The obligatory Christmas post...

I know a number of Christian people who choose not to celebrate Christmas for a variety of reasons. Some eschew the potential pagan roots of the celebration, many wish to show Christianity as distinct from the world and argue Christmas has become bound up with worldiness, whereas others argue - from the writings of Paul - there should no longer be special days in the Christian calendar and one day should not be esteemed above another.


John Piper says the following on this issue:

I sympathize with those who want to be rigorously and distinctly Christian, who want to be disentangled from the world and any pagan roots that might lie beneath our celebration of Christmas, but I don't go that route on this matter because I think there comes a point where the roots are so far gone that the present meaning doesn't carry the pagan connotation anymore. I'm more concerned about a new paganism that gets layered on top of Christian holidays.

Here's the example I use: All language has roots somewhere. Most of our days of the week—if not all—grew out of pagan names too. So should we stop using the word "Sunday" because it may have related to the worship of the sun once upon a time? In modern English "Sunday" doesn't carry that connotation, and that's the very nature of language. In a sense, holidays are like chronological language.

Christmas now means that we mark, in Christian ways, the birth of Jesus Christ. I think the birth, death and resurrection of Christ are the most important events in human history. Not to mark them in some way, by way of special celebration, would be folly it seems to me.

I remember I lived next door to somebody back in seminary who didn't celebrate birthdays for their kid. The idea was, partly, that all days were special for their kid. But if all days are special then it probably means that there are no special days. Yet some things are so good and precious—like anniversaries, birthdays, and even deaths—that they are worthy of being marked. How much more the birth and death of Jesus Christ!

It's really worth the risk, even if the date of December 25 was chosen because of its proximity to some kind of pagan festival. Let's just take it, sanctify it, and make the most of it, because Christ is worthy of being celebrated in his birth. (Source: Desiring God)

I also sympathise with those who want to keep Christianity distinct from the things of the world. Nevertheless, whatever pagan connotations may have once existed are now no longer salient. For those who argue there are no special days in the Christian calendar, as Piper rightly points out, some events are so momentous they deserve to be marked out as such. The view there are no special days for the Christian is made more bizarre when it is held in conjunction with a strict sabbatarianism that states Sunday really is special for the Christian. So, on the one hand, Sunday is special (and it is often argued that the Sabbath moved from Saturday to Sunday because this is the day Christ was resurrected - an event special enough to be remembered) but, on the other, Christmas is not.


At the heart of the matter, the birth and death of Jesus Christ are the two most important episodes documented in scripture. To not celebrate these events does little to indicate Christians are distinct and separate from the world and far more to suggest we don't think these events matter - which of course, they do! So, let's celebrate Christmas as a means of showing the world that the birth of Jesus Christ really is important and really is something worth celebrating.

Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology and the Mode of Learning

I recently read this interesting blog post by my former college principal on hermeneutics and theological learning. Given that we are currently running through a Bible Overview at our church 'Real Food' bible studies, I thought this was quite an apt article.

Disestablishment: Part III

My initial post re disestablishment of the Church of England was never supposed to become an ongoing theme. Alas, the national press, other bloggers, the Anglican Church and even the Prime Minister appear to conspire in keeping the issue rolling. Yesterday, it was the Prime Minister's interference in the matter which prompted disestablishment: part II. Today, it is the turn of the Anglican Church itself to inadvertently forward the case for disestablishment via this morning's offering from Archbishop Cranmer. It was reported some time ago in The Telegraph:

...the plan to abolish the Act of Settlement was quietly shelved after the Church raised significant objections centring on the British sovereign’s dual role as Supreme Governor.

Church leaders expressed concern that if a future heir to the throne married a Roman Catholic, their children would be required by canon law to be brought up in that faith. This would result in the constitutionally problematic situation whereby the Supreme Governor of the Church of England was a Roman Catholic, and so ultimately answerable to a separate sovereign leader, the Pope, and the Vatican.

...A spokesman for the Anglican Church said that although the Act of Succession appeared “anomalous” in the modern world, while the Church of England remained the established religion, the monarch and Supreme Governor could not owe a higher loyalty elsewhere.

He went on: “The prohibition on those in the line of succession marrying Roman Catholics derives from an earlier age and inevitably looks anomalous, not least when there is no prohibition on marriage to those of other faiths or none. But if the prohibition were removed the difficulty would still remain that establishment requires the monarch to join in communion with the Church of England as its Supreme Governor and that is not something that a Roman Catholic would be able to do consistently with the current rules of that church.”

It was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, 'is said to have been persuaded that the difficulties raised by the Anglican Church were insurmountable'.


Indeed, all the above arguments advanced by the Anglican Church are correct and do truly represent a constitutional problem. However, buried within their own statement is the simple answer to the issue. The spokesman for the Anglican Church stated (emphasis mine) 'while the Church of England remained the established religion, the monarch and Supreme Governor could not owe a higher loyalty elsewhere'. From this, the argument is put forth that it would be constitutionally untenable for the Monarch to owe a 'higher loyalty elsewhere' - and indeed it would be!


Yet, as the Anglican Church spokesman helpfully highlights, this state of affairs only exists so long as 'the Church of England remained the established religion'. If the Monarch were not the Supreme Governor of the Church of England the possibility that the head of the Anglican Church could be answerable to a separate sovereign leader could not exist. Therefore, the answer to this constitutional conundrum appears to be simply disestablishing the Church of England. This would mean the Monarch could hold whatever religion they cared for, and marry anyone of whatever religion they cared for, without having a higher loyalty to some other. Indeed, the Monarch would no longer be the head of the established Church for no such Church would exist.


It strikes me that royalists and Anglicans alike are rather missing the obvious answer.

Disestablishment & Discrimination

I happened to write yesterday regarding the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in England. By some happy coincidence, Archbishop Cranmer today picks up the topic of David Cameron's proposal to reform royal succession laws. The Guardian reports:

This rule is a historical anomaly – it does not, for example, bar those who marry spouses of other faiths – and we do not think it can continue to be justified," Cameron wrote. Cameron is also proposing that Catholics should continue to be debarred from being head of state, but that anyone who marries a Catholic should not be debarred. The family would be entitled to bring up their children as Catholics as long as heirs do not seek to take the throne as a Catholic.

