"First of all I will confess quite freely - I believe that the Bible alone is the answer to all our questions, and that we need only to ask repeatedly and a little humbly, in order to receive the answer. One cannot simply read the Bible, like other books. One must be prepared really to enquire of it. Only thus will it reveal itself. Only if we expect from it the ultimate answer, shall we receive it. That is because in the Bible God speaks to us. And one cannot simply think about God in one's own strength, one has to enquire of him. Only if we seek him, will he answer us. Of course it is also possible to read the Bible like any other book, that is to say from the point of view of textual criticism, etc.; there is nothing to be said against that. Only that that is not the method which will reveal to us the heart of the Bible, but only the surface, just as we do not grasp the words of someone we love by taking them to bits, but by simply receiving them, so that for days they go on lingering in our minds, simply because they are the words of a person we love; and just as those words reveal more and more of the person who said them as we go on, like Mary, 'pondering them in our heart', so it will be with the words of the Bible. Only if we will venture to enter into the words of the Bible as though in them this God were speaking to us who loves us and does not will us to leave us along with our questions, only so shall we learn to rejoice in the Bible...
"And I would like to tell you now quite personally: since I have learnt to read the Bible in this way - and this has not been for very long - it becomes every day more wonderful to me. I read it in the morning and the evening, often during the day as well, and every day I consider a text I have chosen for the whole week, and try to sink deeply into it, so as really to hear what it is saying. I know that without this I could not live properly any longer."
Quoted in 'Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy' by Eric Metaxas, p 136.
Friday, 27 May 2011
Monday, 16 May 2011
A Trip to Sri Lanka
Things have been quiet here recently largely because I was in Sri Lanka for two weeks after Easter. Rarely have I been so conscious of the meaning of Paul's thanksgiving to 'the Lord who has given me strength' - physical health and stamina which enabled me to preach or teach (through interpreters) some 26 times in the time I was there, including sessions at the youth conference (four studies on Jonah and two from Mark’s gospel), the Christian workers’ conference (twelve sessions on the doctrines of man, sin and the church) and Sunday services and Bible studies. Thankfully I suffered no illness and though tired after it all I was able to complete everything that was asked of me. The spiritual fruit must be left up to God and for this we can still pray.
Perhaps the greatest privileges in ministry were three unexpected ones: to preach at a baptism service on the beach where 27 young people were baptised – I knew this was going to happen but was not asked to preach until the evening before; to preach at a wedding in a village about 15 miles from Trincomalee; and to preach at a funeral where the immediate family was Christian but the wider family was Hindu, so 60 or more Hindus heard the gospel.
Our base was the children’s home run by the Lanka Evangelical Fellowship of Churches near Trincomalee on the north east coast of Sri Lanka. The people were predominantly Tamil Christians though some Sinhalese speakers were among us. The LEFC has 27 churches, all but two being Tamil. My travelling companions were Gary Donaldson the secretary of the LEFC in England, and Pastor Jeyekanth, its founder; Alan Peel, a young man from Liverpool came with us to help out at the children’s home. For the first week there was also a small group of young German Christians from a church in Koblenz.
Much of the strain of a trip such as this is the coping with all that is new and strange –the heat and humidity, the language, food, habits, and the sheer unpredictability of each day – ‘take things a day at a time’ has never been so meaningful. Plans would change frequently. For example the workers’ studies changed from being three each day over four days, to three days of five, three and four studies respectively.
It was not all work; we made some memorable trips into the ‘bush’ to visit village churches, and saw elephants, monkeys, snakes, buffalo and beautiful birds, all without leaving the vehicle. The last two days were spent in the tea plantation areas of Hatton, in the hill country east of Colombo and south of Kandy: beautiful scenery, tea picking and production as it has been going on for generations, and memorable fellowship with local Christians.
The crying need of this group of Reformed Baptist churches is a trained leadership. The men are good gospel men, utterly dedicated to Christ, his people and his work, their evangelistic zeal proven by the number of churches planted in the last 15 years. Yet the pastors need theological education; able young men need training and the opportunity to come through as leaders. Pray for pastor Jeyekanth as he and others wrestle with these issues.
