Jeremy Corbyn's campaign and what it has to say about two-stage separation

I have watched on over recent weeks as Jeremy Corbyn has been associated with "Jew-haters", conspiracy theorists, murderers, Holocaust deniers and other terrorists and extremists. In his most recent interview with Cathy Newman on Channel 4, Corbyn denied sympathising with Holocaust deniers and vociferously rejected such views in no uncertain terms. On today's World at One on Radio 4, Corbyn denied knowing the 'extremist' Dyab Abou Jahjah who has links to Hezbollah. He also denounced the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah in no uncertain terms whilst still maintaining the importance of open dialogue.

I am reasonably happy with such denials. I am rather in agreement with the need to keep lines of communication open for dialogue that leads to peace. I do think it is possible to speak to terrorist organisations and unsavoury characters without endorsing everything they say, do and stand for. I am, nonetheless, much less impressed with his continued refusal to denounce the IRA in the same terms as he has Hezbollah and Hamas (see here). If he can censure Hezbollah and Hamas in the clearest possible terms whilst maintaining the need to talk to them for the purposes of a peace process, there is no reason the same cannot be said to the IRA. I strongly suspect this is down to his ongoing friendship with the Irish Republican top brass compared to his mere supposed general association with those linked to Middle Eastern terror groups.

Leaving aside the glaring exception of the IRA, Corbyn has consistently denied sympathising with the views espoused by those he has been accused of courting. He has publicly rejected the violent means of Hezbollah, Hamas and their respective supporters. Corbyn has also condemned Holocaust denial in the strongest terms stating "Holocaust denial is vile and wrong. The Holocaust was the most vile part of our history. The Jewish people killed by the Nazi Holocaust were the people who suffered the most in the 20th century." Despite pictures emerging of him sitting beside Dyab Abou Jahjah, I think Owen Jones' defence of Corbyn is quite reasonable and eminently likely. Frankly, I believe Corbyn when he says he doesn't remember the man and knew nothing of his views; not least given his brazen, unrepentant willingness to admit to the vast majority of links that many deem questionable.

In short, I don't think Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic, a Holocaust denier nor a "Jew-hater". I do not think he supports Hezbollah and Hamas. I am yet to be convinced he wholeheartedly rejects the actions of the IRA and doesn't seek to justify their means as "necessary".

In Owen Jones' defence of Corbyn, he comments:

If he knew somebody had anti-Semitic views or indulged Holocaust denial, he would find their views utterly repulsive. But having spent his life attending more meetings and protests than virtually any other MP, he will have encountered and met countless people. I can’t remember people I’ve shared platforms with and met (which has led to many embarrassing moments in my case) and the idea an MP like Corbyn juggling his constituency and campaigning work and meeting the number of people he does will remember is pushing human capabilities to an extreme degree.

I am utterly sympathetic to this defence. Christians who advocate a policy of co-belligerence (e.g. here) should understand this. On issues of agreement, we may share a platform with those whom we would otherwise disagree. For example, in the Reform Section 5 campaign, Christian groups found themselves sharing a platform with all sorts of atheistic and secular groups due to agreement on the issue at hand. It seems likely in the Palestinian Solidarity movement one is likely, on that issue, to share a platform with others who hold unsavoury views in other areas. The same is almost certainly true in the pro-zionist camp - agreement on the issue is likely to lead to one sharing a platform with some who hold unsavoury views in other areas.