 Cranmer correctly notes:

How on earth does this dog's breakfast of a proposal rectify the ‘historical anomaly’? If it be offensive to Roman Catholics that the Monarch may neither be Roman Catholic nor married to one, how does the repeal of half of the prohibition resolve the injustice? If it be bigotry to bar the Monarch from marrying a Roman Catholic, it must a fortiori be bigotry to bar them from the Throne.

 However, he goes on to comment:

Of course it is ‘unfair’ and ‘discriminatory’ that the monarch may not be or marry a Roman Catholic, but the very act of choosing a religion manifestly necessitates discrimination against all the others. It is also ‘discriminatory’ that the Pope may not be Protestant, and even more ‘unfair’ that he may not marry at all. But there are sound theological and historical justifications for the restrictions upon both the King of the Vatican and the Monarch of the United Kingdom, and none of these amount to a violation of their ‘human rights’. Prince William’s heir is perfectly free to marry a Roman Catholic should he (or she) so desire: that it is his (or her) human right. But the Heir is not then free to be King and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But to be King or Queen is not a human right; it is the gift of Parliament.

Cranmer is right to note the inherent discrimination - as existent for the Protestant in respect to the Vatican as the Catholic regarding the British crown - and justified in linking this with the role as head of the established church. However, this rather brings us back to the issue of the established Church of England.


Surely, but for the establishment of the Anglican Church, none of this need be an issue. Neither discrimination against Romans Catholics in respect to the British crown nor the glaring conflict of interest inherent in a communicant of Rome acting as head of the Anglican Church in England would cause any problem were the Anglican Church disestablished. If the Anglican Church placed itself solely under the rule of Christ, as opposed to the Monarch, what should it care if a Catholic succeeds the Throne? For those outside the established Church, it makes little difference who wears the Crown; it will almost certainly not be a representative of their own tradition.


So, I quite agree with Archbishop Cranmer, Cameron's proposal will do nothing to address the issue of discrimination against Roman Catholics succeeding the Throne nor should it whilst such a role incorporates position as head of the Church of England. Nevertheless, were the Anglican Church disestablished in England such discrimination need neither occur nor matter for all parties involved.

Anti/Disestablishmentarianism

Anti/Disestablishmentarianism, aside from being an unnecessarily long word, is an issue that seems to trouble very few. Interest on the matter seems confined to left-wingers with a penchant for constitutional reform, atheists with a particular aversion to anything tinged with religion in public life and the handful of bishops currently nesting in the Lords.


Interestingly, this is an issue with which modern Evangelicalism has had relatively little to say. Of course, there have been the standard calls from dissenting churches for Evangelical Anglicans to flee the nest and the counter-arguments that Anglicanism is a 'good boat to fish from'. However, this has less to do with the establishment of the Anglican church in England and more to do with issues of Evangelical purism e.g. autonomy of the local church and perceived countenance to the edicts of a largely non-Evangelical hierarchy. However, what of the establishment of the church itself?


It is the view of this blogger that the established church should no longer be. That is not to say the Anglican church should no longer be nor a call for Evangelical Anglicans to remove themselves from their denomination; an issue of conscience and preference for those within Anglicanism not a matter of any concern to those outside. Rather, this is an issue of whether any church should be established and hold a special place within Britain (or in this case, England specifically (1)).


David Ceri Jones notes:

After a long and bitter campaign, the Church of England was disestablished in Wales in 1920. Despite the fears of many, that did not prove to be the death knell to Welsh Anglicanism. Rather the Church in Wales, as it very consciously became, redefined itself as the ancient church of the Welsh people, rather than the imposed Anglican establishment it had once been perceived as being. The rapid decline in Welsh nonconformity in the twentieth century has enabled the Church in Wales to become the single largest, and therefore influential, Christian body in Wales. Disestablishment has been positive, even the making of Welsh Anglicanism! 

Thus, disestablishment of the Anglican church in England need not represent the end of English Anglicanism but rather, may see it grow further by setting itself as simply a church under the rule of Christ, as opposed to the rule of the monarch.


In history, the issue of establishment was certainly more pronounced than it is today. As Derek Tidball notes:

The major difference between Evangelical Anglicans and the nonconformists [in the 19th century] lay in their civil and political positions. Civil disabilities were not finally removed from the nonconformists until after the middle of the century and consequently they were much preoccupied with the quest for freedom. Many leading minister were ardent protagonists for disestablishment, which was seen to go hand in hand with political equality. (Who Are the Evangelicals, 1994).

The special place held by the established church, and those therein, marked a point of contention across Evangelicalism. Indeed, Tidball goes on to note 'Dissenting Evangelicals were looked on suspiciously and, in turn, looked suspiciously at Evangelicals in the established church'.


Such civil and political differences between nonconformists and Anglicans have, largely, long since gone. However, in Northern Ireland, the belief that religiously inspired principles, especially in light of the high numbers of Free Presbyterians within the ruling DUP, have influenced government policy very much remains. However, Steve Bruce notes:

It is often assumed that only secular liberals wish to separate church and states, or religion and politics, or morality and state law; that the purpose of recognizing [sic] two distinct spheres is to diminish the power of the church. But the same divisions can be appreciated by those who view the problem from the other end, whose primary concern is to safeguard religion. As the people faced with the dual responsibility of serving the church and their electors, the clergy who were involved in the DUP could appreciate, better than lay Evangelicals, that they had to keep their roles separate (Paisley: Religion and Politics in Northern Ireland, 2009).

Similarly, the American separation of church and state stems from this same conviction. Whilst secular liberals may wish to keep church and state separate to minimise the influence of the Church in matters of State, so too many Evangelicals want the same separation to avoid undue influence of the State in matters of the Church.


So what of the matter of the established church in England? Constitutionally, it seems profoundly undemocratic for unelected members, who represent a small proportion of the country, to have such a place enshrined in the House of Lords. Nevertheless, for the Church (in it's widest sense), a greater issue exists. If we want the State to take a hands off approach to the Church and grant freedom in matters of religion, we too must forego a special place in parliament and take a hands off approach in the matters of State.

