paul did as a citizen of Rome. One right we have is the right to vote. There is no part of Scripture that forbids voting and, given our civil right to do so, it is perfectly legitimate for us to take part in electing those who are to represent us. As such, we can say with confidence that the individual believer is at liberty to exercise their right to vote.
We can also argue that it is legitimate for individual believers to be politically active in other ways. We can firstly make this case on the basis of Christian liberty. There is no portion of Scripture that forbids active involvement in politics. As such, we can conclude that it must be acceptable for us to be involved in politics. Indeed, if there is no reason for us to assume that we cannot be politically active we must conclude that it is a legitimate activity. Secondly, we can argue that if it is acceptable for us to elect our representative, having concluded that it is, it must also be acceptable for us to petition our representative for there is no other reason to have one than for them to represent our views. Thirdly, it is possible to cite examples of believers in the Bible holding positions of authority such as political office. Joseph is a prime example of this:
"You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you." And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt." (Gen 41:40-41, ESV)
There are also other OT examples such as the Judges and the Kings. However, it can be argued that these, being OT examples, are specifically in relation to the leadership of God's people. In the case of Joseph this is not true; however, there are also NT examples. We read of Sergius Paulus in Acts 13 of whom we are told:
the proconsul [Sergius Paulus] believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord. (Acts 13:12)
We do not read of Sergius Paulus being told to leave his political office by the apostles on becoming a believer. We also have no reason to assume that he did leave this office. By this, we must conclude that he was a believer who held a political office and that this was acceptable.
So, it is possible for us to hold that individual Christians are at liberty to engage in political activity. There is no scriptural warrant to suggest that they should not be involved in politics. Also, we see in both the OT and NT some who held political office as believers. There is no suggestion that they left these posts once they believed nor is there a suggestion that they were encouraged to leave these posts by the apostles or any portion of Scripture. As such, we must conclude that political activity on the part of the individual believer is legitimate.
Let us now consider the extent to which the Church, as a body of believers, should be politically engaged. In a magazine article (Lacey, 'Why I am a Baptist', Grace Magazine), Nigel Lacey states that:
the local church is a quite separate institution from the state with the secular authorities playing no part in the affairs of the churches. The state, therefore, cannot validate the appointment of ministers nor can it regulate any aspect of the life of the churches. On the other hand, the churches cannot appeal to the state to suppress heresy.
It is quite right that the Church and State are entirely separate entities. It would be disastrous if the State began to dictate matters of faith and practice for believers and were given an authoritative say in who can and cannot be elected to office in the Church. However, if we rightly want the State to have no involvement in Church matters the Church must give up any right to speak on matters of the State. We cannot insist the State have no role in our churches and then insist that our churches must have a say in matters of State.
We have already seen how Christian liberty allows individual believers to be politically active. Nevertheless, this concept cannot apply to the Church in the same way.
-->All believers are called to a saving knowledge of Christ and to live according to his commandments. Despite this, the Bible has not given instructions for every minor eventuality of life with a direct 'do' or 'do not.' Naturally, where the Bible states that the Christian is to do, or not do, something it is our duty to act in accordingly. However, where the Bible is silent about a specific action what is the believer to do? Provided the act, or non-act, does not contravene a stated Biblical principle we must conclude that the act in question is morally neutral and the believer is therefore free to act as they see fit. The believer cannot help but come into contact with such issues on occasion.
In contrast, the Church does have a specific calling - to promote the kingdom of God through the proclamation of the gospel and to disciple those who believe it. For the Church to divert its time and energies to anything other than this specific call is to minimise and sideline what God has called it to do. It is, in fact, disobedient of the Church to focus its attention on anything other than proclaiming the gospel and discipling those who believe it. It is on this basis that it is wrong for the Church to become politically active. As Nigel Lacey points out:
Once the local church is seen as a campaigning body with secular, political intentions it has compromised its great calling to preach the gospel to every creature.
It is quite legitimate for individual Christians to exercise their democratic right to vote and lobby their MP, or even to become politically active themselves. However, for the Church to become a political body is to divert its energies and attention away from its principle task of proclaiming the gospel to all men everywhere. All time, money and effort spent on political activism on the part of the Church is time, money and effort diverted away from sharing the good news of the gospel.
