The case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull was the subject of discussion recently both at the Westminster Fellowship and (very briefly) at a session of the Affinity Theology Study Conference at High Leigh. This is an article not a report; some of the better ideas are gratefully borrowed but I name no names and attribute no opinions; the interpretation of views is entirely my own, and I take full responsibility for its contents.
The legal background
Mr and Mrs Bull are the Christian hotel owners who refused on principle to allow a homosexual ‘couple’ to share a room in their private hotel, were sued by the ‘couple’ (with help from the Equality and Human Rights Commission) and subsequently ordered to pay £3600 in damages. The Christian Institute supported Mr and Mrs Bull.
In his judgement Judge Rutherford remarked on the changing social attitudes of the last 50 years which lay behind this case. He also accepted the homosexuals’ assertion that it had not been a ‘set up’ by Stonewall, and also accepted on behalf of the Bulls that they applied their policy fairly to unmarried heterosexual couples as well as homosexuals. Mrs Bull asserted that their concern has been to support marriage and not to discriminate against anybody.
In a statement on a breakfast TV programme Mike Judge of the Christian Institute said that Christian rights, particularly the evangelical beliefs of the Bulls, being a minority, needed to be protected as much as anyone else’s; he also made the point that legally an issue was that the judge in the case equated a civil partnership with marriage, which was not the case when the legislation came into force.
A further issue has been that the hotel was also the couple’s private home.
It is understood that the matter is going to appeal so the case is not yet closed.
So where do right and wrong lie from a Christian perspective? One has every sympathy for the Bulls, indeed admiration for them in making a strong and consistent stand to uphold biblical principles as they saw them. Homosexual practice is biblically wrong; it is sin, contrary to the seventh commandment and to nature. But how do we relate to such things when we are living and engaging in business in a society that allows homosexual partnerships a status almost (if not actually) identical to marriage?
What is our duty to God?
A starting point is Acts 5:29 – we must obey God rather than men. But what is it to obey God in such a case as this? To obey the commandments. But, Mr and Mrs Bull were quite evidently not in breach of any commandment. They were trying to ensure that the breach of God’s law did not take place under their roof – as someone said to me, they were seeking not to facilitate sin.
Now let’s deal with one aspect at a time. Was it their private home? That it was is a point emphasised by many of the Bulls’ supporters. But at the same time it was a home which they had opened up to the public, they were running it commercially and were operating it as a hotel. In a way they had forfeited the right to claim it as their ‘private home’ once they began running it as a business. The relationship between them and their guests was not as ‘father’ or ‘householder’ who is biblically responsible for his home and the behaviour that goes on in it, but as business people with customers, receiving money for services rendered.
What if they had been owners of a fifty room hotel, managed by someone else, a hundred miles from their home? Would they have operated their policy? Presumably yes; one assumes they want to uphold marriage in any property of which they are owners. So in a way the ‘private home’ issue is a bit of a red herring.
So then – the broader issue is - is a Christian biblically bound not to ‘facilitate sin’? Am I under an obligation not only to ‘not commit adultery,’ but to make sure as far as I can that others do not either? The answer may seem screamingly obvious – of course I am! But look at it a bit more broadly. What if no sexual act had taken place between the homosexuals that night – would that have satisfied the hotel owners? If they would not be satisfied with that, then presumably the fact of homosexual partnership is the problem, but then – why offer them single beds, as they were willing to do? Or, suppose that (as someone put it in one of the discussions referred to above) adherents of other religions, heterosexually married, carried out an act of idol worship in the bedroom before retiring for the night? Should I not be concerned to uphold the first commandment and the second as well as the seventh? Perhaps it would be argued that such an act of idolatry would not be as directly linked to the letting of a room as sexual relations. But the question remains: why privilege marriage as a ‘good’ to be protected; or, from another angle, why privilege the seventh commandment as a law to be preserved?
In other contexts, suppose a plumber takes on a job at a house only to find half way through that it is being used for immoral purposes? Is his work ‘facilitating sin’? What if I engage an odd-job man and he asks to be paid ‘in cash, please, guv’? I may have a strong suspicion why – but am I obliged to pay by cheque to try to stop HMRC being cheated? Does a Christian chemist (or let’s say, the manager of a chemist’s shop) only sell contraceptives to married couples? Do all Christian lawyers back out of family law because the divorce laws are unbiblical? Does a hairdresser refuse to give a lady an expensive hair-do because she feels very strongly that this lady is going to use it to attract men on a Saturday night and in addition to be very proud of it – and so sin upon sin is ‘facilitated’? Am I only concerned to prevent sexual sin? Why? Does it all depend on how much I know? When does ‘strong suspicion’ become ‘knowledge’?
I do not have as many answers as questions, but I suggest that once we take the ‘private home’ issue out of the equation and realise we are talking about the possibility of ‘facilitating sin’ in the course of business, it seems to me we are on very slippery ground in refusing to serve certain people because of the sins we feel sure (or even know) they are going to commit. Once we take the emotive homosexual issue out of the equation too, I wonder if quite a bit of the steam goes out of the case.