Notes

1. Of course, the same argument may apply to the established Presbyterian Church in Scotland

Spiritual Joy

This excerpt from the Metropolitan Tabernacle website was pointed out on the Who's that preacher blog:


SPIRITUAL JOY - how it may be spoiled or increased (by Dr Masters)


I shall leave the reader to speculate to which side Dr Masters tips the balance.

Reasonable Faith Tour 2011

Dr William Lane Craig is due to embark upon his Reasonable Faith Tour 2011 - I post this video to advertise the fact and point you to the 'Be Thinking' website where tickets can be purchased for all debates and lectures.


It is not my intention to comment on the personal views of the video commentator, I shall leave the reader to determine the value of such statements. Nevertheless, I do applaud the willingness of Prof. Peter Millican, Prof. Peter Atkins and Dr. Stephen Law to debate Prof. Craig where others will not, to offer a reasoned defence of Atheism and allow a forum in which Theistic and Atheistic views can be considered on a level playing field. We should all be grateful for their willingness to engage, especially in light of the fact that others are not.

A small, yet significant, distinction

"Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving. At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison - that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak. 
Conduct yourselves wisely towards outsiders, making the best use of your time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person (Col 4:2-6, ESV)".

During a bible study last night, a small but significant distinction was drawn between evangelists' and preachers' approach to gospel proclamation, including those working specifically in such endeavours for a time, and the obligations of other Christians in sharing the gospel.


Paul, in Colossians 4:3-4, requests prayer that God would grant opportunities to proclaim the gospel and, where such openings come about, his words would be clear. He pointedly makes this request for himself and those working with him in the gospel. In verses 5 and 6, Paul states his prayer for the members at Colosse. The emphasis here changes from proactive proclamation of the gospel to responsive reaction to the questions of non-believers prompted by the differences in the lives of believers.


Evangelists and preachers are clearly called to proclaim the gospel publicly. This public proclamation can also be said to apply to those working in such endeavours for a time e.g. those on short-term mission or who run evangelistic groups (1). For those of us not called to full-time evangelism, the emphasis is on living a Christian life and responding sensitively to those who question us about it.


It is often assumed that unless we shoehorn the gospel into every available opening we have not fulfilled our evangelistic duty. For the evangelist, taking such opportunities to 'declare the mystery of Christ' is key. For other Christians, it is for us to respond wisely to the questions of unbelievers rather than unnaturally spew forth the full content of gospel simply because we are asked why we go to church. Indeed, this reflects something of how Jesus himself interacted with people - when he spoke to crowds he proclaimed the gospel, when dealing with individuals he responded to their questions and reacted in such a way as to provoke real thoughtfulness and insight.


I am certainly not suggesting that many of us have no need to share the gospel. However, it seems clear that we are not all called to proclaim the gospel in the way Paul was but rather to share the gospel through responsive reaction to the questions of unbelievers.


Notes

1. In these cases, however, the emphasis on proclamation would apply to the times when the individual is engaged in the specific evangelistic work

John RW Stott - In memorium

John Stott, one of the most respected and influential Evangelical teachers of the modern age, died yesterday aged 90. In a 1992 article, John Piper said these words:

John Stott has served the church well as pastor, writer, Evangelical statesman, missions mobilizer, apologist. He made a profound impact on me in 1967 at Urbana and fanned the flames of my growing zeal for the word of God. He crafted the Lausanne Covenant which I admire. I recall Laurel Bissett’s testimony of how she was converted reading Stott’s Basic Christianity. That story could perhaps be duplicated a thousand times over. I love John Stott and thank God for his ministry.

Cranmer notes, 'John Stott is often categorised as an "Evangelical", a badge he wore with pride, but the popular definition is too narrow for his theology. His views on hell and soul annihilation, for example, would be at variance with the tenets of traditional Evangelicalism'. Although Evangelicals were divided over his teaching on Hell, one cannot deny the overwhelming influence Stott had on Evangelicalism, the direction he offered the movement and the firmness of conviction with which he led the church. Cranmer comments:

He helped to guide the Church of England through a period of turmoil which might well have ended in schism. But by his superintendence, inspection, diligence, visitation and investigation – all of those functions inherent in Episkope – he shepherded the flock towards peace and unity. And he taught – most excellently. And wrote – most inspirationally. He fed the Church like a true Elder, and was respected the world over for his moral character, holiness, faithfulness, and charisma.

Religious liberty in public life

The chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Sir Trevor Philips, has argued there needs to be 'reasonable accommodation' of religion and belief in law. The EHRC has gone further still and intervened in four cases of alleged Christian discrimination appealing alongside these individuals in Strasbourg. Following the EHRC's decision, Gary Streeter MP has sponsored an Early Day Motion stating:

That this House welcomes the decision of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to intervene in support of four cases involving discrimination against Christians that are presently with the European Court of Human Rights; notes that this is a long overdue recognition of the need to defend religious liberty and marks an important development in relation to a better understanding of the role of faith in public life; and further welcomes the Commission's advocacy for reasonable accommodation in the workplace as an acknowledgement of the place of conscientious objection for those with religious belief.

As Cranmer notes 'It is indeed "long overdue recognition" which hopefully "marks an important development in relation to a better understanding of the role of faith in public life"'.


It is hardly a new observation that, wherever the rights of individuals are concerned, there will always be competing interests. Civil liberties have long been balanced against issues of national security and the right to freedom of speech has, more recently at least, been balanced against the probability that such words may incite violence e.g. incitement to racial hatred act 2006. Similarly, the rights of religious believers have been balanced against the rights of other groups. This balancing act has often given priority to one group above another. Many Christians feel their strongly held beliefs and consciences have, for some time, played second fiddle to the rights of others.

Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, has stated:

All reasonable people will agree both that equality law in this area must be clear and also that there is scope in a secular democracy for reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs when that accommodation does not affect the rights and freedoms of others. But it is one thing to make the case for reasonable accommodation in matters such as religious holidays, and quite another if the accommodation sought is to allow the believer to discriminate against others in the provision of a service.

