The tyranny of liberalism inculcates illiberal counter-extremism measures

If you cannot conceive why so many people are pleased that Jeremy Corbyn has won the Labour leadership election, the reasons are plethora. One major factor is the sense that the party will now undo decades of vacuous New Labour policy which has dragged the party further to the right and away from its founding principles. Another reason is the tyranny of liberalism that began in the New Labour era and has been perpetuated by the so called "heir to Blair". It is telling that both the left-wing of the Labour Party and the right-wing of the Conservative Party have both been the most vociferous defenders of civil liberties in the face of this oppressive centrism that so lauds the values of tolerance and acceptance that it simultaneously denies anyone the right to disagree with its moral pronouncements (which, ironically, it claims is grounded in no set of morals at all!)

This centrist tyrannical liberalism is the epitome of amorality and illiberality. I have far more time for moral and social Conservatives, who actually ground their beliefs in a set of moral principles and a proper understanding of what it is to be a liberal society, than I have for this vacuous centrism. Likewise traditional Socialist values - especially those grounded in the Christian Socialist tradition - have always made their arguments in moral terms. The very term liberalism, and the supposed post-war liberal consensus, once meant defining particular rights and allowing all such practices that do not impinge thereon. These rights were once determined from accepted moral values. However, these terms have come to mean a set of moral statements, without any underpinning moral framework, which must be upheld at all costs. All dissenting opinion will not be tolerated and must be quashed. What once stood for inherent freedom for the individual has come to mean cultural oppression. What claims to be a stand for tolerance is, in actual fact, the refusal to tolerate anything else.

This troubling tendency of the last three decades was perfectly illustrated by a report in yesterday's Telegraph. The report opens with the ominous words:

Imams, priests, rabbis and other religious figures will have to enrol in a “national register of faith leaders” and be subject to government-specified training and security checks in the Home Office’s latest action on extremism.

The report claimed:

Whitehall will “require all faiths to maintain a national register of faith leaders” and the Government will “set out the minimum level of training and checks” faith leaders must have to join the new register.

In short, the proposal demands leaders within all faiths become state registered with the state determining the minimum level of training required to fulfil their job requirements.

There are several things to note about this. Firstly, this is being driven through as part of the government's latest round of anti-extremism measures. Once again, in the name of security, age old civil liberties, such as freedom of religion, are being eroded. It is shocking to see a supposedly liberal government enacting a policy that is worryingly similar to that of the Communist regime in China.

Second, it cannot fail to escape anybody's notice that anti-extremism measures and counter-terror legislation were introduced as a result of 9/11, 7/7 and other more recent atrocities. We have been well acquainted with terrorism in Western Europe for well over a century (cf. IRA and its offshoots; UDA, UVF and their offshoots; ETA; Terra Lliure et al). It is clear enough that the increase in such legislation is not a result of such groups. This legislation has been a result of particular terrorist activities which comes from one particular source. It is specifically a response to Islamist terrorism (or Jihadism).

All sensible observers recognise Islam comes in a range of forms, going well beyond Sunni and Shia branches. It should be clear to even the most casual observer that Islam is not one monolithic bloc and clearly most Muslims do not subscribe to Islamist terrorism nor even the Salafi strain of Sunni Islam. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the glaringly obvious fact that the major threat of terrorist activity in recent decades has come from these pernicious forms  of Muslim thought. It is in response to this particular form of terrorism that anti-terror and anti-extremist legislation - however well thought through or otherwise - has been introduced.

What is most troubling is that this latest attempt at anti-extremist legislation should include those of "all faiths". How many reform Jews have we heard of jumping onto buses and blowing themselves up? How many rabbis have we heard encouraging such behaviour or encouraging British citizens to kill in the name of the Israeli state? We are not hearing of swathes of Sikhs using their (legally permitted) kirpan to strike fear into the heart of British society. Militant Hindus (though some certainly exist on the Indian sub-continent) are not the subject of major police counter-terror initiatives. Christian leaders are not encouraging their communicants to attack the infidel. Why, then, are "all faiths" always found subject to measures designed to target one particular group of people, within one particular branch, of one particular religion?

Are the government truly trying to argue that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue, taking a traditional line on heterosexual marriage is akin to Salafi Jihadism? Is it really the case that evangelical street preachers pose a similar threat to national security as those who seek to intentionally blow themselves up in the name of martyrdom? Are orthodox Jews really the same threat to British culture as those who actively proclaim allegiance to the Islamic State?