It is also wrong for the Church to become politically active as it causes division amongst its members. As Christians, we are to be united around the gospel. Many good Christian men and women may differ in their political outlook. Some will highlight social policies, such as tackling poverty, as most important when casting their vote whereas others highlight moral issues, such as abortion, as most important. With different parties placing greater emphasis on different policy areas individual Christian believers must vote for whom they feel most appropriate. Inevitably, this will lead to variations within the Church body but need not be divisive when it is in no way a focus of the Church.
For the Church, however, to affiliate to a political party is disastrous for two main reasons. Firstly, those of a different political hue to the Church become isolated and divisions are immediately drawn between believers. Each individual may vote for their party of choice for equally valid Christian reasons and yet, when the Church affiliates itself to a political party, the Church becomes divided. Secondly, any political affiliation to a secular organisation will inevitably lead to compromise. Either the Church will have to soften its theological stance when a policy contrary to the teaching of the Bible is adopted or the Church must court accusations of hypocrisy by supporting a party that adheres to policies that the Church teaches are contrary to the Bible. In either case, because the Church has moved away from its primary function, its ability to fulfil its calling and proclaim the gospel is severely impeded.
So, we can conclude that individual believers are at liberty to exercise their democratic rights and even become politically active. However, for the Church to be politically active is problematic. Primarily, it detracts from the Church's calling to proclaim the gospel. Moreover, political activity on the part of the Church causes needless division amongst believers. Rather than uniting around the gospel we end up dividing over politics. As such, we must conclude that the Church, as a body of believers, should not engage in political activity.
Tuesday 9 March 2010
Who are the Fundamentalists?
I am keen not to begin a debate about the worth of Fundamentalism as a movement. Nor do I want to start weighing up the value of the Fundamentalist hermeneutical approach. This post is specifically considering to whom we can apply the term 'Fundamentalist.'
The “infalliblist” position is the least stringent, implying the Bible is without falsehood in matters of faith, while “qualifying” the Bible’s authority as a historical or scientific document. The “inerrantist” position resists a distinction between authoritative and non-authoritative portions of the Bible, but might allow that some Biblical “truths” are either poetic or metaphorical. “Literalism” is a particularly stringent position on Biblical interpretation, suggesting that the text is to be taken without any qualification whatever.
They argue that Fundamentalism is primarily categorised by a Literalist approach to the Bible. Whilst the Fundamentalist would also claim the Bible to be inerrant and infallible they do so from a literal reading of the Bible. As such, we can attribute the Fundamentalist approach to the Bible as Literalist. As a basis for the different approaches to the Biblical text, this study is very helpful. For the sake of clarity we will refer to its classifications.
Where this study is unhelpful is in how it arrived at its conclusion. According to this research,
-->the difference between Literalism and Inerrantism was based upon the answer given to the question of how one interprets the “Creation Story” in Genesis 1 and 2. Those who held to a literal understanding of the “Creation Story” were deemed Fundamentalist whilst those who gave another answer could conceivably be labelled Inerrantist or Infalliblist. This, however, begs the question can we really label all who hold to a literal understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 as Fundamentalists?We certainly cannot! It is perfectly conceivable for one to take a literal interpretation of the "Creation Story" whilst rendering other passages of Scripture as poetic or metaphorical. For example, a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 does not inhibit an amillenial view of Revelation or an allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon. Therefore, we must consider many who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 to be Inerrantists, rather than Literalists. Ultimately this means that we cannot necessarily consider them to be Fundamentalist.
So, how do we determine who the Fundamentalists are? Jelen, Wilcox and Smidt, whilst correctly identifying three broad hermeneutical approaches and correctly identifying which approach belongs to the Fundamentalist, have nevertheless established their categories on the basis of one sample question. In reality, the Fundamentalists are not those who merely take a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 but are those who take a literal interpretation of all aspects of Scripture. As such, we cannot determine those who are Fundamentalist from one question of interpretation alone. Rather, we must establish a continued and sustained Literalist interpretation of Scripture in order to define a person, or persons, as Fundamentalist.
