Rev Barry Trayhorn forced to resign for quoting Bible in chapel

The salient facts of this case are these:

• HMP Littlehey is a category C men's prison and Young Offender institute in Cambridgeshire. Chapel is entirely voluntary. Nobody is required or forced to attend, sing hymns or listen to scripture.
• Rev Trayhorn is an ordained Pentecostal minister who worked as a gardener at the prison. He has helped out with prison chapel services at the invitation and under the supervision of the coordinating Chaplain, the Rev’d David Kinder, on behalf of the Criminal Justice Forum in the Diocese of Ely.
• Whilst leading worship in chapel in May 2014 Rev Trayhorn quoted the passage 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (the quoted version is unknown).
• Four days later, a complaint was lodged against Rev Trayhorn. He was immediately suspended from helping with chapel services, and was subsequently told that his comments during the service were ‘homophobic’ and breached national prison policy.
• Rev Trayhorn was informed a disciplinary hearing would follow. He was subsequently signed off work with a stress related illness. During this time, his manager visited him three times at home to discuss work-related issues. On two of those occasions, a senior prison official was present.
• On 4th November 2014, Rev Trayhorn felt that he had no choice but to resign. Two days later, a disciplinary hearing was held in his absence, when he was given a ‘final written warning’.
• Rev Trayhorn, backed by the Christian Legal Centre, is now taking HMP Littlehey to an employment tribunal where he is claiming he was forced out of his main paid job as a gardener at the jail because of the intimidation he suffered as a result of his faith.

Several things are worthy of note and a few comments seem necessary.

First, as the Archbishop Cranmer blog notes, Rev Trayhorn's claim is not entirely unreasonable. For "it was not Barry Trayhorn’s skills as a paid gardener which had been called into question, but his competence to lead worship as an unpaid chaplain’s assistant." By all accounts, Rev Trayhorn's gardening skills have not entered into any discussion and there has been no complaint received over his horticultural prowess. It does, therefore, appear very much as though his quote from the Bible has directly led to the loss of his job as gardener.

Second, Rev Trayhorn received a final written warning at a disciplinary hearing in his absence. Again, as noted by Cranmer, given his gardening skills were not under scrutiny and he had "no previous misdemeanours or complaints recorded against him, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he was disciplined for quoting scriptures about sin which were deemed unpalatable by sinners."

Third, it seems worth pointing out that Rev Trayhorn did not major on sexual sin at the expense of other forms of sin. It does appear his quote includes the sexually immoral (that is the heterosexual immoral as the verse also goes on to mention those who practice homosexuality), idolaters, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. Across the range of those sins, and in line with traditional evangelical thought, the list takes aim at just about all people everywhere. It is a more extensive list of Paul's basic comment in Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Fourth, Rev Trayhorn was not disciplined for offering a particular interpretive view of the verses quoted. In fact, the man only went on to say "the Christian message [is] that God will forgive those who repent." It is, therefore, highly likely that Rev Trayhorn was disciplined specifically for quoting directly from the Bible.

All of this adds up to the ludicrous position that suggests it is now a felony to state the Bible's ethical teaching to convicted felons. It is equally ridiculous that prisoners, many of whom have been incarcerated for heinous sexual crimes which both the penal system and wider society recognise as ethically wrong, can claim offence at the biblical position (which is in agreement with both the penal system and wider society on this issue) and make a felon out of the man who dared quote it. Truly this is a nonsense.

Aside from all of this, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that significant portions of the Bible are now prohibited for public proclamation. We are censoring the ethical teachings of a book that played a central role in forming the ethical standard by which our own penal system abides. We are deeming a book that was, until very recently, a central part of school daily assemblies and a copy of which was given to every hotel room in the land to be incompatible with nebulous "British values" which, if they even exist at all, have been drawn from the selfsame source.

Most troubling of all, we already know about the government's plans to crack down on "extremism in all its forms" (see here, here and here etc). It seems quite clear that ill-defined "British values" must be pressed into every sphere of British public and private life. Anything that does not accord with them will be clamped down. The Home Secretary has already made it clear that those who speak against orthodox cultural utterances stand to lose charitable status and assets such as privately held buildings and cash funds. Some evangelical preachers who pose no physical threat to anybody - regardless of whether you agree with their position or the way in which they communicate it - have begun to feel the force of these measures (eg here).

And this seems to be yet another case of it happening. The chapel at HMP Littlehey is neither a public space nor a mandatory requirement for all prisoners. It is attended voluntarily and nobody is forced to partake in worship or to listen to God's word against their will. It is, therefore, utterly incredible that the Bible can be censored during a private meeting of Christian worship. Whilst this particular case beggars belief, it is all the more troubling that what is happening in HMP Littlehey and has already reached into some private meeting houses, will increasingly impede the public reading of God's word and the clear proclamation and explanation of what it contains in more and more churches. 

Measures intended to impede acts of terrorism and those propagating such acts are increasingly being used against all manner of political protesters and benign religious groups who pose no physical threat to anybody but who nonetheless do not assent to cultural orthodoxy. The measures are politically obtuse and utterly cowardly. For it seems clear enough that to avoid being seen to target one particular religious group, all people of faith - regardless of what they actually teach and believe or their propensity to call for the death of the infidel - are embroiled in a war against one small group, within one particular strain, of one particular branch of one particular religion. By any measure, it is not fair, it is not equitable, it is not reasonable and it should not stand.

What Labour Party divisions can teach church denominations

Yesterday, The Guardian reported that over 50 Labour MPs plan to defy Jeremy Corbyn's stance on a British military intervention in Syria. The Labour leader has made no secret of his opposition to a bombing campaign. Corbyn's supporters, such as Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, have gone on record backing his stance. They too reject a bombing campaign, with Abbott in particular vociferous in her criticism of those who plan to defy the party leader. What is abundantly clear is that not all those who belong to the Labour Party reside within the same political camp as their current head.

The parallels with the Church are striking. For not all those who associate with the Church belong in the same camp as its head. Both Jesus (cf. Mt 7:21-23) and Peter (cf. 2 Pet 2:1-3) make this clear enough. Jesus tells us that we will recognise those who are his by the fruit expressed in their lives (Mt 7:15-20). Elsewhere, the fruit that Jesus expects is clear enough: "if you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). The one who is the head of the church expects those who really belong to the church to actually keep his commands.

Hand wringing by centrist MPs over whether to remain in the Labour Party are reminiscent of various internal denominational battles between theologically conservative and liberal wings. Significant internal differences within the denominations have been dealt with in a variety of ways; from the perennial splits upon splits within Presbyterianism to the staunch refusal to leave the Church of England despite fundamental, insurmountable differences between those who purport to have communion. Other denominations have worked such things through in a plethora of different ways, from complete isolationism to an emphasis on non-denominational gospel partnerships.

Until the Labour Party can form a direction around which the MPs will unite, it will continue to face these same problems over and again. Likewise, though a wholly pure church is the world of fantasy, churches would do well to heed the lessons being played out in Labour Party politics. Denominations, gospel partnerships and associations can only press forward when those seeking to work together are united in purpose and agree on certain core beliefs and values. Without such agreement, partnerships and denominations will forever find themselves unable to move forward. Jesus said something like that (cf. Mark 3:24f).