If this is a problem confined to one particular religion, it is highly unreasonable to use this as a catch-all way to extend these rules to all religions. If it is unfair to tarnish all Muslims with the same brush - knowing, as I do, many Imams and Muslim parents who are terrified that their own children may buy into these pernicious extremist ideologies, it most certainly is - how much less fair is it to include those who don't even subscribe to the wider religion in question? It seems that government are pressing on with this approach because they do not want to be seen attacking Islam alone. But there simply is no escaping that it is not the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhist who are having any effect on the British terror threat level. Until such time as we accept the source of the problem, we will continue to be hit with these cack-handed attempts to address the problem.

Third, this sort of approach does absolutely nothing to address the root problem. The issues that government are (rightly) concerned about are terrorist activities and the incitement to violence. Sadly, the government have extended their attempts to to deal with these two issues to anything deemed "extremist". Quite apart from failing to define nebulous "British values" and defining extremism as anything which doesn't accord with them, this does nothing to address the root of the problem. As noted by Haras Rafiq - director of the counter-extremism think tank Quilliam - "“It is very noticeable that the main Islamist groups are not really up in arms about this. They want it, because it will feed the narrative of grievance and victimhood they love. They will be able to use it to say, ‘look, we told you so’.” We have moved from trying to stop people breaking the law, and actively damaging others, to trying to inculcate views and values by diktat.

Fourth, this approach goes against anything that can be considered tolerable in a free and liberal society. It is the outworking of precisely the issue noted at the beginning of this post. It is the tyranny of liberalism that cannot cope with permitting views outside of the cultural zeitgeist. Extremism is being defined in this case as a refusal to push "British values". As noted on the blog before (here and here), British values seem to be defined as a refusal to actively promote current cultural views on issues such as homosexuality, gay marriage and the ever-slippery value of tolerance (without tolerating religious views, of course!) In the name of counter-extremism, religious adherents and faith leaders who have otherwise lived in the UK for centuries without such interference by the state are now being subject to measures that would in any other area be considered draconian, authoritarian and illiberal. If such measure were enacted within politics because of the actions of certain political terrorist organisation within our midst, people would rightly be up in arms. When it comes to issues of religious belief, it does seem the same criteria are not applied.

This tyranny of liberalism began under the New Labour era and has been continued under David Cameron's Conservative rule. I have written to my local MP - a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn - regarding several recent troubling announcements from Theresa May's office. He has given assurance, in no uncertain terms and without usual political obfuscation, that he has the same concerns and in no way supports the measures. I understand Jeremy Corbyn similarly recognises the issue and rejects this approach. If you are wondering why I am pleased Jeremy Corbyn has won the Labour leadership, this is no small factor.

For my part, I will not submit to any national register. I will not permit the state to determine what I teach in my own church. I will not allow the state to interfere with what scripture clearly teaches. I will not allow my sermons and studies to be vetted. I refuse to be deemed a threat to state security simply because I do not always agree with the prevalent government agenda. I am not prepared to be subjected to statist, Communist-style interference and I will not subject my church communicants and congregants to the vacuous homilies permitted in accordance with the whims of the government of the day. One hopes and prays there are enough sensible voices in parliament to recognise precisely why.

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.

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.

Tax avoidance, tithes and total depravity

Tax avoidance seems to have taken centre stage in the news of late. In particular, HSBC have found themselves in the firing line (see here). Many right-wingers have lined up to defend lower-level forms of tax avoidance (cf. Lord Fink, Nigel Farage, Toby Young, et al). The Labour leader, Ed Milliband, as well as other voices on the left (e.g. Owen Jones) have come out against the practice. The Prime Minister is trying to walk that tricky line between upsetting his friends in business - for whom aggressive tax avoidance seems standard practice - and the majority of voters who don't have the income to warrant employing personal tax accounts and thus generally dislike the practice.

There is obviously some talking past one another on this issue. This typically revolves around our definition of terms. When Lord Fink claims "everybody does it" he is almost certainly referring to pension contributions, ISAs and other tax deductible activities encouraged by government. If our definition of tax avoidance is utilising anything that reduces our taxable income, then yes, most of us engage in tax avoidance. However, if our definition of tax avoidance, as per Owen Jones' claim, is anything that avoids the tax government would ordinarily expect us to pay, then it is probably true that most of us do not engage in tax avoidance.