However, this seems wholly unreasonable. Copson argues religious belief will be tolerated when it 'does not affect the rights and freedoms of others'. Nevertheless, where the interests of others impinge on the rights and freedom of religious groups Copson is not nearly so concerned. Similarly, in the Guardian, Copson argues:

Two of the cases in which the EHRC will intervene are that of Lillian Ladele, the registrar who refused to fulfil her duties because of her opposition to same-sex partnerships, and Gary McFarlane, who refused to treat gay couples in his job as a counsellor at Relate. They both argued that they should be excused their duties in relation to gay people because of their religious beliefs. Is it possible that the EHRC might say that was fair enough, as long as alternative registrars or counsellors could be offered to the gay couples in question?

If so, this would be to argue for a retrograde step in English law. The line drawn in the case of Ladele set a vital precedent in recognising the fundamental (some would say constitutional) nature of the rights of gay and lesbian people to be protected from discrimination. It must certainly be maintained, and it is shocking that the EHRC will not say – right now, and upfront – that, whatever representations are made to it by groups seeking to influence the content of its intervention, it will rule out any support for the arguments advanced by McFarlane or Ladele.

However, Copson is not arguing for equal provision of service, the refusal of which would certainly be discriminatory. Rather, he is arguing that such services must be performed by those whose consciences will not allow them to do so. Why is it so vitally important that a Christian who objects to same-sex partnership be the one to perform the duty? If the duty were refused altogether by the organisation supposed to carry it out then there may be a case for claiming discrimination. Where the duty is carried out, what difference does it make who performs it? Why can't both rights be upheld? It seems Copson is intent on forcing those with religious beliefs to carry out duties against their conscience irrespective of whether the conscience of the individual and the rights of those seeking the service can both be satisfied.

Cranmer observes that 'reasonable adjustment' has worked well for those with disability. He states: 

work rotas and clothing regulations have been changed and other reasonable adjustments made to accommodate the needs of those who cannot see, hear or walk. Employers have a statutory obligation to accommodate the needs of those who cannot physically perform certain activities, so why can they not also be obliged to accommodate those who cannot spiritually conform? Legs that will not walk are no different from eyes that cannot see or ears that cannot hear. Trevor Phillips appears now to be of the view that these are no different from the conscience that will not countenance.

Sadly, at present, the EDM only has 14 signatories. As Calvin L. Smith points out:

several hundred signatures might well serve to act as a shot across the bows of those elites aggressively seeking to push religious views firmly into the private sphere. So what is your MP doing about this? Signing an EDM costs very little, and who knows what a short email or letter might do. 

Faith, State and Social Action

I came across this video piece at The Guardian yesterday. It relates to some of the social action undertaken by Frontlline Church in Liverpool; a church which several of my friends attend. I was particularly interested to find this piece in The Guardian, a distinctly secular paper, and to find John Harris, a man who describes himself as a 'sceptical agnostic', somewhat sympathetic to the work undertaken by the church. 


The piece threw up a number of valuable questions: to what extent should the state provide help for social problems? How far should faith groups be involved in such provision? Are faith groups there to simply 'fill the gaps' left by government or should they be encouraged to take on a wider remit? All of these are worthwhile, if not essential, questions to ask when one is approaching this issue from the perspective of government and politics. But for issues of space and time I would have liked to explore these questions further. However, a couple of questions have more direct relevance for Christian groups involved in social action: should Christians engage in social work when our calling is to spread the gospel? If we are involved in social action, should it be predominantly as a vehicle for sharing our faith with individuals? It is these questions I would like to explore here.


The question of whether Christians should be involved in social action is a relatively straightforward one. I would agree that Christians are called to spread the gospel and have some sympathy with the idea that anything taking time, money and resources away from this endeavour detracts from our true purpose. However, I firmly believe that Christians and Christian groups should be well involved in social outreach for several reasons. Firstly, Jesus Christ reached out to the sick, the poor and the needy (Mat 14:14, 14:35, Mar 1:34, Joh 6:2). Christians are called to be like Christ (Gal 5:22-25, Eph 4:22-24, 1 Pet 1:16) and if Jesus himself engaged in social action then we should also follow his example. Secondly, the bible commands us to help the poor and the needy (Lev 19:18, Mat 22:37-40, Mar 12:30-31, Luk 10:27, Gal 5:14, 1 The 5:14, 1 Tit 3:14, Jam 2:14-16, 1 Joh 3:17-18). We are therefore duty bound as Christians to help those in need. Thirdly, whilst the idea that Christians are called to share the gospel is true, it is a very poor understanding of the gospel if we view it simply as a message to be shared. Of course, our salvation is tied up entirely in the work of Christ on the cross, however, the effects of that work - if we have truly grasped the gospel - should be evident in our lives thus making the gospel something to be seen in the way we live (2 Cor 5:14-15, Gal 5:25, Jam 2:14-26, 1 Pet 2:16,24, 4:2,6). If the gospel has had any effect on us at all we should love 'our neighbours' and therefore do all we can to help them in their times of need - this includes social outreach.


It is clear from scripture that Christians should help those in need and it therefore follows that Christian people ought to be involved in social outreach. Nevertheless, the issue that arises is the extent to which such works should be overtly gospel-oriented. That is to say, must Christians use social outreach as a vehicle to share the gospel or should we simply engage in social outreach as a natural consequence of the gospel in our own lives? There is an argument that states if we love people we will want the best for them. We know that the gospel is where their real needs lie. Therefore, we should deal with people's physical needs but should also seek to address their spiritual needs too. As such, we should engage in social outreach to help people with immediate physical needs but we should use the opportunity to address their deeper spiritual need as well. I have some sympathy for this view and would have made similar arguments in the recent past. 