Rights, freedoms and duties
Much has been said about Christians’ rights and freedoms and the erosion of them in the face of the onslaught from secular pressures, in the van of which is the homosexual issue. In seeking guidance about how Christians should behave in such matters we need however to make an important distinction between rights and freedoms on the one hand and duties on the other.
‘Duties’ are what I owe to others, from a Christian point of view first to God but also under him to others. When duty to God and duty to others (notably the state) conflict, then I must obey God rather than man. At this level I am concerned that I am not compelled to sin and at this point a Christian may have to be prepared to suffer the consequences of disobedience to the state, unless the state allows ‘conscience’ clauses – a ‘right’ to opt out.
‘Rights’ are what I can insist on; their existence implies a duty in others to respect and protect them. These are usually enshrined in civil law but may be seen as rights of ‘natural justice’ such as are reflected in Human Rights legislation. In reality these depend on the law of the land at any given time. From a Christian point of view they are a privilege of which the Bible says very little, though when one has them (as Paul had rights as a Roman citizen) it is not wrong to insist on them and to fight within a democratic society to keep them or even expand them. But we must not make the mistake of thinking that if rights are taken away we are losing anything essential to being Christian. They were probably in short supply when Paul wrote Romans 13:1-7. The loss of rights may make a Christian life harder; it won’t in itself cause us to sin or fail in our duty to God. Historically, ‘rights’ are very much a product of western democracy in the last few centuries. The New Testament church lived in a very different world. Must we get more used to that?
‘Freedoms’ are the space the law gives us – something I can exercise at will but without obligation. They are good to have; they are not essential to being Christian.
A lot is said about Christians now no longer being able to exercise their faith in the ‘public square’ and therefore suffering discrimination. The exercise of such ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’ however is not of the essence of being Christian; it depends on the legal framework in which a Christian lives. Western Christians have enjoyed privileges in this regard previously unknown in history. It is sad to lose them; in a democratic society we can do what we can to fight for them; but as they disappear we are not losing anything essential to Christianity.
The truth is that Christians are finding life increasingly uncomfortable in a society in which attitudes, as Judge Rutherford acknowledged, are changing, nowhere more so than in relation to sexual morality. The Bulls have fallen foul of this; so have some street preachers. In another case of a hotel owner against whom a Muslim brought a complaint, the law has supported the Christian. So it is not all one way.
We may feel that our ‘rights’ are being infringed – to have my morality (which as God’s morality is of course valid for all but which I cannot enforce in the case of other people) respected. But what ‘right’ has been infringed? What right do I have to insist on enforcing the Ten Commandments on others? Do others owe me a duty? They may owe a duty to God to obey – but then it is God’s prerogative to hold them accountable. He is the Judge. A right to define the morality of my own home? But then - harsh as this may seem – do not open up your home on a commercial basis. If you say ‘ but people should be able to determine who comes into their home’ then fine – but that is a matter of civil law, applicable to everybody, not a specifically Christian issue.
The conscience is also often mentioned. But what ‘right’ do I have to insist that others behave in certain ways so as not to offend my conscience? I may argue that the state should not offend my conscience, that is, by causing me to sin, but when I enter the business arena, do I have the right to demand that people do not offend me, or that they do not sin themselves?
What duty then do I have? To obey God. But how absolute is my obligation to God to avoid sin by others? I may do what I can within the laws of the land and in my own home, and do all I can to diminish sin; a love for my neighbour will cause me to try to stop him sinning so far as I can; but if I am to operate in society at all it is inevitable that in some way I will find myself ‘facilitating sin’. Otherwise I will find myself in the invidious position of judging others; discriminating between sins; and risking trivialising sin, as I inevitably focus on the more obvious ones and forget the awfulness and pervasiveness of sin. We are not, after all, to withdraw from the world (1 Corinthians 5:10).
I would have to conclude then that much as I sympathise with and admire the Bulls, I do not think their stand was biblically necessary to fulfil their duties to God. They have also found that they do not have the freedoms or the rights which perhaps they thought they had under the law. The Christian Institute will no doubt do the best they can for them here. But if they are to remain in business as hoteliers, they could, I believe, do so, allowing homosexuals to take rooms, without any compromise of their duty to God.
Wider issues
Moving on a little from the Bulls’ case, a wider issue is the question of the Christian conscience and whether it is a bit too tender among evangelicals these days. We are finding our rights and freedoms being taken away, and immediately leap to the idea of ‘conscience’ (which is essentially concerned with duty to God) to defend them. We perhaps need to think a bit harder about not only what my conscience demands, but what a biblically educated conscience should demand.
From another context, but not without relevance, Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ views on the Christian in the workplace in his sermons on Ephesians 6:5-9 in Life in the Spirit in Marriage, Home and Work are well worth looking at even though over fifty years old. He says for example of a Christian under pressure to go on strike, that he is part of the system and he should join it ‘whatever his personal views may be’ (Life in the Spirit, p.344). He writes of a Christian forced to work on a Sunday and says the issue is really: what would the Christian like to do if he had the freedom? If he really would like to be at worship, then the fact that his employment forces him to work makes it no sin for him. One may not agree with all his thinking, but his approach appears to be more robust (more in tune perhaps with Romans 13:1-7) than that of some evangelicals today who are very ‘rights’ conscious.