There is certainly something distasteful about government employing accountancy firms to help draft tax legislation who then win customers on their ability to avoid the very legislation they helped implement. At the very least, those of us without the income to warrant access to personal tax consultants are not on a level playing field. Even on a business level, when larger companies can write off their tax losses in the UK against other EU countries and thus avoid UK tax is not a level playing field for smaller, independent companies who have no such foreign presence.

The question that inevitably does the rounds is whether, if you could, you would accept the ability to pay one per cent tax. But it is a redundant question when most of us aren't in the position to do so. We can make any bold statement we like knowing we will never actually have to follow through on our claim. As the comedian David Mitchell put it when asked if he would pay 1% tax if he could get away with it, "well I certainly wouldn't say I would". This is probably closer to the truth than many of us like to think.

At heart, however, the issue is clear. It is not fundamentally one of the tax system (though that is an issue) but one of sin. Given the chance, the human heart will exploit whatever means it can for greed and gain. The OT system of jubilee years recognised this tendency. God instituted a system that would effectively redistribute wealth, stop long-term poverty and lifelong slavery. It was a system in which wealth and land could not be hoarded forever and the impoverished would not remain so generation after generation. Debts were mandatorily cancelled, land returned and slaves set free. God recognised, left to their own devices, the rich would exploit the poor in perpetuity and thus set in place a system to stop such practices.

It is this very tendency that always staggers me when Christians (rightly) uphold total depravity on the one hand, whilst (wrongly) maintaining trickle-down, capitalist economics will work for the many. Since when did the sinful human heart think, of its own volition, giving away wealth to strangers is a good idea? Since when did the sinful human heart think, of its own volition, I have a means of keeping more of my own money but I'm not going to utilise it? That some people don't do this is testament to common grace. That most do (or would do given the opportunity) rather underlines human nature. The OT system seemed to recognise that without legal structures to enforce wealth distribution, land return and slave release it simply would not happen. This is as true today as it ever was. 

A heart changed by the spirit of God may cause these things to happen without enforcement. The collection boxes of churches up and down the country are testament to this. However, even there, sinful human nature plays its part. My offering may be equal to the number of people watching me place it in the offering box. My tithe may be a portion of my income after my outgoings have all been taken into account. It may not be tax avoidance but it might be tithe avoidance. The Bible never dictates how much or how often we ought to give, it simply says believers ought to give. Yet we too continue to fight against the old man; greed or approval may still rear its head. As one minister friend was fond of pointing out: most people either want more money or a round of applause. If we are able to get both, what a day!

Greed is a powerful motivator. We shouldn't be surprised by tax avoidance because, in a system which openly encourages greed what are we to expect? There needs to be a system that doesn't simply expect greedy, sinful people to act in honourable ways. As the old quote says (often, probably wrongly, attributed to Keynes), “capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all".

Yet, though we are fast to point the finger, most of us pay tax through PAYE and have no opportunity to avoid it on any large scale. But what do our tithes and offerings suggest about what we'd do? Do we skim off our outgoings and other things to effectively reduce what we feel we ought to give? Are we generous toward the Lord and his people or are we greedy and seek to hoard our wealth for ourselves? 

If our response to the Lord's work, and our claim to love his people, doesn't extend to our wallets and purses then perhaps we haven't been affected by the gospel. If we skim off our tithes and offerings, using loopholes and arguments to justify what we give, then how are we any better than tax avoiders? In fact, surely we are worse. Many companies make little pretence they like paying tax and clearly say if they could pay less, they would. Their exploitation of loopholes is a logical outworking of that claim. We, who claim to love the Lord and say we support his work, are hypocrites if we seek to lessen our offerings. With our mouths we claim to love the Lord, his people and his work but with our wallets and self-justifications we don't.

Tax avoidance is a soft-target. Most agree the face-value of the tax owed ought to be paid by those that owe it. It is quite right they should come under pressure to pay their tax. It is also right the government should clampdown on existent loopholes. But we shouldn't forget that most of us are in no such position to do it. It is very easy to claim we wouldn't do the same when there is no reason to presume we will ever be in a position to make that choice. What we are in a position to see is our own generosity toward our saviour and the work of his church. That should give us a real insight into whether we would seek to avoid our taxes the same way given the opportunity.

