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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Notes

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

A change of heart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Joy in the Lord

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

Notes

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

Bold's Fold

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

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

Considerations for attending a church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Modern church music need be neither cheesy nor theologically weak

Some time ago I wrote here on the topic of singing. The post focused predominantly on the style and manner in which we should/could sing in church. One issue which was not addressed was the largely false dichotomy between older hymns and modern worship songs. This dichotomy often presents old hymns as theologically rich but musically staid and modern worship songs as theologically weak but musically more current. The main reason this presentation is false is because whilst some old hymns are theologically excellent but musically poor, some are theologically excellent and musically wonderful, others are theologically dire and musically brilliant, while others still are theologically barren and musically terrible. Similarly, the same can be said of modern worship songs too. Although some are theologically weak and musically enjoyable, some are theologically excellent and musically terrible, others are theologically sound and musically superb, while others are both theologically and musically awful.

What is the point of all this? I was recently put onto a group who have done a modern arrangement of the hymn 'Hail to the Lord's Anointed'. I make no comment on it's merit save to say that I like it and here is an example of modern music with some lyrical value which, in my humble opinion, would not be inappropriate in church.

The administration of baptism

I recently had two quite separate discussions regarding the administration of baptism. Both conversations seemed to revolve around the same key questions: When is it appropriate to administer baptism?; is it ever right to ask someone to wait for baptism?; what responsibility does the church leadership carry for administering baptism to someone who later falls away? All these questions are valid and seem worth exploring here in a little more detail.


A point worth making from the outset is that many now section off conversion, baptism and membership as three independent undertakings. It is not uncommon to hear churches urge conversion then, when some time has passed, press the case for baptism and later, when some further time has elapsed, suggest membership with each deemed a separate, unconnected act. This seems to be a move away from the biblical pattern. In Acts 8 we see Philip sharing the gospel with an Ethiopian eunuch. Following Philip's explanation of the scriptures we read:

And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized [sic]?" And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized [sic] him (Acts 8:36-38, ESV).

Similarly, we read of the Phillipian jailer who asked "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? (Acts 16:30, ESV)" and again the pattern is clear: 

...they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized [sic] at once, he and all his family (Acts 16:31-33, ESV).

In each of these cases, and several others recorded in scripture, there is no period of waiting between conversion and baptism. The only criteria for baptism in scripture is that of a credible testimony (1) and baptism is administered immediately following. Indeed, even the testimony of the Ethiopian eunuch is basic and simple yet Philip considered him immediately suitable for baptism. Therefore, if we are to follow the biblical pattern we should be encouraging those who become Christians to get baptised and join in membership as soon as possible because these things are clearly part and parcel of the same act; namely, joining the actual church and in the process joining the visible church (see 1 John 1:3, 7).


It was certainly my experience, as a child who wanted to be baptised, that there was a sense in which baptism was only for those who had reached an undisclosed age (or at least an undisclosed age of understanding). I have little doubt that this is born out of the laudable desire of church leaders to see some spiritual fruit before administering baptism and allowing someone to join the church who may not be truly saved. Laudable though this may be, biblical it is not. Both the examples of the Ethiopian eunuch and Phillipian jailer suggest that the baptism was immediate and not administered after a period of waiting to see the exhibition of spiritual fruit. Moreover, Jesus makes clear that the visible church will always incorporate some who are not saved. He comments:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' (Matt 7:21-23, ESV).

Similarly, Peter notes 'false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction (2 Pet 2:1, ESV)'. It is therefore apparent that the church cannot guard itself wholly against including those who are not truly saved. Does this mean that we should therefore simply baptise anybody? Clearly not. However, the criteria for baptism is not exhibition of spiritual fruit nor, surprisingly, proof beyond doubt of salvation. Rather, the criteria is simply a credible testimony.


Given that baptism seems to immediately follow conversion in the scriptures and the only criteria for its administration is a credible testimony, this brings us back to our three original questions. The first two questions have relatively straightforward answers. When is it appropriate to administer baptism? Whenever somebody gives a credible testimony. Is it ever right to suggest somebody should wait for baptism? No. The only appropriate responses are either 'Yes, you have a credible testimony' or 'No, we do not believe you are saved'. Never is there the response in scripture 'just wait because we don't feel you're ready yet'.


The third question is less straightforward. What responsibility does the church leadership carry for administering baptism to someone who later falls away? In the first instance, I think it is worth noting that Christ commands believers to be baptised. If the church leadership refuses baptism to an individual who is saved it is only the church leadership who is stopping that person from carrying out Christ's command. However, if an individual is baptised by the church leadership and later falls away, if they have given a credible testimony, then the church leadership cannot be held responsible - if anyone is in the wrong it can only be the one who gave a false testimony. As such, if somebody asks the church leadership for baptism and offers a credible testimony it would seem right for the church to baptise that person as the responsibility for refusing a Christian baptism lies solely with the church leadership whereas the responsibility for baptising one who gives a credible testimony but later proves unsaved lies solely with the one who gave false testimony.