Perhaps the greatest privileges in ministry were three unexpected ones: to preach at a baptism service on the beach where 27 young people were baptised – I knew this was going to happen but was not asked to preach until the evening before; to preach at a wedding in a village about 15 miles from Trincomalee; and to preach at a funeral where the immediate family was Christian but the wider family was Hindu, so 60 or more Hindus heard the gospel.
Our base was the children’s home run by the Lanka Evangelical Fellowship of Churches near Trincomalee on the north east coast of Sri Lanka. The people were predominantly Tamil Christians though some Sinhalese speakers were among us. The LEFC has 27 churches, all but two being Tamil. My travelling companions were Gary Donaldson the secretary of the LEFC in England, and Pastor Jeyekanth, its founder; Alan Peel, a young man from Liverpool came with us to help out at the children’s home. For the first week there was also a small group of young German Christians from a church in Koblenz.
Much of the strain of a trip such as this is the coping with all that is new and strange –the heat and humidity, the language, food, habits, and the sheer unpredictability of each day – ‘take things a day at a time’ has never been so meaningful. Plans would change frequently. For example the workers’ studies changed from being three each day over four days, to three days of five, three and four studies respectively.
It was not all work; we made some memorable trips into the ‘bush’ to visit village churches, and saw elephants, monkeys, snakes, buffalo and beautiful birds, all without leaving the vehicle. The last two days were spent in the tea plantation areas of Hatton, in the hill country east of Colombo and south of Kandy: beautiful scenery, tea picking and production as it has been going on for generations, and memorable fellowship with local Christians.
The crying need of this group of Reformed Baptist churches is a trained leadership. The men are good gospel men, utterly dedicated to Christ, his people and his work, their evangelistic zeal proven by the number of churches planted in the last 15 years. Yet the pastors need theological education; able young men need training and the opportunity to come through as leaders. Pray for pastor Jeyekanth as he and others wrestle with these issues.
Friday, 15 April 2011
Banner of Truth Conference 2011
Back again after the annual pilgrimage to Leicester. A lot of the same faces, some new ones, some familiar ones not there - Gary Brady where were you? It seems no time at all since I was a newcomer; now I am introduced to visitors from abroad as an old stager.
The location was slightly different - smaller Digby Hall for our meetings while the Gilbert Murray is being refurbished or demolished. A good enough venue with a spacious bookroom - better than the usual black hole of Calcutta. But there was a quarter of a mile walk to and from the dining room. Coffee and tea in the accommodation blocks was in a central kitchen not in the rooms - which unfortunately some punters did not discover till the last night. Mind you, it was a lot easier to get to morning coffee in the marquee just outside the meeting room - and also after meals in the dining hall - not the usual scrums and queues.
The cooked breakfasts were good; I skipped lunch but enjoyed excellent evening meals at least on Tuesday and Wednesday; the chicken on Monday evening could have done sterling service as a bouncy ball.
One additional attraction in the region is that the nearby village of Oadby now boasts a Costa's - nice for a break in the afternoons, unless you were playing football.
And the ministry? In the opening sermon Stephen Curry began searching our spiritual lives from Matthew 6 - the imperative of a secret prayer life where the Father sees. Martin Holdt challenged us all on our experience of the Holy Spirit in personal life and preaching. Lewis Allen challenged us on our love for Christ and our longing for him. Iain Murray, standing in for Ted Donnelly, gave two very thoughtful expositions of John 17 and a biography of Archibald Brown, a wonderful Baptist pastor in London in the late 19th and early 20th century. In a 'short' slot one morning, Geoff Thomas gave us a clear and passionate reminder to preach nothing less than the free offer of the gospel.
In his closing sermon from John 17, Mr Murray referred back to Stephen Curry's opening sermon, and said: if there is no public reward evident in our ministries, is this a reflection of not much going on in secret?
For many the highlight was Phil Arthur's brilliant paper on William Tyndale - a masterclass in how to turn a historical lecture into a sermon!
So 'a challenge to our personal spiritual life' was the theme (at least for me) from the conference. The messages dovetailed and reinforced each other. Yet it would be unfair to suggest that the preachers only challenged us about our spiritual lives. There was constant exhortation and direction to put Christ first in our love, our lives and our preaching.