Tim Farron, illiberalism, bigotry and Evangelicals

This last week I have been on my yearly pilgrimage to Llandudno. It's not so much a site of religious interest as an opportunity for me to serve with United Beach Missions. It is my nearest Beach Mission centre and it is one of very few with the sort of facilities that mean I can bring my family with me too. 

I have spent the last week standing on Llandudno promenade doing public interviews with people about their faith, asking them to share their stories and pressing them to answer questions and objections people may have about the Christian faith. I have also been engaging with non-Christian holidaymakers (NB: only those who actually want to talk, we're happy enough being told to push off) and sharing with them the Christian message of salvation in Jesus Christ. We've also been out delivering short gospel presentations in open air meetings and engaging in public apologetics.

None of that is to say bully for me. Rather, it is to set in context how truly odd such things have become in modern British society. For, as I reacquainted myself with social media and online news output, one particular news item - or one particular angle that kept reappearing in several different stories - seemed prevalent. The story, insofar as it is newsworthy, was the fact that Tim Farron, newly elected leader of the Liberal Democrats, is a Christian. Not only a Christian, but an Evangelical Christian. Not only an Evangelical Christian, but one who is actually prepared to speak about his faith in public.

Gillan Scott, at the Archbishop Cranmer blog, has given a good summary of how several of these interviews have focused not only on Farron's faith but have pressed particular presumed outworkings of his religious beliefs. Specifically, a Channel 4 News interview with Cathy Newman pushed Farron repeatedly on whether he viewed homosexual sex as sinful. Since then, Labour MP and deputy-leadership hopeful Ben Bradshaw has called Farron's approach to gay rights illiberal. Beyond these, The Times has referred to him as an "illiberal democrat", based on little more than the fact he is an Evangelical, and John Humphries pressed him on his Radio 4 Today programme about whether he prayed about different aspects of his job. Some of this interrogation is legitimate - private views will affect what we do in public (unless, of course, you're happy with a Magic FM in the Chilterns kind of faith) - but several things ought to be said.

First, these interviews have only been conducted and focused this way because Farron is an Evangelical. Although occasionally Tony Blair was asked about his faith, very little was ever made of it. David Cameron likewise is asked very little about his Christian beliefs, such as they exist. Moving away from those who identify as Christian in any regard, can you imagine Sajid Javid being asked for his views on particular Qur'anic suras which advocate less than liberal approaches to homosexuals or non-muslim believers? Would Clive Lewis, as chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, be pressed this hard on how his non-belief in a God would affect his moral compass? It is telling that perceptions of what Evangelicalism is persist (1) and such views are often held to a different standard than almost any other view, even among those in parliament.

Second, Tim Farron has been labelled illiberal by those who themselves are being illiberal. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of his position, and despite what Tim Farron's actual views on the sinfulness or otherwise of homosexual sex may be (we may infer what he believes but he hasn't actually said anything about it), Farron has repeatedly stated that he defends equal gay rights. Either, he doesn't think homosexual sex is sinful and he defends gay rights or he does think homosexual sex is sinful but he nevertheless defends gay rights. The first of those may or may not be a liberal position - we all obviously find it easy to make legal or illegal all those things we personally think are right and wrong respectively - but the latter view certainly is liberal. 

At the heart of the liberalism is the view that we don't have to agree, we don't have to be the same, but we can co-exist and defend the rights of one another. It is telling that Ben Bradshaw claims Farron is illiberal for not daring to affirm the moral eminence of homosexuality. In other words, Bradshaw argues you cannot do any other than affirm the moral zeitgeist, all contrary views are verboten. Hardly the words of a thoroughgoing liberal. Farron, on the other hand, defends equality for gay people despite (potentially) personally disagreeing with them. That is surely the same sort of liberal position as anyone who is not a Muslim, and disagrees with swathes of Islamic theology and praxis, yet doesn't believe Islam must be forcibly renounced by legal dictate. True Liberalism defends your entitlement to your view, it defends your equality in law, despite our disagreeing over the issue at hand. It is utterly wrong to suggest Tim Farron is illiberal for (potentially) disagreeing with homosexuality but defending homosexual rights in law. It is surely illiberal to say he cannot hold such a view. 

Farron was absolutely clear that "to understand the Christian faith is to understand we're all sinners". It is evidently not his view that, as we're all sinners, we should all go to prison. It is clearly not his view that, as we're all sinners, none of us should have any rights in law. Even if his view on homosexual sex (yet to be stated) is that it is sinful, it is evidently not the case such a view necessarily means he would do anything other than defend the rights of gay people in law. Even the Conservative American Evangelical writer Tim Keller, some while ago now, argued "you could believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal". Whilst that is not his own view, Keller reported that while many Christians "still believe homosexuality to be a sin, they don’t think the government should put that belief into law for the nation." There is every reason to presume Tim Farron holds to something akin to this Anabaptist position as described by Keller.

It is interesting to me that Farron has been pilloried, not even so much for his views (though that is certainly illiberal) but for his presumed position. The media have decided what they believe Evangelicalism stands for - regardless of the range of views even within this subset of Protestantism - and are gunning for a man based upon their own presumption rather than his actual position. This position is not necessarily the position of the man on the street. It is one pressed by media outlets.

As I was out on the streets of Llandudno, as an openly Evangelical Christian, we were generally not received with complete scorn. Those who didn't want to talk, didn't talk. Those who did, spoke politely and often disagreed with us (which is to be expected, those are the people we are generally trying to reach). When we disagreed, we spoke together about why and we had a reasonable discussion about the issues. Some people seemed to move closer to our view, some people didn't. At the end of each discussion, nobody fell out, many were glad to have the conversation (even if we didn't end up agreeing together) and nobody was forced to say, believe or do anything. We sometimes engaged with Atheists at the opposing end of the believing spectrum to us. It was a triumph for liberalism. Two opposing views who could, in the end, disagree strongly and yet remain genial. Nobody forcing anyone else to believe what they don't believe and nobody taking such offence at opposing views that police involvement or legal proceedings had anything to do with either one of us.

It seems to me that illiberalism is a charge thrown around whenever somebody voices a view that someone else doesn't like. It is incredible that someone can suggest, as Cathy Newman in her Channel 4 interview tried to infer, it is impossible for a Christian to be a liberal because they may hold illiberal values. But the essence of liberalism is defending such views even as we may disagree with them. If Newman is correct, then liberalism is not about defending alternative views but rather about insisting on the affirmation of prescribed state orthodoxy. For Newman, liberalism is authoritarianism. Up is down. Good is bad. It is Newspeak in every conceivable way. Beware the charge of illiberalism. One may be a bit more illiberal than our clarion cry suggests. 

I am not a Liberal Democrat but I can spot a witch-hunt when I see one. It doesn't take a genius to see that Tim Farron, irrespective of his political views, is being hounded for being an Evangelical Christian. It matters not whether he defends gay rights. It makes no difference if he upholds religious plurality. It is of no importance whether he has credible view on tax and spending. He is an Evangelical and has thus been branded a bigot. Much like the cry of illiberalism, we should be careful what we use as our rallying cry. If bigotry is defined as "intolerance of those who hold different opinions to oneself" [source: Google Dictionary], dismissing somebody politically as an Evangelical bigot - without engaging with what they say, think or do - rather, at best, smacks of the pot calling the kettle black.

