There is a yearning in the puritan heart.
There are many good conservative evangelicals who do not appear to be puritans. They believe the Bible, know it, love it, preach it and teach it. They are brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet there is a difference.
The puritan is not someone who lived in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. He or she is someone who is discontented. It may be with the state of the church; it may be with their own hearts; it may be with man-made solutions and human attempts to get things right - even though he will sometimes use those solutions himself and be glad when something is accomplished.
But at heart he will be dissatisfied and want something more. At his best he will not be self-righteous, critical of others or a grumpy old man or woman, though at his worst he can sound like that.
The puritan is in truth the spiritual pilgrim. His real yearning arises from a weariness with himself and his sin; it is a longing for God and his grace and glory; a hunger and thirst for a righteousness that is found in Christ alone. Such a yearning will make him impatient with relevance. The relevant touches, often brilliantly and necessarily, on the issues of the day. The puritan will be happy enough with a little of that. But it will not satisfy him. The puritan heart has tasted eternity and wants more of it.
The puritan may become concerned with eternal issues in a way that makes him virtually contemptuous of the present and the practical. That is not true puritanism; it is a parody of it; it is self-indulgence. The true puritan wants to be more useful and more fruitful and a better man or woman on this earth; to walk as Jesus walked. But he knows that only as he is touched by the Spirit of God can this be accomplished.
The books the puritan reads, the churches he likes and the conferences he goes to may seem to many to be as relevant as a ship in the desert. This will not bother the puritan too much for above all he wants to meet with God. In order to meet with God he knows he needs preaching. So the puritan's favourite book will be a book that preaches, his favoured church will be one that preaches, and his preferred conference will be one where there is preaching.
There may be other things as well of course, but never expect a puritan to be happy where there is no preaching and expect him to be happiest where the preaching is best.
Which is why puritans (and perhaps a few others besides) love the RRF conference every November. We gather in always cloudy, often wet and sometimes foggy Derbyshire and enjoy excellent ministry. This year Paul Mallard warmed our hearts with three sermons on Elisha, under the title 'Serving God in dark days'. The first sermon looked at his taking over from Elijah: the task he was given; the call he received and the obedience he showed. We then looked at the departure of Elijah and the beginning of Elisha's ministry: a careful preparation, a glorious departure and an unchanging presence. Finally we looked at his first two miracles: the healing of the water which presaged his ministry of grace and the mauling of the 42 boys, typical of the ministry of judgement. This last was for me the most compelling message but I enjoyed them all. The exposition was satisfying and the gospel was clearly and warmly preached each time.
As a fitting complement to Paul, Stephen Clark gave us three rather different sermons. The first was a challenging look at gospel opportunity and opposition (1 Cor 16:7-9); the second looked at marks of a healthy church: be watchful, stand firm, be men of courage, be strong, do all things in love (1 Cor 16:13,14). The third sermon was a challenge to holiness from Rom 8:9-27, especially v 26. The doctrine of mortification of sin was clearly spelled out. The Spirit helps us (in correcting us, in prayer, in assurance and all the way to heaven), in our weakness (which includes indwelling sin, Satan, sickness and suffering). It was a good conclusion to the conference.
In addition, George Mitchell warmly reminded us in the conference sermon of the God who dwells in a high and holy place and also with those who are of a contrite and lowly spirit (Isa 57:15). Before the prayer meeting, George also introduced us to a great but unknown Baptist pastor of early nineteenth century Scotland - Peter Grant.
It was good to be there. There were over eighty of us and there would have been more but some had to pull out at the last minute. Next year (18th -20th Nov 2013) the preachers are Brian Edwards, Matthew Brennan and Jonathan Wood.
CDs are available from jim.lawson@ntlworld.com and the messages (and other information about the Fellowship) will be available at www.reformationandrevival.org.
Why not become a puritan for three days next autumn?
Thursday, 22 November 2012
Anglicans, relevance and women bishops
Amidst all the angst, fury and tears in the Church of England over the failure to secure a mitre for the matrons, the most surreal (and I think I am using that overused word in a proper sense) claim has been that women bishops would help to make the C of E relevant.