A non-scheduled meeting was that, late on Wednesday evening, of the 'Tafia' (the Welsh 'mafia'). A small group this year. We invited that well known Welshman Ian Hamilton along, and we discussed why the conference was so much lower in numbers than in the past . In 2006 - 370 men, last year 270; this year, 170. Holidays? No Ted Donnelly? Younger men going elsewhere? New Word Alive the same week? Not scratching where men are itching? Cost? Not-so-well-known speakers?
It's difficult to tell; no doubt the Banner could improve in places; it is still notoriously unfriendly for first timers - very little practical information is given to help people who do not know where to go and what to do - eg simple things like where to find a hot drink at night. Get a woman in on the organisation!
But the values of the Banner need to be communicated. Men who are excited by Reformed things today are excited by John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller , C.J. Mahaney, not by the speakers and ethos of Banner. Maybe the Banner will not be as big as before. But it would be good to find out why and do one's best to explain to the disenchanted what it is aiming at.
The location was slightly different - smaller Digby Hall for our meetings while the Gilbert Murray is being refurbished or demolished. A good enough venue with a spacious bookroom - better than the usual black hole of Calcutta. But there was a quarter of a mile walk to and from the dining room. Coffee and tea in the accommodation blocks was in a central kitchen not in the rooms - which unfortunately some punters did not discover till the last night. Mind you, it was a lot easier to get to morning coffee in the marquee just outside the meeting room - and also after meals in the dining hall - not the usual scrums and queues.
The cooked breakfasts were good; I skipped lunch but enjoyed excellent evening meals at least on Tuesday and Wednesday; the chicken on Monday evening could have done sterling service as a bouncy ball.
One additional attraction in the region is that the nearby village of Oadby now boasts a Costa's - nice for a break in the afternoons, unless you were playing football.
And the ministry? In the opening sermon Stephen Curry began searching our spiritual lives from Matthew 6 - the imperative of a secret prayer life where the Father sees. Martin Holdt challenged us all on our experience of the Holy Spirit in personal life and preaching. Lewis Allen challenged us on our love for Christ and our longing for him. Iain Murray, standing in for Ted Donnelly, gave two very thoughtful expositions of John 17 and a biography of Archibald Brown, a wonderful Baptist pastor in London in the late 19th and early 20th century. In a 'short' slot one morning, Geoff Thomas gave us a clear and passionate reminder to preach nothing less than the free offer of the gospel.
In his closing sermon from John 17, Mr Murray referred back to Stephen Curry's opening sermon, and said: if there is no public reward evident in our ministries, is this a reflection of not much going on in secret?
For many the highlight was Phil Arthur's brilliant paper on William Tyndale - a masterclass in how to turn a historical lecture into a sermon!
So 'a challenge to our personal spiritual life' was the theme (at least for me) from the conference. The messages dovetailed and reinforced each other. Yet it would be unfair to suggest that the preachers only challenged us about our spiritual lives. There was constant exhortation and direction to put Christ first in our love, our lives and our preaching.
A non-scheduled meeting was that, late on Wednesday evening, of the 'Tafia' (the Welsh 'mafia'). A small group this year. We invited that well known Welshman Ian Hamilton along, and we discussed why the conference was so much lower in numbers than in the past . In 2006 - 370 men, last year 270; this year, 170. Holidays? No Ted Donnelly? Younger men going elsewhere? New Word Alive the same week? Not scratching where men are itching? Cost? Not-so-well-known speakers?
It's difficult to tell; no doubt the Banner could improve in places; it is still notoriously unfriendly for first timers - very little practical information is given to help people who do not know where to go and what to do - eg simple things like where to find a hot drink at night. Get a woman in on the organisation!
But the values of the Banner need to be communicated. Men who are excited by Reformed things today are excited by John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller , C.J. Mahaney, not by the speakers and ethos of Banner. Maybe the Banner will not be as big as before. But it would be good to find out why and do one's best to explain to the disenchanted what it is aiming at.
Saturday, 26 March 2011
A kind of madness
'It is one of those times when I feel estranged from the country and not comprehending of what we are doing and why everyone is so gung-ho for it all'.