Notes

1. The Times comment that Tim Farron believes "every word of the Bible is literal truth" is clearly misleading to those who do not understand the doctrines of infallibility or inerrancy. It shows a naive ignorance of how the Bible was written and the various types of literature it contains, grossly misinterpreting anything Farron has actually said. Nevertheless, because he's Evangelical and we all know what that means, it seems not to matter.

Communion, individualism and your relationship with God

"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." (1 John 1:3)

One of the problems in the church - dare I say, especially within Evangelical circles - is that of rampant individualism which has, in turn, given rise to church consumerism. This individualism starts at our view of salvation (it's a personal thing between me and God) and soon works its way out into our church life and everyday Christian walk. On this view, church becomes very "me-centric". It is about what the church can do for me, how it makes me feel, whether it serves my particular desires and whether it helps to improve or impede my personal relationship with God.

I am always struck by the order of John's words in 1 John 1:3. He does not say - as many of us would expect - get yourself into a right relationship with God and then we may begin to have fellowship. Rather, he says we have come to you "so that you too may have fellowship with us". Only then does John tell us that such fellowship entails being right with the Father and his Son. In other words, John's view is first corporate and then individual, not the other way round. 

John also says in v4 "we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete". If John is writing in order to have fellowship, it follows that his joy would be complete in having such proper Christian fellowship with those to whom he writes. So whilst he is calling the readers into a relationship with God, he is actually calling them into corporate fellowship with the church which they cannot have without a relationship with God.

On this reading, our approach to church takes on a different edge. It is less about what the church can do for me and more about how I can build up the church. If this actually becomes the modus operandi of every individual member, each of us would be working to build up the others and each of us would find our own needs met by a series of people who are looking to build up people other than themselves. Our fellowship is primarily corporate, not individual, but we cannot have such corporate fellowship without an individual relationship with God.

All of that is by way of a long introduction to the issue at hand. Communion can be one of the places where church individualism is expressed at its worst. There is a mysticism that says communion is primarily about me and my relationship with God. It is the place where I reflect upon all that the Lord has done for me. Whilst that is certainly involved, I think this approach is to fundamentally misunderstand what we are doing at the communion table.

Communion is the family meal. It is the place where we come together to express our unity with one another in Christ and our ongoing association with this particular church. Communion is not primarily about your personal relationship with God. It is primarily about your corporate relationship with God's people which you cannot have apart from an individual relationship with Christ. By taking communion, we are saying we are unified with this church and we are united to them through our personal union with Christ. Communion is primarily corporate not an act of personal individualism.

That means if we seek to take communion outside of the corporate gathering of the church, we are really missing the point of the communion service. It is not a mystic act between us and God but a corporate act between us and the church with whom we are only unified in Christ. Anything that detracts from the corporate element of communion - regardless of how well-intentioned - will miss the point. The bread and wine are memorials of Jesus' body and blood but those symbols bear witness to the ongoing association of God's people in Christ. We do not take the emblems so they will impart grace but we take them to symbolise our corporate unity in Jesus, which we cannot have unless he is our personal Lord and saviour.

It is true that we are expressing our standing as believers in communion. It is true that we claim an ongoing association with Jesus when we take the emblems. But that is not all we are doing. In fact, it is not even primarily what we are doing. We are primarily associating with Jesus' church, claiming to be fully unified with them in Christ. 

If that is what we are primarily doing, then individual communions - or communion apart from the corporate body - misses the point altogether. Of course, we cannot be unified to the body without a personal, individual relationship with Christ and we affirm this in communion. But, we primarily affirm our unity to one another which only exists in Christ. It is Christ who bought our unity, it is the work of Christ on the cross and the ongoing work of the Spirit that actually unifies us, but it is our unity with one another in Him that takes centre stage. We can't affirm our unity without affirming our standing in Christ but we absolutely shouldn't make communion yet another means of pressing individualism in the church.

In defence of cold-contact evangelism

I was listening to the podcast at the Blazing Centre blog which included a snippet asking the question 'is cold-contact evangelism a good idea?' (the segment begins at 27:45). I could empathise with the general conflict the contributors were having. All seemed to agree that, on the one hand, folk who engage in cold-contact evangelism are actually out there doing something. On the other hand, nobody wants to be that person who, without so much as a how do you do, presses random strangers into answering the question 'if you die tonight, where will you spend eternity?'

Nonetheless, I was left a little cold by the discussion. There were lots of caveats about how the Lord can use any method if it is done prayerfully and with good intentions, how those doing cold-contact evangelism were trying to be faithful and how we should be slow to criticise methodology. Yet, the overall thrust of the conversation seemed to be that cold-contact evangelism was generally ineffective and, frankly, a bit weird. Excepting a few gifted individuals - and even then this was generally in response to questions and interactions in cafes and shops - all the contributors were skeptical.

I was especially disappointed at the closing comments of the segment. A dim view was taken of those who say 'if we don't go and tell people the gospel, who will?' The contributors argued such comments smack of arrogance and a sense in which gospel success depends upon us. Whilst none of us should be arrogant, and of course we must rely on the Lord going before us, it strikes me the 'if we don't, who will' line is precisely the argument of Rom 10:14f. Though it is a work of the Lord, He has appointed the means by which people will hear and graciously includes us in his work of salvation. The context in which the contributors made these comments sounded like the argument of hyper-calvinism and those seeking excuses to avoid evangelism altogether.

Church attendance figures for the UK suggest only 6% of the population attend church regularly. When one considers that not every church included in that 6% will be gospel-centred or bible-believing, we are left with an even lower number of people hearing the gospel inside church buildings. At best, we must conclude that 94% of the population are not coming into church with any regularity nor sitting under the sound of the gospel in church meetings. Inside our own buildings, we are primarily preaching to the converted. Most Christians agree, if we are going reach the world with the gospel, we must go to where the people are and it is evident they are not in church.

There are a variety of ways for us to reach people. We can put on events and services to try and attract people into the church. Though this is becoming increasingly difficult, and it is often hard for the church to attract people with things the world can usually offer without the gospel input, there are still those can be attracted to what the church can offer. It is also worth remembering that godly, gospel-centred community - our love for one another and our unity with one another - are specifically things scripture says will attract the world. Alternatively, we can begin to join clubs and societies in order to build friendships with those we meet. Over shared passions and interests, we can build bridges and share our faith in natural ways with those we meet.

All those things are great and each have a place in the mission of the church. But, if we limit ourselves to these things we essentially only reach those prepared to come into a church (which is, nowadays, very few) or those people like us who share our interests or with whom we are already friends. We are still left asking who will reach the people Romans 10 talks about? Paul isn't talking about those with whom we're friends or those we are in contact with already, he asks who will go to those who have nobody to tell them the gospel? In modern UK society, with only 6% of people coming into any sort of church regularly, most people reside in this Romans 10 bracket.

It strikes me that cold-contact evangelism is one of few ways we can meaningfully reach these people. I do not mean accosting people in the street apropos of nothing, I mean pointed and intentional evangelistic activity taking place outside of our church buildings. That may be open airs, doing questionnaires, distributing evangelistic leaflets or any number of things. Whatever it is, it will involve an intentional desire to share the gospel with those who would not otherwise come into church and with whom we would not otherwise come into contact. That is what I mean by cold-contact evangelism.