A recent booklet on employment law and the Christian does not clearly distinguish ‘feeling uncomfortable’ (e.g. about workplace policy on homosexuality) from an offended conscience, and equates being forced to miss Easter and Christmas with working on Sundays; and being asked to ‘lie’ by the boss with working a lottery machine. Now here are some clear breaches of the Ten Commandments put on the same level as things which make one feel ‘uncomfortable’. Maybe we need to return to a clearer understanding of the law of God! And while it may be a freedom or perhaps even a right to wear religious jewellery, it is hardly a Christian duty and therefore not a matter of conscience.
The conscience is far more than ‘feeling uncomfortable’ (and I am not at all suggesting this was the Bulls’ thinking). It is about my duty to God. In a ‘christianised’ society it is easy to slip into thinking that what have been assumed as rights and freedoms are to be equated with our duty to God; and what makes us uncomfortable is equivalent to sin. After all, did not Naaman surely feel uncomfortable with many things as he went back to serve his Syrian master? And, despite their personal purity, Joseph in Egypt and Daniel in his service of Nebuchadnezzar? And the ‘slaves in Caesar’s household’ (Philippians 4:22)?
This paper probably raises more questions than answers, but we do need to think hard about these issues and cases like that of the Bulls may help us to do just that.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Friday, 28 January 2011
Monday, 24 January 2011
Providence
Dr Bruce Ware addressed about thirty people at LTS today on the doctrine of providence. In his helpful books 'God's Lesser Glory' and 'God's Greater Glory' he has first defended a Calvinist / Biblical view of providence against Open Theism, then put more positively the case for a Biblical portrayal of God's foreknowlege and sovereignty.
This was more or less the pattern he developed today and we are thankful to him for it.
Many thoughts were sparked off. For example, have you ever thought that the Arminian concept of God's 'simple foreknowledge' without divine foreordination, makes God effectively powerless with regard to the future? For if God can see the future (which of course he does), then it includes all of history and reality as it 'really' is - and it includes of course God's own acts. Therefore it cannot be changed. God's simple foreknowledge (including that on the basis of which Arminians allege God 'elects' those who will believe, to eternal life) leaves God unable to change the future (or the eternal present, as it is to him).
There was discussion about the 'asymmetrical' relation of God to good and evil, too. Romans 9:22,23 indicates that in relation to persons, distinguishing between those who are justified and those who are condemned, there is 'unequal ultimacy', in that God takes into account the acts of the condemned - there is an impersonal aspect to their 'being prepared' for destruction which leaves place for their own agency, while the grace of God which saves those destined for eternal life is personal - he 'has prepared beforehand for glory' those who will be saved. Yet clearly in both cases God is sovereign.
But our discussion was more about good or evil acts, not persons. One issue arising was: does God, or does he not, actually work in our choices, even the evil ones, or does he work in the good ones and then only lead us 'so far' along the evil track but leave us to make up our sinful mind? Is this a way to protect God from being the author of sin?
It is a complex subject but I suggest this is not the way to go. It hardly honours God to suggest he leaves us near the brink of a cliff, knowing it is extremely likely we will fall over (i.e. do wrong) rather than actually pushing us. The defence of God against being the author of evil must be found elsewere or we will be Arminians when it comes to sin and Calvinists when it comes to good works.
We risk denying God's immanence in all our thinking, willing and doing, if we suggest that in some part of our decision making processes he is not present. In him after all we live and move and have our being. He works in us to will and to work for his good pleasure(Phil 2:12,13). The Reformed principle of concursus is valuable and well worth preserving - God is at work and immanent in all things.
Must we not find our defence of God in the distinction between his being ontologically present but morally not the cause of sin? Not that it is something I can understand, but it seems safer than going down the route of God 'stopping short' in our evil actions but not in our good ones. Is there not sin in even the best of our actions anyway?
Which means, it also seems to me, that the distinction between libertarian and compatibilist freedom, though important(and compatibilism is still surely the correct view) becomes secondary; the real issue is whether God acually works in our choices or simply in persuading us and influencing our minds and our environment, whether for good or ill.
Further as the Westminster Confession (chapter III.i) says, it is not only true that God has ordained all that comes to pass, but that thereby the freedom of secondary causes is actually established. There is a certain determinism about compatibilism ('I do what my highest inclinations or strongest desires incline me to') if that is all there is in my decision-making process. But if God is there and is in my decisions, then I am not determined by what I most want, but am acting 'concurrently' with God. Thereby my freedom of action is established.
Moreover, God has ordained all things; yet how can there be any absolute certainty about anything (even sins) if God is not involved up to the last 'nano-second' of my decision making? How can God be absolutely sure of my final decision, albeit he has 'set the scene', and it may be 99.999% certain I will do what is 'expected', but so long as there is a fraction of a chance I may act differently, then nothing is certain. And God's ordination must extend to evil things as well as good. Surely that is what the story of Joseph is all about: Gen 45:4-8; 50:20. It is after all the acts rather than the inclinations of the brothers which is the focus here of God's foreordination.