I was so glad to read those words of Rod Liddle in 'The Spectator' today. It is just what I have been feeling since the UN went to war in Libya. I could not understand it, yet no-one seemed to be shocked by it. Even opposition politicians were docile. Apparently only 13 MPs voted against it. 'The Spectator' notes that the moon was very close to the earth last weekend. Perhaps it is all a kind of lunacy.
I understand that Gaddafi is a nasty piece of work and probably a kind of lunatic himself. But then he has been for 40 years. I can understand too that he is cruelly treating the rebels. But - so are the Syrians and the Yemenis. When are French, British and American warplanes going to bomb their armouries? And what of Robert Mugabe who has been brutal not to rebels but to peaceful citizens of Zimbabwe for years?
Why are the UN and Nato and Britain and America so selective in their application of high flown principles?
What hypocritical bilge is William Hague spewing forth as he (who cannot get even a couple of planes off the ground to remove British citizens before the fighting started) talks of this moment as more significant than anything else in recent history, or some such hogwash?
Why do they pretend it is not about 'regime change' when they also speak openly about getting rid of Gaddafi? Why do they have no idea about what they are actually aiming at; or what to do if Gaddafi goes; or if he stays and fights; or if the Arab League decides that after all western planes bombing Arab cities is not such a pretty sight and withdraw their already luke-warm support?
Why does a new Prime Minister, after the debacle of Iraq, decide that in his first year he too must take some supposedly moral high ground and engage in yet another foreign adventure?
If there were not oil at stake, would it be different? Perhaps that is Zimbabwe's problem; it does not mean enough to western economic interests.
Gaddafi is after all an authority ordained by God and though I am enough of a Calvinist to believe in the right of revolution against tyrants, I seriously question the right of other nations to move against a ruler in support of rebels. Say the 250,000 plus in London today turned nasty and made a serious attempt on the seat of government or 10, Downing Street (though I expect Mr Cameron was well away from there) - how long would it be before our government too turned guns on its own people? What do governments do, after all? How will the western powers decide when and when not to support a rebellion? And what succour their action will give to potential rebels in other countries. Perhaps, even their own. Then, indeed, the gung-ho approach in north Africa will come back to haunt them.
'Estranged' is a good word for how I feel about this latest military escapade, whatever sympathy I may have for the subjects of Gaddafi. But then, maybe there are more like me, apart from Rod Liddle.
I was so glad to read those words of Rod Liddle in 'The Spectator' today. It is just what I have been feeling since the UN went to war in Libya. I could not understand it, yet no-one seemed to be shocked by it. Even opposition politicians were docile. Apparently only 13 MPs voted against it. 'The Spectator' notes that the moon was very close to the earth last weekend. Perhaps it is all a kind of lunacy.
I understand that Gaddafi is a nasty piece of work and probably a kind of lunatic himself. But then he has been for 40 years. I can understand too that he is cruelly treating the rebels. But - so are the Syrians and the Yemenis. When are French, British and American warplanes going to bomb their armouries? And what of Robert Mugabe who has been brutal not to rebels but to peaceful citizens of Zimbabwe for years?
Why are the UN and Nato and Britain and America so selective in their application of high flown principles?
What hypocritical bilge is William Hague spewing forth as he (who cannot get even a couple of planes off the ground to remove British citizens before the fighting started) talks of this moment as more significant than anything else in recent history, or some such hogwash?
Why do they pretend it is not about 'regime change' when they also speak openly about getting rid of Gaddafi? Why do they have no idea about what they are actually aiming at; or what to do if Gaddafi goes; or if he stays and fights; or if the Arab League decides that after all western planes bombing Arab cities is not such a pretty sight and withdraw their already luke-warm support?
Why does a new Prime Minister, after the debacle of Iraq, decide that in his first year he too must take some supposedly moral high ground and engage in yet another foreign adventure?
If there were not oil at stake, would it be different? Perhaps that is Zimbabwe's problem; it does not mean enough to western economic interests.