The issue is one of two-stage separation. If it can be reasonably demonstrated that Jeremy Corbyn himself supports Holocaust denial, sympathises with anti-Semites and supports the violent means of sundry terrorist organisations then we are well within our rights to denounce his campaign on such grounds. If, however, he does not hold or sympathise with such views but happens to support some other issues which those who hold these views also happen to support that is rather different. For example, it is possible to support the maintenance of the Union in Northern Ireland without in any way linking oneself to the terrorist activities of Loyalist paramilitary groups (so Unionism has been arguing for over a century). The same goes for Irish unification without supporting Republican paramilitaries (or so the Nationalists have been arguing to some while). It is, however, wholly unreasonable to denounce Ian Paisley - who has consistently denounced the actions of Loyalist paramilitaries - for having occasionally found himself in the same room as paramilitary men who share his view on the Union. Likewise, to denounce Mark Durkan - who has consistently denounced the tactics of Republican paramilitaries - for having occasionally found himself in the same room as Provisional IRA men is equally unreasonable. This guilt by association two-stage separation is unfair, it is no way to determine the actual views of an individual.

The approach to Jeremy Corbyn's campaign is reminiscent of two-stage separation in churches. It is the view that says A must separate from B, not because of any issue with B, but because B is associated with C who is deemed beyond the pale. Occasionally, it becomes three, four or more stage separation. It is a view that infers guilt by association and can often end up condemning nigh on everybody. If we are working with the sense that it is not possible to even share a platform or be in the same room as those with whom we disagree on unrelated issues, we may as well shut the House of Commons down. We cannot possibly expect people to be so certain of any link they may make that they must background check every individual they meet at any given rally they attend.

This blog has previously commented on the issue of two-stage separation within the Christian world. If our unity is based on gospel truth, it is inevitable that we will ultimately share fellowship with churches who are no exactly like us. That is not to say there are no ministries we ought to denounce in no uncertain terms but there are clearly large areas of theological truth which will be relegated to matters of secondary importance. They are those issues on which there may be a right answer but which do not form a basis of separation. Moreover, there will be issues on which we share a platform without agreeing with those whom we campaign. It is entirely possible, for example, that in the name of co-belligerence a Christian may find themselves on the same platform as a Muslim. It is highly likely that, in so doing, there may be dispensational, pro-Israel, CWI-supporting believers sharing a platform with some Muslim who hold less than salubrious views toward Israel and its citizens.Yet, because we agree on the issue at hand, we share a platform without endorsing all the views of those thereon.

If we want to be able to defend co-belligerence, we must be careful we don't fall into this guilt-by-association trap toward others. If links are symptomatic of views, then we ought to be careful to bring personal views into the light and make sure we are denouncing the actual views of the individual rather than our presumed view based on some of things we may know about their associations. If we want to be able to support gospel unity, we will have to be very careful about precisely those positions we wish to denounce. Are they essentials? Do they undermine the gospel? Are we sure the people we are disassociating with actually hold the views we deem anti-gospel or are we presuming that based on others they know? For the sake of the gospel, let's keep the main things the main things. If we must disassociate with someone, let's make sure we are doing so rightly. Let's determine fellowship based on the actual views of those we know, not based on the presumed views of third-parties with whom they associate.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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?"

Tacit endorsement or meaningless ritual?

I recently read the account of Naaman in 2 Kings 5:1-19. Something struck me about the passage I had never noticed before. By some coincidence, Calvin L. Smith blogged that he also noticed this thing around the same time.

Naaman is a General in the Syrian army suffering from leprosy. A Jewish slave girl - captured in a Syrian raid on Israel - explains to her mistress (Naaman's wife) there is a prophet in Samaria, called Elisha, who can cure her master's disease. Naaman goes to see Elisha but is disappointed to find this prophet does not meet his expectations. Rather than perform some grand miraculous ritual Elisha doesn't even meet with Naaman, sending a servant to instruct the General to wash seven times in the Jordan river. Naaman is furious at the snub and all the more angry at having to wash in a dirtier river than those at home. However, after some coaxing from his servants, Naaman washes seven times in the Jordan and is healed of his leprosy. When Elisha refuses riches in return for this healing, Naaman requests two mule-loads of earth to take home, upon which he will sacrifice to the God of Israel alone.