Six reasons to pursue fellowship, community and hospitality

Yesterday, I posted here on the cost of community, hospitality and fellowship. It's important we understand what true fellowship, real community and genuine hospitality look like if we are to have any hope of actually pursuing them. But, having done that, it seems worth giving some reasons why community, hospitality and fellowship are vitally important (despite the cost to ourselves). So, here are a few:

Jesus commanded it
It's always the natural place to start whenever we ask ourselves why we ought to do anything. Jesus commanded us to engage in fellowship, community and hospitality. In John 13:34f, he tells us the sign that we are truly believers is that we love one another as he loved us. Without spending time together, just as Jesus spent time with his disciples, we are going to struggle to do this. The Lord's command should be reason enough for us to do this.

Jesus modelled it
Jesus did much of his ministry in homes over meals. He reaches out to unbelievers this way and he trained his disciples this way too. The Last Supper and the feeding of the 5000 is recorded in all four gospels, Jesus meal with Levi is found in all but John's gospel and the feeding of the 4000 is in Matthew and Mark's gospel. That's four meals in thirteen passages. Add to that the meal at the houses of Pharisees (Luke 11:37-54 and 14:1-24), the meal with Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), and the meal that followed Jesus’ resurrection appearance on the Emmaus Road (Luke 24:13-34). Even then, the list of meals is not complete. Nevertheless, it is clear that Jesus saw fellowship, hospitality and eating together as vital to ministry. If, as John says, we are to "walk in the same way in which he walked" (1 John 2:6) that must include this form of fellowship and community.

The Early Church did it
We read in Acts 2:42-47 that the Early Church were devoted to fellowship and hospitality. The passage outlines precisely what their fellowship entailed: studying the word, praying together, eating together and spending time with one another in homes. Such hospitality and fellowship is pressed by Paul (Rom 12:13), Peter (1 Pet 4:8-9) and the writer of Hebrews (Heb 13:1-2) as well as being a central part of the criteria for church leadership (1 Tim 3:2; Ti 1:8).

It will make your joy complete
The apostle John speaks plenty about fellowship. In particular, his comments in 1 John 1:3-4 and 2 John 1:12 link our fellowship to our joy. In 2 John, the apostle is clear enough that his joy would be complete when he is able to physically spend some time with the people to whom he is writing. It doesn't take much to note that his presence with them, engaging in real fellowship, will complete his joy in a way that a long-distance relationship simply can't. In 1 John, his comments are even more surprising. He says "we are writing these things to you so that our joy may be complete" (my emphasis). Immediately prior to this comment, he says the reason they are proclaiming their message is "so that you too may have fellowship with us" (1 John 1:3). So, John's joy will only be complete when he can truly enjoy the fellowship of these other believers. There is something special when we engage in true, genuine fellowship between believers.

It makes church discipline meaningful
It is an unfortunate fact of life that some people who profess belief will fall into sin. It is an even worse fact that some who profess faith within the church may not even be believers (cf. 2 Pet 2:1). Scripture tells us not to be surprised by such things but to be on our guard and swift to act when they become apparent. One such example of dealing with a serious disciplinary matter in the church is outlined in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul's clear guidelines for dealing with believers in open sin (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-2 & 9-13) make absolutely no sense if we have not already pursued, and enacted, true fellowship like this. If we never spend time together, eat together or share life together Paul's sanctions in 1 Corinthians 5 suddenly look totally toothless.

It will aid your growth
If Ephesians 4:11-16 is teaching anything, it is talking about how the church will grow its members. Principally, it is through the exercise of various gifts for the mutual upbuilding of the body. Certainly such cannot exist without a framework of fellowship and community. But, note also that Paul says as we speak "truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ". Again, it is incredibly hard to grow together and to speak truth into one another's lives without close fellowship and community. What opportunities are there to do this otherwise? Paul makes this same point in reverse in 2 Thessalonians 1:3 as does Peter in 2 Pet 1:5-8. There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between our love, and fellowship with, one another and our growth in faith. As the one increases, so does the other.

Four signs you don't belong to God

As a community group, we have started a series of studies in 1 John. Tomorrow, we reflect upon the key points and applications from our first study in 1 John 1:1-2:6 as a means of focusing our prayers. I have also been organising our future studies in 1 John. Today, I have been reflecting on our first study as well as preparing a future study in 1 John 3:11-4:6.