Who are these people who, presumably now disenchanted with the church, or with the C of E, or with Christianity, or with religion generally, would suddenly take it seriously because of such a move? I can imagine it meaning a lot to women 'priests'; I can imagine some women outside the church having their prejudices against the church hardened by this show of what they would consider chauvinism or what has been laughably called 'centuries of institutionalised sexism' (brilliant historical perspective that); and no doubt the liberal establishment will be aghast at this exhibition of primeval values. Yet is anyone who might be inclined to take Christianity seriously really going to be put off by the vote in Synod? Would a cynic really be made to take the gospel seriously because under the mitre there is a real woman instead of an old woman?
Equality is one thing; sameness is another. The Christian gospel has since its earliest proclamation been a force for the dignity and liberation of women from all manner of social disadvantages. Yet the Scriptures clearly teach that ultimate leadership is male. This is nothing to do with traditionalism. It is everything to do with God's Word and the authority it has in the church.
The church will be relevant when that same Word is preached in the power of the Spirit; when communities of God's people exhibit the pattern of life established in the Word with sincerity and sacrifice; when people realise their need of a Saviour and that Jesus Christ is that Saviour. When these things become clear to us, it may perhaps be seen that not only should women not be bishops, but men should not be either - at least on the pattern that the C of E has them.
Who are these people who, presumably now disenchanted with the church, or with the C of E, or with Christianity, or with religion generally, would suddenly take it seriously because of such a move? I can imagine it meaning a lot to women 'priests'; I can imagine some women outside the church having their prejudices against the church hardened by this show of what they would consider chauvinism or what has been laughably called 'centuries of institutionalised sexism' (brilliant historical perspective that); and no doubt the liberal establishment will be aghast at this exhibition of primeval values. Yet is anyone who might be inclined to take Christianity seriously really going to be put off by the vote in Synod? Would a cynic really be made to take the gospel seriously because under the mitre there is a real woman instead of an old woman?
Equality is one thing; sameness is another. The Christian gospel has since its earliest proclamation been a force for the dignity and liberation of women from all manner of social disadvantages. Yet the Scriptures clearly teach that ultimate leadership is male. This is nothing to do with traditionalism. It is everything to do with God's Word and the authority it has in the church.
The church will be relevant when that same Word is preached in the power of the Spirit; when communities of God's people exhibit the pattern of life established in the Word with sincerity and sacrifice; when people realise their need of a Saviour and that Jesus Christ is that Saviour. When these things become clear to us, it may perhaps be seen that not only should women not be bishops, but men should not be either - at least on the pattern that the C of E has them.
Friday, 9 November 2012
So you don't want to go to church any more?
There are some books that have an 'Alice Through the Looking Glass' quality. Who is looking at the world upside down - the author or me?
'So you don't want to go to church any more?' is such a book. It is by Wayne Jacobsen and Dave Coleman though I cannot understand why it took two men to write it. Apparently it took them four years. It is from the same publishers as 'The Shack'- 'Windblown Media'.
It is written through the narration of an assistant pastor called Jake who is in the spiritual doldrums. His church is big and successful but all is not well underneath. There is no spiritual reality. He is falling out with his senior pastor. His daughter is ill. Along comes 'John' a kind of angel/disciple/ Jesus figure (whom Jake for much of the book seems seriously to think may actually be the apostle John)who speaks of God as 'Father' and invites people to come to 'Father' (not 'the Father' or 'our Father'). The book has thirteen chapters in each of which John meets Jake in an unlikely situation - turning up just when Jake needs him, in a cafe, or even by a remote lake in the Californian hills. John just drifts around helping people in their relationship with Jesus. God through his prayer heals Jake's daughter.
Much of what 'John' says is fine, except that it is all nice. Everything is relational. He is very good on grace. Jake, who seems to have been living his Christian life as if he were on a treadmill, resigns from his ministry. His senior pastor is found to have had an affair. Jake starts up a home group, to find reality in community, but John reminds them (wise eh?) that changing the outward circumstances is not going to change the experience of relationships if they do not focus on Jesus.
