A text taken out of context becomes a pretext for a proof-text

I recently read two posts on the 'Who's that preacher' blog regarding questionable scriptural arguments. They can both be found here and here.


I too have had many discussions along similar lines to those in the posts. I thought the following two comments particularly insightful:

"[An argument] doesn’t become Scriptural just by quoting a few Scriptures.  And it doesn’t become a strong argument by piling one piece of nonsense on top of another."

"If we continue to do that [make logically questionable arguments with spurious links to scripture], when others (professing Christians or out and out worldlings) see through our arguments, we do immense damage to our claim that we base everything on Scripture."

All too often we find Christians seeking out verses as a proof-texts for predisposed positions. The real problem does not lie with one Christian telling another not to drink (from an accompanying proof-text). The real problem comes when individuals, Christians or otherwise, see through shabby argument and spurious logic which leads them to question any claim we make thereon in.


If we truly want people to hear and respond to the gospel - or indeed to remain faithful once they have responded to it - we must be very careful to check that we are not simply pushing our own predispositions onto the biblical text.

Ordo Salutis

I was recently alerted to this infographic over at Challies showing the sequence of conceptual steps, according to Reformed Theology, in the process of salvation.




To view this infographic in full size click here.


Helpfully, this infographic boils several theologically complex doctrines down to a few straightforward, plain statements. I like the fact that it gives a clear, step-by-step view of the Reformed Theological understanding of the process of salvation. It also usefully states that 'the sequence is meant to be logical instead of chronological; some steps occur sequentially while others occur instantaneously'. I certainly found it a useful visual tool.

Assisted Suicide

Former Lord Chancellor and current Labour peer, Charles Falconer, has called for a change in the law on assisted suicide. He argues:

A person who has an illness from which two doctors consider he or she will die within 12 months, could receive assistance from their doctor to end their life if certain stringent safeguards were met, without the assister committing a crime. The doctors must be satisfied that: the person is aware of all the available social and medical help; the person is making the decision voluntarily, and with full capacity; no other person nor a sense of being a burden is unduly pressuring the person to commit suicide; there is no treatable mental condition that might alleviate the suicidal wish; and the process of the suicide will be carried out as humanely and as carefully as possible (Source: Guardian).

Archbishop Cranmer offered his opinion on this yesterday. Notably, he highlights that the advice taken by Lord Falconer was not particularly independent. He states that 'Dr Peter Saunders has blown the whole ‘independent’ claim out of the water. It was financed by the pro-euthanasia lobby, and composed predominantly of those whose pro-euthanasia proclivities precede their medical or ethical expertise: they are all appointees of Lord Falconer himself'.


However, the best comment on this issue also comes from The Guardian. Andrew Brown states the problem as follows:

No one wants either to prolong the life of the elderly into a grotesque torture, or to bump them off as soon as they become inconvenient, although these spectres lurk in the shadows of the argument.

There is clearly a point in many lives after which life is no longer worth living and should be ended as painlessly as possible. The question is who should decide when it has been reached. Under the old dispensation, doctors chose, and their decisions were tacitly accepted. Surely it is more modern, less authoritarian and more reasonable if patients make the choice, quite openly, for themselves?

The difficulty I have with this has nothing to do with religion, or with the supposed commands of a supposed God. It is about the nature of humanity. The thing that worries me about allowing patients to choose is that this isn't the kind of decision that we can reasonably make alone. (Source: Guardian)

Indeed, some people would take this decision without speaking to anybody. In fact, some may, erroneously, feel there is simply nobody to whom they can speak. Such thoughts are certainly wrongly reasoned, even if one can only talk to the Samaritans, and are often a common sign of depression (exactly the sort of person whose decisions on such matters should not be taken as compos mentis). Nevertheless, there are very few people who would argue that taking such a drastic decision without any consultation is appropriate.

It is at this point, however, that any illusion of autonomy is shattered. If we agree that such decisions should not be taken without consultation, we immediately introduce outside opinion and, by definition, third party interest. As Brown rightly points out 'these interests do not necessarily align with the patient's'. Many might argue that counselling would be available from professionals who are trained to strict neutrality. However, Brown is again correct when he states 'they aren't the people on whom our self-esteem and self-worth mostly depend. Those come from the people who like us, or even love us, unprofessionally. And that's a feeble crutch. There aren't enough of them, and their sentiments are much more mixed than we would like'.

So, our decision will inevitably be discussed with those who like, or even love, us and who, by definition, have an interest in the outcome. This, in and of itself, means autonomy is a mere illusion in such decisions. Few would argue we should make the decision alone and without discussion but, as soon as this is introduced, autonomy no longer exists as outside interests become a factor. 


