It has long been argued that the theory of evolution represents a stumbling block for the truth claims of the Bible. However, the supposed dichotomy between creation and evolution is an entirely false one. In the following video, William Lane Craig explains why:
It is often argued that those who believe in special creation seek to manipulate science to fit their predisposed religious views. However, as Dr. Craig highlights, the Christian is in a unique position to weigh up what evidence there is and draw conclusions from it knowing that God is not done away with in either explanation. In contrast, the Atheist cannot accept any conclusion, such as special creation, that fundamentally requires the existence of God and is thus wedded to evolutionary theory regardless of where the evidence may, or may not, point. As Alvin Plantinga comments, for the Atheist evolution 'is the only game in town'. When this false dichotomy inevitably rears its head, we should ask to what beliefs are those who put forward the evidence committed and are they free to follow the evidence where it may lead?
Monday, 6 September 2010
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
The importance of evangelism
It is easy to overlook the need to engage in evangelism. Our thoughts can often be consumed with the idea we are being intrusive when we challenge the beliefs of others with the words of the Bible. Two interesting perspectives on this issue come from two committed atheists. Both, whilst not believing in God themselves, recognise the point of evangelism and appear to have far greater respect for those who do it than those who bow to the pressure of that which is deemed culturally acceptable.
Both men recognise the purpose and driving force behind evangelism. What is interesting is that, although they do not believe in God or any form of life everlasting, both agree that it is more loving to share a sincere faith in an attempt to save a soul from death than it is to uphold cultural customs and social etiquette. Far from respecting those who believe their faith should be kept private, Penn Jillette goes as far as to see it as an act of utter hatred akin to leaving someone to be hit by an oncoming truck.
Rico Tice, founder of Christianity Explored, puts the issue most starkly:
The first comes from The Times columnist Matthew Parris. He states:
The New Testament offers a picture of God, who does not sound at all vague. He has sent His Son to earth. He has distant plans for each of us personally and can communicate directly with us. We are capable of forming a direct relationship, individually with Him, and are commanded to try. We are told that this can be done only through His Son. And we are offered the prospect of eternal life -- an afterlife in happy, blissful or glorious circumstances if we live this life in a certain manner.
Friends, if I believed that, or even a tenth of that, how could I care which version of the prayer book is used? I would drop my job, sell my house, throw away all my possession, leave my acquaintances and set out into the world burning with desire to know more and, when I had found more, to act upon it and tell others.
Far from being puzzled that the Mormons and Adventists should knock on the door, I am unable to understand how anyone who believes that which is written in the Bible could choose to spend their waking hours in any other endeavor.
The second comes from Penn Jillette (see video below).
Both men recognise the purpose and driving force behind evangelism. What is interesting is that, although they do not believe in God or any form of life everlasting, both agree that it is more loving to share a sincere faith in an attempt to save a soul from death than it is to uphold cultural customs and social etiquette. Far from respecting those who believe their faith should be kept private, Penn Jillette goes as far as to see it as an act of utter hatred akin to leaving someone to be hit by an oncoming truck.
Rico Tice, founder of Christianity Explored, puts the issue most starkly:
What [Some people] tend to say to themselves is "my faith is a personal and private thing, it helps me in my life but I wouldn't dream of inflicting it upon other people"... On judgment day, those people you haven't told, will they look across at you and say "why didn't you tell me?" and you'll say "well it was culturally inappropriate." I'm afriad that there is a need to tell people the gospel and there are times in this culture where it's becoming less and less acceptable but that doesn't mean we don't pass this message on. They must have their sin paid for at the cross or it will be paid for in Hell.If we claim to love anybody then we should be doing all we can to tell them the saving news of the gospel. In the words of Penn Jillette 'how much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?'
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Christians and the armed forces
The issue of Christians joining the armed forces is an interesting one. Denominations such as the Brethren, Quakers and Mennonites historically advocated pacifism; actively encouraging members away from armed service. However, those Christians that actively espouse pacifism seem to be in the minority. Whilst there are pacifistic elements across the Christian churches most denominations have never officially advocated pacifism usually adopting a deliberately ambiguous position making it a matter for personal conscience. Unless one has a strong ideological opposition to all war or attends one of the historic 'peace churches', it seems common for this issue to be overlooked. As such, this post will seek to deal with the question of whether it is legitimate for Christians to join the armed forces.
We must firstly recognise that God himself is not a pacifist. Indeed, throughout the Old Testament there are numerous examples of the Lord telling his people to go to war. Whilst the reasons for this are many and varied we cannot escape the simple fact that God did indeed instruct his people to engage in military actions. This means, first and foremost, that God does not avoid war at all costs. Whilst there may be caveats and requirements placed upon any decision to engage the armed forces, the point nevertheless stands. God does, occasionally, sanction military action and service.
Some seek to argue that the sixth commandment prohibits serving in the armed forces. Certain versions of the Bible translate Exodus 20:13 as 'You shall not kill' whereas others translate this commandment as 'You shall not murder.' Those who seek to use this passage to argue that military service is sinful tend towards the former translation. However, this reading causes a number of difficulties. Firstly, the commandment does not stipulate who, or what, should not be killed and this understanding of the passage must lead to the view that it is wrong to kill anything including plants and animals. This then contradicts the laws requiring animal sacrifices. Secondly, this reading suggests that God, in instructing his people to mobilise militarily, led his people into sin. This is clearly contrary to the teaching of James 1:12-18. Thirdly, it leads to the view that God contradicted himself by instituting a death penalty for certain crimes under the law. As such, the translation 'You shall not kill' is fraught with difficulties. The translation 'you shall not murder' is more satisfactory as it makes clear that it is the unlawful killing of another person that is forbidden. Consequently, the sixth commandment does not make war or military service incompatible with obedience to God.
Some argue military service is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught that we should not repay evil with evil, to love our enemies and to give freely to those who hate us. It is argued that all violence is evil and shows a lack of love for those it is brought against. Therefore, it is argued, Jesus' teachings clearly direct us away from the armed forces as the military, by definition, engage in such evil activities. The problem with this view is that it is based on a particular interpretation of war, namely that it is always evil, and applies this predisposed view to Jesus' teachings. If war is always evil then, according to these teachings, joining the armed forces is clearly unacceptable. However, is war always evil? We know that God instructed his people to go to war and if such actions are always evil God led his people into sin. Moreover, Revelation speaks of those in Heaven engaging in a war against Satan. If warfare is always evil those warring against Satan are sinning. As such, we must conclude that war is not always evil. Given this, military service does not necessarily run contrary to the teachings of Jesus. If war is not intrinsically evil then to engage an enemy in war does not necessarily constitute repaying evil with evil. Similarly, if war is not evil it is not necessarily unloving to defend oneself against one's enemies.
It is also possible to cite New Testament examples of Christians serving in the armed forces. We read of the centurion in Matt 8:5-13 of whom Jesus said 'with no one in Israel have I found such faith (Matt 8:10, ESV).' Whilst this passage does not by necessity show the centurion to have saving faith, most commentators appear to agree that Jesus' words are indicative of this. We do not read of this centurion being told to leave his post nor does Jesus suggest his occupation is in some way sinful. We must therefore conclude that this is an example of a saved man who continued to serve in the armed forces. We also read in Acts 10 of the centurion called Cornelius 'who feared God with all his household (Acts 10:2, ESV).' Again, we are not told that Cornelius left his position therefore he too represents a Christian involved in military service. There are no examples of servicemen in the New Testament being told to leave their positions on becoming Christians therefore we can conclude that such roles are not prohibited.
With all that in mind, there is no biblical warrant to argue that Christian involvement in the armed forces is sinful or wrong. However, there are some legitimate extra-biblical arguments that should cause us to think carefully about such service. For example, whilst war is clearly not always evil we cannot be certain that our service will always be part of good and just causes. We have a secular government who decide these matters on their own wisdom and understanding. As Christians, we cannot be certain that we will not be asked to fight for causes we believe to be wrong and sinful. We may be asked to serve in a conflict that we perceive to be unjust, self-serving and immoral. Can we, in good conscience, join the armed forces knowing that we may be put in this position? There is no correct answer but this is something we must seriously weigh up in our own minds.