I would suggest that baptism should be administered irrespective of age, maturity and exhibition of spiritual fruit. In reality, where a credible testimony exists baptism should be administered. If a young child seeks baptism and can offer a credible testimony then they are eligible - the Bible does not give an age of consent as a prerequisite. When somebody has recently converted, where there is a credible testimony, they are eligible for baptism - the Bible does not give the demonstration of spiritual fruit as a criteria. The only criteria is that of a credible testimony - where that exists any individual is eligible for baptism.


Notes

1. not even a testimony that assuages all doubt, merely a credible one

Principles for guidance

Most Christians agree that seeking God's guidance in their lives is thoroughly important and worthwhile. In the Bible, the words 'guide' and 'guidance' tend to refer either to the physical guidance of God's people from one place to another (e.g. Exo 13:21) or, the guidance of the Holy Spirit as pertaining to teaching and authority (e.g. John 16:13). In a number of the psalms, reference is made to God guiding his people (see 48:14, 67:4, 73:24) but such instances are non-specific. There are also references to God's guidance in the proverbs, however, this usually relates to walking in 'the paths of justice (2:8, ESV)' and 'delivering you from the way of evil (2:12, ESV)'. Whilst all these things are important and require guidance from God of one sort or another, this is generally not what people mean when they speak of guidance.


What most people mean by 'guidance' is God making known to them what they should do in the specifics of everyday life. This can relate to large life-changing decisions, for example: 'Where should I live?'; 'For which job should I apply?'; 'Who should I marry?'. However, it may also relate to less life-changing, yet still significant things, such as: 'Which church should I attend?'; 'To whom should I give money?'; 'How should I serve my church?'. In all these things, the Bible does not offer a definitive answer e.g. you should work in London, attend a particular church and give money to a particular charity. Given this, how do we seek God's guidance and how can we know where God is leading?


In the first instance, we should turn to the Bible. Although the question 'where should I work?' is not directly answered, the Bible lays down some principles that impact upon this decision. For example, although working in a brothel is never specifically outlawed in the Bible particular principles and commands that directly relate to such work would make this an occupation incompatible with a plain understanding of scripture (1). In a less obvious sense, the scriptural principles relating to work may affect the area of the country in which we live and the type of work we will find. For example, the Bible makes a number of comments on those who will not work (2). If we are able to work but we make excuses for not accepting particular jobs this would appear to cut across the principles laid down in scripture (3). If we are able to work and appropriate jobs appear in places which are not ideal but in which we are able to live, or that do not relate to our preferred area of training but for which we are nevertheless trained, then the Bible makes clear that we should accept such work even though it does not conform to our preconceived specifications of that which we hoped for. In this sense, the Biblical principle of working when we are able should have an effect on both where we live and what we do. So, in the first instance, we should see what scriptural principles have an impact upon the area in which we are seeking guidance.


Of course, there are still undefined decisions we may face for which there is either no directly applicable principle or, for which there are two or more equally valid routes for us to take. Having considered all relevant scriptural principles, in the second instance we can turn to circumstance. For example, in seeking work, we may have a preferred geographical area and specific specialism in mind as our ideal - there is nothing wrong with this nor with actively pursuing it. However, if no jobs in our preferred area become available or we receive no interviews for that place our circumstances suggest the Lord would have us elsewhere (especially if he has provided the opportunity for work in another place). Likewise, if the Lord wants us to have a specific job in our particular area of preference he will set the circumstances such that we will be able to take that job. Therefore, where our decision is not otherwise prohibited by scripture, we can look to our circumstances to see what the Lord would have us do. If he would have us in a particular area he will open the doors to allow it and if he would not he will remove those opportunities from us.


Through prayer we can also know God's guidance. If there is a particular situation which we are keen to actively pursue we can pray that, if it is His will, God would open the doors for that specific set of circumstances to come about. If it is not his will for us, for whatever reason, the Lord will not cause such circumstances to come about. Alternatively, we may not have a specific set of circumstances in mind but simply wish to follow wherever the Lord may lead. In this case, we can pray that He would only grant us the set of circumstances in which He would have us go. In either case, if we are truly seeking God's guidance and not our own predisposed ideals, we should be earnestly and honestly praying for God to grant us opportunities in the way he would have us go and we should pursue those things when they arise.


Finally, it is worth noting that sometimes we have a number of perfectly valid options available to us, none of which go against scripture and all of which are within an acceptable set of circumstances. If we have committed the decision to prayer and have sought God's guidance on the matter, we are free in this case to choose whichever option seems best to us. In truth, we can rest assured that by His sovereign nature we cannot act entirely outside God's will. If we have made every effort to act in accordance with God's expressed will and all options still appear viable we have liberty to act in whichever way appears best to us. In such circumstances, simply by laying an option in front of us that he knows we will freely choose, God can guide us through our own intellect and volition.