It is no good being Arminian or 'open theist' as to our sins and Calvinist as to our good acts. We have no 'good' acts anyway! God is the ordainer of all things, though the author only of good, not of sin.
This was more or less the pattern he developed today and we are thankful to him for it.
Many thoughts were sparked off. For example, have you ever thought that the Arminian concept of God's 'simple foreknowledge' without divine foreordination, makes God effectively powerless with regard to the future? For if God can see the future (which of course he does), then it includes all of history and reality as it 'really' is - and it includes of course God's own acts. Therefore it cannot be changed. God's simple foreknowledge (including that on the basis of which Arminians allege God 'elects' those who will believe, to eternal life) leaves God unable to change the future (or the eternal present, as it is to him).
There was discussion about the 'asymmetrical' relation of God to good and evil, too. Romans 9:22,23 indicates that in relation to persons, distinguishing between those who are justified and those who are condemned, there is 'unequal ultimacy', in that God takes into account the acts of the condemned - there is an impersonal aspect to their 'being prepared' for destruction which leaves place for their own agency, while the grace of God which saves those destined for eternal life is personal - he 'has prepared beforehand for glory' those who will be saved. Yet clearly in both cases God is sovereign.
But our discussion was more about good or evil acts, not persons. One issue arising was: does God, or does he not, actually work in our choices, even the evil ones, or does he work in the good ones and then only lead us 'so far' along the evil track but leave us to make up our sinful mind? Is this a way to protect God from being the author of sin?
It is a complex subject but I suggest this is not the way to go. It hardly honours God to suggest he leaves us near the brink of a cliff, knowing it is extremely likely we will fall over (i.e. do wrong) rather than actually pushing us. The defence of God against being the author of evil must be found elsewere or we will be Arminians when it comes to sin and Calvinists when it comes to good works.
We risk denying God's immanence in all our thinking, willing and doing, if we suggest that in some part of our decision making processes he is not present. In him after all we live and move and have our being. He works in us to will and to work for his good pleasure(Phil 2:12,13). The Reformed principle of concursus is valuable and well worth preserving - God is at work and immanent in all things.
Must we not find our defence of God in the distinction between his being ontologically present but morally not the cause of sin? Not that it is something I can understand, but it seems safer than going down the route of God 'stopping short' in our evil actions but not in our good ones. Is there not sin in even the best of our actions anyway?
Which means, it also seems to me, that the distinction between libertarian and compatibilist freedom, though important(and compatibilism is still surely the correct view) becomes secondary; the real issue is whether God acually works in our choices or simply in persuading us and influencing our minds and our environment, whether for good or ill.
Further as the Westminster Confession (chapter III.i) says, it is not only true that God has ordained all that comes to pass, but that thereby the freedom of secondary causes is actually established. There is a certain determinism about compatibilism ('I do what my highest inclinations or strongest desires incline me to') if that is all there is in my decision-making process. But if God is there and is in my decisions, then I am not determined by what I most want, but am acting 'concurrently' with God. Thereby my freedom of action is established.
Moreover, God has ordained all things; yet how can there be any absolute certainty about anything (even sins) if God is not involved up to the last 'nano-second' of my decision making? How can God be absolutely sure of my final decision, albeit he has 'set the scene', and it may be 99.999% certain I will do what is 'expected', but so long as there is a fraction of a chance I may act differently, then nothing is certain. And God's ordination must extend to evil things as well as good. Surely that is what the story of Joseph is all about: Gen 45:4-8; 50:20. It is after all the acts rather than the inclinations of the brothers which is the focus here of God's foreordination.
It is no good being Arminian or 'open theist' as to our sins and Calvinist as to our good acts. We have no 'good' acts anyway! God is the ordainer of all things, though the author only of good, not of sin.
Monday, 3 January 2011
Commodity child
So Elton John is the'father' and David Furnish (largely unknown except for being the partner of Elton John) is the 'mother'. It is possible that Sir Elton was the biological father, apparently. A surrogate mother in California was paid a reputed £100,000, though it may have cost the happy couple up to £1m in fees and payments (but what is that to Sir Elton?) The child will be called Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John. Sounds like a firm of accountants.
The papers talk cooingly about the love in the home and how much the couple will care for the little chap who will be the most important person in the world to them. Well, any new purchase, especially at Christmas, is exciting for a time.
Apparently in 2009 the John-Furnish partnership tried to adopt a Ukrainian orphan called Lev. The Ukrainian authorities had the sense to say 'no'. Lev had a lucky escape.
Is no-one made to feel exceedingly sick by this latest transaction? Thankfully yes - a 'gay' journalist on the 'Daily Mail' called Andrew Pierce cries 'Why I'm repelled by their grotesque selfishness'. I couldn't have said it better myself, but being an evangelical Christian my utterance would be called a homophobic rant so I want to hide behind an echo of what Mr Pierce has said.
Pierce rightly asks why, in a case when because of his age (63) he would be very unlikely to be allowed to adopt a child, Elton is allowed by law to buy one. His suspicion is that Elton has simply acquired a son to satifiy his latest fixation.