It is also worth considering how strongly we believe our witness can stand when constantly surrounded by unbelievers. Such immersion in this environment is different to any other job. In other occupations, one can come home every day and meet with other believers in church at least once a week. However, in the armed forces one is surrounded by non-Christians 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with no guarantee that there will be other believers to meet with. This is not to suggest that it is somehow sinful or wrong to join the armed forces but is something that any Christian looking at enrolling should seriously consider.
In summary, we cannot conclude biblically that it is wrong or sinful for Christians to join the armed forces. Indeed, we have some examples in scripture of believers serving in the armed forces and taking part in military action. We have no examples in scripture of Christians being told to leave their post once they have become believers or any direct statements that such service is sinful. Enrolling in the armed forces is therefore legitimate for the Christian. However, one should seriously consider the issue of having to serve in conflicts that are, in one's own view, unjust and unacceptable. Also, one should consider the extent to which one can maintain a sound witness in such an environment. Nevertheless, these are matters for consideration and are not issues that proscribe the Christian from armed service.
We must firstly recognise that God himself is not a pacifist. Indeed, throughout the Old Testament there are numerous examples of the Lord telling his people to go to war. Whilst the reasons for this are many and varied we cannot escape the simple fact that God did indeed instruct his people to engage in military actions. This means, first and foremost, that God does not avoid war at all costs. Whilst there may be caveats and requirements placed upon any decision to engage the armed forces, the point nevertheless stands. God does, occasionally, sanction military action and service.
Some seek to argue that the sixth commandment prohibits serving in the armed forces. Certain versions of the Bible translate Exodus 20:13 as 'You shall not kill' whereas others translate this commandment as 'You shall not murder.' Those who seek to use this passage to argue that military service is sinful tend towards the former translation. However, this reading causes a number of difficulties. Firstly, the commandment does not stipulate who, or what, should not be killed and this understanding of the passage must lead to the view that it is wrong to kill anything including plants and animals. This then contradicts the laws requiring animal sacrifices. Secondly, this reading suggests that God, in instructing his people to mobilise militarily, led his people into sin. This is clearly contrary to the teaching of James 1:12-18. Thirdly, it leads to the view that God contradicted himself by instituting a death penalty for certain crimes under the law. As such, the translation 'You shall not kill' is fraught with difficulties. The translation 'you shall not murder' is more satisfactory as it makes clear that it is the unlawful killing of another person that is forbidden. Consequently, the sixth commandment does not make war or military service incompatible with obedience to God.
Some argue military service is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught that we should not repay evil with evil, to love our enemies and to give freely to those who hate us. It is argued that all violence is evil and shows a lack of love for those it is brought against. Therefore, it is argued, Jesus' teachings clearly direct us away from the armed forces as the military, by definition, engage in such evil activities. The problem with this view is that it is based on a particular interpretation of war, namely that it is always evil, and applies this predisposed view to Jesus' teachings. If war is always evil then, according to these teachings, joining the armed forces is clearly unacceptable. However, is war always evil? We know that God instructed his people to go to war and if such actions are always evil God led his people into sin. Moreover, Revelation speaks of those in Heaven engaging in a war against Satan. If warfare is always evil those warring against Satan are sinning. As such, we must conclude that war is not always evil. Given this, military service does not necessarily run contrary to the teachings of Jesus. If war is not intrinsically evil then to engage an enemy in war does not necessarily constitute repaying evil with evil. Similarly, if war is not evil it is not necessarily unloving to defend oneself against one's enemies.
It is also possible to cite New Testament examples of Christians serving in the armed forces. We read of the centurion in Matt 8:5-13 of whom Jesus said 'with no one in Israel have I found such faith (Matt 8:10, ESV).' Whilst this passage does not by necessity show the centurion to have saving faith, most commentators appear to agree that Jesus' words are indicative of this. We do not read of this centurion being told to leave his post nor does Jesus suggest his occupation is in some way sinful. We must therefore conclude that this is an example of a saved man who continued to serve in the armed forces. We also read in Acts 10 of the centurion called Cornelius 'who feared God with all his household (Acts 10:2, ESV).' Again, we are not told that Cornelius left his position therefore he too represents a Christian involved in military service. There are no examples of servicemen in the New Testament being told to leave their positions on becoming Christians therefore we can conclude that such roles are not prohibited.
With all that in mind, there is no biblical warrant to argue that Christian involvement in the armed forces is sinful or wrong. However, there are some legitimate extra-biblical arguments that should cause us to think carefully about such service. For example, whilst war is clearly not always evil we cannot be certain that our service will always be part of good and just causes. We have a secular government who decide these matters on their own wisdom and understanding. As Christians, we cannot be certain that we will not be asked to fight for causes we believe to be wrong and sinful. We may be asked to serve in a conflict that we perceive to be unjust, self-serving and immoral. Can we, in good conscience, join the armed forces knowing that we may be put in this position? There is no correct answer but this is something we must seriously weigh up in our own minds.
It is also worth considering how strongly we believe our witness can stand when constantly surrounded by unbelievers. Such immersion in this environment is different to any other job. In other occupations, one can come home every day and meet with other believers in church at least once a week. However, in the armed forces one is surrounded by non-Christians 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with no guarantee that there will be other believers to meet with. This is not to suggest that it is somehow sinful or wrong to join the armed forces but is something that any Christian looking at enrolling should seriously consider.
In summary, we cannot conclude biblically that it is wrong or sinful for Christians to join the armed forces. Indeed, we have some examples in scripture of believers serving in the armed forces and taking part in military action. We have no examples in scripture of Christians being told to leave their post once they have become believers or any direct statements that such service is sinful. Enrolling in the armed forces is therefore legitimate for the Christian. However, one should seriously consider the issue of having to serve in conflicts that are, in one's own view, unjust and unacceptable. Also, one should consider the extent to which one can maintain a sound witness in such an environment. Nevertheless, these are matters for consideration and are not issues that proscribe the Christian from armed service.
Thursday, 1 July 2010
An experience of depression
A while ago I was asked to write an article on living with depression for a Christian magazine. They decided not to run the article (understandably as people on their holidays are unlikely to want to read such things) so I thought I would publish it here instead. I don't expect this to be of particular help to people but simply share it as an example of my own experience.
We often hear people talk about ‘depression’: Their job depresses them; their friend tells them a story that makes them a bit depressed; or even, boring food for dinner on a regular basis is ‘so depressing’. Perhaps even we have referred to ourselves as ‘depressed’ when really what we mean is that we feel a bit sad. In real terms, however, depression (by which I mean real, clinical depression) is something so invidious and all-pervading that to be ‘a bit sad’ would come as relief to those who suffer it.
I had recently gotten married, moved to a new area of the country and started a new job as a teacher in a secondary school. My wife and I quickly settled and became involved in a local church. Before long, I found myself regularly working 7:00am – midnight without breaks. It became apparent there was a problem when I began waking up at 4:00am every morning (with no prospect of returning to sleep), my usually healthy appetite decreased considerably and I began to act with increasing anxiousness towards events that would have otherwise passed me by unnoticed. At first, we simply assumed this was the onset of stress and, as time went by and coping mechanisms kicked in, these symptoms would pass. Far from passing, however, I soon stopped sleeping altogether, my appetite failed completely and anxiousness gave way to panic attack.
It is a strange feeling when you are forced to see a doctor but you don’t understand why you are there. I knew my symptoms were real but I thought them far too insignificant for the doctor, expecting him to send me away with a flea in my ear. Instead, in December 2008, I was diagnosed with ‘clinical depression’. I continued in my work for some time after this diagnosis but as I tried to ‘keep calm and carry on’ my symptoms worsened further. I found myself in floods of tears over nothing, would shake uncontrollably with anxiety and saw insurmountable problems everywhere I turned. I felt worthless, useless and ashamed finding no point in anything. I became desperately suicidal to the point of making two attempts on my own life.
I couldn’t concentrate on any conversation, I couldn’t read, I couldn’t follow television programmes, I couldn’t sit still but I still couldn’t achieve anything either. Many well-meaning folk tried to help but, in reality, only made problems worse. I would often have panic attacks at the thought of seeing anybody struggling to see my parents and, on occasions, even my wife. Many told me of their struggles with depression in an attempt to share in my suffering but, almost to a tee, their experiences were far removed from mine and they simply did not seem to understand the real problem. Worse than this, however, all the medical professionals seemed to make the problem worse too. When the drugs I was prescribed didn’t work the doctors couldn’t understand why and when ‘talking therapies’ were ineffective it seemed I was blamed for their failure. I increasingly felt that nothing could help me.