One of John's central concerns is determining who belongs to God and who does not. More specifically, he is concerned as to whether we belong to God or remain under the influence of Satan. He also wants us to be clear that not all teaching that purports to be from God is truly from Him. Much of what claims to pass as "Christian" is no such thing and comes from the Devil.

One sign that we do not belong to God, according to John, is a claim to sinlessness. He says:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:8-10)

Teaching like this seems to be precisely the sort of thing John has in mind here.

Two further signs are offered in chapter 4:1-3. John says:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (1 John 4:1-3)

It is a sign of unbelief, and Satanic influence, for one to deny "Jesus has come in the flesh" i.e. he is not fully man. It is similarly significant if one argues "Jesus is not from God" i.e. he is not fully God himself. Teaching like this (1) seems to be in mind here.

On top of that, in the studies I have been preparing (though throughout the letter John offers further tests), he says:

They [false teachers] are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:5f)

In other words, true believers will listen to God's word in scripture. They will hear the teaching of the apostles and reject things that don't accord with it. They certainly will not teach things that cannot be found, or cannot be tested, by the words of scripture. John seems to be aiming at teaching like this and this:

“The Bible can’t even find any way to explain this. Not really. That’s why you’ve got to get it by revelation. There are no words to explain what I’m telling you. I’ve got to just trust God that He’s putting it into your spirit like He put it into mine.” Joyce Meyer (What Happened from the Cross to The Throne? audio)

The most concerning thing here is not the warning against false teachers themselves. It is far more troubling that John says "they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us". In other words, if you are swept up in such false teaching - you listen to it and believe it over and against the clear teaching of John in these passages - it is a sign that you are not saved yourself.

For most of us - certainly those who move in my circles - this sort of false teaching doesn't tend to be pushed. Amongst our church members, there aren't usually people standing up and teaching these sorts of heretical views. What is far more likely, and troubling, is people in our congregations may hear such things and be swept away with it. They themselves aren't teaching it but they are imbibing it and ultimately responding to it.

Heed John's warning, best to ignore anyone who comes with such views.

Notes

1. Joyce Meyer audio

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."

Ministries essential to the church: when no ministry might be better

What ministries and roles are so fundamentally important to the church that, were we to do away with them, it would cease to function?

Our church recently held a conference titled 'Serving without Sinking', based on the book of the same name. John Hindley, author of that book and founder of Grace Church Manchester, spoke helpfully on our motivations for serving Christ.

Many good things were said but two particularly stuck with me:

1. There are usually fewer ministries necessary for the life of the church than we think. There may be good ministry opportunities, and many excellent things to do, but Jesus managed perfectly well before they existed and doesn't insist they continue come what may
2. Perhaps it is better to have no ministry at all than one that badly reflects Christ. For example, it may be better to have no children's work than one that reflects Christ falsely through the motivations and actions of those serving

John suggested the areas of service necessary for your church to function: (1) someone to open up the building; (2) someone to preach. Other things, it was suggested, may be good and have their place but are not fundamentally essential.

If that is the case, are we better placed to strip away all extraneous areas of service - singing, children's work, etc - until there exist people whose motivations for serving Christ are right and who will, through those acts of service, properly represent Jesus? Are we best to stop certain activities until those running them serve based on their love for God and that of other believers? 

What is better: to have unsuitable individuals serving in the church - non-members, divisive individuals, those who make service about themselves, etc - or simply to have no non-essential ministries until suitable individuals are able to serve gladly, willingly and properly?

Need may be a good motivator for service but if that is our only consideration perhaps our service will do more damage to the cause of Christ.

Some thoughts on the Strange Fire conference

First off, let me share four blog posts, from across the spectrum, outlining differing views of the Strange Fire conference (some written before, during and after events):

1. Adrian Warnock: 'Why cessationists are wrong about prophecy'
2. Thabiti Anyabwile: 'Why you should care about the "Strange Fire" discussion'
3. Tim Challies: 'Strange Fire Conference: MacArthur's appeal to his continuationist friends'
4. Gary Benfold: 'Strange Fire...'