I am of the opinion, however, that such outreach need not necessarily be accompanied by an overt gospel message for a number reasons. It is certainly true that the bible calls us to help those in need and also calls us to share the gospel; nevertheless, it does not call us to do these things concurrently. We are not duty bound to share the gospel with people whilst we help address their physical need. That is not to say that we cannot and should not do this but rather the bible does not insist we must. More importantly, whilst I maintain that an individual's deepest need is spiritual, one that can only be dealt with by the gospel, to use social outreach as a vehicle for evangelism can have several negative effects. For example, some of those in need may reject the offer of help if they feel it comes with 'strings attached'. Some may believe the offer of help is only available if they convert whereas others may simply refuse help for fear of being 'preached at'. Although such fears may be unfounded, our offer must be unconditional and we should want to avoid any barriers that may prevent someone from accepting help - even if that includes forgoing an overt gospel message. It is also worth considering what it says about the gospel if the only reason we are helping those in need is because it gives us the opportunity to share our faith with them. Surely, if we truly love people, we will want to help them without necessarily seeing everything as an overt 'gospel opportunity' and will want to find ways of helping all in need rather than only those willing to listen to our gospel agenda, born of right motive though that desire to share the gospel may be. Such an offer with perceived 'strings attached' may see many refuse help altogether. Perhaps a more powerful witness is the one where people know we are Christians and are aware we are helping because we love them not because we have a message that they must hear first. I personally believe the 'Street Wise' workers at Frontline Church have found an excellent balance between making their Christian faith plain, showing individuals love and giving a good account of the gospel.


I would briefly want to make a distinction between social outreach and evangelistic events. An evangelistic event is usually set up with the specific intention of giving an overt gospel message. They often use some hook to draw people to the church as a vehicle for sharing the gospel with them. Such works are an important means of evangelism in the church today and it is vitally important when we invite people to such things that we are entirely upfront about the event i.e. we must tell people the event is there as a means of sharing our faith. Indeed, there are three reasons why the recent phenomena of charging people to come to such events is wrong. Firstly, it suggests that the gospel - which is essentially what the whole event is about - is not free. Secondly, it adds to the perception that the church is only after money. Thirdly, we are essentially forcing people to pay twice to come. In the secular world, the offer exists of attendance at events in exchange for money. In the case of Christian events, the offer is usually to come for free but to hear a gospel message. What reason have people to come to our event when they could attend a secular one (most likely with better production values and a more professional approach) without the gospel content for which they also must pay? Surely, it is better to self-fund such events and avoid these barriers for people hearing the gospel. However, I digress. Evangelistic events are set up with the express intention of sharing our faith and the entertainment is stated upfront as a vehicle for doing so.


Social outreach differs from evangelistic events in that it exists primarily as a means of helping those in need - something the bible tells us we should do - and not as another vehicle for the gospel. Those who attend evangelistic events do so because they want to, they certainly do not have to come, and arrive in the full knowledge there will be gospel content. This is eminently different to those who come for help, not because they want to but because their situation dictates they must. To use such an opportunity for direct gospel outreach could be perceived as exploitative of those in need and suggests less a love for the people themselves and more a sense in which we view them merely as potential 'converts'. Indeed, to use social outreach as a platform for evangelism has potentially negative effects on those accepting help as well as the many onlookers who will view the gospel through their own perception of our actions. Evangelistic events are never set up as a labour of love designed to show people we care about them. They are only ever designed as an event to which we can bring people and share our faith with them and should always be upfront about this aim. Indeed, a quiz night hardly plumbs the depths of the human capacity for love and care and is therefore never going to represent an example of the gospel in action in and of itself. Social outreach, by contrast, can and does represent the gospel in action and by using such works as a vehicle for a more overt form of evangelism we can inadvertently find ourselves sullying the gospel message and pushing needy individuals further from Christ.

The end is nigh (or not)

The Independent has reported that the world as we know it will end today. To be fair, The Independent has not exactly endorsed this suggestion but is rather reporting Harold Camping's prediction of the end of the world. Camping has stated that today, around 6:00pm, Jesus Christ will return to earth to take 2 per cent of the world's population to Heaven.


Camping is basing his prediction on a mathematical system used to interpret biblical prophecy. He has suggested the world will end on 21 May, because that will be 722,500 days from 1 April since AD33, which he believes was the day Jesus Christ was crucified. The figure of 722,500 is important because you get it by multiplying three holy numbers (five, ten and seventeen) together twice.


If I'm being honest, I shan't lose any sleep tonight. I fully endorse the view of Calvin L. Smith who writes:

[T]he fact Harold Camping doesn't have the best of track records on this issue, together with Jesus' words in Matthew 24:36, would rather suggest we'll still be here tomorrow evening.

Equally worth noting is Camping's reliance on a system he developed to interpret hidden prophecies in the bible. Surely, belief in a personal God who has anything to say to people also necessitates a belief that He has made Himself clear and understandable. Indeed, what purpose would there be in a revelation that could not be understood? Reliance on secret systems and hidden prophecies suggests God has not made his Word plain and that He seeks to speak in coded language intended only to confuse. Camping's reliance on such hidden messages belie the very concept of a personal God; a concept necessary for his prediction to be of any value in the first place.


So, I shall sleep soundly tonight and fully expect to wake up as usual the following morning. Of course, that may just mean I missed the rapture...

Dawkins is a coward (and it must be true - it's in a mainstream broadsheet)

A longstanding argument between Dr Richard Dawkins and supporters of Dr William Lane Craig was recently reported in The Telegraph. Despite Craig holding doctorates in both philosophy and theology and being widely recognised as the leading authority on the kalam cosmological argument as well as the foremost apologist for Christian theism, Dawkins has routinely turned down invitations to debate with him on the existence of God (1). Dawkins has argued that it may "look good" on Craig's CV but not on his own and stated 'I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion'.  However, Dr Daniel Came - a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist from Worcester College - stated the following in a letter to Dawkins:

The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House. (source: Telegraph)

It is testimony to Dawkins character, and academic priorities, that he is only willing to debate with those who can enhance his own CV. Indeed, his many media appearances and desire to debate primarily with television and radio presenters, rather than academic experts, speak more highly of his own 'relentless drive for self-promotion'. It is also worth noting, as Archbishop Cranmer does, that Dawkins has relied predominantly on fame rather than his academic contribution to either science or philosophy to espouse his message. He comments:

[W]hen we hear the shrill voice of Dr Richard Dawkins bleating about Professor Craig’s ‘relentless drive for self-promotion’, and rejecting the debasement of his eminent CV by debating with the distinguished Christian apologist, we should remember this: Richard Dawkins never contributed much to science; his Oxford chair was bought for him by a rich admirer; and the scientific ideas upon which he built his reputation are increasingly discredited. Those beguiled by his diatribes are listening neither to the voice of reason nor science.