Mal Couch argues that "when a literal hermeneutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, every word written in Scripture is given the normal meaning it would have in its normal usage (An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, Grand Rapids, 2000, p.33)." However, Couch's use of the term 'normal' is ambiguous. He states the reference to a key and chain in Revelation 20:1-3 can be taken figuratively, in that Satan will not be literally bound by a physical chain opened by a literal key, but insists that the reference to a thousand years must be taken literally. He argues that the 'normal' reading of the passage would recognise that Satan, a spirit, could not be bound by a physical chain therefore this represents a secure place where he will be bound. However, of the thousand years he argues that there is no reason to assume that this means anything other than one thousand years. It can be argued that this does not necessarily represent a consistent hermeneutical approach.
Nevertheless, Couch would argue that he takes a Literal interpretation of Scripture in all parts arguing that he rejects Letterism hence his metaphorical interpretation of the means by which Satan will be bound. Ultimately, it is assumed that the words written are to be literally understood in all respects unless the writer is clearly employing a figure of speech. As such, this allows us to label Couch 'Fundamentalist.' We do not determine this by merely asking for his interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 but by establishing that he applies a literal hermeneutic throughout Scripture.
Nevertheless, Couch would argue that he takes a Literal interpretation of Scripture in all parts arguing that he rejects Letterism hence his metaphorical interpretation of the means by which Satan will be bound. Ultimately, it is assumed that the words written are to be literally understood in all respects unless the writer is clearly employing a figure of speech. As such, this allows us to label Couch 'Fundamentalist.' We do not determine this by merely asking for his interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 but by establishing that he applies a literal hermeneutic throughout Scripture.
It is clear then that many who are labelled Fundamentalist are wrongly classified. It is often assumed that those who take a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 can be considered Fundamentalist. However, anyone who regards any portion of Scripture to be metaphorical or poetic cannot be labelled 'Fundamentalist.' Therefore, anyone who holds to an amillenial position of Revelation, holds that Song of Solomon is allegorical or that any other part of Scripture should be taken as poetic or metaphorical falls outside of the boundaries of Fundamentalism and cannot be considered as such.
Monday 8 March 2010
To keep churches alive we must foster maturity in younger members
The Non-Conformist tradition of Christianity has yielded some of the finest theological teachers and preachers throughout history. There are few who encapsulate reformed ministry better than C.H. Spurgeon, a man heralded as "the prince of preachers." Sadly, it seems, many reformed churches obsequiously quote Spurgeon's teaching whilst ignoring his notable young age. By fifteen, Spurgeon had delivered his first sermon and, in the same year, was installed as the pastor of a small Baptist church in Cambridgeshire. By the age of nineteen Spurgeon had published his first literary work: a gospel tract. Rather than seeking to emulate this, many churches fail to offer their youth any responsibility and afford them no opportunities to exercise maturity. As a result, young people within such churches can often appear childish and irresponsible. In reality, however, they are simply acting in accordance with that expected of them.
Many reformed people seek to argue that Spurgeon's proficiency and maturity were exceptional in one so young. This, however, does little to explain John Calvin publishing his first literary work at the age of 23, George Whitefield's ordination prior to canonical age, Jonathan Edward's pastorship of a church aged 19, Henry Scougal's ordination and ministerial post at the age of 22, Robert Murray M'Cheyne's pastorship of a church aged 22, George Muller's work with the London Missionary Society aged 23 and his pastorship aged 24 to name but a few. Spurgeon, although arguably exceptionally gifted, was by no means exceptional by virtue of his age. Indeed, following in a similar vein to those who preceded him, Spurgeon was simply adhering to the expectations of the day in becoming a preacher so young. Given this, one must ask why such men and women are not being raised in the church today?
One can argue that there is a trend within reformed churches that seeks to perpetualise youth. There are two main ways in which this happens. Firstly, churches afford no opportunities for young people to exercise maturity presuming them to be too immature to take on positions of responsibility. Secondly, churches section off "the young people" and create activities for them apart from the whole church body.