Much has already been said beyond the views expressed in the above articles so I will limit myself to the following points:

1. John MacArthur is absolutely entitled to hold a conference offering a reasoned defence of the cessationist position. Charismatic believers have run conferences promoting charismatic theology so promotion of the cessationist view in this way represents no problem
2. The issue for many is that Strange Fire appears to go beyond a legitimate defence of cessationism. Instead, it leans heavily toward attacking all views that are not out and out cessationist and denounces as outside the faith those who are evidently brothers based on a secondary issue that is not a marker of orthodoxy
3. Interestingly, John MacArthur - in writing his recent book and taking this approach - now aligns himself with the ultra-separatism of Peter Masters and the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Not only is the "Charismatic Movement" one of Peter Masters' favourite hobby-horses but he also seems to delight in denouncing as unbelievers those who adhere to gospel truth based on a matter of secondary import (significant though that issue may be in practice). MacArthur now similarly dismisses gospel-believing brethren in this same shabby way
4. MacArthur has defended himself against the charges of being unloving, lacking care about offending people and of attacking brothers by reiterating his denunciation of many brethren, claiming that he cares more about offending God than offending people and stating the most loving thing to do for someone is tell the them the truth. Frankly, this is the sort of rhetoric people usually employ when they are being both unnecessarily aggressive and unkind. Many is the person that claims they are "persecuted" for Christ's sake when, in reality, they are facing difficulty because they themselves have been unnecessarily offensive!
5. The conference clearly lacks nuance. The idea that cessationism can be pitted against continuationism in such stark terms is a false dichotomy. The range of views outside absolute, unerring cessationism are plethora (even more than the typically cited 4 broad positions outlined in Grudem's book 'Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?').
6. Beyond merely lacking nuance, the conference lumps all continuationists together and argues the "more reasonable" end of the spectrum lends credence to the "extreme lunatic fringe". It is wholly unreasonable to suggest, as MacArthur has done, that individuals such as John Piper and Don Carson lend an air of credibility to those who peddle a health and wealth gospel. These men have actively denounced such false teaching unequivocally and regularly (see here, for example). It is nothing short of slanderous to lump them in the same category as Roman Catholics and those who deny the Trinity.
7. The conference singularly fails to accept that many out and out Charismatics, as well as those who would consider themselves continuationist without labeling themselves Charismatic, are as opposed to the excess and abuse of Charismata as MacArthur claims to be. MacArthur suggests it is only the cessationist who truly decries such abuse of scripture when, indeed, all those who are genuinely spiritual find such things equally repellent.

Four pertinent articles related to my saddest blog post

It saddens me somewhat, as a brief glance to the top left of this blog will confirm, that the most read post (rather more unfortunately headed by Blogger as 'most popular') is one about some controversy surrounding Peter Masters, the Metropolitan Tabernacle and two-stage separation. Sadder still is my suspicion the post gained this accolade because it happens to mention the name of an individual at the centre of a widely discussed issue. No doubt ardent supporters read the post, based predominantly on the name mentioned, to get affronted on behalf of the individual regardless of the issue presented. Likewise, unerring critics, on the basis of the name, read it to get irritated at the latest act of offence.

In light of that post, I would like to offer four related articles dealing with the issues of separation, division, discussion and learning in the church:

Dr Master's and Two-Stage Separation - From the Martin Marprelate blog, another take on Peter Master's two-stage separation policy.

"There is no doubt that separation from wickedness and apostasy is a command of God, but, ultimately, every church and every Christian is going to have to come to their own minds about Second-Stage separation. For my part, I cannot separate from my faithful brethren within the mixed denominations who are holding onto Biblical convictions in the midst of such deep darkness. I believe that such people need our support and understanding and that we should stand together, ‘Holding fast the word of life’ (Phil. 2:16)."

A Warning Against Division - R.C. Sproul offers a warning from reformation history concerning division within the church.

"I don’t know of anybody who’s a greater fan of Martin Luther than I am. But one of the low points of the Reformation took place in 1529 when an attempt was made to unify the Reformers of Switzerland and the followers of Luther in Germany."

How Do We Learn From the Idiot in the Room - Mez McConnell offers helpful advice for learning from those who do not come from our theological or ecclesiastical stable.