There are, no doubt, good and bad ways to do cold-contact evangelism. But asking people in town to do a questionnaire on their beliefs or their understanding of the Christian faith doesn't strike me as any more weird than market researchers or charity fundraisers doing the same. Equally, an open air speaker is no more intrusive and odd than any other street act in a city centre. It is no more unnatural to offer a tract to someone who has listened to part of an open air than it is to offer them a leaflet explaining more about some goods they just looked at in the shop window.

Again, nobody wants to be obnoxious or arrogant. Most people want to avoid becoming a weirdo wearing a sandwich board proclaiming judgment and shouting at people through a loud-hailer. Very few people want to be so crass as to accost people with questions that are not particularly pertinent in the most unnatural way. Even the majority of Christians, who probably think about these things more than most, do not spend every waking moment thinking about where they will spend eternity when they die. To expect a stranger to meaningfully engage with that question as they are caught on the hoof is unlikely to bring them into a relationship with Christ. But, of course, when we talk about cold-contact evangelism these are really not the things we are talking about.

I think the question of how we will reach those people with whom we wouldn't ordinarily have any contact is one of the most pressing for churches today. Folk are simply not walking into church buildings with any regularity anymore. Christians - like everybody else - have always engaged their passions and interests and shared their faith with whomever asks them about it. So the people in church, and the people in our clubs and societies, are the people we have always been reaching on some level. The question remains: how will we reach those we don't know? 

I think cold-contact evangelism - that is meeting and talking to people whom we wouldn't ordinarily engage with the specific intention of sharing the gospel with them - is a means we can credibly do this. The burden of proof is on those who wish to reject cold-contact evangelism to provide a credible alternative for reaching people we wouldn't otherwise meet. Organisations such as United Beach Missions, Open Air Mission, Campus Crusade for Christ and others would all speak against the idea that cold-contact evangelism is ineffective. Even if we wish to argue that some of these missions are not 'cold-contact' per se, seeking to establish relationships for gospel work, they nonetheless aim meet people we wouldn't ordinarily meet with the expressed purpose of sharing the gospel with them. It is at least 'cold-contact' during the time we are beginning to establish relationships and we are building those bridges with a clear sense that we are Christian workers sharing our faith.

It is often the case that we are too timorous with the gospel and we hide behind an ethereal sense of what is, or is not, culturally appropriate in order to shy away from the great commission. We must ask ourselves honestly, are we really avoiding cold-contact evangelism because it's ineffective or is it because we're too scared to engage people with their need of Christ? The evidence points to cold-contact evangelism - as with every form of evangelism - being effective when it is done well and with the right people. If the method is effective in winning souls for Christ - the great awakening, the work of C.H. Spurgeon, the work of Billy Graham, multiple mission organisations and my own personal experience of open air evangelism all suggest that it is - we must have a really solid reason to say we're not going to do it. 

To be honest, 'it might come across weird' may not cut it.

British values, EDOs and whether we'll keep our church buildings

Now they are free of their Liberal Democrat shackle, the Conservative government will press ahead with plans to scrap the human rights act and introduce Extremism Disruptions Orders (EDOs) based upon "British Values" (whatever those are supposed to be). I previously commented on EDOs here. However, there are a few new features that warrant comment.

David Cameron states:

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.

This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values. (Source: Guardian)

It is, therefore, apt for Politics Home to state 'David Cameron is promising to introduce a bill in his first Queen’s Speech that will give authorities stronger powers to clamp down on radical groups and individuals – even if they have not broken the law.'

The Guardian claims the measures are intended to give the police 'power to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual'. Harmful is defined as a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress. The measures will allow for bans on broadcasting and requirements to submit to the police in advance any proposed speech and any web, social media, or print publications. Extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places are also in view. The bill will also contain new powers to close premises "where extremists seek to influence others".

All of this is done in the name of promoting the heretofore undefined concept of "British values". When pressed on this idea, we are told British values incorporate such novelties as freedom of speech and tolerance of others. This either means we have our British values mixed-up or such measures are not really in the name of British values. For, it seems strange to defend free speech and tolerance by denying free speech and tolerance to all views but state prescribed orthodoxies. If free speech and tolerance are truly British values, that should surely extend to speech we find hateful and unpleasant. Indeed, what room is there for the exercise of tolerance if we are never faced with opposing views we must tolerate? Throwing people in prison for expressing unorthodox views - whatever they may be - is a strange approach to tolerance and free speech. Dare I say, it isn't really tolerant at all.

The major problem with these limits on free speech is that they are the slippery slope to repression and authoritarianism. Though judgment may begin at the house of radicalised Islamist terrorists and sympathisers, it very quickly narrows in to those who hold a whole raft of views outside of mainstream thought. Theresa May has already alighted upon those who oppose gay equality legislation as "extremist". Whatever your views on that particular issue, it is surely not right to criminalise those who disagree (unless they have violent thoughts towards those who don't share their views and plan to act upon them). It has political ramifications too. Judgment will begin with those archetypal extremists in the BNP but will soon narrow to take in UKIP, the hard-right of the conservative party any number of "extremist" left-wing parties and the hard-left of the Labour party. 

The rhetoric being employed in favour of this legislation is precisely the same as that used to try and suppress those movements most people today see as vital moments in history. At one time, the Chartists, the Suffragettes, the Labour movement, the Civil Rights movements of America and Northern Ireland, those fighting apartheid in South Africa, those asking for Home Rule for Ireland, just about any independence movement and any number of other significant historical movements have been labelled "extremist" or some similar epithet. 

I am not suggesting those being radicalised by Islamists sit within this same company. However, two things should be said. First, it is the unstated consequences of this legislation that will inevitably impact the newer movements that could potentially sit amongst such historic company. Secondly, some of these historical movements - often church-based dissenting movements - sought to enshrine the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech in British law. For several hundred years those rights have been broadly recognised. It is, therefore, immense folly to claim to uphold British values - especially the values of freedom of speech and religion that were won primarily by dissenting churchmen - whilst simultaneously eroding the freedom of those very people to exercise those rights. Threatening prosecution and the removal of buildings for stating views that do not accord with state orthodoxy is a return to medieval rule whereby the governing religion is not Protestant or Catholic but a secularism that isn't fully realised and still hides behind a veneer of the more palatable facets and labels of Christendom.

The way in which the limits on free speech have been applied over recent years is well documented. Street preachers have been the ones who faced the brunt of these pernicious laws and the militancy of those who are desperate to find offence in the things of faith being presented in the public square. Unfortunately, street preaching has fallen out of favour in many Christian circles. I don't know whether it is out of fear of man, embarrassment of the mode, a lack of belief in the power of the gospel and the folly of preaching or something else altogether. Whatever the reason, it sometimes felt as though many unwilling to engage in such public proclamation sat idly by whilst those brave enough to do it faced the ire of the law. It was as though many viewed police involvement as the comeuppance of those foolish enough to engage in such outmoded practices.