Any organisation, is the message, can damage the relationship 'Father' wants for his people. Religion is bad, it is shame management; what counts is Jesus delivering us from shame. Institutional church is portrayed as universally authoritarian, manipulative, unreal, pressurising. More than once going to church (which we shouldn't say, by the way, as we 'are ' church) is described as going to a 'finely tuned performance' or a 'praise concert' with a 'teaching'. Well, if that is a church service, perhaps the authors have a point.
One could agree with a lot of what 'John' (the mouthpiece for everything the authors think is right) says - we must of course be focused on Christ as a church, though interestingly John never uses the word 'Christ' - it is always 'Jesus' and our relationship is primarily not with a triune God but with 'Father'. The problem is that this relational approach is set in stark contrast to anything institutional as if the church could be all organism but never organisation. Sure, things are bad in many of our organisational set ups, but you don't - indeed you can't - jettison organisation just because of that. This book is not only arrogant in its dismissal of 'institutional' church; it is idealistic and naive in terms of what could replace it.
Here is a Christianity where (i) community and 'real relationships' have become god; (ii) the Bible does not seem to exist except as mediated in some of the things (always positive, relational and encouraging, never challenging or guilt inducing) that John, in his wise style, says to Jake and his friends; (iii) an assistant pastor seems to know absolutely no theology and though he reads his Bible he always needs John to give him the words that actually help him; (iv) commitment is regarded as legalistic; (v) meeting together must be because people really want to and when they have found what they need they will not be able to stay away; (vi)and oh yes - preaching, the heart of worship, does not figure at all. All communication of the Word is done by John-like socratic dialogue. Very unauthoritarian, very egalitarian. You can do it around a cup of Starbucks. If you think I am joking I have this week received an email from a friend recently moved to America who is looking for a church; one he visited had comfy chairs with cup holders which fitted Starbucks cups perfectly; but there was no place for Bibles.
The trouble is, people seem to like this kind of book and think it is fantastic. Is it only in America? I fear not. People like it here. Are all hurt by church? Are all going to dysfunctional churches with anxiety-wrought, driven, driving pastors? Don't tell me that all evangelical churches are harsh, legalistic, manipulative and that they reward achievement, thereby reinforcing the tendency to works salvation. This appears to be the case in Jake's experience of church.
Sadly some churches may be like this. There are people who have been very badly hurt by church. I am not sure, however, that this is the book to help them. I fear this kind of book is fed by and feeds a Christian culture where people want the gospel to meet their needs, provide undemanding church and all with the assurance no doubt of eternal life - though the only mention of sin and forgiveness is in one phrase during a 'Lord's Supper' celebrated with cups of grape juice and bread during a garden BBQ which John assures them is what a church service is all about; worship after all is what we do all the time.
Everything, in other words, focuses on making life cosy here. It is a gospel of good human relationships through 'Jesus'. But who is this Jesus? He has no biblical or doctrinal content. Just think of all the time the early church wasted on Christological disputes - all they need have done was enjoy each other's company in their back gardens. But then, with John around every corner to give good advice, who needs the Bible, the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ?
'So you don't want to go to church any more?' is such a book. It is by Wayne Jacobsen and Dave Coleman though I cannot understand why it took two men to write it. Apparently it took them four years. It is from the same publishers as 'The Shack'- 'Windblown Media'.
It is written through the narration of an assistant pastor called Jake who is in the spiritual doldrums. His church is big and successful but all is not well underneath. There is no spiritual reality. He is falling out with his senior pastor. His daughter is ill. Along comes 'John' a kind of angel/disciple/ Jesus figure (whom Jake for much of the book seems seriously to think may actually be the apostle John)who speaks of God as 'Father' and invites people to come to 'Father' (not 'the Father' or 'our Father'). The book has thirteen chapters in each of which John meets Jake in an unlikely situation - turning up just when Jake needs him, in a cafe, or even by a remote lake in the Californian hills. John just drifts around helping people in their relationship with Jesus. God through his prayer heals Jake's daughter.
Much of what 'John' says is fine, except that it is all nice. Everything is relational. He is very good on grace. Jake, who seems to have been living his Christian life as if he were on a treadmill, resigns from his ministry. His senior pastor is found to have had an affair. Jake starts up a home group, to find reality in community, but John reminds them (wise eh?) that changing the outward circumstances is not going to change the experience of relationships if they do not focus on Jesus.