So, there are three ways that work together for guidance. Firstly, we look at the principles laid down in scripture. If what we are aiming to do goes against commands and principles in the Bible then God is clearly guiding us away from such things. Secondly, we can know by our circumstances what God would have us do. Where he is clearly guiding us away from something he will close doors and prevent those opportunities from arising; where he is guiding us towards a particular area our circumstances will be such that opportunities to do something else will be removed. Thirdly, we can pray that God will make clear to us where he would have us go and what he would have us do. Above all else, God is sovereign. Where the three ways of knowing God's guidance have been met, all options remain and each appear valid we have liberty to choose the option which seems best to us as God can still guide through our own volition. Through these things we can know God's guidance.


Notes
1. Such as Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18; Proverbs 6:32; Matthew 5:27-32; Matthew 5:19; etc
2. Proverbs 6; Proverbs 20:4; Proverbs 21:25; Proverbs 26:13-16; 2 Thessolonians 3:10-15; etc
3. Of course, there are many through illness, lack of available jobs, etc who want to work but cannot

Blair v Hitchens: What's the point?

The much publicised debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens took place a few days ago. For a review of the debate visit The Observer website. The review is, unsurprisingly given the paper, somewhat biased toward Hitchens although I can well believe that he did appear more intellectual than Blair.


What strikes me as pointless about this debate is the very thing that compelled most to attend. Were one looking for a debate between two famous names on an issue of some concern to them both then I am sure this would not have disappointed. However, the purpose of a debate is for two learned and qualified individuals to argue for and against a proposition in order to test its intellectual worth. What business do Tony Blair (a lawyer and politician) or Christopher Hitchens (a journalist) have in discussing the worth and impact of religion given their utter lack of qualification in this field? Surely such debates are for philosophers, sociologists, historians et al rather than journalists and politicians.


This leads us to a wider point. Richard Dawkins has commented openly about those who critique evolutionary theory without being qualified to do so, one of his more legitimate and reasonable arguments. Those who are not biologists should not be critiquing a theory within a subject in which they have no training. However, the New Atheists do not appear to follow their own advice. Dawkins routinely delves into philosophy despite his lack of training in the field and in his books, such as The God Delusion, his lack of philosophical study is evident. Christopher Hitchens has equally debated the existence of God and the value of religion despite his lack of training in any field which may be relevant to such debates.


So, despite the publicity, I question the value of a debate between a politcian and a journalist on a subject which neither is qualified to talk about. In reality, what do any of us stand to gain from that?

A tentative step towards a conclusion on the Sabbath

I had become a little disaffected with discussion on the Sabbath. The choice was often presented between sabbatarianism strictly tied to Sunday and a fencing off of appropriate 'Sunday activities' or the abolition of the sabbath altogether leading to a much freer Sunday. I know there are shades of these views and it is not fair to characterise it all as legalism v antinomianism (as some seek to do). It is only to say I found neither position entirely compelling. To that end, I am taking my own tentative steps towards a conclusion on the Christian sabbath. I must stress that these are cautious moves towards a view but I increasingly lean toward what is written here.


The non-sabbatarian places great store by the argument that the fourth commandment is never reiterated in the New Testament. Nevertheless, it is equally nowhere revoked. Jesus states 'The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath (Mark 2:27, ESV)'. In this context, Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees for placing unbearable burdens on those who sought to keep the sabbath command. However, he did not revoke the fourth commandment but rather stated that the sabbath existed for man's benefit, seeking to free it from the legalism which had been placed upon it by the Pharisees. It is worth noting that elsewhere, Jesus praises the Pharisees teaching but states that they are hypocritical in what they practice: 

The Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you - but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger (Matthew 23:2-4, ESV).

Jesus says that the teaching of the Pharisees is correct, however, their practice is hypocritical and they overburden people with rules added to the law. The Pharisees certainly taught that the sabbath stood and Jesus never contradicts this assertion, he only criticises the manner in which they sought to keep the sabbath. Further to this, in Matthew 12:3-8 Jesus gives examples of things that are lawful on the sabbath, without revoking the command itself, leading to his final conclusion in Matthew 12:12 'It is lawful to do good on the sabbath (ESV)'. It would appear that, far from revoking the sabbath command, Jesus re-enforced it in its original form, freeing it from the legalistic trappings of the Pharisees. I therefore conclude that the sabbath must still stand as it is upheld and re-enforced by Jesus and is nowhere else in the New Testament revoked.


