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.

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.

Why on earth are evangelical statements of this kind treated differently?

I was surprised to read in today's Guardian two particularly good comments, within the same article, by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Here, Justin Welby outlined the difficult position in which the Anglican Communion finds itself regarding gay marriage.

The first comment, which really outlines the difficult position, was the headline of the article. Welby suggested that African believers will be killed if the CofE accepts gay marriage. He told of the mass grave he had seen in Nigeria of 330 Christians who had been killed by their neighbours. He said this atrocity was justified by those who committed it this way: "If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians".

Welby went on to say "I have stood by gravesides in Africa of a group of Christians who had been attacked because of something that had happened in America. We have to listen to that. We have to be aware of the fact". If the Church of England celebrated gay marriages, he added, "the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic. Everything we say here goes round the world".

Welby is right to outline this issue. The Anglican Church does not operate in a Western Liberal bubble and its pronouncements are felt across the world. Moreover, it is not only those who subscribe to Anglicanism who are affected. All Christians will feel the brunt of their decisions and statements, irrespective of whether they themselves are Anglican communicants. Most people do not have enough theological nuance to differentiate between denominations and theological views. Typically, whether believers like it or not, Anglicanism is seen as the authentic voice of Christianity across the world. As such, not only do CofE pronouncements affect Anglican believers, they have knock-on effects for all Christians, especially those in countries in which Christianity is less than welcome.

However, the far more interesting part of the article came later, almost as an aside. The article stated:

Welby also condemned homophobia in England. "To treat every human being with equal importance and dignity is a fundamental part of being a Christian," he said. Although he continued to uphold what he called the historic position of the church, of "sex only within marriage and marriage only between a man and a woman", he agreed with the presenter, James O'Brien, that it was "completely unacceptable" for the church to condemn homosexual people more than adulterous heterosexual people.

This is the closest statement to the scriptural position on gay marriage I have seen from the Archbishop and it was this that caught my attention. 

As a caveat, I appreciate there are some fundamentalist, and fewer evangelical, churches who would not frame the Christian position in this way. There are those who would major on homosexuality in a thoroughly unhelpful (and unbiblical?) way. I also appreciate there are those who, though they would make similar comments, say and do a series of other things that rather undermine their stated position. Again, however, I think these churches are in the minority within both fundamentalist and evangelical circles.

This was the thing that interested me most. The Guardian, the paper most likely to cry foul play on this issue, reported fairly that the Archbishop "condemned homophobia". They rightly stated the scriptural position that all people should be treated with dignity and respect - irrespective of whatever sin they may have committed - as "a fundamental part of being a Christian". All of this was stated alongside the clear view of the Archbishop that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman but that it is nevertheless wrong to condemn homosexual behaviour more than adulterous heterosexual behaviour. All of that, I completely endorse.

Why then, given the Archbishop of Canterbury was deemed - by the Guardian no less - to have "condemned homophobia", do evangelicals who make exactly the same case get castigated as homophobic? Almost every evangelical church I have known (with few exceptions), would state the position of scripture and their individual, independent churches in almost exactly those terms. 

Recently, evangelical writer and rector of St Ebbes, Oxford - Vaughan Roberts - expressed precisely this view in an interview for Evangelical Now, as well as in his book Battles Christians Face. In both interview and book, he bravely spoke of his own personal struggle with same-sex attraction. Other evangelical writers have written similar articles and books making much the same case. It simply beggars belief that this statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury can be deemed to condemn homophobia whilst nigh on identical statements from evangelical quarters are roundly condemned as homophobic.

If the scriptural position stated by Justin Welby is recognised as condemning homophobia, continual claims of evangelical homophobia need to be addressed. If it be homophobic to call homosexual acts (whilst still respecting the rights and dignity of those attracted to people of the same-sex) sinful, in precisely the same way as calling adulterous heterosexuality (whilst still respecting the rights and dignity of those people) sinful, then it is hard to see how Justin Welby's comments escape this charge. If, however, the scriptural view is not deemed fundamentally homophobic - that all people irrespective of the particular sins they commit (of which, we all commit some) are worthy of dignity and respect but that any sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage does amount to sin - then Justin Welby, the CofE and the majority of evangelical churches cannot, and should not, be labelled uniformly homophobic.