Any organisation, is the message, can damage the relationship 'Father' wants for his people. Religion is bad, it is shame management; what counts is Jesus delivering us from shame. Institutional church is portrayed as universally authoritarian, manipulative, unreal, pressurising. More than once going to church (which we shouldn't say, by the way, as we 'are ' church) is described as going to a 'finely tuned performance' or a 'praise concert' with a 'teaching'. Well, if that is a church service, perhaps the authors have a point.
One could agree with a lot of what 'John' (the mouthpiece for everything the authors think is right) says - we must of course be focused on Christ as a church, though interestingly John never uses the word 'Christ' - it is always 'Jesus' and our relationship is primarily not with a triune God but with 'Father'. The problem is that this relational approach is set in stark contrast to anything institutional as if the church could be all organism but never organisation. Sure, things are bad in many of our organisational set ups, but you don't - indeed you can't - jettison organisation just because of that. This book is not only arrogant in its dismissal of 'institutional' church; it is idealistic and naive in terms of what could replace it.
Here is a Christianity where (i) community and 'real relationships' have become god; (ii) the Bible does not seem to exist except as mediated in some of the things (always positive, relational and encouraging, never challenging or guilt inducing) that John, in his wise style, says to Jake and his friends; (iii) an assistant pastor seems to know absolutely no theology and though he reads his Bible he always needs John to give him the words that actually help him; (iv) commitment is regarded as legalistic; (v) meeting together must be because people really want to and when they have found what they need they will not be able to stay away; (vi)and oh yes - preaching, the heart of worship, does not figure at all. All communication of the Word is done by John-like socratic dialogue. Very unauthoritarian, very egalitarian. You can do it around a cup of Starbucks. If you think I am joking I have this week received an email from a friend recently moved to America who is looking for a church; one he visited had comfy chairs with cup holders which fitted Starbucks cups perfectly; but there was no place for Bibles.
The trouble is, people seem to like this kind of book and think it is fantastic. Is it only in America? I fear not. People like it here. Are all hurt by church? Are all going to dysfunctional churches with anxiety-wrought, driven, driving pastors? Don't tell me that all evangelical churches are harsh, legalistic, manipulative and that they reward achievement, thereby reinforcing the tendency to works salvation. This appears to be the case in Jake's experience of church.
Sadly some churches may be like this. There are people who have been very badly hurt by church. I am not sure, however, that this is the book to help them. I fear this kind of book is fed by and feeds a Christian culture where people want the gospel to meet their needs, provide undemanding church and all with the assurance no doubt of eternal life - though the only mention of sin and forgiveness is in one phrase during a 'Lord's Supper' celebrated with cups of grape juice and bread during a garden BBQ which John assures them is what a church service is all about; worship after all is what we do all the time.
Everything, in other words, focuses on making life cosy here. It is a gospel of good human relationships through 'Jesus'. But who is this Jesus? He has no biblical or doctrinal content. Just think of all the time the early church wasted on Christological disputes - all they need have done was enjoy each other's company in their back gardens. But then, with John around every corner to give good advice, who needs the Bible, the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ?
Defending Constantine
Peter Leithart's fascinating book on Constantine is both a defence of the great emperor and also a demolition of the political theology of John Howard Yoder. I was convinced by both parts of his scholarly polemic but less convinced by the arguments he tries to erect as an alternative to Yoder.
Leithart's portrayal of Constantine is lively and persuasive. He believes the emperor was a true Christian who throughout his reign promoted the interests of the church as far as possible but without persecuting pagans. There was therefore a measure of religious toleration for pagans under him that was lost under later emperors such as Theodosius.
There were certainly inconsistencies in Constantine and stains on his reign - the deaths of his wife Fausta and son Crispus are not fully explained, though sexual immorality probably lay behind their executions/deaths. But it is easy to criticise a man in a unique position. There was no clear blueprint for a Christian Roman emperor.
Leithart is concerned above all to unravel the myth of the 'fall' of the church at the time of Constantine. He does this pretty well, showing that there was no consistent policy of merging church and empire under Constantine or after him. There were 'moments' as Leithart calls them, when this happened, but it was not an ideological or political shift. If the church became corrupted in a time of peace was this due to alignment with the state or to too common temptations of the flesh? Does such corruption amount to the introduction of the dark ages of the church which lasted till the end of the middle ages? Was it all dark? Was the church pristine at the beginning of the 4th century anyway? Were not church and empire at loggerheads for much of the time afterwards?