Eventually, some drugs were found that did produce some results. Whilst they by no means solved the problem they did indeed lift my mood a little and provided at least a glimmer of hope that things wouldn’t remain forever as they were. I also found a counsellor who helped in an altogether more beneficial way than others. Moreover, my wife and I moved to a different area of the country where one of the Elders in the church we attended happened to be a psychiatric consultant. He agreed to see me privately, in his own time, and slowly things began to improve for me. I still suffer some of the effects of depression and remain on medication. Nevertheless, I have continued to improve and what was a faint glimmer of hope gradually became a realistic prospect such that I am now able to function on a relatively normal level.
If anyone is familiar with depression they will be aware of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). The principle behind CBT is to track negative thought patterns and to counter-balance them, not with platitudes that have no meaning in reality, but with statements of truth which we can test our often factually incorrect thoughts against. If we believe the Bible to be true, where better to seek the statements of fact necessary to offset our erroneous thoughts? It was a help to me when I was shown factual statements from the Bible that showed my thoughts about myself to be untrue. This provided me with a solid basis of truth against which I could weigh up my incorrect thoughts. I would be lying if I said this made me feel better but it certainly made me think better and stopped me from acting on my false thoughts.
I am not trying to offer trite truisms to what is a serious and most difficult to understand problem. Job never discovered the reason for his suffering and many who experience depression may not find reasons why they suffer either. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul writes ‘all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28).’ Whilst we may never fully understand why the Lord allows us to suffer we can know that, if we love Him, it will work ultimately for our good. Whilst such truths may feel so distant we can know that they nevertheless remain true.
I understand that many who read this will have had entirely different experiences and I hope that this will not be read as the definitive depressive experience. Also, those who are not Christians are bound to feel differently about depression. I certainly do not want to suggest that the answer to this fundamentally medical problem can simply be found by 'turning to Christ' or through merely reading the Bible. Depression is first and foremost a medical issue and I hope that nobody will read this as a crass evangelistic effort. It is certainly not meant in this way - I am only seeking to document my own experience which I fully recognise will be different to the experiences of others.
We often hear people talk about ‘depression’: Their job depresses them; their friend tells them a story that makes them a bit depressed; or even, boring food for dinner on a regular basis is ‘so depressing’. Perhaps even we have referred to ourselves as ‘depressed’ when really what we mean is that we feel a bit sad. In real terms, however, depression (by which I mean real, clinical depression) is something so invidious and all-pervading that to be ‘a bit sad’ would come as relief to those who suffer it.
I had recently gotten married, moved to a new area of the country and started a new job as a teacher in a secondary school. My wife and I quickly settled and became involved in a local church. Before long, I found myself regularly working 7:00am – midnight without breaks. It became apparent there was a problem when I began waking up at 4:00am every morning (with no prospect of returning to sleep), my usually healthy appetite decreased considerably and I began to act with increasing anxiousness towards events that would have otherwise passed me by unnoticed. At first, we simply assumed this was the onset of stress and, as time went by and coping mechanisms kicked in, these symptoms would pass. Far from passing, however, I soon stopped sleeping altogether, my appetite failed completely and anxiousness gave way to panic attack.
It is a strange feeling when you are forced to see a doctor but you don’t understand why you are there. I knew my symptoms were real but I thought them far too insignificant for the doctor, expecting him to send me away with a flea in my ear. Instead, in December 2008, I was diagnosed with ‘clinical depression’. I continued in my work for some time after this diagnosis but as I tried to ‘keep calm and carry on’ my symptoms worsened further. I found myself in floods of tears over nothing, would shake uncontrollably with anxiety and saw insurmountable problems everywhere I turned. I felt worthless, useless and ashamed finding no point in anything. I became desperately suicidal to the point of making two attempts on my own life.
I couldn’t concentrate on any conversation, I couldn’t read, I couldn’t follow television programmes, I couldn’t sit still but I still couldn’t achieve anything either. Many well-meaning folk tried to help but, in reality, only made problems worse. I would often have panic attacks at the thought of seeing anybody struggling to see my parents and, on occasions, even my wife. Many told me of their struggles with depression in an attempt to share in my suffering but, almost to a tee, their experiences were far removed from mine and they simply did not seem to understand the real problem. Worse than this, however, all the medical professionals seemed to make the problem worse too. When the drugs I was prescribed didn’t work the doctors couldn’t understand why and when ‘talking therapies’ were ineffective it seemed I was blamed for their failure. I increasingly felt that nothing could help me.
Eventually, some drugs were found that did produce some results. Whilst they by no means solved the problem they did indeed lift my mood a little and provided at least a glimmer of hope that things wouldn’t remain forever as they were. I also found a counsellor who helped in an altogether more beneficial way than others. Moreover, my wife and I moved to a different area of the country where one of the Elders in the church we attended happened to be a psychiatric consultant. He agreed to see me privately, in his own time, and slowly things began to improve for me. I still suffer some of the effects of depression and remain on medication. Nevertheless, I have continued to improve and what was a faint glimmer of hope gradually became a realistic prospect such that I am now able to function on a relatively normal level.
If anyone is familiar with depression they will be aware of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). The principle behind CBT is to track negative thought patterns and to counter-balance them, not with platitudes that have no meaning in reality, but with statements of truth which we can test our often factually incorrect thoughts against. If we believe the Bible to be true, where better to seek the statements of fact necessary to offset our erroneous thoughts? It was a help to me when I was shown factual statements from the Bible that showed my thoughts about myself to be untrue. This provided me with a solid basis of truth against which I could weigh up my incorrect thoughts. I would be lying if I said this made me feel better but it certainly made me think better and stopped me from acting on my false thoughts.
I am not trying to offer trite truisms to what is a serious and most difficult to understand problem. Job never discovered the reason for his suffering and many who experience depression may not find reasons why they suffer either. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul writes ‘all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28).’ Whilst we may never fully understand why the Lord allows us to suffer we can know that, if we love Him, it will work ultimately for our good. Whilst such truths may feel so distant we can know that they nevertheless remain true.
I understand that many who read this will have had entirely different experiences and I hope that this will not be read as the definitive depressive experience. Also, those who are not Christians are bound to feel differently about depression. I certainly do not want to suggest that the answer to this fundamentally medical problem can simply be found by 'turning to Christ' or through merely reading the Bible. Depression is first and foremost a medical issue and I hope that nobody will read this as a crass evangelistic effort. It is certainly not meant in this way - I am only seeking to document my own experience which I fully recognise will be different to the experiences of others.
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Does the term 'Christian' mean anything anymore?
It is probably true to say that most of us think we know what the term 'Christian' means. Many of us use this term, believing we understand it and that everyone else understands what we mean by it. However, the term is used in a variety of different ways by various people. When we use the term ourselves, we cannot be sure that others understand it in the same way. So, what does the term 'Christian' actually mean, who does it apply to and how precious can we be about it?
The word 'Christian' or 'Christians' only appears three times in the Bible and is a translation of the Greek word Christianos which simply means 'follower of Christ.' We could argue then that the term 'Christian' can be applied to anybody considered to follow Christ. However, the obvious problem we run into is that there are a wide variety of traditions, beliefs and practices that all consider themselves to be following the teachings of Christ. Moreover, as is common in some circles, we cannot simply say that we follow Christ therefore anybody who disagrees with us is not following Christ and thus cannot be termed 'Christian.' This sort of thinking can only lead to the question 'where do we draw the line?' On this basis, we could not draw it on denominational lines as disagreements exist within denominations. We could not even draw it at one particular church as not all are in complete agreement within individual churches. Therefore, we end up reducing the term to one individual and making it meaningless as a descriptor.
Some have sought to argue that the term should only be applied to those who 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31a).' Again, however, we run into the problem that this also contains some ambiguity. Most evangelicals would see belief on Christ as manifest in a 'conversion experience' - a turning away from sin and a seeking forgiveness through the atoning work of Christ. However, other traditions might see this more as a general acceptance of the moral teachings of Jesus. Whilst there are arguments to be made, and a real answer to be known, regarding the nature of belief on Christ, the reality is that - in the same way that people understand the term 'Christian' in different ways - many understand the concept of belief in Christ in different ways too. If we simply say a Christian is one who believes on Christ we still find the same issues arise when we come to consider what is meant by belief 'on Christ.'