Let us consider the point that young people are often given no opportunity to serve in a meaningful way in the life of the church. Reformed churches rightly hold teaching and preaching as paramount and wish to see it fulfilled competently and soundly. This, however, often leads to an unwillingness to let young people explore the possibility that they might hold this gift. Of course, one must have some confidence that the person in question is capable of speaking adequately to the congregation. Sadly, young people are often not even considered for service in the areas that may offer insight into their ability to command the pulpit. Naturally, the open air would be a prime place for young men to learn how to structure a talk, speak to crowds and gain confidence in their abilities to handle the word of God. Lamentably, many reformed churches no longer see the open air as a valid means of sharing the gospel, despite Spurgeon's keen belief in it (set out powerfully in 'A treatise on open-air preaching'). No other 'acts of service' within the church quite compare to open-air preaching as a training ground for prospective speakers and, with its going out of fashion in the reformed world, there is no basis upon which one can now show any potential for speaking in the pulpit.
On top of lacking opportunities to show an aptitude for preaching, young people are rarely, if ever, asked to lead any works that the church engages in. On occasion, a young person might be asked to act as a 'helper' in a given work, however, this is often only under the heavy supervision of one considered more adept and more mature and almost never as on an equal footing with those leading the work. As such, any level of responsibility that would have gone along with such a position becomes null and void and simply perpetuates this idea that young people lack maturity.
We must also consider the point that young people are often sectioned off apart from the church and treated as a separate entity to the main church body. In this, young people are not expected to act with maturity. In the first instance, there is nobody in a position of responsibility for young people to replicate when they are treated apart from the main body of the church. Those that lead such groups seek to make things more accessible to 'the young people', however, it often causes young people to believe that:
We must also consider the impact of sectioning off the church body by age. The real danger of this is that the church encourages young people to act immaturely until they reach an age at which they should become mature. This leaves no time for young people to adapt to the new standard of behaviour expected of them. In effect, they are expected to go from 'youth group member' to 'mature church member' overnight. Such a model for young people does not equip them at all in their spiritual walk and does even less to equip our churches with the skills they so badly need.
The answer to the problem is not difficult. Firstly, we must foster an expectation in our churches that young people are to act with maturity. In this, we should offer positions of responsibility to them through which they can serve in the church. For example, when we ask young people to help lead works in the church we should adopt them fully into the leadership and place them on an even footing with the other leaders rather than treating them as an extra pair of hands with no real responsibility.
Secondly, we should look to abolish groups that water down teaching to those in their teens, twenties and sometimes even thirties. Such people should well be able to sit and listen to services and, in some cases, should be leading and speaking in the services themselves. How can we genuinely expect our churches to thrive if we are denying those even in their thirties the opportunity to exercise, and in some cases discover, where their gifts lie?
Thirdly, Sunday schools that run during church services mean that children, in some cases up to their late teens, are never expected to sit and listen for the duration of a sermon. It can, of course, be argued that there is value in a separate service for young children that may help in teaching them biblical truths in a way more understandable to them. However, certainly by their teens, young people should not only be able but should be expected to sit and listen to teaching as any other member of the congregation. There is no reason why preachers should not be able to make their sermons relevant to them as well as to the rest of the congregation.
Even through these things we can find young people adopting an air of maturity and growing into roles of responsibility. If we continue to condescend to young people and hold no expectation for them to act with maturituy we seal the death of our churches. It is the young people who are to carry on the work of the church after the current eldership and leaders of church works step down and have gone. If we do not help young people to determine where their gifts lie, even before their twenties and thirties, we consign them to never finding out. Indeed, how can our churches survive if we have no intention of training young men and women to continue their work? The reality is, if we condescend to young people and expect them to act immaturely we cannot be surprised when they offer no signs of responsibility as they get older. Until we expect something else from them we force young people into their own immaturity.
Many reformed people seek to argue that Spurgeon's proficiency and maturity were exceptional in one so young. This, however, does little to explain John Calvin publishing his first literary work at the age of 23, George Whitefield's ordination prior to canonical age, Jonathan Edward's pastorship of a church aged 19, Henry Scougal's ordination and ministerial post at the age of 22, Robert Murray M'Cheyne's pastorship of a church aged 22, George Muller's work with the London Missionary Society aged 23 and his pastorship aged 24 to name but a few. Spurgeon, although arguably exceptionally gifted, was by no means exceptional by virtue of his age. Indeed, following in a similar vein to those who preceded him, Spurgeon was simply adhering to the expectations of the day in becoming a preacher so young. Given this, one must ask why such men and women are not being raised in the church today?