Two rules apply to the birth of children, says Mr Pierce: Rule One is that by and large a child needs a loving mother and father (though he has no objection in principle to the right gay couple adopting - which is where he and I would part company). Rule Two is that a child needs to know where he comes from. "Just what is Elton going to say to him when he's a troubled 16 year old and asks 'Daddy, where did I come from?'"
How often too, will Elton 'be there' for his son - he is about to embark on a 26 concert tour of the U.S. and Europe?
Perhaps there is something extra annoying about the fact that this is Elton - a talented but 'petulant, spoilt and selfish' man according to Mr Pierce. It seems as if some very loose legislation and a lot of money can get you almost anything now - including a child. But do not our authorities always trumpet that the 'child's best interests' are what matters in any family law issue? Why are the principles that would apply in adoption not apparently applied in surrogacy? Or am I missing something?
But of course that would not deal with the matter of these 'parents' being homosexual - that, sadly, is not even an issue today.
Sir Elton and David Furnish are made in the image of God. They are showing that they feel a need to nurture - at least, looking on it charitably; it might be that they simply want to possess, though that would not make them different from many average, sinful, hererosexual couples. But the nurturing instinct is not to be exercised outside a heterosexual marriage - at least, not in normal circumstances. It is certainly not to be engineered outside the marital framework.
We have lost our way on the meaning of marriage; the meaning of gender; and the fact that children are a gift to be responsibly nurtured, not a commodity to be produced at will for anyone who can pay for one.
But let us pray for Zachary, and for his 'parents'. Maybe they will be brought to see something of the wonder of God's creativity. And their own lostness. Children are remarkably resilient. He may do wonderfully well in this dysfunctional home. Let us fervently hope so.
The papers talk cooingly about the love in the home and how much the couple will care for the little chap who will be the most important person in the world to them. Well, any new purchase, especially at Christmas, is exciting for a time.
Apparently in 2009 the John-Furnish partnership tried to adopt a Ukrainian orphan called Lev. The Ukrainian authorities had the sense to say 'no'. Lev had a lucky escape.
Is no-one made to feel exceedingly sick by this latest transaction? Thankfully yes - a 'gay' journalist on the 'Daily Mail' called Andrew Pierce cries 'Why I'm repelled by their grotesque selfishness'. I couldn't have said it better myself, but being an evangelical Christian my utterance would be called a homophobic rant so I want to hide behind an echo of what Mr Pierce has said.
Pierce rightly asks why, in a case when because of his age (63) he would be very unlikely to be allowed to adopt a child, Elton is allowed by law to buy one. His suspicion is that Elton has simply acquired a son to satifiy his latest fixation.
Two rules apply to the birth of children, says Mr Pierce: Rule One is that by and large a child needs a loving mother and father (though he has no objection in principle to the right gay couple adopting - which is where he and I would part company). Rule Two is that a child needs to know where he comes from. "Just what is Elton going to say to him when he's a troubled 16 year old and asks 'Daddy, where did I come from?'"
How often too, will Elton 'be there' for his son - he is about to embark on a 26 concert tour of the U.S. and Europe?
Perhaps there is something extra annoying about the fact that this is Elton - a talented but 'petulant, spoilt and selfish' man according to Mr Pierce. It seems as if some very loose legislation and a lot of money can get you almost anything now - including a child. But do not our authorities always trumpet that the 'child's best interests' are what matters in any family law issue? Why are the principles that would apply in adoption not apparently applied in surrogacy? Or am I missing something?
But of course that would not deal with the matter of these 'parents' being homosexual - that, sadly, is not even an issue today.
Sir Elton and David Furnish are made in the image of God. They are showing that they feel a need to nurture - at least, looking on it charitably; it might be that they simply want to possess, though that would not make them different from many average, sinful, hererosexual couples. But the nurturing instinct is not to be exercised outside a heterosexual marriage - at least, not in normal circumstances. It is certainly not to be engineered outside the marital framework.
We have lost our way on the meaning of marriage; the meaning of gender; and the fact that children are a gift to be responsibly nurtured, not a commodity to be produced at will for anyone who can pay for one.
But let us pray for Zachary, and for his 'parents'. Maybe they will be brought to see something of the wonder of God's creativity. And their own lostness. Children are remarkably resilient. He may do wonderfully well in this dysfunctional home. Let us fervently hope so.
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Westminster Conference - what's the point?
It is two weeks since the Westminster Conference (formerly Euston Road, now Tottenham Court Road conference, shortly to become the Oxford Street Conference) and I really should have got something up before now.
It was good; I always enjoy going, though I do not go every year. I also enjoy the trips to some of the local bookshops and innumerable coffee shops, and meeting friends. It is all part of the experience.
The six papers were good; one on the English Reformation by Garry Williams; on Puritan views on Roman Catholicism from Guy Davies; on the KJV from David Gregson and on Puritan views of Repentance and Faith from Sam Waldron. Daniel Webber led us through the religion and politics of the 1910 Missionary conference and Malcolm Maclean winsomely introduced us to Andrew Bonar.