We must ultimately recognise that 'Christian' is a descriptive term. We may wish to keep it for particular people and traditions with whom we agree but we are perhaps not at liberty to do that. The term is typically applied to any person who believes that Jesus Christ was the messiah prophecied in the Old Testament, was the son of God and whose life and teachings form the basis of religious belief and practice. This rules out any tradition that merely considers Jesus to be an important prophet as well as those traditions that accept the teachings of Jesus but alongside, equal or lesser to, other prophets. This means that, despite whether we agree with their teachings or not, we must consider Catholics, Anglicans, Non-Conformists, Liberals, Conservatives, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists, amongst others as traditions belonging under the descriptive umbrella term 'Christian.'
Given the broad spectrum to which the term 'Christian' can be applied, to what extent can we say the term means anything anymore? Evangelicals tend to use the term 'Christian' to apply to those whom they consider to have been 'saved' through belief in Christ. This would be manifest through a conversion experience in which the believer repents of their sin, seeking forgiveness through Christ's atoning work on the cross. For a Liberal, however, the term 'Christian' might be applied to anybody who accepts the moral teachings of Jesus and seeks to apply them, as they see fit, in their own life. For the Catholic, the term 'Christian' can only be applied to those within the Catholic church. The range of beliefs, even amongst these three, is broad and yet if all come under the descriptive umbrella 'Christian' how can we say that the term really carries any meaning?
In reality, the term 'Christian' acts as nothing more than a descriptor of a wide-range of traditions based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. The broad spectrum of beliefs to which the term 'Christian' can be applied ultimately makes the term now meaningless. The different traditions who belong under the umbrella descriptor of 'Christianity' would use the term 'Christian' to infer all sorts of different beliefs and practices that would exclude many who might otherwise be included under the term. Moreover, it is clear that a Non-Conformist, Fundamentalist Evangelical has few beliefs in common with a High-Church, Liberal Anglican. When we apply the term 'Christian' to both these groups we begin to see how useless the term has become in explaining anything of those it is intended to describe.
Perhaps where the term is useful is in describing a general tradition. Although the term 'Christian' is a descriptor that is broad and wide-reaching, its use is perhaps less in describing those who belong under it so much as in establishing those who certainly do not belong. For example, whilst we may struggle to see what certain Christian denominations have in common it is clear that those from the Islamic or Hindu traditions certainly do not fit under the descriptor 'Christian.' The term acts better as a descriptor of those who do not belong than it does of those who do.
Nevertheless, we must conclude that the term 'Christian' has largely lost its meaning. We may, within particular denominations and traditions, use it as a shorthand to describe those who subscribe to our particular beliefs but really this is not the proper use of the term. Given that the term has largely lost its meaning, perhaps we should rethink calling people to 'become Christians.' In reality, we might know what we mean when we say this but it is highly likely that others mean something else.
The word 'Christian' or 'Christians' only appears three times in the Bible and is a translation of the Greek word Christianos which simply means 'follower of Christ.' We could argue then that the term 'Christian' can be applied to anybody considered to follow Christ. However, the obvious problem we run into is that there are a wide variety of traditions, beliefs and practices that all consider themselves to be following the teachings of Christ. Moreover, as is common in some circles, we cannot simply say that we follow Christ therefore anybody who disagrees with us is not following Christ and thus cannot be termed 'Christian.' This sort of thinking can only lead to the question 'where do we draw the line?' On this basis, we could not draw it on denominational lines as disagreements exist within denominations. We could not even draw it at one particular church as not all are in complete agreement within individual churches. Therefore, we end up reducing the term to one individual and making it meaningless as a descriptor.
Some have sought to argue that the term should only be applied to those who 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31a).' Again, however, we run into the problem that this also contains some ambiguity. Most evangelicals would see belief on Christ as manifest in a 'conversion experience' - a turning away from sin and a seeking forgiveness through the atoning work of Christ. However, other traditions might see this more as a general acceptance of the moral teachings of Jesus. Whilst there are arguments to be made, and a real answer to be known, regarding the nature of belief on Christ, the reality is that - in the same way that people understand the term 'Christian' in different ways - many understand the concept of belief in Christ in different ways too. If we simply say a Christian is one who believes on Christ we still find the same issues arise when we come to consider what is meant by belief 'on Christ.'
We must ultimately recognise that 'Christian' is a descriptive term. We may wish to keep it for particular people and traditions with whom we agree but we are perhaps not at liberty to do that. The term is typically applied to any person who believes that Jesus Christ was the messiah prophecied in the Old Testament, was the son of God and whose life and teachings form the basis of religious belief and practice. This rules out any tradition that merely considers Jesus to be an important prophet as well as those traditions that accept the teachings of Jesus but alongside, equal or lesser to, other prophets. This means that, despite whether we agree with their teachings or not, we must consider Catholics, Anglicans, Non-Conformists, Liberals, Conservatives, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists, amongst others as traditions belonging under the descriptive umbrella term 'Christian.'
Given the broad spectrum to which the term 'Christian' can be applied, to what extent can we say the term means anything anymore? Evangelicals tend to use the term 'Christian' to apply to those whom they consider to have been 'saved' through belief in Christ. This would be manifest through a conversion experience in which the believer repents of their sin, seeking forgiveness through Christ's atoning work on the cross. For a Liberal, however, the term 'Christian' might be applied to anybody who accepts the moral teachings of Jesus and seeks to apply them, as they see fit, in their own life. For the Catholic, the term 'Christian' can only be applied to those within the Catholic church. The range of beliefs, even amongst these three, is broad and yet if all come under the descriptive umbrella 'Christian' how can we say that the term really carries any meaning?
In reality, the term 'Christian' acts as nothing more than a descriptor of a wide-range of traditions based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. The broad spectrum of beliefs to which the term 'Christian' can be applied ultimately makes the term now meaningless. The different traditions who belong under the umbrella descriptor of 'Christianity' would use the term 'Christian' to infer all sorts of different beliefs and practices that would exclude many who might otherwise be included under the term. Moreover, it is clear that a Non-Conformist, Fundamentalist Evangelical has few beliefs in common with a High-Church, Liberal Anglican. When we apply the term 'Christian' to both these groups we begin to see how useless the term has become in explaining anything of those it is intended to describe.
Perhaps where the term is useful is in describing a general tradition. Although the term 'Christian' is a descriptor that is broad and wide-reaching, its use is perhaps less in describing those who belong under it so much as in establishing those who certainly do not belong. For example, whilst we may struggle to see what certain Christian denominations have in common it is clear that those from the Islamic or Hindu traditions certainly do not fit under the descriptor 'Christian.' The term acts better as a descriptor of those who do not belong than it does of those who do.
Nevertheless, we must conclude that the term 'Christian' has largely lost its meaning. We may, within particular denominations and traditions, use it as a shorthand to describe those who subscribe to our particular beliefs but really this is not the proper use of the term. Given that the term has largely lost its meaning, perhaps we should rethink calling people to 'become Christians.' In reality, we might know what we mean when we say this but it is highly likely that others mean something else.
Monday, 10 May 2010
Bible translations
In looking at bible translations, Bill Mounce has written an extremely helpful post which can be accessed here. I think it is true to say that many people pontificate about specific bible translations without really having any qualification to do so. Without a fluency in Old Testament Hebrew or New Testament Greek we, all of us, are reliant upon the efforts of those who are able to translate. We may have translations which we prefer for reasons of accessibility or fluency but we must be very careful before pronouncing judgment upon 'lesser' translations if we ourselves are not able to translate the originals.
Reading Bill Mounce's post I think points 2 and 3 are particularly pertinent. I would also endorse his comment that 'I am not convinced that non-academic celebrities should be making pronouncements on translation theory.' In reality, I think this point could extend to all academics and non-academic who are not well versed in translation theory and are not capable of reading the original texts for themselves. Most importantly, however, is his final comment:
Reading Bill Mounce's post I think points 2 and 3 are particularly pertinent. I would also endorse his comment that 'I am not convinced that non-academic celebrities should be making pronouncements on translation theory.' In reality, I think this point could extend to all academics and non-academic who are not well versed in translation theory and are not capable of reading the original texts for themselves. Most importantly, however, is his final comment:
Life is too short, and hell is too hot, to not communicate the gospel to our subculture in language they can understand, whatever be that subculture.