Here is the thing that struck me and about which Calvin L. Smith blogged. After stating to Elisha that he will worship the God of Israel alone, Naaman says these words:

In this matter may the Lord pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon your servant in this matter.” (2 Kings 5:18, ESV)

Smith paraphrases it like this:

"I know now that Yahweh is the One True God. Therefore, give me this Israelite earth for me to take home and sacrifice to Him upon. But please understand that from time to time my position requires me to accompany my master when he attends the temple and bows before the god of Rimmon. Unfortunately not only that, but sometimes I too will be required to bow to Rimmon. Forgive me for this, O man of God. When I do so I don't really mean it. I'm just going through the motions".

It seems shocking enough that Naaman's transformation from pagan warrior to repentant theological observer should be accompanied by this advanced request for forgiveness. However, all the more shocking is Elisha's response: "Go in peace". In other words, "Don't worry about it. I understand". As Smith notes, "this is not the response of some theological liberal but a particularly noteworthy Old Testament prophet".

Dale Ralph Davies suggests Elisha perhaps didn't seem concerned "because Naaman was miles ahead of scores of Israelites (2 Kings: The Power and the Fury, 2005, p.93)". He comments:

"Everything that Naaman says in verses 15-18 condemns Israel. Where in Israel will you hear a confession like Naaman's (v. 15)? Who in Israel, aside from the remnant, is determined to worship only Yahweh (v. 17)? Where in Israel can you find a conscience that intuits the either-or of Yahweh's demand for exclusive worship (v. 18)? Naaman's faith far outstrips anything one can find in syncretistic Israel. This Aramaean implicitly condemns Israel; he receives the blessings of Israel's God while Israel is passed by (Davies, D.R., 2 Kings: The Power and the Fury, 2005, p.96)".

Indeed, it is exactly this comment that almost gets Jesus killed in Luke 4:27. The Nazareth synagogue were not angry because God showed mercy to a Gentile but because Jesus said, in cleansing Naaman, God bypassed Israel. "God turned away from Israel and extended grace to Naaman (Davies, D.R., 2 Kings: The Power and the Fury, 2005, p.96)".

Davies is at least partially correct. Naaman's faith clearly does outstrip scores of Israelites and his words are a condemnation to Israel. However, to suggest Elisha's response to Naaman's plea for forgiveness is only because of the comparison in faith between Naaman and the nation of Israel leaves us with two problems. Firstly, on this view, Elisha appears happy to allow Naaman to continue in sin. Secondly, it links sinful behaviour to cultural norms and reduces it to lowest common denominators i.e. everyone in Israel does X, what you are doing is not as bad as X, therefore you are not sinful. It is a fallacy, prevalent today as a justification for why my sin really isn't that bad, which states I am only bad in comparison to X and 'X' almost never stands for God himself. In this argument, it appears to stand for the culturally backslidden Israelite nation.

Nevertheless, we are faced with the brute fact that Elisha doesn't condemn Naaman's actions as sinful. Again, Davies is partially correct on this when he comments "It shows a sensitive conscience. Here is a man who feels the rub between his exclusive allegiance to Yahweh and the expectations of his workplace. And it bothers him (Davies, D.R., 2 Kings: The Power and the Fury, 2005, p.94)". Clearly this is a sign of a repentant, changed heart. However, scripture never shies away from calling people out on sin and it is pointed that Elisha doesn't do that here.

There is a further problem when we look outside this passage. For example, how we read this episode will impact our understanding of Daniel 3. If Naaman could legitimately go to the House of Rimmon - and even bow down - without being condemned, were Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego just being obtuse in Babylon? Surely they were required, just as much as Naaman, to bow down by necessity and they could just as easily have claimed to be 'going through the motions' without their heart turning away from God?

The answer may lie in 1 Cor. 8 and 10. In 1 Cor. 8 and 10, Paul appears to differentiate empty cultural ritual and actual participation in idolatry. In 1 Cor. 8, Paul tackles the cultural tradition of meat offered to idols. Here, he is quite clear, it is perfectly acceptable to eat such meat:

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (! Cor 8:4-6, ESV)

As Calvin L. Smith comments "In short, in a culture where much of the meat on sale in society had previously been offered to idols, Paul says not to worry about it, that these false gods are not even gods at all". In this religio-cultural setting, Paul says these idols are nothing. As they are nothing we should respond to them as nothing. That is to say, if someone offers food to them first, it hasn't tainted the food so go ahead and eat it with a clear conscience. 