"Some people are so frustrating and annoying. That is a fact of life. It is unavoidable. Even the most sanctified and patient of us struggle with difficult people (just ask my wife). There is a danger though and it is this. Sometimes we hear something about another Christian or a leader and we make up our minds about them before we’ve met. Personally, my inner defenses always shoot up when I meet somebody I’ve never met for the first time and they say, “I’ve heard about you”. Sometimes, if I’m going to a meeting with a person I know is going to be difficult I steel myself to ‘just get through it unscathed’. It’s an ongoing war within my soul and I have to pray hard for love and forebearance. Sadly, it means that very often we miss out on learning something because of these (very often unspoken) prejudices."

How to Mentor Young Disciples When They Differ Theologically - Andrew Davis at The Gospel Coalition blog offers some helpful suggestions for mutual learning and discipleship.

"what happens when the men you are training up to be pastors and elders begin to develop differing theological opinions? How should a pastor approach these disagreements?"

Learning from the idiot in the room

Here is a great article from Mez McConnell titled 'Learning from the idiot in the room'. Let me strongly urge you to read it.

In it, he urges us to consider the following things when discussing with people from outside our theological/ecclesiastical "tribe":

• How is what this person saying challenging my long held beliefs?

• How have they arrived at their conclusions? What’s their (biblical) thought process been and how/why is it different to mine?

• Are my personal prejudices against this person (and/or their tribe) stopping me from really listening and engaging with this person? Have I made my mind up not to learn before we even start? Is this going to be more about debate and point scoring than mutual learning?

• Is there something I can actually learn here without compromising my doctrinal beliefs?

• Could I be wrong?

• Have I changed my mind about anything in the last few years? Have I ever, come to that matter?

Ask yourself (as I ask myself), how often do I do these things? Am I unable to learn from another person because of my own pre-existing prejudice? Is the idiot in the room really the person I'm talking to or the person in the conversation I know rather better?

Tony Miano arrested for 'hate' speech - full video and police transcript

Yesterday, I posted a link regarding the recent arrest of Tony Miano - an American street evangelist preaching outside Wimbledon.

Since then, a full video of the incident and police transcripts of the subsequent interview have been made available. These have been published on the Cranmer blog. Calvin Smith has responded to the story and posted his reaction here.

Having read the transcript and viewed the video, it appears Mr Miano doesn't do himself any favours on occasion. The officer admitted and exhibited theological illiteracy several times yet Mr Miano continued to explain sin in such a way that the officer misunderstood Miano's view. Nothing he said thereafter did anything to divest the officer of this misconception. Only once did he identify himself as 'a sinner', though not really with clarity. This can't have helped the officer move from his view that 'sinners' are bad people for doing x, y and z whilst the preacher is not such a one. Similarly, it took some pointed questions from his legal counsel to even come close to drawing out the points that (a) he was not intending to offend anybody and; (b) he was not intending to convey the idea that he is good whilst everyone else is sinful (though, as I mentioned, even this was not spoken of with clarity).

Similarly, Cranmer rightly points out that Mr Miano's own version of events are not entirely borne out by the police transcript. He notes '[Mr Miano] specifically stated that the police asked him if he would be prepared to feed a hungry homosexual (corroborated in Christian Concern's press release). This transcript establishes that these words were, in fact, Mr Miano's own; not those of the interrogating police officer. This sort of misinformation or exaggeration really doesn't aid a person's credibility'. Although these were specifically Mr Miano's words, they were a specific example used in direct response to the officer's question 'if someone you knew as a homosexual came up to you and asked you for a favor [sic], you'd quite happily offer them that favor [sic] would you?'.

Nevertheless, Calvin Smith is apt to comment: 'Whatever your view of street preaching, or the style or approach of this particular preacher... we have indeed reached a sinister stage in our country where a single individual who is "offended" can result in the arrest, fingerprinting, DNA sampling and interrogation of another individual'.

Two separate and independent thoughts on freedom in Britain

Here are two interesting posts on freedom in Britain:

The first, from Andy's Study, discusses the ongoing Edward Snowden saga and how the British  government seem equally intent on prolific data collection.

The second, from Cranmer, discusses the recent arrest of Tony Miano - an American street evangelist arrested outside Wimbledon. Whatever one feels about Mr Miano's view, such treatment seems heavy-handed to say the least. At least Section 5 of the Public order Act will be reformed (see here).

Anyway, two interesting posts worth some reflection, wherever such reflections may lead.

Edit: Full video and Police transcripts of the Tony Miano arrest have now been made available and can be viewed here.