Fortunately for Dr Dawkins, the opportunity to discredit such claims has not slipped away. Dr Craig has said he is willing to keep the invitation open for Dawkins to debate him in Oxford in October.


Notes

1. For a full list of Dr Craig's qualifications visit http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=curriculum_vitae. A list of his publications can be found at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publications_main

A change of heart

This blogger is certainly not committed to the doctrine of web log infallibility and, from time to time, is wont to revise his position. The belief that one is utterly correct all of the time leads only down the road of error - building misunderstanding upon misunderstanding - all because it is anathema to admit one's initial view was perhaps found wanting. To that end, I hereby wish to revise, but not entirely revoke, an earlier post (1).

I previously posted here on the preferable number of church services on a Sunday. Before I address the revisions let me state where I am unchanged. I remain convinced there is no scriptural requirement for a certain number of church meetings - the Bible is certainly not prescriptive on this matter. It is therefore wrong of us to look at those who hold more, or less, meetings than our own church and sneer at their practice. A church that meets several times on the same day is no more a church than those who meet only once or twice and, likewise, those who meet only once or twice are no better than those who meet several times. This issue is not one of scriptural commandment and should never be used as a measure of Christian obedience nor does it represent any sort of tiered system of God-pleasing practice.

This leads me on to where my view has been revised. I previously suggested two possible reasons for holding only one service. These were mere straw men and did not represent all valid arguments. Indeed, there are many sound reasons for a church to hold only one service - some practical, some cultural and some merely preferential. For example, in my current church network we have two ministers splitting their time between three separate churches. It is therefore not possible for them to take two services at all three churches. Alternatively, churches may have one longer service rather than two shorter ones offering an equal amount of teaching and fellowship but without splitting this into separate meetings. Sound arguments can also be made regarding the quality of services i.e. the more meetings we have the less time there is to prepare for them and the chances of the quality waning increases. Further, there is a debate to be had regarding how far churches should bend to the needs of the congregation (2). Rather than denouncing those who fail to attend two services on a Sunday should churches not ask why people are not coming and find ways to change their practice in order to address these issues?

In my initial post, I argued that two services found a balance between having a day to rest and a day in which to meet with the Lord's people. However, I am now of the opinion that one service has several benefits. Many of my reasons for this are simply matters of preference. For example, it was often my experience that concentration in evening services was harder than in morning services (incidentally, I strongly suspect that this is one of the main reasons for poor attendance at evening services). This often had the effect that church attendance was seen as obligatory and services something to be endured rather than being beneficial and helpful. In truth, church services are pointless if they become a matter of obligation and a test of endurance. Inevitably, church services carry some compulsion of attendance but where members attend and, almost to a tee, struggle to concentrate or simply decide not to go at all it suggests a flaw in our church practice that needs revisiting in some respect.

It has also long been my view that fellowship is rarely cultivated at the back of church with a cup of tea. Rather, true fellowship is developed through friendships that continue outside the church building. By removing an evening service, we offer more time to members to open their homes to one another and truly cultivate fellowship in a way that often does not happen at the end of the meeting. Further, it is always a tall order to expect people to invite others to their home after a morning service, entertain them all day and then concentrate on an evening sermon later on. Either we encourage people not to have fellowship in order to concentrate on the evening service or we encourage people not to focus properly in the evening meeting. By not having an evening service we encourage more fellowship outside the confines of the church building and we remove concerns of over-tiredness on what is supposed to be a day of rest.

Culturally, we often get to know people over food and it would therefore seem natural for us to have food either before or after our morning services. Nevertheless, with an evening service looming this can be a tiring prospect - a service, followed by all day interacting with people, followed by another evening service. However, if we want to get away from the idea that church is the building and/or meetings we must foster ways to build a sense of community but If our meetings dominate everything we do our efforts will most likely fail. If attendance at meetings is obligatory then to introduce times of fellowship which, although less formal, are seen as equally compulsory we force our members to choose between the guilt of forgoing mandatory meetings or exhaustion (3). By removing the evening service we stop forcing people into this choice. There is no guilt attached to missing a non-existent service and we can encourage people more strongly to go out of their way to have fellowship with others - tiredness no longer representing a valid excuse to forgo fellowship.

So, the Bible does not give instruction regarding the number of times we are to meet together. Indeed, we are not to sneer at the practices of those who meet more, or less, than ourselves. I previously argued that two services on a Sunday was the best pattern of church practice (4) but I now lean towards the view that one service may be preferable. I should make it clear that I believe one service to be preferable only if fellowship outside the confines of the church e.g. fellowship lunches, individuals going to each others houses, etc is strongly encouraged. I do not believe it is preferable to simply remove an evening service for its own sake but rather believe removing an evening service and, in its place, encouraging real fellowship between members is a good a valuable practice.

Notes

1. This revision has not been borne out of expediency. My initial post was written whilst I was a member of the church I currently attend.
2. This was first raised under the comments section of my initial post by 'huttononline'.
3. When church members feel they do not have friends in the congregation we may blame the fact that they do not turn up to 'fellowship days/lunches'. Were they to go to these but miss the evening meeting we would castigate them for not attending a teaching service. Where people go to both and say they struggle to get things out of the service we blame them for coming to meetings in the 'wrong frame of mind'.
4. See here for reasons why.

Joy in the Lord

Some time ago, our church mini-group had a discussion on joy. What struck me about our discussions was our general inability to express exactly what joy is and where we are to find it. I suspect this inability to express our view was the result of two issues. Firstly, many verses in scripture seem to use joy and sorrow as antonyms (1). As such, we feel joy should be the antithesis of sorrow and should therefore be manifest in exuberance and outward displays of happiness just as sorrow is often manifest in outward displays of sadness. When we fail to have this exuberance in the Lord we feel we are failing to take real joy in Him. Secondly, we often derive our joy from things in the world and feel this jars with verses that suggest our joy is to be found in the Lord (2). These two ideas can lead to the creation of an odd definition of joy, in the case of our mini-group no real definition at all, and causes us to feel guilty at deriving joy from things in the world and failing to feel outwardly exuberant about spiritual things.