As I have argued throughout my posts on free speech, what was being done to evangelists on the street was soon to come home to roost in church buildings. And such is coming to pass. EDOs are specifically designed to root out "extremism in all its forms" and grants powers to close down buildings and venues in which "hate speech" (as yet to be properly defined) is propagated. This was a potential Martin Niemöller moment, and I'll leave it to you to decide how we fared on that front. The offence being taken on the street is now going to be taken in the church. In fact, offence needn't even be taken in the church. Sermons and studies placed online, or even "extremist" views being taught in principle could spell the end of our church buildings and venues and/or the vetting of our sermons and studies.

One can only hope the government sees sense and changes course. If not, this may be an issue on which the church will have to suffer if it is to remain faithful to the word of God. We can nevertheless rest assured that the church of Jesus Christ was not built on the back of state sponsorship and nice church buildings. The early church did quite well without well disposed primary schools offering them a nice venue on a Sunday. What we need, as much now as then, is a work of the Holy Spirit and deep belief in sufficiency of the scriptures. It takes God's word and a work of his Spirit to bring revival. Perhaps we need to lose some of our buildings before we fully realise that.

The first female bishop is the Anglican's AV referendum. The second may cause further issues

Having only just appointed the first, the CofE have now appointed a second female bishop. The Guardian report Rev Canon Alison White will accept a bishopric in the see of Hull. The announcement comes shortly after the first female bishop, Rev Libby Lane, was appointed as bishop of Stockport. Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, called it a "joyous day" and hailed the move as "fantastic".

Rt Rev Lane has already come under fire from some liberal quarters for not being quite liberal enough. Given that Conservative Evangelicals and High Church traditionalists were never going to wear the appointment, regardless of the theological inclinations of the appointee, it seems an ill-conceived move to appoint a woman who wasn't a thoroughgoing liberal. 

The group for whom this appointment was most welcome, and long overdue, is the more liberal wing of the church. To then appoint a mildly conservative, or even middle-of-the-road, candidate has caused the most receptive group to have their noses put out of joint because the appointment is not sufficiently liberal for them. This seems to be an exercise in shooting one's church body in the foot. Nobody, neither opponent nor proponent, got what they were seeking. This is the CofE's very own AV referendum; an attempt at progress which neither liberals nor conservatives actually want. As attempts at politically progressive acts that seek to uphold some semblance of unity go, this seems to be a total dog's breakfast.

No doubt, once again, we will be entreated to the next round of Conservative Evangelical hand-wringing. The lines will be drawn ("here I stand..." and all that), they will once again be breached, new lines will be drawn ("Here we really stand...") and they will be pushed. Inevitably, the current protection for Evangelical complementarians to reject the headship of a female bishop will be the next battleground.

In years past, I had little sympathy for Evangelicals that wished to remain within the bounds of the Anglican communion. My feeling was that the issue was quite simple: the church had departed from the gospel and the Evangelicals could either choose to remain in fellowship with non-gospel churches or remove themselves and join with like-minded gospel churches. In many respects, that choice remains the same.

However, the matter is wildly more complicated now. In the past, Evangelicals could have left over the denigration of the gospel. Having chosen not to do that, many are now faced with leaving over important, but secondary, external matters such as complementarianism and gay marriage. What the world would have seen as an exodus over gospel issues - a watering down of theology and an inability to have meaningful fellowship with churches that eschew basic gospel truth - will now simply be seen as a hissy fit by misogynists and homophobes who couldn't get their own way. Cries of "but this is a gospel issue" will be lost on those who see only years of increasingly errant doctrine, denounced as dreadful at the time but nonetheless tolerated to the point of remaining in fellowship, while the inclusion of women and homosexuals is the prima facie cause of schism.

Whilst we in the Free Churches may look on and wonder why such lines were not drawn decades ago, the CofE is where it is. The question has now become eminently more complex. Do Evangelicals remain in a church broader than the Norfolk waterways and risk increasing compromise or do they leave for the sanctuary of independency and risk a misconstruction of the basic issues? 

I have to say it is not a choice I envy. But one feels the "it's a gospel issue" boat sailed some while ago. One way or the other, there are choppy waters ahead.

How do you sell God in the 21st Century? More Heaven; less Hell

I came across this article in today's Guardian online. The piece recounts a conservative Evangelical journey away from their faith. It outlines the story of somebody growing up in an Evangelical baptist family, going to Moody Bible Institute (a conservative, Evangelical seminary), engaged in evangelism and yet becoming increasingly disaffected with theodicy and theology of Hell. In many ways, it is a common story of an Evangelical unable to square what they see in scripture, the apologetic arguments and theology they are taught and their own internal sense of what is just, fair, moral and right. Though lengthy, the article is certainly worth reading.

Nevertheless, the article's emphasis isn't really autobiographical. The writer isn't ultimately trying to share how they became disaffected with Evangelicalism (though they do share that and do so - in my view - in a way that still exhibits fondness for Evangelicals if not for Evangelicalism nor Evangelical theology.) Rather, the writer is trying to address why the perception of Hell - and certainly the formulation of the doctrine of Hell at a popular level - has changed over time.

The article contends that 30 years ago - whilst the writer was growing up in Evangelical baptist circles - Hell was taught in, what would now be considered, an anachronistic way. It was all fire and brimstone, eternal torment and attempts to scare folk into Heaven. It notes a shift in emphasis, focusing on the preaching and writing of Bill Hybels, toward less of a focus on Hell itself. Certainly when Hell was mentioned, it was brought into focus by empathetic appeals to sin and evil existing in all people. The writer then considers how this has changed again, focusing on the writing of Rob Bell. It argues Hell is now either (a) something to be experienced here on Earth; or, (b) a purgatorial refinement leading to ultimate, universal reconciliation and the end of Hell itself.

The article misses the mark in various respects. Principally, it argues the way to avoid Hell, according to protestant Evangelical theology, is to say the sinner's prayer. It states "For contemporary evangelicals, it’s solely this act that separates the sheep from the goats." Though there are undoubtedly people who hold this view, most at a personal level, it is not mainstream Evangelical belief. 

Paul Washer, a well-known conservative Evangelical couldn't be clearer when he states "We call men to repent and believe. And if they repent and believe, truly in that moment they are saved in that moment. But the evidence is more than just the sincerity of a prayer. It is a continuation of the working of God in their life through sanctification." He has also argued "We have taken that truth [that if you truly believe and you confess Christ, even if it costs you your life, you will be saved]… we have taken that beautiful truth and reduced it down to, “If you pray a little prayer before a bunch of people in a church in America, you can be guaranteed you were saved if you think you were sincere.”"

Denny Burk - Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College (Southern Baptist seminary) and associate pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church - has published this comment by David Platt - president of the International Missions Board, the mission agency of the Southern Baptists (a conservative Evangelical denomination). Platt states:

Do I believe it is “wrong” for someone to pray a “prayer of salvation”? Certainly not. Calling out to God in prayer with repentant faith is fundamental to being saved (Romans 10:9-10). Yet as I pastor a local church and serve alongside pastors of other local churches, I sense reasonably serious concern about the relatively large number of baptisms in our churches that are “re-baptisms”—often representing people who thought they were saved because they prayed a certain prayer, but they lacked a biblical understanding of salvation and were in reality not saved. This, in addition to a rampant easy believism that marks cultural Christianity in our context (and in other parts of the world), leads me to urge us, as we go to all people among all nations with the good news of God’s love, to be both evangelistically zealous and biblically clear at the same time (Matthew 28:18-20).