But what is the point of the Westminster conference? This was the question put to me in a discussion with one of the relatively few young (under 50) men there. Had there been no attendance from LTS there would have been hardly any 'young' men.
You can see his point. An active, zealous young minister has limited time and money for conferences. Early December is a busy time of year. What is going to attract the highly prioritised time and money he has available? Does a series of relatively unconnected lectures on historical theology (with a bias towards the Puritans) do the job?
Does he not want something more dynamic, practical, forward looking, (dare one say it) obviously relevant? Already it sounds like a plug for the Carey conference (which I do not go to every year either).
Whilst sympathising with my young friend, I would like to suggest some good reasons for persevering with the Westminster/Euston/ Tottenham Court Road/Oxford Sreet conference.
1. Not everything needs to be immediately relevant or applicable. Sermons are like this. You want something that will lead to practice, but it doesn't have to be today. The Word works differently. It is seminal. So are addresses like those at Westminster - at least, the better ones, and usually they are very well researched and carefully thought out by the speakers. Be prepared to listen well to things that do not seem immediately applicable to life; you will invariably find one or both of two things happening: (i) what did not seem to hold out any practical promise will suddenly prove to be surprisingly relevant; (2) seeds will be sown that will bear fruit later.
2. Papers such as those we heard are like windows on areas of history, church life and theology that we would not otherwise visit. Look at the conference not as a working visit but as a bit of a holiday. Take a look at some unfamiliar countryside. And some interesting, if maybe slightly quaint, stately homes. Listen and think. Question. In your head if not aloud (though there is little danger of getting involved in a debate - that art has long been lost).
3. In other words, don't be a slave to the immediate. There is a place for the hands on, pastorally relevant conference, no doubt. But there is a danger of imprisonment in the present as much as in the past, and we become slightly conceited about our ability to cope without a knowledge of church history and of great figures - and many not so great figures - of the past. There is so much back there that we do not know that is very relevant if we have patience to listen and learn.
And after all, there is always Costas and Caffe Nero nearby and Waterstones' second hand section a couple of hundred yards away. From 2011 I suppose it will be the opportunity for a spot of Christmas shopping in Oxford Street. Well, perhaps not...
Which is not to say that the Westminster Conference could not be improved. It could. But perhaps the biggest job is to sell it to a generation which is rapidly losing interest in what it stands for, and that would be a shame.
It was good; I always enjoy going, though I do not go every year. I also enjoy the trips to some of the local bookshops and innumerable coffee shops, and meeting friends. It is all part of the experience.
The six papers were good; one on the English Reformation by Garry Williams; on Puritan views on Roman Catholicism from Guy Davies; on the KJV from David Gregson and on Puritan views of Repentance and Faith from Sam Waldron. Daniel Webber led us through the religion and politics of the 1910 Missionary conference and Malcolm Maclean winsomely introduced us to Andrew Bonar.
But what is the point of the Westminster conference? This was the question put to me in a discussion with one of the relatively few young (under 50) men there. Had there been no attendance from LTS there would have been hardly any 'young' men.
You can see his point. An active, zealous young minister has limited time and money for conferences. Early December is a busy time of year. What is going to attract the highly prioritised time and money he has available? Does a series of relatively unconnected lectures on historical theology (with a bias towards the Puritans) do the job?
Does he not want something more dynamic, practical, forward looking, (dare one say it) obviously relevant? Already it sounds like a plug for the Carey conference (which I do not go to every year either).
Whilst sympathising with my young friend, I would like to suggest some good reasons for persevering with the Westminster/Euston/ Tottenham Court Road/Oxford Sreet conference.
1. Not everything needs to be immediately relevant or applicable. Sermons are like this. You want something that will lead to practice, but it doesn't have to be today. The Word works differently. It is seminal. So are addresses like those at Westminster - at least, the better ones, and usually they are very well researched and carefully thought out by the speakers. Be prepared to listen well to things that do not seem immediately applicable to life; you will invariably find one or both of two things happening: (i) what did not seem to hold out any practical promise will suddenly prove to be surprisingly relevant; (2) seeds will be sown that will bear fruit later.
2. Papers such as those we heard are like windows on areas of history, church life and theology that we would not otherwise visit. Look at the conference not as a working visit but as a bit of a holiday. Take a look at some unfamiliar countryside. And some interesting, if maybe slightly quaint, stately homes. Listen and think. Question. In your head if not aloud (though there is little danger of getting involved in a debate - that art has long been lost).
3. In other words, don't be a slave to the immediate. There is a place for the hands on, pastorally relevant conference, no doubt. But there is a danger of imprisonment in the present as much as in the past, and we become slightly conceited about our ability to cope without a knowledge of church history and of great figures - and many not so great figures - of the past. There is so much back there that we do not know that is very relevant if we have patience to listen and learn.
And after all, there is always Costas and Caffe Nero nearby and Waterstones' second hand section a couple of hundred yards away. From 2011 I suppose it will be the opportunity for a spot of Christmas shopping in Oxford Street. Well, perhaps not...