In one sense, we can say that sorrow and joy are diametrically opposed - sorrow being ostensibly negative, joy fundamentally positive - and this can lead to us feeling that joy ought to be manifest in exuberant happiness. However, Genesis 1:31-2:3 makes clear that the Lord took joy from his creation but this joy does not seem to be manifest as over-excited giddiness. Indeed, John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:13-20 plainly show that the Lord did not simply finish creation and watch from a distance but took joy in it by continuing to 'hold all things together'. The joy was not derived in the creation but in enjoying what was made. As such, these verses suggest that the Lord derives his joy by taking pleasure in his completed work. It is not an exuberant, outward happiness but rather a contentment and satisfaction.


Isaiah 9:3 states 'You have multiplied the nation; you have increased its joy; they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest, as they are glad when they divide the spoil (ESV)'. I have known two generations of a farming family who attend the same church as my parents - a fantastic family to know around harvest-festival time! The 'joy' of bringing in the harvest, certainly as expressed by this family, is neither the end of their work nor is it expressed in outward exuberance. In fact, bringing in the harvest is only part of the job - one must store it appropriately and then sell it before the work can see a return and be fully enjoyed. Once the harvest is in, one is not exuberant but rather satisfied that the harvest will bring some future reward once it is sold. As such, the 'joy at the harvest' is less an outward happiness but rather a contentment in completed work which will bring a later reward 'when they divide the spoil'. In the same way, our joy in the Lord is one of satisfaction and contentment in the completed work of salvation in the knowledge of certain reward to come. Joy in the Lord is therefore not necessarily manifest in outward exuberance but is rather contentment and satisfaction with his completed work of salvation.

If true joy is contentment and satisfaction in completed work, what of the idea that we should not enjoy things in the world. Our view of joy can easily become tainted by a type of Christian dualism in which the world is evil and only the spirit is good (3). Whilst we cannot, and should not, overlook verses that suggest our joy is ultimately found in the Lord we must equally not ignore verses that suggest the Lord has given us things in the world for our enjoyment. 1 Timothy 6:17 states that God 'richly provides us with everything to enjoy (ESV)', Jeremiah 2:7 says that God brought the Israelites 'into a plentiful land to enjoy its good fruits and plentiful things (ESV)' and Psalm 104 states:

From your lofty abode you water the mountains; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of your work. You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man's heart. May the glory of the LORD endure forever; may the LORD rejoice in his works (104:13-15, 31).

God has clearly placed things in the world for our enjoyment. Psalm 104:31 states plainly that the Lord himself takes joy from that which he has created. The idea that we should only receive joy from overtly spiritual things, as Bill Mounce puts it 'that Christians can enjoy a sunset and the view of the ocean, but not steak and lobster', is clearly incorrect. In fact, denying that the things God has given us to enjoy are indeed enjoyable can cause two potential problems. On the one hand, it can lead to our suggesting that God is tempting us - something clearly taught as untrue in James 1:13. Alternatively, we may find ourselves suggesting God has misunderstood what true joy is by providing enjoyable things from which we should extract no joy - a laughably nonsensical position. Therefore, we must conclude that it is right for us to enjoy the good things that God has given for our enjoyment. Indeed, by enjoying these good things and recognising from whence they came we bring glory to God and highlight his ongoing goodness to us.


Does this mean that we should take no joy from spiritual things? Of course not. We should have a desire to know God, deepen our relationship with Him and have fellowship with other believers. If we have no desire for these things this should cause us great concern. However, this is fertile ground for legalism, judgementalism and guilt. Somebody who struggles to read their Bible doesn't necessarily want to know nothing of God but may find reading difficult, whether the Bible or any other book. One who doesn't enjoy 'church fellowship days' doesn't necessarily want nothing to do with the people of God but may find they do not enjoy socialising in large groups or particularly like the range of activities they will no doubt be pressurised to take part in. The key here is the desire of the individual. One may desire to know more of God but find reading the Bible very hard or may desire to be with God's people but struggle socialising in large groups. Such individuals should not be discouraged in their faith but rather encouraged. People do not seek to do difficult things if they see no value in doing them. The desire to do that which is difficult suggests one sees benefit in it and realises there is satisfaction in completing the work that is valuable. In these instances, our joy is not necessarily derived from the reading of the Bible itself or the actual act of praying but rather in the increase of our knowledge of the Lord and our deepening relationship with him and his people. Although we may get little or no joy from the acts themselves e.g. reading, thinking thoughts in our minds as prayer, etc we should derive joy, i.e. a deep sense of contentment and satisfaction, from increasing our knowledge of the Lord and growing in our faith. The joy is in the end result and not necessarily the act itself.


So, at its heart, true joy is contentment and satisfaction in completed work. In this sense, our joy in the Lord is to be found in the completed work of our salvation knowing we stand to inherit eternal life with him. Nevertheless, joy is not only to be found in the overtly spiritual. The Lord has given us things for our enjoyment and it brings glory to him when we partake of them, giving thanks for his goodness. However, we should still desire to know more of God and his people but this does not mean that associated acts will not be difficult. Our joy should come in knowing more of God and having a relationship with him not necessarily from the associated acts themselves. Whilst reading the Bible and prayer are fundamentally necessary for us to know more of God and have a relationship with him our joy should be derived in what we learn of him, the deepening of our knowledge and the furthering of our faith through these things and not necessarily from the acts of reading the Bible and prayer in and of themselves.

Notes

1. For example, Isaiah 9:3, 35:10, 51:11, Jeremiah 31:13, John 16:20-22, etc
2. For example, Romans 14:7, 15:13, 1 Peter 1:8, etc
3. How dualism can impede our view of joy is explained succinctly and simply by Bill Mounce here.