If the emperor at times saw it as his duty to interfere in church affairs, did this amount to a taking over of the church?
John Howard Yoder uses 'Constantinianism' as a label, a symbol, for the view that the church was swallowed up by the state for over a thousand years and this still plagues the church today (sometimes in an even worse way than before the Reformation).
Where Leithart is in my mind quite unconvincing is in his attempt to describe Rome as nonetheless baptised, by which he means that Constantine stopped sacrifices in Rome and introduced a new political regime based on the sacrifice of Christ. Constantine 'desacrificed' Rome 'but at the same time...welcomed into his city another city, a truly just city, a city of the final sacrifice that ends sacrifice...This is the "Christianisation" achieved by Constantine, Rome baptised.' Leithart's final chapter is almost an apologia for baptism - 'all baptism is infant baptism' - as the measure of a 'Christianised' state. At least, that is what appears to come across but Leithart is a somewhat elusive writer at times.
Leithart finally is unconvincing in dismissing Yoder's pacifism, yet trying to establish the acceptability of Christian soldiers on biblical grounds when he has rejected the distinction between private and public ethics and between nature and grace. All is one for Leithart, so he is left with trying to establish that warfare is permissible for Christians without being able to restrict the ethics of 'turn the other cheek' to the private realm. He has some rather elaborate arguments based on the Old Testament and its continuity, but I shall not go into them here.
It is such an 'external' view of the blessings of the gospel which comes through in Leithart's 'federal vision' theology.
But this is still a good book, particularly for what it says about Constantine and in demythologising the rather glib way in which we speak of 'Constantinianism' as the bane of the church. There is a merger of state and church which is invariably harmful for the church but maybe Constantine was not to blame, and Constantinianism is not the best name for it.
Leithart's portrayal of Constantine is lively and persuasive. He believes the emperor was a true Christian who throughout his reign promoted the interests of the church as far as possible but without persecuting pagans. There was therefore a measure of religious toleration for pagans under him that was lost under later emperors such as Theodosius.
There were certainly inconsistencies in Constantine and stains on his reign - the deaths of his wife Fausta and son Crispus are not fully explained, though sexual immorality probably lay behind their executions/deaths. But it is easy to criticise a man in a unique position. There was no clear blueprint for a Christian Roman emperor.
Leithart is concerned above all to unravel the myth of the 'fall' of the church at the time of Constantine. He does this pretty well, showing that there was no consistent policy of merging church and empire under Constantine or after him. There were 'moments' as Leithart calls them, when this happened, but it was not an ideological or political shift. If the church became corrupted in a time of peace was this due to alignment with the state or to too common temptations of the flesh? Does such corruption amount to the introduction of the dark ages of the church which lasted till the end of the middle ages? Was it all dark? Was the church pristine at the beginning of the 4th century anyway? Were not church and empire at loggerheads for much of the time afterwards?
If the emperor at times saw it as his duty to interfere in church affairs, did this amount to a taking over of the church?
John Howard Yoder uses 'Constantinianism' as a label, a symbol, for the view that the church was swallowed up by the state for over a thousand years and this still plagues the church today (sometimes in an even worse way than before the Reformation).
Where Leithart is in my mind quite unconvincing is in his attempt to describe Rome as nonetheless baptised, by which he means that Constantine stopped sacrifices in Rome and introduced a new political regime based on the sacrifice of Christ. Constantine 'desacrificed' Rome 'but at the same time...welcomed into his city another city, a truly just city, a city of the final sacrifice that ends sacrifice...This is the "Christianisation" achieved by Constantine, Rome baptised.' Leithart's final chapter is almost an apologia for baptism - 'all baptism is infant baptism' - as the measure of a 'Christianised' state. At least, that is what appears to come across but Leithart is a somewhat elusive writer at times.