Sunday, 2 May 2010
The role of communion
Were this being written from a Brethren perspective the title of this post might refer to 'the Breaking of Bread', were it Anglican it might be 'Eucharist' and were it certain reformed churches it may be 'the Lord's Supper.' Although, between denominations, the words we use may differ and the means by which we receive the emblems varies the function and purpose of Communion remains the same. This post will refer to the taking of bread and wine as 'Communion.'
It is possible to cite three main reasons why we take Communion. Firstly, it exists for the believer to remember Christ's death and give thanks for purchasing their salvation (see Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:26). Secondly, it exists for believers to show their unity in Christ with one another (see 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 John 1:3; 1 John 1:7). Thirdly, it exists to let us look forward to Christ's return and the day he will call us to be with Him (see Matt. 26:29; Luke 22:18; Mark 14:25; 1 Cor. 11:26).
With these things in mind, and starting from a point upon which the vast majority would agree, we must firstly state that Communion is only for believers. Clearly, only believers can give thanks that Christ has purchased their salvation, only believers can claim to be one with other believers in Christ and only believers can look forward to the coming parousia. On this basis, some argue that the only requirement for taking Communion is to be a believer. However, others stipulate that one should be a member of a local congregation and, by extension, baptised before they can participate. Whilst I by no means take umbrage with those who suggest salvation is the only requirement for participation in Communion it would be my contention that the latter is the correct position for two principle reasons.
Firstly, one central purpose of Communion is to show our unity with other believers in Christ. If we are not willing to publicly join in membership with a local body of believers, how far can we say that we are truly united with them? If we reject fellowship with our fellow believers through joining a local church then we cannot expect to show our unity in Christ by taking Communion. Secondly, Paul states that
Peter is quoted very clearly in Acts 2:38 saying "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (ESV)." Jesus also commanded the disciples to "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (Matt 28:19-20a)." The apostle John notes 'By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:2-3).' When we consider all these verses together we must assert that those who refuse to be baptised are going against a clear scriptural command. Furthermore, by refusing to be baptised thereby not keeping a clear command, John suggests that this represents a lack of love for God and, by extension, fellow believers. If we shun the public statement of unity in Christ through baptism how can we legitimately show unity by taking Communion?
As a result, one who will not become baptised or join in fellowship with a local church cannot be said to be unified with their fellow believers. They are openly rejecting scriptural commands and, as John notes, the sign of love for our fellow believers is that we love God and keep his commands. If we do not keep his command to be baptised we are not keeping his commands. If we will not publicly declare our unity through baptism or membership how can we claim unity with fellow believers? In reality, if we continue in rebellion against God we cannot be thankful for his forgiveness and we cannot participate in an act of unity as we are not truly united. On this basis, it is possible to argue that communion should only extend to baptised believers who are joined in fellowship to a congregation.
I would also contend that, given who it is for and the importance attached to it, Communion warrants its own service. Firstly, it seems a shame when Communion is relegated to a 10 minute tag-on at the end of a Sunday service. If we really believe that Communion is important should we not devote more time to it and make it the central focus of its own service? Secondly, given who Communion is for, the difficulties in stating the church's position on Communion and refusing the emblems to the ineligible are made much more problematic during normal Sunday services. Were the Communion given a service of its own the potential for ineligible people wishing to partake would be lessened and the ability to withold the emblems from those within the congregation (but not eligible to take part) need not become a major point of contention or awkwardness and need not draw the focus away from the centrality of Christ.
Above all else, Communion exists for believers to thank Christ for his atoning work on the cross, to show unity with fellow believers and to look forward to Christ's return. These issues are central and should provide the basis for all that happens in a Communion service.
It is possible to cite three main reasons why we take Communion. Firstly, it exists for the believer to remember Christ's death and give thanks for purchasing their salvation (see Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:26). Secondly, it exists for believers to show their unity in Christ with one another (see 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 John 1:3; 1 John 1:7). Thirdly, it exists to let us look forward to Christ's return and the day he will call us to be with Him (see Matt. 26:29; Luke 22:18; Mark 14:25; 1 Cor. 11:26).
With these things in mind, and starting from a point upon which the vast majority would agree, we must firstly state that Communion is only for believers. Clearly, only believers can give thanks that Christ has purchased their salvation, only believers can claim to be one with other believers in Christ and only believers can look forward to the coming parousia. On this basis, some argue that the only requirement for taking Communion is to be a believer. However, others stipulate that one should be a member of a local congregation and, by extension, baptised before they can participate. Whilst I by no means take umbrage with those who suggest salvation is the only requirement for participation in Communion it would be my contention that the latter is the correct position for two principle reasons.
Firstly, one central purpose of Communion is to show our unity with other believers in Christ. If we are not willing to publicly join in membership with a local body of believers, how far can we say that we are truly united with them? If we reject fellowship with our fellow believers through joining a local church then we cannot expect to show our unity in Christ by taking Communion. Secondly, Paul states that
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Cor. 11:27-29).From this, we must determine that those who are in rebellion to God and harbour unrepentant sin should not take the emblems. This clearly rules out the non-believer, however, this may extend to some believers as well.
Peter is quoted very clearly in Acts 2:38 saying "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (ESV)." Jesus also commanded the disciples to "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (Matt 28:19-20a)." The apostle John notes 'By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:2-3).' When we consider all these verses together we must assert that those who refuse to be baptised are going against a clear scriptural command. Furthermore, by refusing to be baptised thereby not keeping a clear command, John suggests that this represents a lack of love for God and, by extension, fellow believers. If we shun the public statement of unity in Christ through baptism how can we legitimately show unity by taking Communion?
As a result, one who will not become baptised or join in fellowship with a local church cannot be said to be unified with their fellow believers. They are openly rejecting scriptural commands and, as John notes, the sign of love for our fellow believers is that we love God and keep his commands. If we do not keep his command to be baptised we are not keeping his commands. If we will not publicly declare our unity through baptism or membership how can we claim unity with fellow believers? In reality, if we continue in rebellion against God we cannot be thankful for his forgiveness and we cannot participate in an act of unity as we are not truly united. On this basis, it is possible to argue that communion should only extend to baptised believers who are joined in fellowship to a congregation.
I would also contend that, given who it is for and the importance attached to it, Communion warrants its own service. Firstly, it seems a shame when Communion is relegated to a 10 minute tag-on at the end of a Sunday service. If we really believe that Communion is important should we not devote more time to it and make it the central focus of its own service? Secondly, given who Communion is for, the difficulties in stating the church's position on Communion and refusing the emblems to the ineligible are made much more problematic during normal Sunday services. Were the Communion given a service of its own the potential for ineligible people wishing to partake would be lessened and the ability to withold the emblems from those within the congregation (but not eligible to take part) need not become a major point of contention or awkwardness and need not draw the focus away from the centrality of Christ.
Above all else, Communion exists for believers to thank Christ for his atoning work on the cross, to show unity with fellow believers and to look forward to Christ's return. These issues are central and should provide the basis for all that happens in a Communion service.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Should Christians try to bring biblical law into civil society?
With the run-up to the general election Christians from a whole host of wide ranging backgrounds are urging one another to sign the Westminster 2010 Declaration of Christian Conscience (which you can sign following the link if you so desire). The declaration itself is an attempt to encourage those in authority to uphold certain 'Christian' moral standards and allow people of faith to act freely in accordance with their consciences. From this flows an important question: Should Christians seek to impose a 'Christian' morality on a multicultural, multiethnic and multireligious society? It is not my intention to comment specifically on the Westminster 2010 Declaration nor do I want to encourage or discourage people from signing, or not signing, it. Instead, I simply want to explore the question of whether Christians should seek to implement their morality on society.