Brown concludes with the following:

It's already abundantly clear that Britain has hundreds of thousands of old people whose lives are worth very little to anyone else, and who are neglected at best, abused at worst. Let's suppose that only one in a thousand of them thinks their lives are hardly worth living – and that's a very low estimate. That still means hundreds of people who would take the chance of assisted suicide if it were offered without pain or condemnation; and if we treat their decisions as wholly autonomous there is no reason to argue with them. 

But we know that in fact their actions and decisions would not be really autonomous. They are reactions to a world that others have made, and that we all have a part in. The fraudulence of this kind of autonomy talk is obvious when it's applied to poverty. Rich and poor alike are free to choose to sleep under the bridges. We can all now see the damage that was done to society in the last 30 years by talking about choices that the powerless just don't have as if they were real. When Tony Blair's old flatmate Charlie Falconer extends this style of argument to judgments about life and death, the only sane response is to call it nonsense.

I can only agree.

The obligatory Christmas post...

I know a number of Christian people who choose not to celebrate Christmas for a variety of reasons. Some eschew the potential pagan roots of the celebration, many wish to show Christianity as distinct from the world and argue Christmas has become bound up with worldiness, whereas others argue - from the writings of Paul - there should no longer be special days in the Christian calendar and one day should not be esteemed above another.


John Piper says the following on this issue:

I sympathize with those who want to be rigorously and distinctly Christian, who want to be disentangled from the world and any pagan roots that might lie beneath our celebration of Christmas, but I don't go that route on this matter because I think there comes a point where the roots are so far gone that the present meaning doesn't carry the pagan connotation anymore. I'm more concerned about a new paganism that gets layered on top of Christian holidays.

Here's the example I use: All language has roots somewhere. Most of our days of the week—if not all—grew out of pagan names too. So should we stop using the word "Sunday" because it may have related to the worship of the sun once upon a time? In modern English "Sunday" doesn't carry that connotation, and that's the very nature of language. In a sense, holidays are like chronological language.

Christmas now means that we mark, in Christian ways, the birth of Jesus Christ. I think the birth, death and resurrection of Christ are the most important events in human history. Not to mark them in some way, by way of special celebration, would be folly it seems to me.

I remember I lived next door to somebody back in seminary who didn't celebrate birthdays for their kid. The idea was, partly, that all days were special for their kid. But if all days are special then it probably means that there are no special days. Yet some things are so good and precious—like anniversaries, birthdays, and even deaths—that they are worthy of being marked. How much more the birth and death of Jesus Christ!

It's really worth the risk, even if the date of December 25 was chosen because of its proximity to some kind of pagan festival. Let's just take it, sanctify it, and make the most of it, because Christ is worthy of being celebrated in his birth. (Source: Desiring God)

I also sympathise with those who want to keep Christianity distinct from the things of the world. Nevertheless, whatever pagan connotations may have once existed are now no longer salient. For those who argue there are no special days in the Christian calendar, as Piper rightly points out, some events are so momentous they deserve to be marked out as such. The view there are no special days for the Christian is made more bizarre when it is held in conjunction with a strict sabbatarianism that states Sunday really is special for the Christian. So, on the one hand, Sunday is special (and it is often argued that the Sabbath moved from Saturday to Sunday because this is the day Christ was resurrected - an event special enough to be remembered) but, on the other, Christmas is not.


At the heart of the matter, the birth and death of Jesus Christ are the two most important episodes documented in scripture. To not celebrate these events does little to indicate Christians are distinct and separate from the world and far more to suggest we don't think these events matter - which of course, they do! So, let's celebrate Christmas as a means of showing the world that the birth of Jesus Christ really is important and really is something worth celebrating.

Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology and the Mode of Learning

I recently read this interesting blog post by my former college principal on hermeneutics and theological learning. Given that we are currently running through a Bible Overview at our church 'Real Food' bible studies, I thought this was quite an apt article.

Disestablishment: Part III

My initial post re disestablishment of the Church of England was never supposed to become an ongoing theme. Alas, the national press, other bloggers, the Anglican Church and even the Prime Minister appear to conspire in keeping the issue rolling. Yesterday, it was the Prime Minister's interference in the matter which prompted disestablishment: part II. Today, it is the turn of the Anglican Church itself to inadvertently forward the case for disestablishment via this morning's offering from Archbishop Cranmer. It was reported some time ago in The Telegraph:

...the plan to abolish the Act of Settlement was quietly shelved after the Church raised significant objections centring on the British sovereign’s dual role as Supreme Governor.

Church leaders expressed concern that if a future heir to the throne married a Roman Catholic, their children would be required by canon law to be brought up in that faith. This would result in the constitutionally problematic situation whereby the Supreme Governor of the Church of England was a Roman Catholic, and so ultimately answerable to a separate sovereign leader, the Pope, and the Vatican.