Bold's Fold

A few cartoons from the excellent Bold's Fold by Darren - click on the images to enlarge them. Churches are most certainly funny places!

These cartoons are from the Bold's Fold online gallery. You can view more from the Bold's Fold gallery here by clicking on 'gallery'. Given that I have lifted these cartoons from their site it only seems fair that I also highlight that you can buy the complete Bold's Fold here by clicking on 'order'.

Considerations for attending a church

Choosing which church to attend can be a difficult undertaking. What appeals to one causes great consternation for another and what some view as centrally important others see as of little consequence. In some places there are so many churches to choose from we feel at a loss as to which to attend. In other places our choice seems so limited that it appears there is nowhere appropriate to go. So, how do we determine what is important in a church? On what basis do we rule churches in, or out, of our search for a spiritual home? How do we decide where to go?

At a basic level, John notes the foundations upon which we meet together. He states:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us-- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:1-7, ESV).

Here John highlights two key things: fellowship with the Father (1) and fellowship with other believers. Interestingly, John later suggests that you cannot have one without the other (2) - the two cannot exist in isolation. In order to enjoy fellowship with other believers we must first have fellowship with the Father and if we are to have fellowship with the Father we should also have the fellowship of other Christians. This helpfully lays down a basic criteria for which church we should attend. Firstly, do the church - that is the people - love the Father and; secondly, do the church love each other? In reality, if somewhere doesn't meet this basic criteria we are hard pressed to even call it a church! If the church is the body of believers and we accept what John says, where a meeting of people fail to love the Father or to love one another, the two unable to exist in isolation, we must conclude this meeting is no kind of church. Therefore, we should firstly look to join a church that love the Father and love each other.

To some degree, the considerations following this basic criteria are somewhat secondary (3). Four common areas cited as important when considering a church are doctrine and teaching, worship, evangelism and fellowship. However, exactly how important are each of these areas? Individually, they make up a significant portion of what the church does and we all have our preferences on how they ought to be worked out in practice. It is also worth remembering that each of these areas do not carry equal importance i.e. the style of music is not necessarily as important as the church's evangelistic outreach? Further, we should recognise that certain issues within these individual areas are matters of preference e.g. we may agree on the importance of evangelism but may disagree over the most effective means of reaching people with the gospel. How do we therefore determine what is and is not important?

I would suggest that the most important of these areas is fellowship. In Reformed circles especially, choosing a church predominantly on fellowship can be seen as frivolous, not giving due prominence to the importance of teaching and doctrine. This is wrong for two main reasons. Firstly, returning to the passage from 1 John, fellowship is one of the base criteria for identifying a church. Therefore, to attend a church which has its doctrine supposedly all sewn up but which fails to love its members and seek to befriend them in a real way (see 1 John 3:18) is to defeat the very purpose of the church itself. No amount of sound teaching and doctrine can make up for a lack of friendship with fellow believers. Secondly, all these areas - with the notable exception of fellowship - can be gleaned from other sources to either supplement, or to make up for a lack of, the church provision. A lack of teaching can be dealt with by downloading a sermon or reading a good book, a lack of evangelism can be overcome through personal efforts to take the gospel out to one's local area but a lack of fellowship cannot be beamed in from afar or downloaded from the internet - the church is the only place which can provide ongoing, meaningful fellowship with believers. As such, far from fellowship and friendship being a trivial basis upon which to attend a church it is possibly the most important.

Perhaps the least important of these areas is that of worship-style (4). I have previously discussed this issue here and here and will not revisit it again. Suffice to say, this issue is largely one of preference. Personally, I believe worship-style is one of the saddest reasons for church splits, however, I also believe it one of few actively positive reasons for us to have several different churches in one area. I say this because I believe the style of our singing matters so little that to split a church on this basis is a terrible thing. It suggests to the community of unbelievers that there is no unity in the gospel as we cannot remain united over something trivial. Nevertheless, where several churches exist for reasons of stylistic difference (presuming they have not evolved from a single church split on this issue, of course) this seems eminently sensible as, to the unbeliever, it is not beyond comprehension that although we believe in the same God, the same gospel and actively enjoy fellowship with one another we may have different preferences over the way in which we express it. Unlike fundamental doctrinal differences and acute splits, fellowship between churches despite stylistic differences can serve as a point of strength in the unity of the gospel.

As already mentioned, both the issues of teaching and evangelism can be derived from other sources if somewhat lacking in our church. Nevertheless, these areas are both important. The issue is then the extent of their importance. In reality, as with all the other areas, this may depend on what is available to us. Indeed, it would seem silly to attend a church with whom we disagreed on several points of doctrine and struggled with their lack of evangelistic zeal if there were a church down the road with whom we agreed and felt were keen to reach people with the gospel. This, however, is rarely the situation. More often than not, the situation presented is one church with excellent evangelistic zeal but poor teaching and another with superb teaching but no heart for the gospel. Alternatively, we may find two churches with whom we disagree on two separate, but both seemingly important, points of doctrine. Ultimately, there is no point in trying to make hard and fast rules as to which is the more important. In such circumstances, all we can do is seek to determine how important each point of doctrine is to us and then apply the Richard Baxter principle: "Unity in things necessary, liberty in things unnecessary, and charity in all".

So, if we define the church as the people of God then we must consider anywhere that meets the base criteria of love for the Father and love for each other as a true church. Moreover, if we recognise the church as the people, we must conclude that fellowship is central. The doctrine, evangelism and worship are not the church whereas fellowship is tied up exclusively with the people who are the church. As such, fellowship and friendship is far from a trivial reason to attend a church - it is indeed fundamental and of vital importance. All other considerations must be weighed up by the individual and determined how important they are according to circumstance. However, they are secondary considerations to fellowship because without true fellowship there is no real church.

Notes

1. John also comments that fellowship with the Father is directly tied up in fellowship with the Son. See 1 John 1:3, 2:22-24
2. See 1 John 2:9-11, 1 John 4:20-21
3. That is not to say unimportant but rather to suggest that no consideration following can trump the basic criteria itself nor rule out a meeting as a non-church
4. In the context of the church meeting i.e. the style of singing/songs and the manner in which some pray