It is possible to argue that where the Bible makes clear and direct moral statements, such as in the Ten Commandments, these constitute a Christian moral code. As such, this is the best moral code for all people. Therefore, being the best moral code for all people, it must be right to enforce this code into civil law. This view, however, causes a number of difficulties. The Apostle Paul tells us:
Firstly, given that we are all by nature sinful, by bringing the Ten Commandments into civil law we introduce legislation into society that nobody - including those who want to implement it - can keep. Secondly, there are clear spiritual implications of the Ten Commandments that cannot be policed. We know that Jesus stated:
We must consider what our motivation is for seeking to enforce the Ten Commandments through civil law. In the verse quoted previously, Paul makes it abundantly clear that keeping the law does not justify us in the sight of God. As such, we will not bring anyone into the kingdom of God by enforcing the Ten Commandments through our legal system. If our motivation is not simply to bring people to God but to encourage a good moral standard for society we are equally going to fail. Without the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ there will be no change in behaviour. The Apostle John tells us clearly that:
In reality, for the Christian, rather than wasting our time on changing a moral, outward law we should instead focus our time and attention on spreading the good news of the gospel which can change the hearts of men and women. By enacting moral laws we cannot hope to change the morality or sinful nature of anyone. By bringing people into a saving knowledge of Christ their hearts will be changed which will in turn cause them to live lives pleasing to God without the need for coercive legislation.
If we cannot implement the Ten Commandments, on what basis should we enact laws? All men, women and children are made in the image of God. As such, all people command a level of respect and dignity that extends beyond cultural, religious and ethnic differences. Due to the image in which they are made they demand equality and respect. Sinfulness cannot be a basis for removing such rights from people as the Apostle Paul notes, quoting the Psalms, 'None is righteous, no, not one (Rom 3:10, ESV).' Moreover, we cannot argue that some sins warrant removal of these rights and others do not. The Apostle James notes 'for whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it (Jam 2:10, ESV).' As such, we are all sinful (Rom 3:10) and therefore all accountable for the whole of the law (Jam 2:10). Given that we are all guilty of the whole of the law, sin cannot be grounds for removing these basic rights, inherent by virtue of being made in God's image.
If we accept that there are basic rights that extend to all people the basis of our laws can only be as follows: Everything is lawful that does not impinge upon the common rights of others. Such a basis will inevitably mean that certain of the biblical commandments will be enacted in civil law. For example, if we accept that every person has the right to life, murder clearly becomes illegal as it impinges in the most direct way upon this basic right. However, other biblical commandments would not be enacted in civil law. For example, an unmarried couple who decide to have a sexual relationship do not impinge upon the basic rights of anybody else in society. As such, despite what the biblical teaching on the matter is, there is no justifiable reason to legislate against such behaviour in law.
As Christians, we must be careful to differentiate between the civil law which governs us and the moral law of the Bible by which we are called to live. We must recognise, first and foremost, that without saving knowledge of Christ any attempt to enact biblical law in society is simply a case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We cannot change the moral thoughts and behaviours of people through civil law - this can only be done through Christ. When we recognise this, our focus should become less on seeking to change moral behaviour and more on seeking to change hearts with the gospel.
This should also change our view of civil law. Rather than seeking to enact a moral code that can never be truly kept we can instead support those laws that uphold the basic human rights that extend to people worldwide by virtue of the fact that they are made in the image of God. Moreover, sin is not a basis for removing such rights and our law should reflect this. As Christians we are called to highlight sin through the preaching of the gospel, not to punish it. It is not through civil law that people will come to know sin but by the preaching of the gospel. Therefore, we should not concern ourselves with punishing sin through civil law. Instead, we should focus on preaching the gospel, upholding those rights that extend to all people and allow all behaviours in law that do not impinge on such rights. This does not mean that we cannot highlight sinful behaviour in the preaching of the gospel but it does mean that we should have no part in condemning or punishing people by law for such behaviour.
It is possible to argue that where the Bible makes clear and direct moral statements, such as in the Ten Commandments, these constitute a Christian moral code. As such, this is the best moral code for all people. Therefore, being the best moral code for all people, it must be right to enforce this code into civil law. This view, however, causes a number of difficulties. The Apostle Paul tells us:
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20, ESV).These verses highlight the fact that the purpose of the law, that is the Ten Commandments, is to bring knowledge of sin. According to Paul, keeping the law does not justify anyone, it exists so that we can know what sin is. This, however, causes a two-fold problem for the view that we should bring the Ten Commandments into civil law.
Firstly, given that we are all by nature sinful, by bringing the Ten Commandments into civil law we introduce legislation into society that nobody - including those who want to implement it - can keep. Secondly, there are clear spiritual implications of the Ten Commandments that cannot be policed. We know that Jesus stated:
You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Mtt 5:27-28, ESV).and:
You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgement.' But I say to you everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You Fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire (Mtt. 5:21-22, ESV).Jesus claims that even our impure thoughts are as though we have physically broken these commandments. If we introduce the Ten Commandments into civil law we still cannot police sinful thought. Ultimately, this leads us to enforce only a part commandment. Worse still, by only enforcing the commandments in part we give the impression that sinful behaviour is merely a physical act and not inclusive of our thoughts as well. In this way, by seeking to enforce the Ten Commandments through law we water them down and make them less effectual. We change their purpose from highlighting sin to coercing righteousness and, in so doing, we achieve neither.
We must consider what our motivation is for seeking to enforce the Ten Commandments through civil law. In the verse quoted previously, Paul makes it abundantly clear that keeping the law does not justify us in the sight of God. As such, we will not bring anyone into the kingdom of God by enforcing the Ten Commandments through our legal system. If our motivation is not simply to bring people to God but to encourage a good moral standard for society we are equally going to fail. Without the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ there will be no change in behaviour. The Apostle John tells us clearly that:
the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed (John 3:19-20, ESV)Unless we are changed by Christ there will be no change in our moral behaviour. Even where such things are enacted through civil law, and as we have seen they cannot be properly enacted and end up weakening the commandments themselves, behaviour will remain unchanged. This is witnessed throughout the Old Testament where the Israelites fell time and again away from the commandments that were enacted through their own civil law.
In reality, for the Christian, rather than wasting our time on changing a moral, outward law we should instead focus our time and attention on spreading the good news of the gospel which can change the hearts of men and women. By enacting moral laws we cannot hope to change the morality or sinful nature of anyone. By bringing people into a saving knowledge of Christ their hearts will be changed which will in turn cause them to live lives pleasing to God without the need for coercive legislation.
If we cannot implement the Ten Commandments, on what basis should we enact laws? All men, women and children are made in the image of God. As such, all people command a level of respect and dignity that extends beyond cultural, religious and ethnic differences. Due to the image in which they are made they demand equality and respect. Sinfulness cannot be a basis for removing such rights from people as the Apostle Paul notes, quoting the Psalms, 'None is righteous, no, not one (Rom 3:10, ESV).' Moreover, we cannot argue that some sins warrant removal of these rights and others do not. The Apostle James notes 'for whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it (Jam 2:10, ESV).' As such, we are all sinful (Rom 3:10) and therefore all accountable for the whole of the law (Jam 2:10). Given that we are all guilty of the whole of the law, sin cannot be grounds for removing these basic rights, inherent by virtue of being made in God's image.
If we accept that there are basic rights that extend to all people the basis of our laws can only be as follows: Everything is lawful that does not impinge upon the common rights of others. Such a basis will inevitably mean that certain of the biblical commandments will be enacted in civil law. For example, if we accept that every person has the right to life, murder clearly becomes illegal as it impinges in the most direct way upon this basic right. However, other biblical commandments would not be enacted in civil law. For example, an unmarried couple who decide to have a sexual relationship do not impinge upon the basic rights of anybody else in society. As such, despite what the biblical teaching on the matter is, there is no justifiable reason to legislate against such behaviour in law.
As Christians, we must be careful to differentiate between the civil law which governs us and the moral law of the Bible by which we are called to live. We must recognise, first and foremost, that without saving knowledge of Christ any attempt to enact biblical law in society is simply a case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We cannot change the moral thoughts and behaviours of people through civil law - this can only be done through Christ. When we recognise this, our focus should become less on seeking to change moral behaviour and more on seeking to change hearts with the gospel.
This should also change our view of civil law. Rather than seeking to enact a moral code that can never be truly kept we can instead support those laws that uphold the basic human rights that extend to people worldwide by virtue of the fact that they are made in the image of God. Moreover, sin is not a basis for removing such rights and our law should reflect this. As Christians we are called to highlight sin through the preaching of the gospel, not to punish it. It is not through civil law that people will come to know sin but by the preaching of the gospel. Therefore, we should not concern ourselves with punishing sin through civil law. Instead, we should focus on preaching the gospel, upholding those rights that extend to all people and allow all behaviours in law that do not impinge on such rights. This does not mean that we cannot highlight sinful behaviour in the preaching of the gospel but it does mean that we should have no part in condemning or punishing people by law for such behaviour.