Plenty of other conservative Evangelicals can be found stating categorically that nobody is saved simply because they prayed a "sinner's prayer". Though a prayer of repentance may be an outward expression of the repentance that has already taken place in the heart of a believer, it is this ongoing state of repentance and trust in Christ's atoning work that saves.

However, the article is helpful in pinpointing where the boundaries of belief lie. It quite rightly sees the arguments advanced by Rob Bell as demonstrating "the potential pitfalls of the church’s desire to distance itself too quickly from fire and brimstone." As the writer comments:

Bell claims to address the exact theological problem that motivated me to leave the faith, but rather than offer a new understanding of the doctrine, he offers up a Disneyesque vision of humanity, one that is wholly incompatible with the language biblical authors use to speak about good and evil. Along with hell, the new evangelical leaders threaten to jettison the very notion of human depravity – a fundamental Christian truth upon which the entire salvation narrative hinges.

The issues for the writer were plain enough. The Bible teaches the doctrine of Hell. An internal sense of that which is just and merciful couldn't accept the doctrine of Hell. One either accepts the teaching of the Bible or rejects it. Bell's attempts at "disneyfying" the doctrine seemed too hollow and shallow for credible belief.

What the article helpfully states in the clearest terms is the following:

what made church such a powerful experience for me as a child and a young adult was that it was the one place where my own faults and failings were recognised and accepted, where people referred to themselves affectionately as “sinners”, where it was taken as a given that the person standing in the pews beside you was morally fallible, but still you held hands and lifted your voice with hers as you worshipped in song. This camaraderie came from a collective understanding of evil – a belief that each person harboured within them a potential for sin and deserved, despite it, divine grace. It’s this notion of shared fallibility that lent Hybels’s 9/11 sermon its power, as he suggested that his own longing for revenge was only a difference of degree – not of kind – from the acts of the terrorists.

Without a clear and defined understanding of the doctrine of Hell the message of the gospel is liable to be lost. No amount of rebranding is going to help. For a reformulation of the doctrine of Hell means the gospel, the message of salvation in Christ, ultimately loses its power. No Hell soon leads to a watered down, or non-existent, statement of sin. No sin means no need of salvation. No need of salvation means no need of Christ. No need of Christ makes Jesus a pitiable character indeed.

Efforts to rebrand Hell, or to push it to the sidelines, are misguided at best. That is not to say our preaching must be fire and brimstone every week. Nor is it to say Hell must be the centre of all our gospel presentations. It is to say, that to pretend it doesn't exist or to speak of it in such ways as it seems little more than trifling irritant - like a small wart on God's created order - is to undermine the gospel.

A right view of sin - to see it as God sees it - lends credence to the existence of Hell. To do anything other than present Hell as scripture presents it damages our understanding of sin, salvation and the work of Christ. Whatever else the article made clear, it is apparent that changes to the doctrine of Hell were ultimately unconvincing and - despite the title of the piece - more Heaven and less Hell doesn't do much to win anybody. If anything, it undermines the achievement of Jesus on the cross and the reality of our standing before a holy God.

Can UKIP claim to defend "Christian values"?

It cannot have escaped anyone's notice that UKIP seem to be doing rather better than a few months ago. Gone from public view are some politically problematic characters, such as Godfrey Bloom. Now the party is riding high on a tidal wave of public support, Tory defections and their very first MP elected to parliament. Whether UKIP are right to be so optimistic - not least given the polling levels and single MP enjoyed by the (ironically) less colourful Greens for years - or the media are simply making more of this than they ought, time will tell.

Whether spin for a good story or otherwise, the media are certainly giving significant column inches to covering UKIP. One particular claim from the 'kippers seems to have gained significant traction. Namely, that UKIP robustly defend Christian values. Such a claim has led to disgust among some (see here) and a proud defence from others (see here). 

Whatever side of this discussion one may fall, these articles are a prime example of two individuals talking straight past each other. In response to Giles Fraser's specific concern that foreigners living in the UK were not helped by UKIP policies, Richard Lucas argued that aid shouldn't be spent overseas. Both men, in one way or another, made some valid points whilst simultaneously failing to address any issue the other raised. Given Fraser broke cover first, he wasn't answering anything but raising specific objections, most of the blame for ignoring the concerns must lie with Mr Lucas. In truth, neither particularly helped answer the question they claimed to raise: whether UKIP truly do defend Christian values.

Before we can even begin to answer that, we have to work out precisely what "Christian values" are supposed to be. Politically speaking, there seems to be no obvious answer. Christians exist across the political spectrum in just about all parties, mainstream and fringe, and yes that includes UKIP too. Evidently, appeal to numbers isn't going to help. Christians involved in politics come to wildly different positions on the best party to support and the most pressing issues concerning faith and wider society.

Theologically speaking, things don't really fare much better. The plethora of denominations and shades of Christian thought suggest that "Christian values" are rather hard to pin down. Even if we wanted to be tighter about our definition, perhaps excluding all non-Evangelicals, things still don't come out in the wash. Those who claim to be Evangelical exist across the denominations and within Free Churches. The idea that even all Free Churchmen (or Anglicans, or Strict Baptists, or whomever) think alike theologically or politically is something of a nonsense. Even were we to pare this down to one particular Evangelical church, though perhaps closer to a consensus, theological and political differences will be prevalent (unless one belongs to a Free Presbyterian church in Northern Ireland. In that case, you're highly unlikely to be anything other than theologically uniform and Democratic Unionist, though surprisingly some Ulster Unionists even dare to join!)

Pinning down "Christian values" is rather harder than some might think. Even where we agree on gospel priorities, different emphases will still exist. Some favour social action, others direct gospel proclamation, others still a middle way. Theologically, though we may agree on each point, how far we want to press each matter will differ. Politically speaking, things are much the same. Though we may agree in principle as Christians, our emphases and priorities are likely to differ.

On that basis alone, I think we are safe in saying UKIP do not support, or defend, Christian values. Incidentally, nor do any other major political parties. It is pretty difficult to pin down precisely what is meant by the term. Frankly, I know enough Christians - especially those politically active - to know one would be a little reckless to vote for a candidate simply because somebody is a Christian. I am all too aware that many Christians have different approaches, views and emphases to me. To vote based on faith alone is likely to mean political views are pressed that are far removed from my own.

Could UKIP help themselves out by claiming to defend biblical values? Not really. No doubt some of their policies chime with certain pressing and current biblical issues. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that for every one that does, there is likely another that doesn't. Even if the party sought to claim defence of Christian people, we run into similar problems. I'm sure their stance on freedom of speech (better than the position of many others) helps enormously those Christians engaged in public gospel proclamation. Unfortunately, their stance on those Christians who have come to Britain as either asylum seekers or economic migrants really cannot feasibly be claimed to help, or defend, the values of those Christians.

This is not specifically to get at UKIP. For as many of their policies that don't defend "Christian values" (whatever they may be), the other parties hardly uphold biblical mores. I suppose the only difference is the other parties never claimed to be trying.

Willful misapplication of the law: a case in point

Three days ago, I commented on the Home Secretary's troubling new proposal to introduce Extremism Disruption Orders. You can see my comments here. My central concern was the stifling of free speech and free debate coupled with the almost certain willful misapplication of the law. Such proposals will have grave knock-on effects, not only for those whose faith is lived out in the public square, but also those who proclaim their faith from the heretofore safety of their own religious building.