...A spokesman for the Anglican Church said that although the Act of Succession appeared “anomalous” in the modern world, while the Church of England remained the established religion, the monarch and Supreme Governor could not owe a higher loyalty elsewhere.

He went on: “The prohibition on those in the line of succession marrying Roman Catholics derives from an earlier age and inevitably looks anomalous, not least when there is no prohibition on marriage to those of other faiths or none. But if the prohibition were removed the difficulty would still remain that establishment requires the monarch to join in communion with the Church of England as its Supreme Governor and that is not something that a Roman Catholic would be able to do consistently with the current rules of that church.”

It was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, 'is said to have been persuaded that the difficulties raised by the Anglican Church were insurmountable'.


Indeed, all the above arguments advanced by the Anglican Church are correct and do truly represent a constitutional problem. However, buried within their own statement is the simple answer to the issue. The spokesman for the Anglican Church stated (emphasis mine) 'while the Church of England remained the established religion, the monarch and Supreme Governor could not owe a higher loyalty elsewhere'. From this, the argument is put forth that it would be constitutionally untenable for the Monarch to owe a 'higher loyalty elsewhere' - and indeed it would be!


Yet, as the Anglican Church spokesman helpfully highlights, this state of affairs only exists so long as 'the Church of England remained the established religion'. If the Monarch were not the Supreme Governor of the Church of England the possibility that the head of the Anglican Church could be answerable to a separate sovereign leader could not exist. Therefore, the answer to this constitutional conundrum appears to be simply disestablishing the Church of England. This would mean the Monarch could hold whatever religion they cared for, and marry anyone of whatever religion they cared for, without having a higher loyalty to some other. Indeed, the Monarch would no longer be the head of the established Church for no such Church would exist.


It strikes me that royalists and Anglicans alike are rather missing the obvious answer.

Disestablishment & Discrimination

I happened to write yesterday regarding the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in England. By some happy coincidence, Archbishop Cranmer today picks up the topic of David Cameron's proposal to reform royal succession laws. The Guardian reports:

This rule is a historical anomaly – it does not, for example, bar those who marry spouses of other faiths – and we do not think it can continue to be justified," Cameron wrote. Cameron is also proposing that Catholics should continue to be debarred from being head of state, but that anyone who marries a Catholic should not be debarred. The family would be entitled to bring up their children as Catholics as long as heirs do not seek to take the throne as a Catholic.

 Cranmer correctly notes:

How on earth does this dog's breakfast of a proposal rectify the ‘historical anomaly’? If it be offensive to Roman Catholics that the Monarch may neither be Roman Catholic nor married to one, how does the repeal of half of the prohibition resolve the injustice? If it be bigotry to bar the Monarch from marrying a Roman Catholic, it must a fortiori be bigotry to bar them from the Throne.

 However, he goes on to comment:

Of course it is ‘unfair’ and ‘discriminatory’ that the monarch may not be or marry a Roman Catholic, but the very act of choosing a religion manifestly necessitates discrimination against all the others. It is also ‘discriminatory’ that the Pope may not be Protestant, and even more ‘unfair’ that he may not marry at all. But there are sound theological and historical justifications for the restrictions upon both the King of the Vatican and the Monarch of the United Kingdom, and none of these amount to a violation of their ‘human rights’. Prince William’s heir is perfectly free to marry a Roman Catholic should he (or she) so desire: that it is his (or her) human right. But the Heir is not then free to be King and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But to be King or Queen is not a human right; it is the gift of Parliament.

Cranmer is right to note the inherent discrimination - as existent for the Protestant in respect to the Vatican as the Catholic regarding the British crown - and justified in linking this with the role as head of the established church. However, this rather brings us back to the issue of the established Church of England.


Surely, but for the establishment of the Anglican Church, none of this need be an issue. Neither discrimination against Romans Catholics in respect to the British crown nor the glaring conflict of interest inherent in a communicant of Rome acting as head of the Anglican Church in England would cause any problem were the Anglican Church disestablished. If the Anglican Church placed itself solely under the rule of Christ, as opposed to the Monarch, what should it care if a Catholic succeeds the Throne? For those outside the established Church, it makes little difference who wears the Crown; it will almost certainly not be a representative of their own tradition.


So, I quite agree with Archbishop Cranmer, Cameron's proposal will do nothing to address the issue of discrimination against Roman Catholics succeeding the Throne nor should it whilst such a role incorporates position as head of the Church of England. Nevertheless, were the Anglican Church disestablished in England such discrimination need neither occur nor matter for all parties involved.

Anti/Disestablishmentarianism

Anti/Disestablishmentarianism, aside from being an unnecessarily long word, is an issue that seems to trouble very few. Interest on the matter seems confined to left-wingers with a penchant for constitutional reform, atheists with a particular aversion to anything tinged with religion in public life and the handful of bishops currently nesting in the Lords.