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Debunking error or preaching truth?
It is not uncommon to hear preachers highlight a variety of scriptural interpretations and doctrinal statements that, over the course of half an hour or so, are duly debunked ending in the assertion of the supposed correct view. Is this the most helpful approach to biblical teaching? Of course, it is eminently right and proper that correct doctrine based on biblical truth is taught and restated in our churches; nevertheless, the preacher can seek to do this in one of two ways. Either biblical truth can be taught exclusively, without reference to other errant views and interpretations, on the basis that knowledge of truth allows us to recognise anything that is not truth itself. Alternatively, particular errors can be highlighted, demonstrated errant and correct biblical truth taught to steer people directly away from specific errors and clearly towards biblical truth simultaneously.
It is possible to argue that, of these two approaches, the first is the better. By teaching biblical truth exclusively the preacher must make a sound interpretation, backing up each statement he makes with clear verses from the text and can apply his interpretation directly to the people to whom he is speaking. In order to fill a half hour sermon he must state the correct interpretation of scripture, show how he arrived at such an interpretation, illustrate his points clearly and make his points applicable to the people listening rooting all of this in the text. Where the preacher is faithfully doing this he can rest assured that in teaching what is true people will themselves be able to determine that which is false if they so encounter it.
The second approach, however, brings with it a number of difficulties. Firstly, nothing is added to the listener's understanding of scripture by teaching what the passage does not mean. The aim of teaching should be to aid understand of the meaning of scripture. When we spend time explaining why particular views are errant we are ultimately telling people something they do not need to know. Instead, we should teach primarily what the Bible does mean and in so doing we teach people what they actively need to know as opposed to the endless list of things they do not.
Secondly, the more views we raise in a sermon the greater the possibility of causing confusion. We may offer an expert explanation of why each interpretation, apart from our own, is errant but for many this will come across as just one view amongst a sea of others. The greater number of views we introduce the more this seems to be the case. Moreover, the list of things a passage of scripture is not saying is infinite and we could spend a lifetime explaining what a passage does not mean without ever getting to the point. Far better to spend time simply explaining biblical truth exclusively rather than concerning ourselves with the infinite number of things the passage does not teach.
Thirdly, by highlighting specific false teaching we may bring particular errors to the attention of people who otherwise would not have encountered them. In doing this, the best we can hope for is that those listening will recognise the errant teaching for what it is. More likely, however, we may cause some to investigate the error we highlighted further and, in doing so, may lead some to be swayed by compelling arguments that far exceed the intellectual plane on which our own preaching functions. Furthermore, we may add to this problem ourselves by, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresenting the exact nature of the error we are trying to steer away from. Those that quite legitimately investigate these matters further may see such misrepresentations as unfair criticism and become more inclined towards the error we were trying to direct against because we have unfaithfully represented them. Moreover, where we disagree with an interpretation it is extremely difficult to avoid making straw-man arguments. When we do this we unfaithfully represent views in order to knock them down. This can lead many to see our own interpretation as weak as we can only defend it against the straw-men we put up ourselves. Where we stick to proclaiming biblical truth exclusively, without reference to error, we avoid such accusations.
Fourthly, highlighting numerous errant interpretations can be a means by which some seek to avoid illustrating and applying biblical truth. Instead of seeking to teach biblical truths from the text, illustrate these points and apply them clearly some preachers spend more time stating various errant views and the reasons why they are false. If one highlights only two errant interpretations alongside the supposed correct one - giving a statement of why each is errant and the correct one is true - there is little time left in a sermon for any illustration or real points of application. In reality, this can either be a means of masking an otherwise weak sermon or an attempt to avoid the more difficult aspects of sermon preparation.
Therefore, when we come to a passage we should seek to teach what it states exclusively. We should avoid explaining what the passage does not mean and should avoid highlighting false doctrines and errant interpretations. By faithfully teaching biblical truth exclusively we equip the listener with everything they need to avoid false doctrines and errant interpretations. Where we begin to concern ourselves with tackling such particulars we open ourselves up to a whole host of difficulties that are best avoided by simply teaching the truth of the Bible exclusively.
It is possible to argue that, of these two approaches, the first is the better. By teaching biblical truth exclusively the preacher must make a sound interpretation, backing up each statement he makes with clear verses from the text and can apply his interpretation directly to the people to whom he is speaking. In order to fill a half hour sermon he must state the correct interpretation of scripture, show how he arrived at such an interpretation, illustrate his points clearly and make his points applicable to the people listening rooting all of this in the text. Where the preacher is faithfully doing this he can rest assured that in teaching what is true people will themselves be able to determine that which is false if they so encounter it.
The second approach, however, brings with it a number of difficulties. Firstly, nothing is added to the listener's understanding of scripture by teaching what the passage does not mean. The aim of teaching should be to aid understand of the meaning of scripture. When we spend time explaining why particular views are errant we are ultimately telling people something they do not need to know. Instead, we should teach primarily what the Bible does mean and in so doing we teach people what they actively need to know as opposed to the endless list of things they do not.
Secondly, the more views we raise in a sermon the greater the possibility of causing confusion. We may offer an expert explanation of why each interpretation, apart from our own, is errant but for many this will come across as just one view amongst a sea of others. The greater number of views we introduce the more this seems to be the case. Moreover, the list of things a passage of scripture is not saying is infinite and we could spend a lifetime explaining what a passage does not mean without ever getting to the point. Far better to spend time simply explaining biblical truth exclusively rather than concerning ourselves with the infinite number of things the passage does not teach.
Thirdly, by highlighting specific false teaching we may bring particular errors to the attention of people who otherwise would not have encountered them. In doing this, the best we can hope for is that those listening will recognise the errant teaching for what it is. More likely, however, we may cause some to investigate the error we highlighted further and, in doing so, may lead some to be swayed by compelling arguments that far exceed the intellectual plane on which our own preaching functions. Furthermore, we may add to this problem ourselves by, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresenting the exact nature of the error we are trying to steer away from. Those that quite legitimately investigate these matters further may see such misrepresentations as unfair criticism and become more inclined towards the error we were trying to direct against because we have unfaithfully represented them. Moreover, where we disagree with an interpretation it is extremely difficult to avoid making straw-man arguments. When we do this we unfaithfully represent views in order to knock them down. This can lead many to see our own interpretation as weak as we can only defend it against the straw-men we put up ourselves. Where we stick to proclaiming biblical truth exclusively, without reference to error, we avoid such accusations.
Fourthly, highlighting numerous errant interpretations can be a means by which some seek to avoid illustrating and applying biblical truth. Instead of seeking to teach biblical truths from the text, illustrate these points and apply them clearly some preachers spend more time stating various errant views and the reasons why they are false. If one highlights only two errant interpretations alongside the supposed correct one - giving a statement of why each is errant and the correct one is true - there is little time left in a sermon for any illustration or real points of application. In reality, this can either be a means of masking an otherwise weak sermon or an attempt to avoid the more difficult aspects of sermon preparation.
Therefore, when we come to a passage we should seek to teach what it states exclusively. We should avoid explaining what the passage does not mean and should avoid highlighting false doctrines and errant interpretations. By faithfully teaching biblical truth exclusively we equip the listener with everything they need to avoid false doctrines and errant interpretations. Where we begin to concern ourselves with tackling such particulars we open ourselves up to a whole host of difficulties that are best avoided by simply teaching the truth of the Bible exclusively.
Monday, 29 March 2010
Intellectual preaching or preaching intellectualism?
--> Often, when one seeks to understand a portion of Scripture, a whole host of views and interpretations claim to have the definitive understanding of the passage. It is the task of the preacher to discern which view fits with a proper understanding of the rest of Scripture. Sometimes this choice boils down to taking an interpretation that fits in with the rest of Scripture or taking a view that seems utterly incongruous with it. For example, consider the miracles of Jesus.
We can either ascribe Jesus' miracles as real, supernatural acts or; alternatively, as nothing more than natural phenomenon. The first of these two options harmonises with our understanding of who Jesus is, harmonises with the rest of Scripture and offers the most natural reading of these passages. The alternative view requires an unnatural reading of Scripture, lengthy explanations of the purpose of these miracles and a logic that would make any text meaningless. In these cases, it is not difficult to discern that the natural reading of the passage is the one that makes the most sense of not only these passages but other parts of Scripture too.