For those who doubt the heavy-handed application of the law, an interesting case in point can be viewed here and here. A gentleman who went to Taunton town centre to share his faith has been specifically targeted by police. Market traders have been encouraged to film his street preaching in order to "prove" his words are offensive. Having encouraged locals to aid their evidence-gathering exercise, the evangelist in question is now being prosecuted under Section 5 of the Public Order Act (the very section that has since been amended due to such policing, as you can see here).

The fact the police encouraged market traders to film the man in question is not particularly troubling. Anybody can decide to film anyone else. If anything, it may even help his evangelistic efforts knowing that several market traders are intently listening to his message and, better yet, are keeping it for posterity. Even better again, they are probably passing it on to police as "evidence" meaning his message is being spread further than he could ever have hoped. All of that is to say the filming is not really the problem.

The real issue is that the police predetermined the level of offence and the extent to which Mr Overd was likely to breach the peace and then sought to incite the public themselves gather evidence to prove how offensive he was being. It also seems apparent that those listening were not all that incensed, given a number of complainants "failing to remember what he had said or forgetting when the alleged offensive remarks had taken place". Worse still, Mr Overd is now being prosecuted for a factually-based comparison of the lives of Jesus and Mohammad based upon historical evidence as Mr Overd understood and interpreted it.

Whatever one may feel about his mode of evangelism or the wisdom of making such comparisons, it is undoubtedly beyond question that Mr Overd should be free to do so without police intervention. Muslims, market traders and the multitudes should be free to tell Mr Overd that they don't care for his comments with equal freedom. Those same people should be free to agree and support his comments should they choose to do so. This really isn't a matter for police involvement. There was no danger of violence and certainly no call to arms.

This issue is pertinent because anybody doubting that proposed Extremism Disruption Orders will be misapplied to shut down evangelical street preachers, or even less vocal expressions of evangelicalism, need only look to the application of existing laws. Stories abound, not least this case in point, of such things using existing legislation never intended to be used in this way. The Home Secretary makes no bones about intending to permit the application of the law to people such as Mr Overd. If current legislation, never intended in this way, can be used to stifle free debate and inhibit free speech, what will come of such freedoms when the expressed position of the legislation is to inhibit in precisely these ways?

Know that this is a real issue. An issue that no longer only impacts upon evangelicals brave enough to share their faith in public ways but will affect all those who are evangelical on a Sunday morning, within their own buildings, preaching orthodoxy to their own congregations. We may have spent much time thinking they are coming for the street preachers but I'm not a street preacher so I did nothing. Well, as ever, our inactivity because it doesn't affect us means our comfortable position inside our own church buildings is likely to be next.

Extremist Disruption Orders and ill-judged legislation

Forcing through ill-judged legislation to solve a particular mischief seems to be an unfortunate recurring theme for governments of all stripes. We have already endured a raft of New Labour anti-terror legislation that, whilst primarily aimed at those who espouse violent extremism, was so haphazardly applied (or, mischievously, depending on your predilection) that "extremism" and "hate crimes" were interpreted to include anyone proclaiming anything other than banal, state-approved views. Nonetheless, though over zealously applied, it is probably fair to say the central mischief in mind was genuinely the primary target of the proposed law.

This is what makes the new Extremist Disruption Orders posited by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, so concerning. Not only have past lessons of anti-terror efforts not been heeded, May now goes one step further. In her conference speech, she states outright:

..to live in a modern liberal state is not to live in a moral vacuum. We have to stand up for our values as a nation. There will, I know, be some who say that what I describe as extremism is merely social conservatism. But if others described a woman’s intellect as “deficient”, denounced people on the basis of their religious beliefs, or rejected the democratic process, we would quite rightly condemn their bigotry. And there will be others who say I am wrong to link these kinds of beliefs with the violent extremism we agree we must confront. To them I say, yes, not all extremism leads to violence. And not all extremists are violent. But the damage extremists cause to our society is reason enough to act. And there is, undoubtedly, a thread that binds the kind of extremism that promotes intolerance, hatred and a sense of superiority over others to the actions of those who want to impose their values on us through violence.

And there we have it. Not only "extremism" that leads to violence but "extremism" of all forms. And how do we define such a nebulous term? Though evidently not an exhaustive list, the Home Secretary considers those who believe women to be intellectually "deficient" and those who "denounce" others on the basis of their religious beliefs should be included. Is it offensive to state such things? Almost certainly. Are such views worthy of police intervention? Almost certainly not. More to the point, are those who face the force of the law likely to have done either of those things? In many cases, probably not.

As the Cranmer blog rightly points out "the policy is reasoned and moderate in expression, but the legislation will be almost Marxist in its application as it is wilfully misinterpreted and misapplied to Evangelical Christians (ie those who publicly proclaim the Good News) in exactly the same manner as anti-terror legislation has been invoked to eject a disgruntled pensioner from a Labour Party conference".

The central problem with outlawing "extremism in all its forms" (as the Home Secretary went on to promise) is that such a vacuous subjective term is patently open to abuse. It simply ought not to be illegal to voice an opinion or view that may be deemed "extremist" based upon some undisclosed, subjective assessment. The sad truth is, there are an inordinate number of pressure groups and hyper-sensitive people just waiting to be offended. Worse, they use such attacks on their sensibilities, now bolstered by this egregious law, to see the miscreant removed from the public square for their, often unintentionally, offensive statement. It has also been known for some to actively elicit "offensive" comments (suggesting the view cannot be so unpalatable if questions are being asked for the purpose of obtaining the comment itself) simply so they can involve police in a matter they shouldn't even entertain. As Cranmer correctly states, "For the secular state to seek to define “extremist views” reduces freedom of speech and freedom of religion to the lawful expression of culturally orthodox utterances".

Many Evangelical Christians may think this is an abstract problem that doesn't affect most of us. Surely it only affects street preachers with "offensive" views, those passing out irrelevant literature and others engaged in dated modes of evangelism. But even the central target of this legislation, so-called Islamist "hate preachers", are predominantly not addressing people out in town but inside mosques. They are not ramming their views down people's throats out on the street, they are stating their views on the internet for those who care to listen. That is not to say such views - if they are genuinely those that cause and incite violence - shouldn't be addressed. It is simply to say that such views are being addressed without being in the public domain in the way a street preacher or literature distributor happens to be.

If Evangelicalism is now lumped into the same category as Radical Islamism in the minds of many (not least, the UK government), the idea that only those engaged in active, public evangelism will be affected is cloud-cuckoo land. Most evangelicals still hold views that may be deemed "offensive" by some, state them inside their church buildings and put them up on websites for those who care to listen. Though the clampdown on nebulous "extremist" views begins with Islam, we can be in little doubt that it will extend to Christianity and will not only include those public enough to do their evangelism outside their building. For, if an offensive or "extremist" view in the mosque can lead to legislation and police action, the church is unlikely to fare any better.

The reality is there is no universal human right against being offended. As Cranmer correctly notes, "Extremist opinion that does not involve a call to arms or incite people to acts of terrorism ought to be tolerated by the liberal democratic state. Otherwise those who seek to undermine our liberty and overthrow democracy have won". One can only hope the divergent, yet unerringly consistent, voices of David Davies, Peter Tatchell and many others are finally heeded on this matter.