One can argue that there is a trend within reformed churches that seeks to perpetualise youth. There are two main ways in which this happens. Firstly, churches afford no opportunities for young people to exercise maturity presuming them to be too immature to take on positions of responsibility. Secondly, churches section off "the young people" and create activities for them apart from the whole church body.
Let us consider the point that young people are often given no opportunity to serve in a meaningful way in the life of the church. Reformed churches rightly hold teaching and preaching as paramount and wish to see it fulfilled competently and soundly. This, however, often leads to an unwillingness to let young people explore the possibility that they might hold this gift. Of course, one must have some confidence that the person in question is capable of speaking adequately to the congregation. Sadly, young people are often not even considered for service in the areas that may offer insight into their ability to command the pulpit. Naturally, the open air would be a prime place for young men to learn how to structure a talk, speak to crowds and gain confidence in their abilities to handle the word of God. Lamentably, many reformed churches no longer see the open air as a valid means of sharing the gospel, despite Spurgeon's keen belief in it (set out powerfully in 'A treatise on open-air preaching'). No other 'acts of service' within the church quite compare to open-air preaching as a training ground for prospective speakers and, with its going out of fashion in the reformed world, there is no basis upon which one can now show any potential for speaking in the pulpit.
On top of lacking opportunities to show an aptitude for preaching, young people are rarely, if ever, asked to lead any works that the church engages in. On occasion, a young person might be asked to act as a 'helper' in a given work, however, this is often only under the heavy supervision of one considered more adept and more mature and almost never as on an equal footing with those leading the work. As such, any level of responsibility that would have gone along with such a position becomes null and void and simply perpetuates this idea that young people lack maturity.
We must also consider the point that young people are often sectioned off apart from the church and treated as a separate entity to the main church body. In this, young people are not expected to act with maturity. In the first instance, there is nobody in a position of responsibility for young people to replicate when they are treated apart from the main body of the church. Those that lead such groups seek to make things more accessible to 'the young people', however, it often causes young people to believe that:
- The church does not view them as mature enough to engage with the main church body
- The church value their thoughts and opinions less than that of the main church body
- There is no expectation to act with maturity
- There is no expectation that they should take on any responsibility
We must also consider the impact of sectioning off the church body by age. The real danger of this is that the church encourages young people to act immaturely until they reach an age at which they should become mature. This leaves no time for young people to adapt to the new standard of behaviour expected of them. In effect, they are expected to go from 'youth group member' to 'mature church member' overnight. Such a model for young people does not equip them at all in their spiritual walk and does even less to equip our churches with the skills they so badly need.
The answer to the problem is not difficult. Firstly, we must foster an expectation in our churches that young people are to act with maturity. In this, we should offer positions of responsibility to them through which they can serve in the church. For example, when we ask young people to help lead works in the church we should adopt them fully into the leadership and place them on an even footing with the other leaders rather than treating them as an extra pair of hands with no real responsibility.
Secondly, we should look to abolish groups that water down teaching to those in their teens, twenties and sometimes even thirties. Such people should well be able to sit and listen to services and, in some cases, should be leading and speaking in the services themselves. How can we genuinely expect our churches to thrive if we are denying those even in their thirties the opportunity to exercise, and in some cases discover, where their gifts lie?
Thirdly, Sunday schools that run during church services mean that children, in some cases up to their late teens, are never expected to sit and listen for the duration of a sermon. It can, of course, be argued that there is value in a separate service for young children that may help in teaching them biblical truths in a way more understandable to them. However, certainly by their teens, young people should not only be able but should be expected to sit and listen to teaching as any other member of the congregation. There is no reason why preachers should not be able to make their sermons relevant to them as well as to the rest of the congregation.