Which is not to say that the Westminster Conference could not be improved. It could. But perhaps the biggest job is to sell it to a generation which is rapidly losing interest in what it stands for, and that would be a shame.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
'Our Lord sprang from Judah'
From Hebrews 7:14, this phrase is not perhaps the most promising of texts for four sermons, but that is to calculate without the depth and scope of the preaching of Iain D. Campbell.
At the Reformation and Revival Fellowship Conference this week at Swanwick, Dr Campbell did what perhaps he does best (though one must not underestimate any of his many talents), and focussed on the Lord Jesus Christ through a lens provided by the Old Testament.
We were led first to the verse in Hebrews 7 then quickly to Genesis 38, recounting the sins of Judah against, and with, Tamar. Can't say I have ever heard this passage read and preached on at a conference before. But moving as he does effortlessly up and down the scales of biblical theology, Iain first showed us the sinfulness of God's covenant people, then the singularity of God's covenant purpose and then the sovereignty of God's covenant grace.
The second sermon was on Genesis 42-43, showing us the purposes of Joseph, Judah and God respectively. Joseph was testing his brothers; God tests us. Iain has had his own very real trials this summer but I was greatly impressed by his not mentioning his own afflictions in illustration of his point, though it would have been very much to the point. Many ministers today can't wait to thrust in a personal illustration; and we end up seeing more of the preacher than of Christ.
Judah's purpose was to be a pledge for his younger brother, and we were immediately taken to the cross, and Christ our surety. 'I shall lose none of those you have given me' (John 6:39).
God's purpose of course is for good, and we believe this when reason fails. Faith is reasonable, but sometimes faith has to fly solo and to places reason cannot go and cannot reach.
The third in this series was on Genesis 49, showing that the great characteristic of Judah is to be the one from whom the sceptre shall not depart, till it comes to 'him to whom it belongs' (however one interprets 'Shiloh'). Christ as prophet, priest and King was shown to us, especially the last, and how God's weakness is infinitely stronger than men.
Finally we were taken to Revelation 5, to the Lion of Judah. Christ the Lion roars in the proclamation of the gospel. We were reminded of Robert Bruce's rebuke to James VI of Scotland who chatted through a sermon - when the Lion of Judah roars in the preaching, it behoves all petty kings of the earth to remain silent.
This was a wonderful series.
We were also greatly helped, moved and encouraged by Faith Cook on John Bunyan and spiritual warfare and by Geoff Thomas making Brownlow North come alive in three dimensions.
The sermons should be availabe in due course on the RRF website www.reformationand revival.org.uk, and CDs can be ordered. Next year's conference is 21-23 November.
At the Reformation and Revival Fellowship Conference this week at Swanwick, Dr Campbell did what perhaps he does best (though one must not underestimate any of his many talents), and focussed on the Lord Jesus Christ through a lens provided by the Old Testament.
We were led first to the verse in Hebrews 7 then quickly to Genesis 38, recounting the sins of Judah against, and with, Tamar. Can't say I have ever heard this passage read and preached on at a conference before. But moving as he does effortlessly up and down the scales of biblical theology, Iain first showed us the sinfulness of God's covenant people, then the singularity of God's covenant purpose and then the sovereignty of God's covenant grace.
The second sermon was on Genesis 42-43, showing us the purposes of Joseph, Judah and God respectively. Joseph was testing his brothers; God tests us. Iain has had his own very real trials this summer but I was greatly impressed by his not mentioning his own afflictions in illustration of his point, though it would have been very much to the point. Many ministers today can't wait to thrust in a personal illustration; and we end up seeing more of the preacher than of Christ.
Judah's purpose was to be a pledge for his younger brother, and we were immediately taken to the cross, and Christ our surety. 'I shall lose none of those you have given me' (John 6:39).
God's purpose of course is for good, and we believe this when reason fails. Faith is reasonable, but sometimes faith has to fly solo and to places reason cannot go and cannot reach.
The third in this series was on Genesis 49, showing that the great characteristic of Judah is to be the one from whom the sceptre shall not depart, till it comes to 'him to whom it belongs' (however one interprets 'Shiloh'). Christ as prophet, priest and King was shown to us, especially the last, and how God's weakness is infinitely stronger than men.
Finally we were taken to Revelation 5, to the Lion of Judah. Christ the Lion roars in the proclamation of the gospel. We were reminded of Robert Bruce's rebuke to James VI of Scotland who chatted through a sermon - when the Lion of Judah roars in the preaching, it behoves all petty kings of the earth to remain silent.
This was a wonderful series.
We were also greatly helped, moved and encouraged by Faith Cook on John Bunyan and spiritual warfare and by Geoff Thomas making Brownlow North come alive in three dimensions.
The sermons should be availabe in due course on the RRF website www.reformationand revival.org.uk, and CDs can be ordered. Next year's conference is 21-23 November.
Saturday, 9 October 2010
Regeneration
Having just read the article of this title by Charles Hodge in 'Princeton vs. the New Divinity' (Banner of Truth, 2001) I have been struck again by the beauty, majesty, mystery and necessity of this wonderful work of God.