I would love it if this signals a change in media reporting. I would be delighted if this means the genuine nuances of the scriptural view, and majority position within evangelicalism, are reported fairly. It would be great if Christians are not simply denounced as homophobic when they differentiate the choice to commit homosexual acts from the homosexual people who do not choose to be attracted to people of the same-sex. This is exactly the same as the differentiation between the heterosexual people who do not choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex but do choose when, and with whom, to engage in sexual activity. 

When evangelicals speak of homosexuality as sinful, they rarely mean same-sex attraction is of itself sinful, intentional and chosen. I hope these nuances are reported fairly and this marks a sea-change in the way evangelical, and broader Christian, views of homosexuality are seen in the media and the public square. I hope this is the case but I shan't hold my breath.

The Metropolitan Tabernacle, Peter Masters and two-stage separation

I have read two posts this week about an issue surrounding the Metropolitan Tabernacle (Met Tab), Peter Masters and a few articles and emails that appear to be in circulation. The 'Who's that preacher?' blog commented here and 'Andy's Study' comments here. Both articles make some valid and helpful points. In my view, Who's that Preacher? is perhaps the more balanced of the two but the ultimate conclusion of both posts is much the same.

There is little to add to what has already been said, so I will limit myself to the following points:

• The critical spirit of Peter Master's is hardly a new phenomena. He is well known for turning his ire on anyone and anything that does not subscribe to every jot and tittle taught at the Met Tab.
• As Andy's Study rightly points out, Peter Master's two-stage separation policy ultimately means "the range of those condemned is enormous". More pointedly, this policy - taken to its logical conclusion - means members of the Met Tab must separate from themselves! Who's that Preacher? notes, the Met Tab are in association with Joel Beeke through their Summer School of Theology. As Beeke "is himself associated, through the Gospel Coalition, with the 'New Calvinists'", those at the Met Tab must conclude they cannot associate with members of their own church.
• We must take care not to be drawn into the same snare as the Met Tab. It would be all too easy to denounce that church entirely and ignore their faithfulness and zealousness in the gospel simply because they fail to recognise other faithful, zealous churches. Andy's Study argues that Peter Master's "broad brushstroke of condemnation inevitably leads to an Elijah like cry of "I am the only one left" and, as we know, Elijah was wrong about that!". Whilst this is true, Elijah did not cease to be the Lord's - nor did he become unfaithful - despite his failure to recognise that there were others who were faithful too. So, although the Met Tab are wrong to denounce others who are clearly gospel focused, we should not pretend they have diverted from the truth because they fail to seek gospel unity.
• Equally, we should not imply the Met Tab has received no blessing nor that they have been unfaithful to gospel truth simply because we don't like something of what they do. The facts (much to the chagrin of those us who vehemently dislike the Met Tab approach to unity) suggest that Peter Master's has been faithful to gospel truth and blessed by God with a sizeable congregation, indeed a much larger gathering than when he first joined. They have a thriving evangelistic Sunday School and are most zealous in gospel work. To suggest they produce no fruit is simply to ignore the facts of the matter.
• Nevertheless, a large congregation and zealous gospel outreach does not, on it's own, indicate a good church. Scripture has much to say about love within and between faithful churches. In this instance, Jesus' words to the church in Ephesus (Rev 2:1-7) are helpful. Jesus commends the church for much of what they do, for their faithfulness toward the truth and does not suggest they no longer belong to the body. However, he gives them stark warning that, without love, they are in real danger. The Met Tab may lean toward Ephesian ecclesiology but we would do well to remember (a) the Ephesians remained within the body of Christ and; (b) whilst we should be able to highlight and reject error, there is a danger we can become overly critical and thus find ourselves closer to the Met Tab school of thought than we care to think.

Who are the Fundamentalists?

I am keen not to begin a debate about the worth of Fundamentalism as a movement. Nor do I want to start weighing up the value of the Fundamentalist hermeneutical approach. This post is specifically considering to whom we can apply the term 'Fundamentalist.'