Often, however, this is not the choice presented to us in Scripture. The interpretations available, none of which obviously contradict central doctrines taught in Scripture, are equally feasible explanations of a passage but say entirely different things. For example, in Genesis 4:4-5 we are told of God accepting Abel's offering but rejecting that of Cain. There are two popularly cited interpretations of this passage. The first suggests that Abel brought God of his best ('Abel brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions' Gen 4:4) while Cain merely brought some of his fruits, not his best ('Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground.' Gen 4:3). In this reading, Cain's offering was rejected because of his heart - he had not brought his best to God. The alternative interpretation argues that God, in killing two animals to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness, had shown that he required a blood sacrifice in offerings from his people. Cain, in only bringing fruit, ignored God's requirement and his sacrifice was rejected.
In this example, we see two seemingly legitimate views presented. Neither appears to obviously contradict doctrine of Scripture and both are feasible explanations of the passage. Nevertheless, the first interpretation is a straightforward reading of the passage and chimes with other parts of Scripture (Heb 11:4 states Abel offered, not an acceptable sacrifice and Cain an unacceptable one but, 'a more acceptable sacrifice.' We also see other parts of Scripture see God accept fruit offerings and we are not told the purpose of Cain and Abel's offering, etc). The alternative view infers a command by God that was never expressed in Scripture before this point. It makes God appear very unfair (insisting on blood sacrifices without ever having explicitly said this is required) and does not harmonise with other parts of Scripture where God does accept non-blood offerings.
We can see a similar issue in Judges 11:30. Jephthah makes a rash promise to God that he will sacrifice the first thing that comes out of his house to meet him which subsequently turns out to be his daughter. One view suggests that Jephthah fulfils his promise and sacrifices his daughter to God. An alternative view suggests that in Jewish culture it was a terrible thing for a young woman to never marry. When Jephthah saw his daughter come out of his house, rather than physically sacrificing her, he merely sacrificed her virginity and the fact that she will never marry. The first interpretation is a natural reading of the passage and chimes with the theme in Judges (the children of Israel falling further away from God as the book progresses - Jephthah's act being an example of how far Israel were from God). The alternative view requires an unnatural reading of the passage, insists upon an in-depth knowledge of Jewish customs and practices and does not chime with the theme of the book.
In both cases, the adoption of either view does not lead to inherent heresy. There are no central doctrinal issues necessarily affected by taking any one of the suggested interpretations above. In this sense it is not a fundamental problem for someone to take any of the aforementioned views. Perhaps, however, specifically because no central doctrine is at stake there exists an assumption that all views on the matter are legitimate or, at least, not of such great importance (that is they can be relegated to 'secondary issues'). Therefore, to adopt any view on the passage is seen as quite legitimate and, at worst, a mere point of difference. This leads some to consciously make efforts to adopt a more academically intriguing view of a passage rather than the simpler, obvious one. It is as if some preachers feel they must have some 'special insight' into a passage that the ordinary church member might miss on first reading. Ultimately, this leads to the preacher adopting a very elegant view of the passage whilst missing the point entirely.
It is clearly important for us to have intellectual preaching in our churches. This means that our preaching should reach a certain intellectual standard and should be able to stand up to scrutiny. It should not be overly simplistic and should not sidestep clear and relevant issues. However, we must guard against simply preaching the most intellectually elegant interpretation and treating it, by virtue of its academic creativity, as the most sound interpretation. Where the meaning of a passage is clear we should seek to teach it clearly. An academic insight into the Bible, and a very elegant interpretation of a passage, might make us feel as though we are working on a higher intellectual plane but this does not mean we have truly grasped the meaning of a passage. We must seek to guard against merely adopting intellectual interpretations of Scripture for the sake of ego and, instead, should seek to teach that which the Bible makes clear - even if it is a bit obvious and doesn't let us show off our intellectual capacity to understand God's word!
We can either ascribe Jesus' miracles as real, supernatural acts or; alternatively, as nothing more than natural phenomenon. The first of these two options harmonises with our understanding of who Jesus is, harmonises with the rest of Scripture and offers the most natural reading of these passages. The alternative view requires an unnatural reading of Scripture, lengthy explanations of the purpose of these miracles and a logic that would make any text meaningless. In these cases, it is not difficult to discern that the natural reading of the passage is the one that makes the most sense of not only these passages but other parts of Scripture too.
Often, however, this is not the choice presented to us in Scripture. The interpretations available, none of which obviously contradict central doctrines taught in Scripture, are equally feasible explanations of a passage but say entirely different things. For example, in Genesis 4:4-5 we are told of God accepting Abel's offering but rejecting that of Cain. There are two popularly cited interpretations of this passage. The first suggests that Abel brought God of his best ('Abel brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions' Gen 4:4) while Cain merely brought some of his fruits, not his best ('Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground.' Gen 4:3). In this reading, Cain's offering was rejected because of his heart - he had not brought his best to God. The alternative interpretation argues that God, in killing two animals to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness, had shown that he required a blood sacrifice in offerings from his people. Cain, in only bringing fruit, ignored God's requirement and his sacrifice was rejected.
In this example, we see two seemingly legitimate views presented. Neither appears to obviously contradict doctrine of Scripture and both are feasible explanations of the passage. Nevertheless, the first interpretation is a straightforward reading of the passage and chimes with other parts of Scripture (Heb 11:4 states Abel offered, not an acceptable sacrifice and Cain an unacceptable one but, 'a more acceptable sacrifice.' We also see other parts of Scripture see God accept fruit offerings and we are not told the purpose of Cain and Abel's offering, etc). The alternative view infers a command by God that was never expressed in Scripture before this point. It makes God appear very unfair (insisting on blood sacrifices without ever having explicitly said this is required) and does not harmonise with other parts of Scripture where God does accept non-blood offerings.
We can see a similar issue in Judges 11:30. Jephthah makes a rash promise to God that he will sacrifice the first thing that comes out of his house to meet him which subsequently turns out to be his daughter. One view suggests that Jephthah fulfils his promise and sacrifices his daughter to God. An alternative view suggests that in Jewish culture it was a terrible thing for a young woman to never marry. When Jephthah saw his daughter come out of his house, rather than physically sacrificing her, he merely sacrificed her virginity and the fact that she will never marry. The first interpretation is a natural reading of the passage and chimes with the theme in Judges (the children of Israel falling further away from God as the book progresses - Jephthah's act being an example of how far Israel were from God). The alternative view requires an unnatural reading of the passage, insists upon an in-depth knowledge of Jewish customs and practices and does not chime with the theme of the book.
In both cases, the adoption of either view does not lead to inherent heresy. There are no central doctrinal issues necessarily affected by taking any one of the suggested interpretations above. In this sense it is not a fundamental problem for someone to take any of the aforementioned views. Perhaps, however, specifically because no central doctrine is at stake there exists an assumption that all views on the matter are legitimate or, at least, not of such great importance (that is they can be relegated to 'secondary issues'). Therefore, to adopt any view on the passage is seen as quite legitimate and, at worst, a mere point of difference. This leads some to consciously make efforts to adopt a more academically intriguing view of a passage rather than the simpler, obvious one. It is as if some preachers feel they must have some 'special insight' into a passage that the ordinary church member might miss on first reading. Ultimately, this leads to the preacher adopting a very elegant view of the passage whilst missing the point entirely.
It is clearly important for us to have intellectual preaching in our churches. This means that our preaching should reach a certain intellectual standard and should be able to stand up to scrutiny. It should not be overly simplistic and should not sidestep clear and relevant issues. However, we must guard against simply preaching the most intellectually elegant interpretation and treating it, by virtue of its academic creativity, as the most sound interpretation. Where the meaning of a passage is clear we should seek to teach it clearly. An academic insight into the Bible, and a very elegant interpretation of a passage, might make us feel as though we are working on a higher intellectual plane but this does not mean we have truly grasped the meaning of a passage. We must seek to guard against merely adopting intellectual interpretations of Scripture for the sake of ego and, instead, should seek to teach that which the Bible makes clear - even if it is a bit obvious and doesn't let us show off our intellectual capacity to understand God's word!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)