What do the Scottish Independence referendum and the Anglican Church have in common?

To the great relief of some and the consternation of others (on both sides of the border), Scotland have voted "no" in the independence referendum. The status quo is maintained and we remain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Whether it was fear of the unknown (or, fear of troubling knowns), the lack of a positive vision for an independent Scotland or simply that many Scots are more conservative than they let on, it is clear most did not share the belief of the Scottish National Party that Scotland is better as an independent nation. Sadly for those seeking independence, a referendum of this order comes around once in a lifetime and, for them, it seems the boat has sailed.

It occurs to me that discussion within Anglicanism mirrors, on some level, the Scottish independence debate. Calls for a mass exodus of bible-believing evangelicals from the Anglican communion have certainly been around for decades (possibly centuries). Yet, evangelicals within Anglicanism - despite their own growing discontent over an increasing number of issues - continue to hold fast their denominational allegiance.

Perhaps, like Scotland, it is a lack of any positive vision that is the stumbling block. It is one thing to heed the voice of Martin Lloyd-Jones and remove oneself from Anglicansim but it is quite another to do it without any positive vision of what to do thereafter. Breaking ties with all one has ever known is not as straightforward as one may think. There are a handful arguments advanced for remaining within the denomination which, without similar positive reasons to leave, mean making the break is not the no-brainer it seems to those of us in the Free Church.

Maybe it is simply a fear of the unknown (or, certain concerning knowns). Not only is it unclear what some would do after their disassociation but there are some known problems associated with leaving. Buildings, land and stipends are often tied up with being part of the wider Anglican communion. It would be no small step of faith to remove oneself from the denomination and trust that buildings, land and stipends (not to mention a raft of other things) will follow suit.

Alternatively, the issue may be one of timing. Many evangelical Anglicans I meet speak of "now as the right time" to begin making a stand on X, Y or Z issue. What is rather unfortunate is that Lloyd-Jones encouraged evangelicals to leave Anglicanism decades ago based on a commitment to the gospel. Today, discussion centres on issues of headship, female ordination and homosexuality rather than the gospel itself. Like it or not, even if evangelical Anglicans now decide the church has taken a step too far, it will be cast as a separation on the current issues, not on theological concern for the purity of the gospel.

As with Scottish Independence, the opportunity to make a stand on the right issue tends to roll around but once. Unlike Scotland, evangelicals within the Anglican Communion could still leave the denomination if they so choose. What is less likely is that they will be able to do so on both the issue, and the terms, they might like.

Steve Chalke, Evangelical Alliance & why Cranmer is wrong about a new schism

Yesterday, the Archbishop Cranmer blog commented on the expulsion of the Oasis Trust from the Evangelical Alliance (EA). EA have released a statement regarding the issue. Oasis have responded in kind.

His Grace is quick to note that "The EA do not expel members who support abortion; nor do they sever links with those who marry divorcees or accept pre-marital sexual relations as a forerunner of marriage. They do not even expel a member for repudiation of the foundational Evangelical doctrine of substitutionary atonement, which the Rev'd Steve Chalke terms "cosmic child abuse", as though God casually murdered His Son for the salvation of the world, and penal substitution is barbaric and utterly morally indefensible."

It is this that causes him to argue we now see a new schism in Evangelicalism. He states "And so we now have (another) schism - Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals, who welcome fornicators, adulterers and abortionists, and Liberal (or 'Accepting') Evangelicals, who welcome all of the above plus gays and lesbians." 

Worse still, claims Cranmer, the EA are themeselves guilty of this error. He argues removal of Oasis Trust from the EA is hypocritical since Gavin Shuker MP sits on their Council of Reference and has voted consistently in favour of gay marriage. This, says Cranmer, is hypocrisy and should see Gavin Shuker MP removed from the Council of Reference.

On two fronts, I believe His Grace has gotten this one wrong.

Firstly, in respect to Gavin Shuker MP, it is entirely possible to uphold the traditional Christian positions on marriage and homosexuality whilst allowing for a recognition of same-sex partnership in law. As Tim Keller has noted: "you can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal. Those are not the same issues. They overlap" (1). I have commented similarly here, here, here and here.

Now, I have absolutely no idea about the specific position of Gavin Shuker on marriage and homosexuality. But, it is entirely possible he holds a view not dissimilar to the Anabaptist position outlined by Keller. Unless Mr Shuker openly and repeatedly espouses a view that homosexuality is not sinful, his voting in favour of Gay Marriage is not reason to expel him from the EA Council per se. 

Neither does this represent any hypocrisy on the part of EA. As Cranmer himself notes, "the Evangelical Alliance has excommunicated the Oasis Trust simply because its founder has stated (time and again) his support for committed monogamous same-sex relationships". Unless he has repeatedly made similar comments in the public square, the EA are perfectly entitled to "excommunicate" Steve Chalke whilst retaining the counsel of Gavin Shuker. Should His Grace produce evidence that Mr Shuker has stated monogamous homosexual relationships are blessed by God and do not represent any form of sin, his argument may stand. In lieu of this, we cannot say the EA have erred on this issue.

On the matter of a supposed Evangelical schism, His Grace argues "we now have (another) schism - Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals, who welcome fornicators, adulterers and abortionists, and Liberal (or 'Accepting') Evangelicals, who welcome all of the above plus gays and lesbians." Evidently, this is a false classification of the two sides.

Though the EA may defend the traditional position on homosexuality, they fail to defend orthodox views on abortion, penal substitution and a range of other issues. For this reason, most Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals in the UK would describe the EA as outside the 'Conservative' or 'Traditional' camp. Given, as His Grace rightly notes, the differences between EA and Oasis Trust seem based on homosexuality alone (rather than the more heinous theological errors for which they should have withdrawn fellowship long ago), one struggles to see how they sit on different sides of a schism.

Surely, if schism exists within Evangelicalism, it is between those who uphold traditional, Conservative theological positions and those who do not. Clearly it is possible to hold to traditional, Conservative theology whilst not seeking such implementation in law. Yet, schism does not exist between those who accept legal recognition of certain positions and those who do not. Rather, it is between those who argue that scripture itself permits and blesses those things which are clearly sinful which we may, or may not, choose to legally permit. That being the case, despite his expulsion from the network, Steve Chalke and the EA seem to sit on the same side of the divide. 

That EA have said "thus far and no further" does not alter the fact that the lengths to which they were willing to go before expelling Steve Chalke well and truly write them out of ever being credibly labelled 'Conservative' or 'traditional'. Compare Spurgeon with the Baptist Union or Lloyd-Jones with the Evangelical Alliance itself. If you want to see real schism within Evangelicalism, they occurred long before the EA kicked Steve Chalke out of membership. If the lines drawn by Lloyd-Jones still hold (and I think they probably do), EA and Steve Chalke - despite their recent separation - still remain part of the same camp.

Notes

1. Keller has specifically clarified this statement. He says "In explaining the Anabaptist tradition, I was quoted saying, "You can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal." I did say that—but it was purely a statement of fact. It is possible to hold that position, though it isn't my position, nor was I promoting or endorsing the position. I was simply reporting on the growth of that view."