Interestingly, this is an issue with which modern Evangelicalism has had relatively little to say. Of course, there have been the standard calls from dissenting churches for Evangelical Anglicans to flee the nest and the counter-arguments that Anglicanism is a 'good boat to fish from'. However, this has less to do with the establishment of the Anglican church in England and more to do with issues of Evangelical purism e.g. autonomy of the local church and perceived countenance to the edicts of a largely non-Evangelical hierarchy. However, what of the establishment of the church itself?


It is the view of this blogger that the established church should no longer be. That is not to say the Anglican church should no longer be nor a call for Evangelical Anglicans to remove themselves from their denomination; an issue of conscience and preference for those within Anglicanism not a matter of any concern to those outside. Rather, this is an issue of whether any church should be established and hold a special place within Britain (or in this case, England specifically (1)).


David Ceri Jones notes:

After a long and bitter campaign, the Church of England was disestablished in Wales in 1920. Despite the fears of many, that did not prove to be the death knell to Welsh Anglicanism. Rather the Church in Wales, as it very consciously became, redefined itself as the ancient church of the Welsh people, rather than the imposed Anglican establishment it had once been perceived as being. The rapid decline in Welsh nonconformity in the twentieth century has enabled the Church in Wales to become the single largest, and therefore influential, Christian body in Wales. Disestablishment has been positive, even the making of Welsh Anglicanism! 

Thus, disestablishment of the Anglican church in England need not represent the end of English Anglicanism but rather, may see it grow further by setting itself as simply a church under the rule of Christ, as opposed to the rule of the monarch.


In history, the issue of establishment was certainly more pronounced than it is today. As Derek Tidball notes:

The major difference between Evangelical Anglicans and the nonconformists [in the 19th century] lay in their civil and political positions. Civil disabilities were not finally removed from the nonconformists until after the middle of the century and consequently they were much preoccupied with the quest for freedom. Many leading minister were ardent protagonists for disestablishment, which was seen to go hand in hand with political equality. (Who Are the Evangelicals, 1994).

The special place held by the established church, and those therein, marked a point of contention across Evangelicalism. Indeed, Tidball goes on to note 'Dissenting Evangelicals were looked on suspiciously and, in turn, looked suspiciously at Evangelicals in the established church'.


Such civil and political differences between nonconformists and Anglicans have, largely, long since gone. However, in Northern Ireland, the belief that religiously inspired principles, especially in light of the high numbers of Free Presbyterians within the ruling DUP, have influenced government policy very much remains. However, Steve Bruce notes:

It is often assumed that only secular liberals wish to separate church and states, or religion and politics, or morality and state law; that the purpose of recognizing [sic] two distinct spheres is to diminish the power of the church. But the same divisions can be appreciated by those who view the problem from the other end, whose primary concern is to safeguard religion. As the people faced with the dual responsibility of serving the church and their electors, the clergy who were involved in the DUP could appreciate, better than lay Evangelicals, that they had to keep their roles separate (Paisley: Religion and Politics in Northern Ireland, 2009).

Similarly, the American separation of church and state stems from this same conviction. Whilst secular liberals may wish to keep church and state separate to minimise the influence of the Church in matters of State, so too many Evangelicals want the same separation to avoid undue influence of the State in matters of the Church.


So what of the matter of the established church in England? Constitutionally, it seems profoundly undemocratic for unelected members, who represent a small proportion of the country, to have such a place enshrined in the House of Lords. Nevertheless, for the Church (in it's widest sense), a greater issue exists. If we want the State to take a hands off approach to the Church and grant freedom in matters of religion, we too must forego a special place in parliament and take a hands off approach in the matters of State.

Notes

1. Of course, the same argument may apply to the established Presbyterian Church in Scotland

Spiritual Joy

This excerpt from the Metropolitan Tabernacle website was pointed out on the Who's that preacher blog:


SPIRITUAL JOY - how it may be spoiled or increased (by Dr Masters)


I shall leave the reader to speculate to which side Dr Masters tips the balance.

Reasonable Faith Tour 2011

Dr William Lane Craig is due to embark upon his Reasonable Faith Tour 2011 - I post this video to advertise the fact and point you to the 'Be Thinking' website where tickets can be purchased for all debates and lectures.


It is not my intention to comment on the personal views of the video commentator, I shall leave the reader to determine the value of such statements. Nevertheless, I do applaud the willingness of Prof. Peter Millican, Prof. Peter Atkins and Dr. Stephen Law to debate Prof. Craig where others will not, to offer a reasoned defence of Atheism and allow a forum in which Theistic and Atheistic views can be considered on a level playing field. We should all be grateful for their willingness to engage, especially in light of the fact that others are not.