Even through these things we can find young people adopting an air of maturity and growing into roles of responsibility. If we continue to condescend to young people and hold no expectation for them to act with maturituy we seal the death of our churches. It is the young people who are to carry on the work of the church after the current eldership and leaders of church works step down and have gone. If we do not help young people to determine where their gifts lie, even before their twenties and thirties, we consign them to never finding out. Indeed, how can our churches survive if we have no intention of training young men and women to continue their work? The reality is, if we condescend to young people and expect them to act immaturely we cannot be surprised when they offer no signs of responsibility as they get older. Until we expect something else from them we force young people into their own immaturity.
Right-wing Evangelicalism has forgotten its heritage
For centuries religious groups have sought to restrict the religious practices of those who belong to minority faiths. In China, with it's prevailing atheist belief, tight restrictions are placed upon theist groups. Saudi Arabia, with a prevailing Islamic belief, places tight restrictions on Christian groups. Britain, in centuries past holding both Catholic and Anglican beliefs, placed heavy restrictions on those of dissenting faith. Such restrictions on the freedom of religious belief prove hugely hypocritical in each circumstance and do little to further true belief in the religion of the state. It can be argued that little has changed in both China and Saudi Arabia as they continue to curtail the freedoms of adherents to minority religions. However, in Britain, state led religion has all but died in name with a general tolerance of all faith beliefs espoused in favour of theocratic dictates. In this, those previously restricted by the established religion have found a means by which they can freely practice their religion and openly voice their beliefs despite, as it seems, the current government agenda bent on revoking the heritage of free speech and expression that we have enjoyed in this country. The British dissenting tradition is one of a number of minority beliefs that has more recently found a freedom which in the past saw many of their practices restricted. Under such new found freedoms some Evangelical Christians in Britain have now become synonymous with many of the views held in earnest by political right-wingers.
As a group that should understand what it is to be deemed a minority Evangelicals should empathise with the plight of those who consider themselves unjustly restricted by law. Nevertheless, one gets the impression that many Evangelicals are keen to limit the freedoms they now enjoy to the Evangelical groups to which they belong. Indeed, it appears that many Evangelicals in Britain are overly concerned with restricting the rights of those deemed in contradiction to Evangelical thought rather than extending their freedoms to a wider circle within society. One can argue that this development smacks of an 'I'm alright, Jack' mentality that causes Evangelical Christianity to obtain liberation of their own beliefs and then pull the ladder up behind them.
The Evangelical Right, by holding such a political stance, face a gross inconsistency. How, when they actively esteem 'good Christian men and women of the past' specifically as a result of their social actions, can one adopt a right-wing political agenda that neglects such social responsibility? Moreover, with such a heritage of defending freedom throughout British history why must we now seek to restrict it to a privileged few? One cannot praise the noteworthy work of George Muller whilst espousing a political philosophy that would see funding revoked from works like his. Likewise, to applaud the the achievements of William Wilberforce, highlighting his faith as a central factor in his convictions, whilst at the same time calling for further restrictions on other members of society (immigrants, homosexuals, those of other faiths to name but a few) seems inconsonant to say the least. Such discrepancies render the political stance of the Evangelical Right ill-considered, lends little credence to evangelical religious belief and lead many to assume that such ideas characterise all Evangelicals.
The Evangelical Christian advocacy of, for want of a better phrase, left-wing ideologies can be traced back as far as the leveller and digger movements of the mid-17th century. Both movements were made up of Christian Non-Conformists who espoused policies of democratic rule, an extended franchise, equality before the law and religious toleration. This Non-Conformist social agenda can be followed right up until the 1950s and Aneurin Bevan's creation of the NHS. Indeed, even the in the mid-17th century Evangelical Non-Conformists were calling for religious tolerance and yet, in the "enlightened" 21st century, the Evangelical Right disown this tradition and lobbies against the freedom of religious expression. When one considers the impact that Evangelical Non-Conformity has had in Britain even the most hardened of anti-religious campaigners must agree that the beliefs and principles of this movement have brought a great deal of positive social change. In light of this, one must question why, amongst Evangelical Non-Conformists in the last 30 or 40 years, there has been such a lurch to the right of the political spectrum. There are three potential reasons for this change.