 

-->The terms 'Fundamentalist' and 'Fundamentalism' are often used without any real understanding of what they mean. Some have sought to argue that the basis of Fundamentalism lies in its hermeneutical approach. Jelen, Wilcox and Smidt ('Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: A Methodological Investigation', Sociological Analysis, 51:3, Autumn 1990) Suggest three broad ways in which the Biblical text is approached:

The “infalliblist” position is the least stringent, implying the Bible is without falsehood in matters of faith, while “qualifying” the Bible’s authority as a historical or scientific document. The “inerrantist” position resists a distinction between authoritative and non-authoritative portions of the Bible, but might allow that some Biblical “truths” are either poetic or metaphorical. “Literalism” is a particularly stringent position on Biblical interpretation, suggesting that the text is to be taken without any qualification whatever.

They argue that Fundamentalism is primarily categorised by a Literalist approach to the Bible. Whilst the Fundamentalist would also claim the Bible to be inerrant and infallible they do so from a literal reading of the Bible. As such, we can attribute the Fundamentalist approach to the Bible as Literalist. As a basis for the different approaches to the Biblical text, this study is very helpful. For the sake of clarity we will refer to its classifications.

Where this study is unhelpful is in how it arrived at its conclusion. According to this research,

-->the difference between Literalism and Inerrantism was based upon the answer given to the question of how one interprets the “Creation Story” in Genesis 1 and 2. Those who held to a literal understanding of the “Creation Story” were deemed Fundamentalist whilst those who gave another answer could conceivably be labelled Inerrantist or Infalliblist. This, however, begs the question can we really label all who hold to a literal understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 as Fundamentalists?


We certainly cannot! It is perfectly conceivable for one to take a literal interpretation of the "Creation Story" whilst rendering other passages of Scripture as poetic or metaphorical. For example, a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 does not inhibit an amillenial view of Revelation or an allegorical interpretation of Song of Solomon. Therefore, we must consider many who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 to be Inerrantists, rather than Literalists. Ultimately this means that we cannot necessarily consider them to be Fundamentalist.

So, how do we determine who the Fundamentalists are? Jelen, Wilcox and Smidt, whilst correctly identifying three broad hermeneutical approaches and correctly identifying which approach belongs to the Fundamentalist, have nevertheless established their categories on the basis of one sample question. In reality, the Fundamentalists are not those who merely take a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 but are those who take a literal interpretation of all aspects of Scripture. As such, we cannot determine those who are Fundamentalist from one question of interpretation alone. Rather, we must establish a continued and sustained Literalist interpretation of Scripture in order to define a person, or persons, as Fundamentalist.

Mal Couch argues that "when a literal hermeneutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, every word written in Scripture is given the normal meaning it would have in its normal usage (An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, Grand Rapids, 2000, p.33)." However, Couch's use of the term 'normal' is ambiguous. He states the reference to a key and chain in Revelation 20:1-3 can be taken figuratively, in that Satan will not be literally bound by a physical chain opened by a literal key, but insists that the reference to a thousand years must be taken literally. He argues that the 'normal' reading of the passage would recognise that Satan, a spirit, could not be bound by a physical chain therefore this represents a secure place where he will be bound. However, of the thousand years he argues that there is no reason to assume that this means anything other than one thousand years. It can be argued that this does not necessarily represent a consistent hermeneutical approach. 


Nevertheless, Couch would argue that he takes a Literal interpretation of Scripture in all parts arguing that he rejects Letterism hence his metaphorical interpretation of the means by which Satan will be bound. Ultimately, it is assumed that the words written are to be literally understood in all respects unless the writer is clearly employing a figure of speech. As such, this allows us to label Couch 'Fundamentalist.' We do not determine this by merely asking for his interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 but by establishing that he applies a literal hermeneutic throughout Scripture.

It is clear then that many who are labelled Fundamentalist are wrongly classified. It is often assumed that those who take a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 can be considered Fundamentalist. However, anyone who regards any portion of Scripture to be metaphorical or poetic cannot be labelled 'Fundamentalist.' Therefore, anyone who holds to an amillenial position of Revelation, holds that Song of Solomon is allegorical or that any other part of Scripture should be taken as poetic or metaphorical falls outside of the boundaries of Fundamentalism and cannot be considered as such.