Leithart finally is unconvincing in dismissing Yoder's pacifism, yet trying to establish the acceptability of Christian soldiers on biblical grounds when he has rejected the distinction between private and public ethics and between nature and grace. All is one for Leithart, so he is left with trying to establish that warfare is permissible for Christians without being able to restrict the ethics of 'turn the other cheek' to the private realm. He has some rather elaborate arguments based on the Old Testament and its continuity, but I shall not go into them here.
It is such an 'external' view of the blessings of the gospel which comes through in Leithart's 'federal vision' theology.
But this is still a good book, particularly for what it says about Constantine and in demythologising the rather glib way in which we speak of 'Constantinianism' as the bane of the church. There is a merger of state and church which is invariably harmful for the church but maybe Constantine was not to blame, and Constantinianism is not the best name for it.
Thursday, 8 November 2012
Elders' Day, John Owen Centre
Yes this has happened - long ago, on 20th October to be exact.
I spoke on 'The Shepherd for Undershepherds', giving a biblical overview of the Lord as our shepherd and what that means for pastors/ elders; Garry Williams gave an introduction to covenant theology; and Trevor Archer spoke on 'Nurturing the Eldership'.
Over 40 men attended and it was a stimulating day with lively discussion groups in the afternoon before a final panel session. The feedback was encouraging and we shall probably do one next year as well.
If you want to see the papers, look at the John Owen Centre Website; they should be up soon, if not already. See: http://www.ltslondon.org/joc/index.php
I spoke on 'The Shepherd for Undershepherds', giving a biblical overview of the Lord as our shepherd and what that means for pastors/ elders; Garry Williams gave an introduction to covenant theology; and Trevor Archer spoke on 'Nurturing the Eldership'.
Over 40 men attended and it was a stimulating day with lively discussion groups in the afternoon before a final panel session. The feedback was encouraging and we shall probably do one next year as well.
If you want to see the papers, look at the John Owen Centre Website; they should be up soon, if not already. See: http://www.ltslondon.org/joc/index.php
Reformation and Revival Fellowship Conference
If you are interested in revival - or indeed in the Lord's work at all - why not make a late booking for the RRF conference? It is to be held at Swanwick from Monday 19th - Wednesday 21st November . The speakers are Stephen Clark, Bridgend, Paul Mallard, Birmingham and George Mitchell, Glasgow. The addresses are always of the highest order, whether expository or historical. The fellowship is warm and stimulating and the countryside in Derbyshire is great to explore in the little free time we have.
Contact George McIntyre on 01564 774966; geomac@talktalk.net.
Contact George McIntyre on 01564 774966; geomac@talktalk.net.
Westminster Fellowship
On Monday I attended the meeting of the Westminster Fellowship at Westminster chapel in London. This is the ministers' fraternal(meeting) that began under Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones in the 1950s and thrived under his leadership, but it is safe to say that since his death it has been steadily in numerical decline. There are rarely more than 18 or so men there, and only 14 on Monday.
Monday was an open meeting, when men bring matters for discussion. The morning is often a more theological subject, the afternoon is more pastoral. All the men contributed to discussion this time, and as always I found it helpful and encouraging to have been there. I started going again two years ago after a long absence of six years or so, but in the last two years I have not missed a meeting unless it couldn't be avoided.
Perhaps the most refreshing thing is to be in the fellowship of kindred minds. One can express one's views knowing that on the big issues and most of the small ones we are agreed. We also know we are in a minority, theologically speaking, representing a conservative end of the spectrum in both doctrine and practice. But the fraternal is open to any minister who can agree with the statement of faith which I should have thought would be acceptable to most evangelicals. It is not specifically Reformed but it rather looks to Evangelicals coming together on an uncompromising gospel basis, rejecting the doctrinal indifference of the 'Ecumenical movement'.
Our next meeting (we meet six times a year) is planned for 4th February when Jeremy Walker will be addressing us on the 'New Calvinism'.
Monday was an open meeting, when men bring matters for discussion. The morning is often a more theological subject, the afternoon is more pastoral. All the men contributed to discussion this time, and as always I found it helpful and encouraging to have been there. I started going again two years ago after a long absence of six years or so, but in the last two years I have not missed a meeting unless it couldn't be avoided.