Firstly, Evangelical Christians have felt the need to show active opposition to growing secularisation. Indeed, it can be argued that Non-Conformists found themselves in a situation not dissimilar to that of the Conservative Party between the Major and Cameron years. With the movement of the Labour Party towards the centre of the political spectrum, incroaching on the traditional ground of the Conservative Party, each new Conservative leader found themselves eager to distinguish the party from New Labour. Since New Labour began to occupy the centre ground the Conservative Party could only position further to the right. In a similar way, Secularism in the last thirty years has provided the vehicle upon which many minority groups have pinned their political hopes of further inclusion in society. With Evangelical groups keen to distinguish themselves from Secularism they soon began to find much social activity synonymous with secularist thought and to support such secular movements would be anathema to many Evangelical Christians. As a result, many Evangelicals began to reject much social inclusion due to it becoming synonymous with Secularism. Rather than rejecting the inclusion they rejected the Secularism, however, this led to much Evangelical thought became positioned to the right of the political spectrum.
Secondly, unlike the mid-17th century where the dissenting classes were those outside the circle of tolerance, for the majority of the last three hundred years Evangelical Non-Conformism has been widely accepted in society. In stark contrast to the austerity of the 19th century and the work of George Muller, the modern day evangelical is in no position to simply 'set-up' orphanages and roam streets with an aim to helping the inner-city impoverished. In this regard, the scope for Christian Non-Conformist activism is very much lessened. Moreover, it must be remembered that the ultimate aim of the Evangelical is to proselytise (that is not to say they don't care about the works in which they are involved, however, such works are often used as a vehicle for sharing Christian beliefs). Where fewer opportunities are afforded to Evangelicals to engage in such works Evangelical Christian actvism can be seen to decrease.
Thirdly, there is a theological reason. Most Evangelical Non-Conformists believe that the commandments and instructions given in the Old Testament still have relevance today. Whilst most interpret these commandments in light of the New Testament there are those who believe that Old Testament laws and regulations should be incorporated into British law. Such laws and regulations, they argue, provide us with a basis for a good and right society sanctioned by God. Whilst in the past the implementation of such laws would have largely been supported by the collective will of the populace today such ideas are not held by the masses. In seeking to push Old Testament commandments into modern civil law the Evangelical Right find themselves propagating views that are seen by many to be backwards. the Evangelical Right therefore find themselves squarely on the right of the political spectrum by upholding ultra-Conservative law.
The inconsistency of the Evangelical Christian Right, evoking heroes of a bygone era whilst ignoring their social activism, remains a disparity that does more to hinder attempts to share their faith than it does to help. It must be remembered that the 'Christian Right' is not necessarily the widest supported political belief within Evangelicalism, however, it is arguably the loudest. With this being the case, their political inadequacies are ones that affect the whole of the Evangelical movement. Instead of simply evoking the memory of 'old saints' and harking back to an era of British religiosity, the Evangelical Right would do well to remember their Non-Conformist, Dissenting heritage. Indeed, such groups should seek to revive the spirit that moved many to do something for Britain rather than continue to propogate a spirit that moves some to intolerance.
As a group that should understand what it is to be deemed a minority Evangelicals should empathise with the plight of those who consider themselves unjustly restricted by law. Nevertheless, one gets the impression that many Evangelicals are keen to limit the freedoms they now enjoy to the Evangelical groups to which they belong. Indeed, it appears that many Evangelicals in Britain are overly concerned with restricting the rights of those deemed in contradiction to Evangelical thought rather than extending their freedoms to a wider circle within society. One can argue that this development smacks of an 'I'm alright, Jack' mentality that causes Evangelical Christianity to obtain liberation of their own beliefs and then pull the ladder up behind them.
The Evangelical Right, by holding such a political stance, face a gross inconsistency. How, when they actively esteem 'good Christian men and women of the past' specifically as a result of their social actions, can one adopt a right-wing political agenda that neglects such social responsibility? Moreover, with such a heritage of defending freedom throughout British history why must we now seek to restrict it to a privileged few? One cannot praise the noteworthy work of George Muller whilst espousing a political philosophy that would see funding revoked from works like his. Likewise, to applaud the the achievements of William Wilberforce, highlighting his faith as a central factor in his convictions, whilst at the same time calling for further restrictions on other members of society (immigrants, homosexuals, those of other faiths to name but a few) seems inconsonant to say the least. Such discrepancies render the political stance of the Evangelical Right ill-considered, lends little credence to evangelical religious belief and lead many to assume that such ideas characterise all Evangelicals.