Why can't we spot our biggest flaws?

I previously posted about John Newton's observation that many Christians live with obvious character flaws which impede growth and affect our witness. I reproduced Tim Keller's list of 'foibles' that Christians often justify, leading to stunted growth, rather than tackle for real growth.

Here, Keller addresses the question of why we fail to spot these obvious flaws in our own character and why we continue to live in a way that often robs others of joy and God of his glory. He comments:

Virtues of gifts and temperament have a corresponding "dark side" because our gifts and natural temperament are bound up with the idols that dominate any not heart filled with the gospel of grace. Without a thorough knowledge of the gospel, we look to good things—human approval and relationships, the exercise of power and accomplishment, the control of our environment and self-discipline, the enjoyment of comfort, privacy, and pleasure—and make them into pseudo-salvations. So the person who makes an idol out of human approval may be a sensitive artist, and the one who makes an idol out of power might be a courageous leader. But gifts and temperament in the service of idols—and this is our normal state—always are a mixed blessing. They have a good side—they produce virtuous behavior—but they lead the person into a corresponding sin or vice as well.  

As a result, people cannot see their sins because they look only at their virtues. For example, someone may say, "I'm not abrasive, I just speak very directly." It is true that a direct-speaking person may do good because direct, blunt comments are sometimes needed. But overall the abrasiveness is ineffective, and the person's boldness and confidence comes to some degree from pride and a lack of love. And for this reason, many (or perhaps most) Christians do not work on the supernatural graces of the spirit that are not natural to us, and that mitigate or eliminate the dark side—the besetting sins—of our nature.

I encourage you to read the whole article for yourselves. Cross-reference Keller's suggestions for real growth in this article with your 'foibles' listed here.

Repentance for our faults and "foibles"

According to John Newton, most Christians generally avoid committing the most gross sins. However, he argues many never actually achieve much in the way of spiritual growth because they coast on their strengths and do little about their weaknesses, robbing both themselves and others of joy whilst simultaneously failing to bring glory to God. Worse still, Newton argues, those who harbour such behaviours self-justify them as mere "foibles" because they "may not seem to violate any express command of Scripture". Nevertheless, Newton comments these behaviour are "properly sinful" because they are the opposite of the fruits of the spirit the Christian is supposed to exhibit.

Tim Keller, taking a lead from Newton, argues that such behaviours mean "large swaths of the Christian population have little influence on others for Christ. While our faults always seem small to us due to the natural self-justification of the heart, you can be sure they don't look so small to others".

Newton offered a list of specific examples of those who act in such ways in Blemishes in Christian Character. Tim Keller, following Newton's example, has also created a similar list which is useful for self-examination (also found here). Here are some things we should look to stamp out if we see them in ourselves:

Austerus is a solid and disciplined Christian but abrasive, critical, and ungenerous in dealing with people, temperamental, seldom giving compliments and praise, and almost never gentle.

Infitialis is a person of careful and deliberate character but habitually cynical, negative, and pessimistic, always discouraging ("that will never work"), unsupportive, and vaguely unhappy.

Pulsus is passionate, yes, but also impulsive and impatient, not thinking things out, speaking too soon, always quick to complain and lodge a protest, often needs to apologize for rash statements.

Querulus is a person of strong convictions, but known to be opinionated, a poor listener, argumentative, not very teachable, and slow to admit wrong.

Subjectio is a resourceful and ambitious person, but also someone who often shades the truth, puts a lot of spin on things (close to misrepresentation), is very partisan, self-promoting, and turf-conscious.

Potestas gets things done but needs to control every situation, has trouble sharing power, has a need to do everything him or herself, and is very suspicious and mistrustful of others.

Fragilis is friendly and seeks friends, but constantly gets feelings hurt, easily feels slighted and put down, is often offended and upset by real and imagined criticism by others.

Curiosus is sociable but enjoys knowing negative things about people, finds ways of passing the news on, may divulge confidences, and enjoys confronting too much.

Volatilis is kind-hearted and eager to help, but simply not reliable—isn't punctual, doesn't follow through on promises, always over-extended, and as a result may do shoddy work.

As Keller helpfully says "Look at these and ask which one or two most describe you. Have the courage to ask someone else you know, too... look both at why so many of us seem to be stuck in these character flaws instead of growing and changing to be of more godly character".