Hodge is arguing against a view of regeneraton that greatly reduces its radical nature and it impact on the sinner's life. It was this kind of view which was influential in the evangelism of such as Charles Finney. Hodge's arguments, which from an impatient 21st century viewpoint seem somewhat laboured, are nonetheless penetrating and weighty.
He insists that regeneration is not a 'physical' change in the substance of the soul, though there is in Calvinist orthodoxy the insistence that it is a real, immediate and direct work of the Holy Spirit producing a moral change. It is far more than mere moral persuasion on the mind. Behind this is a view of the depravity of man, something which characteristically Calvinists grasp more firmly than other evangelical traditions, and which the 'New Divinity' (and we might say modern evangelicalism generally,) has lost. Such a view of 'total' depravity means a monergistic work of God (i.e. God working alone) is essential, even though the soul becomes active in conversion, in repentance and faith. But the first work of giving new life has to be God's.
Hodge is also insistent that regeneration does not produce simply acts of holiness, but a holy disposition, or nature. Behind our acts, he argues, there is not just the substance of our soul (whatever that is) but a disposition to act in such and such a way. The heart that loves God is not made holy in the act of loving God, but has been made holy by a prior act of God and then it acts in a holy manner by loving God. Only if 'born anew' by the Spirit will the soul see God as lovely and as an object to be loved. No choice for God would ever be made without that prior, God- given disposition, which then controls in principle every act of the regenerate person.
How does God effect this new birth? There is mystery here which in a way we do not need to plumb. But if it is not a 'physical' change in the 'substance' of the soul then what is it? Perhaps we can think of what it means for the soul to be 'dead' in trespasses and sins. Unless it is dead it does not need to be made alive, yet 'made alive' is what we are told the soul is. 'Dead' is not a state so much as a relation to God. To be spiritually dead means to be under his wrath, turned out of his gracious presence, and potentially eternally punished in this existence.
To be made alive then would be a reversal of this. It is not a physical change so much as a moral one, a relational one. This is where the Scriptures point to our union with Christ, effected by the Spirit, as the source of our being born again. We are made alive together with him (Eph 2:5); we are born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Peter 1:3). It is this union which gives new life. Such union does not add anything new to the soul, and it certainly is more than a change of our actions; it is a renewal of our relationship with God, a renewal of our nature in Christ, so that our nature is now transformed in union with him and is conformed to his. This is the new life.
How could God stoop to do this to vile sinners? Grace. Election. Blood that cleanses from every sin. The sacrifice of Christ.
How wonderful is regeneration. How beautiful. How mysterious. How necessary.
Hodge is arguing against a view of regeneraton that greatly reduces its radical nature and it impact on the sinner's life. It was this kind of view which was influential in the evangelism of such as Charles Finney. Hodge's arguments, which from an impatient 21st century viewpoint seem somewhat laboured, are nonetheless penetrating and weighty.
He insists that regeneration is not a 'physical' change in the substance of the soul, though there is in Calvinist orthodoxy the insistence that it is a real, immediate and direct work of the Holy Spirit producing a moral change. It is far more than mere moral persuasion on the mind. Behind this is a view of the depravity of man, something which characteristically Calvinists grasp more firmly than other evangelical traditions, and which the 'New Divinity' (and we might say modern evangelicalism generally,) has lost. Such a view of 'total' depravity means a monergistic work of God (i.e. God working alone) is essential, even though the soul becomes active in conversion, in repentance and faith. But the first work of giving new life has to be God's.
Hodge is also insistent that regeneration does not produce simply acts of holiness, but a holy disposition, or nature. Behind our acts, he argues, there is not just the substance of our soul (whatever that is) but a disposition to act in such and such a way. The heart that loves God is not made holy in the act of loving God, but has been made holy by a prior act of God and then it acts in a holy manner by loving God. Only if 'born anew' by the Spirit will the soul see God as lovely and as an object to be loved. No choice for God would ever be made without that prior, God- given disposition, which then controls in principle every act of the regenerate person.
How does God effect this new birth? There is mystery here which in a way we do not need to plumb. But if it is not a 'physical' change in the 'substance' of the soul then what is it? Perhaps we can think of what it means for the soul to be 'dead' in trespasses and sins. Unless it is dead it does not need to be made alive, yet 'made alive' is what we are told the soul is. 'Dead' is not a state so much as a relation to God. To be spiritually dead means to be under his wrath, turned out of his gracious presence, and potentially eternally punished in this existence.
To be made alive then would be a reversal of this. It is not a physical change so much as a moral one, a relational one. This is where the Scriptures point to our union with Christ, effected by the Spirit, as the source of our being born again. We are made alive together with him (Eph 2:5); we are born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Peter 1:3). It is this union which gives new life. Such union does not add anything new to the soul, and it certainly is more than a change of our actions; it is a renewal of our relationship with God, a renewal of our nature in Christ, so that our nature is now transformed in union with him and is conformed to his. This is the new life.
How could God stoop to do this to vile sinners? Grace. Election. Blood that cleanses from every sin. The sacrifice of Christ.
How wonderful is regeneration. How beautiful. How mysterious. How necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)