Perhaps the most refreshing thing is to be in the fellowship of kindred minds. One can express one's views knowing that on the big issues and most of the small ones we are agreed. We also know we are in a minority, theologically speaking, representing a conservative end of the spectrum in both doctrine and practice. But the fraternal is open to any minister who can agree with the statement of faith which I should have thought would be acceptable to most evangelicals. It is not specifically Reformed but it rather looks to Evangelicals coming together on an uncompromising gospel basis, rejecting the doctrinal indifference of the 'Ecumenical movement'.
Our next meeting (we meet six times a year) is planned for 4th February when Jeremy Walker will be addressing us on the 'New Calvinism'.
The Republican - and Christian - Opportunity
There have been innumerable analyses of the American election result by many people far better qualified than I, but I can't resist chipping in.
The Republicans must feel devastated. They got a good proportion of the popular vote, but as one commentator said, if you can't beat a president when unemployment is high and the economy is in a bad way, you should really be looking for another job.
They say the electoral college system is unfair on the Republicans in which case things do not look good for the future. Will they change the system? The Democrats won't!
Perhaps the biggest issue is the question of who votes for whom. Very broadly, if you are white, male, old and Christian you will vote Republican; if you are black/ coloured, young, female and non-Christian you will vote Democrat. There are countless exceptions to such a broad generalisation but that is pretty well how it is. As the country grows increasingly 'secular', younger generations move away from church and the values behind opposition to abortion and gay marriage recede in influence and popularity, it is difficult to see the Republican vote growing.
One brief interview with an Hispanic man on TV spoke volumes. 'The Republicans could appeal to us' he said. 'We are conservative minded, and we are religious. But the trouble is, the Republicans don't want us here'. So Christian in morals but not in compassion - that is how Republicans are perceived.
The party will need to do some hard thinking. Perhaps this is time of opportunity.
Now is also the time for Christians to ask themselves, 'what is our responsibility in politics?' A separation between Christians and a single political party may be no bad thing. It is not necessarily healthy for Christians to think they can enforce morality through the ballot box. And in practice, what could Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have done about abortion anyway? And how long would the stance against gay marriage have been able to hold? Nor is it healthy for the evangelical church to be identified with one socio-political power bloc, even if it does hold the right moral views. The church should always be bigger than one or two moral issues.
Some time for Christians to think things through will be useful; they must adjust to new a ideological reality in America. 'One nation under God and 'In God we trust' have never been as absolutely true as some would have liked to think; they are getting less and less so. Maybe for Christians the realisation of that is no bad thing.
The Republicans must feel devastated. They got a good proportion of the popular vote, but as one commentator said, if you can't beat a president when unemployment is high and the economy is in a bad way, you should really be looking for another job.
They say the electoral college system is unfair on the Republicans in which case things do not look good for the future. Will they change the system? The Democrats won't!
Perhaps the biggest issue is the question of who votes for whom. Very broadly, if you are white, male, old and Christian you will vote Republican; if you are black/ coloured, young, female and non-Christian you will vote Democrat. There are countless exceptions to such a broad generalisation but that is pretty well how it is. As the country grows increasingly 'secular', younger generations move away from church and the values behind opposition to abortion and gay marriage recede in influence and popularity, it is difficult to see the Republican vote growing.
One brief interview with an Hispanic man on TV spoke volumes. 'The Republicans could appeal to us' he said. 'We are conservative minded, and we are religious. But the trouble is, the Republicans don't want us here'. So Christian in morals but not in compassion - that is how Republicans are perceived.
The party will need to do some hard thinking. Perhaps this is time of opportunity.
Now is also the time for Christians to ask themselves, 'what is our responsibility in politics?' A separation between Christians and a single political party may be no bad thing. It is not necessarily healthy for Christians to think they can enforce morality through the ballot box. And in practice, what could Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have done about abortion anyway? And how long would the stance against gay marriage have been able to hold? Nor is it healthy for the evangelical church to be identified with one socio-political power bloc, even if it does hold the right moral views. The church should always be bigger than one or two moral issues.
Some time for Christians to think things through will be useful; they must adjust to new a ideological reality in America. 'One nation under God and 'In God we trust' have never been as absolutely true as some would have liked to think; they are getting less and less so. Maybe for Christians the realisation of that is no bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)