Given that the sabbath must remain, at least in some form, what elements of the sabbath continue. The original commandment in Exodus 20:8-11 sets down two central aspects. Firstly, in Exodus 20:9-10, it specifies that we are to take one day in seven as rest. Secondly, in Exodus 20:8, 10, we are to set the day aside as holy. Both Exodus 31:13-17 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15 do not add any extra criteria to the command other than the two elements already mentioned. We must now consider how these two elements are to be met today.


The traditional sabbatarian argues that we are compelled to keep the sabbath on the first day of the week. They argue the move from Saturday to Sunday is attested to by the fact that Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 both suggest that a meeting was held on the first day of the week and we should follow the example of the early church. However, it should be noted that it is nowhere commanded that Christians should meet on the first day of the week (Sunday). Furthermore, the concept of weeks is not mentioned. The command is simply to work six, rest one. Every seventh day should be a sabbath. Moreover, the apostle Paul states 'One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind (Rom 14:5, ESV)'. The word 'alike' is not in the original text and may convey a meaning not intended by the apostle. Here, Paul is not stating that the sabbath has been repealed but rather that every day is to be consecrated to the Lord. Ultimately, he suggests that all days are now acceptable for worship, all days are 'holy'. If this is the case, and there is no scriptural command for us to meet on the first day of the week, we must conclude that we are not compelled to have our sabbath on one particular day of the week as all days are now consecrated and holy. 


Whilst we are not tied to one particular day of the week, the principle of work six, rest one still remains. This raises the very real issue of that which constitutes work on the sabbath. Jesus' statement, ''The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath (Mark 2:27, ESV)', helps us deal with this issue. The Pharisees' were arguing that, by plucking heads of corn as they were walking through a cornfield, the disciples were working and thus profaned the sabbath. Bearing in mind the context, and Jesus subsequent statement, we can draw two central conclusions. Firstly, a weekly rest is beneficial to us ('The sabbath was made for man'). Secondly, legalistic rules are burdensome and detrimental ('not man for the sabbath'). These two statements should form the backbone of that which we determine as work on the sabbath. In the first instance, we should err away from legalistic statements of that which does and does not constitute work. Secondly, whatever we do should be a rest to us. Naturally, this will differ from one person to the next. What one finds restful another may not and what one does for work throughout the week another will not. Rather than defining and outlawing particular jobs, tasks and activities we are better placed applying the two principles of avoiding legalism and seeking rest to our own situation. In this we should adopt the apostle Paul's stance: 'Who are you to pass judgement on the servant of another? It is before his own master he stands or falls.(Romans 14:4, ESV)'.


The final area to explore is how we relate the sabbath to others. One pertinent question is whether we should cause others to work on our sabbath? As already mentioned, we are no longer tied to one particular day of rest, the principle remains work six, rest one. As such, we are not precluded from using services and shops on our sabbath day for two main reasons. Firstly, if we take our sabbath on a Sunday somebody else may take theirs on another day of the week. Therefore, if we enter a shop on our sabbath, we are not causing anybody else to profane their sabbath as they will likely be taking another day off in lieu which, by default, becomes their day of rest. Secondly, if we begin to insist that others working on our sabbath is wrong we hit a number of inconsistencies and find ourselves creating legalistic rules to govern others. For example, we find ourselves excusing particular behaviours and activities purely because we understand or sympathise with them. In reality, it is acceptable for people to work on our sabbath as they can take another day off in lieu as their day of rest. We can therefore conclude that it is not wrong for us to use services and allow people to work on our designated sabbath day.


The second issue regarding how we relate the sabbath to others is whether we must meet together as Christians on a particular sabbath day. The writer of Hebrews says 'let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near (Hebrews 10:24-25, ESV)'. Clearly we are supposed to continue to meet together as Christians and this should not be neglected. However, it has already been shown that all days are consecrated, holy and acceptable for the worship of God and we are not tied to one particular day on which to have our sabbath. As such, whilst we are to continue meeting together we are not tied to a particular day for such meetings. Therefore, if our church is full of people unable to meet on a Sunday we have liberty to meet another day of the week. Equally, even if we choose to meet on a Sunday we have liberty to meet more than once a week on other days. We should continue to worship with one another but we are not limited to a particular day or a particular number of times a week.


To conclude, it seems apparent that the sabbath command remains. Nevertheless, all days are now to be consecrated to the Lord and we are thus not tied to one particular day of the week but are rather called to work six, rest one. Further to this, we are to avoid legalistic statements of what does and does not constitute work and should seek to do that which is restful on our sabbath day. This is a matter of personal conscience between each individual and the Lord - that which one finds restful another may not and that which one considers work another will not. We have liberty to do that which is restful on our sabbath and we are free to use shops and services as others may take another day of rest from ourselves. We also have liberty to meet and worship together on any day of the week and are not tied to particular days or a specific number of times per week.