The Evangelical Christian advocacy of, for want of a better phrase, left-wing ideologies can be traced back as far as the leveller and digger movements of the mid-17th century. Both movements were made up of Christian Non-Conformists who espoused policies of democratic rule, an extended franchise, equality before the law and religious toleration. This Non-Conformist social agenda can be followed right up until the 1950s and Aneurin Bevan's creation of the NHS. Indeed, even the in the mid-17th century Evangelical Non-Conformists were calling for religious tolerance and yet, in the "enlightened" 21st century, the Evangelical Right disown this tradition and lobbies against the freedom of religious expression. When one considers the impact that Evangelical Non-Conformity has had in Britain even the most hardened of anti-religious campaigners must agree that the beliefs and principles of this movement have brought a great deal of positive social change. In light of this, one must question why, amongst Evangelical Non-Conformists in the last 30 or 40 years, there has been such a lurch to the right of the political spectrum. There are three potential reasons for this change.
Firstly, Evangelical Christians have felt the need to show active opposition to growing secularisation. Indeed, it can be argued that Non-Conformists found themselves in a situation not dissimilar to that of the Conservative Party between the Major and Cameron years. With the movement of the Labour Party towards the centre of the political spectrum, incroaching on the traditional ground of the Conservative Party, each new Conservative leader found themselves eager to distinguish the party from New Labour. Since New Labour began to occupy the centre ground the Conservative Party could only position further to the right. In a similar way, Secularism in the last thirty years has provided the vehicle upon which many minority groups have pinned their political hopes of further inclusion in society. With Evangelical groups keen to distinguish themselves from Secularism they soon began to find much social activity synonymous with secularist thought and to support such secular movements would be anathema to many Evangelical Christians. As a result, many Evangelicals began to reject much social inclusion due to it becoming synonymous with Secularism. Rather than rejecting the inclusion they rejected the Secularism, however, this led to much Evangelical thought became positioned to the right of the political spectrum.
Secondly, unlike the mid-17th century where the dissenting classes were those outside the circle of tolerance, for the majority of the last three hundred years Evangelical Non-Conformism has been widely accepted in society. In stark contrast to the austerity of the 19th century and the work of George Muller, the modern day evangelical is in no position to simply 'set-up' orphanages and roam streets with an aim to helping the inner-city impoverished. In this regard, the scope for Christian Non-Conformist activism is very much lessened. Moreover, it must be remembered that the ultimate aim of the Evangelical is to proselytise (that is not to say they don't care about the works in which they are involved, however, such works are often used as a vehicle for sharing Christian beliefs). Where fewer opportunities are afforded to Evangelicals to engage in such works Evangelical Christian actvism can be seen to decrease.
Thirdly, there is a theological reason. Most Evangelical Non-Conformists believe that the commandments and instructions given in the Old Testament still have relevance today. Whilst most interpret these commandments in light of the New Testament there are those who believe that Old Testament laws and regulations should be incorporated into British law. Such laws and regulations, they argue, provide us with a basis for a good and right society sanctioned by God. Whilst in the past the implementation of such laws would have largely been supported by the collective will of the populace today such ideas are not held by the masses. In seeking to push Old Testament commandments into modern civil law the Evangelical Right find themselves propagating views that are seen by many to be backwards. the Evangelical Right therefore find themselves squarely on the right of the political spectrum by upholding ultra-Conservative law.
The inconsistency of the Evangelical Christian Right, evoking heroes of a bygone era whilst ignoring their social activism, remains a disparity that does more to hinder attempts to share their faith than it does to help. It must be remembered that the 'Christian Right' is not necessarily the widest supported political belief within Evangelicalism, however, it is arguably the loudest. With this being the case, their political inadequacies are ones that affect the whole of the Evangelical movement. Instead of simply evoking the memory of 'old saints' and harking back to an era of British religiosity, the Evangelical Right would do well to remember their Non-Conformist, Dissenting heritage. Indeed, such groups should seek to revive the spirit that moved many to do something for Britain rather than continue to propogate a spirit that moves some to intolerance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)