However, in 1 Cor. 10:1-22, Paul moves on from this religio-cultural issue of meat offered to idols and tackles the issue of actual participation in idolatrous acts. Here, he makes it clear that the Christian is to have no part in actual acts of worship directed toward false gods. As Calvin L. Smith suggests "Paul seems to be delineating quite explicitly where that line which one mustn't cross lies: culture and tradition versus actual worship, empty ritual versus our motives and what's in our heart".

In respect to Naaman, the answer appears to be that his attendance at the House of Rimmon was a cultural act necessitated by his job. It is the equivalent of an active Republican attending the state opening of parliament. Their actions in seeking a republic make clear they are not associating with the monarchy, despite their attendance at such events. Naaman didn't worship Rimmon and his subsequent actions, that he was openly offering sacrifices to God alone on earth from the holy land outside his own home, make clear he was not associated in worshipping Rimmon.

How is this different to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego? Their names had been changed to those of Babylonian gods, they could not offer sacrifices to the God of Israel and they were commanded to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's statue. The only proof they were not associating with worship to Nebuchadnezzar was to refuse to bow down at all. Naaman's position was not so stark. Indeed, Naaman was able to make it clear he worshipped God alone without offending the cultural sensibilities of those around him.

For us, similar questions revolve around whether we should attend ceremonies and events in non-Christian settings. Are we tacitly endorsing Hinduism by attending a Hindu wedding? Are we engaging in false worship to be present at a Catholic mass? Are we on the way to syncretism by taking our shoes off in a mosque?

Paul appears to make clear, and it seems Elisha was of the same mind, that it is participation in acts of worship that are the problem, not attendance at buildings per se. There is a distinct difference between attending and worshipping - something we regularly point out in our own churches (or at least should do) but often fail to recognise when people have need to attend some other religious building. There is also a difference between cultural sensitivity and acts of worship. For example, there is a yawning gulf between taking one's shoes off when entering a mosque (something nobody believes makes you a muslim) and stating there is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger whilst grabbing a prayer mat (which many people believe does make you a muslim). Similarly, there is a huge difference between attending a Roman Catholic service and taking part in the mass.

Of course, we should be sensitive to how such things look. If we were to attend a Gurdwara several times a week, it may well begin to look as though we had embraced Sikhism. We must avoid appearing as though we are worshipping elsewhere. Similarly, if our attendance at such things will cause our brethren to stumble then perhaps we should seriously consider not going. Equally, it may not be helpful to drag someone who has been saved from a particular religious background straight back into that environment and, even if we don't expect them to come, it may not help them to see you going either.

Do we really need to be hamstrung by refusing to enter other places of worship? If meat offered to false gods is nothing, buildings to false gods are surely nothing too. If we have taken care to not cause offence and we are clear that we are not actively participating in acts of worship, we must have liberty to attend. As Calvin L. Smith states:

Obviously each circumstance needs to be considered on its merits - there are clearly some religious settings which cross a line for Christians - yet I also wonder about the extent to which, in some cases, well-meaning but excessively dogmatic believers, in their zeal to stand up for truth (as they interpret it) have actually damaged any possibility of a future Christian witness. After all, if a Christian refuses to attend even his brother's wedding because of his new-found faith, might not such an action (depending on circumstances and how it is gone about) damage future opportunities to share one's faith and eventually win over his family? Or in an historically Roman Catholic country like Spain, where the passion of Christ is enacted by faithful adherents in processions up and down the country during Semana Santa (Easter), is it reasonable for them to digest and understand claims that theirs is a pagan, anti-Christ ritual?