Gaddafi is after all an authority ordained by God and though I am enough of a Calvinist to believe in the right of revolution against tyrants, I seriously question the right of other nations to move against a ruler in support of rebels. Say the 250,000 plus in London today turned nasty and made a serious attempt on the seat of government or 10, Downing Street (though I expect Mr Cameron was well away from there) - how long would it be before our government too turned guns on its own people? What do governments do, after all? How will the western powers decide when and when not to support a rebellion? And what succour their action will give to potential rebels in other countries. Perhaps, even their own. Then, indeed, the gung-ho approach in north Africa will come back to haunt them.
'Estranged' is a good word for how I feel about this latest military escapade, whatever sympathy I may have for the subjects of Gaddafi. But then, maybe there are more like me, apart from Rod Liddle.
Monday, 7 March 2011
The Johns, Equality and Diversity
Two new goddesses have been dominating the pantheon of public ideology in the last decade. Rather as Paul's discourse in Athens led the philosophers there to hear him further on 'Jesus ' and 'Anastasis' ('Resurrection') so 'Equality' and 'Diversity' are the latest divinities to entrance the public imagination.
Unlike the message Paul proclaimed, though, which, however it might have been initially misunderstood, could have done nothing but good to the intellectually curious but spiritually confused Athenians, this current pair are themselves a couple of faded old harridans who are doing nothing but harm.
Take 'Equality' for example. She used to be a beauty. Every man or woman stood equal before God. Arising out of this, every man or woman stood equal before the law. The person created in God's image was precious and was not to be maltreated. She proclaimed and protected, by law where necessary, the principle of strict justice in the treatment of individuals.
Time has not treated this old girl well. Her back is bent - principial scoliosis perhaps? She no longer stands erect to defend persons. She has been twisted to apply to ideologies. Not individuals, but beliefs, moral standards and values are all declared 'equal'. Not a person's right to hold them, but the ideas themselves. Poor old Equality. She was a handmaid to a higher principle and a maidservant of the true God, but now she has been tarted up and made into a goddess in her own right. She has been prostituted, in fact, to the service of a tyrant, the great god Relativism. She is not herself; she cannot be. For people are equal before God and before the law. Ideas are not. Some are wrong, even if in a free society we may defend a person's right to hold them; some ideas are right. But Relativism holds no ideas to be wrong other than, of course, the idea that something may be wrong. In Relativism's realm, only the statement that some statements are False is false; only the myth, so clear it is painted across the sky in letters of Scotch mist, that there are no Absolutes, is absolute.
And to this god Relativism, Equality, once so fair a maid, is a slave, a poor downtrodden thing, a shadow of her former self, so that people who once delighted in her feel ashamed to mention her or be acquainted with her. Because after all, she is not in truth the lady she once was. She is exploited to perpetrate the lie that all ideas are the same, instead of preserving the truth that all people are equal before God and the law.
Or take Diversity. She and Equality would be seen walking arm in arm, Diversity a delightful complement to her elder sister, preserving the truth that because all are equal, differences will be tolerated and even rejoiced in. Equality and Diversity therefore represented two sides of the same coin, and both could hold their heads high in a society that professed Christian values.
As Equality faded, however, inevitably Diversity was tarnished too. She now means in practice that 'whatever you believe or however you live will be tolerated'. Funnily enough, though, that is what the jaded version of Equality means too. As a Lady, Diversity complemented Equality; now she merely echoes her. As the servants of a higher God have become the slaves of a lesser god, they have become more and more alike. Sin does that. The two principles have become so alike that they have come to mean the same thing: anything goes.
Except of course, when someone comes along and says 'not everything is the same' and 'not everything goes'. Such as, for example, consistent Christians, like Mr and Mrs Johns who will not tell children who might be fostered to them that homosexuality is OK. They are quite right not to agree to say that, because it would truly be an offence to their conscience and against the law of God. Now the masks of Equality and Diversity slip and the ugly face of the real god behind them both, Relativism, is seen in his full horror. As Ladies, Equality and Diversity protected the weak; now these raddled old harpies devour human flesh.
The sheer irrationality of evil is also seen, for of course not everything does go. Not only does the view of the Johns 'not go' but the social workers and courts who have deprived the Johns of the right to foster children will of course not insist on foster parents telling children that paedophilia or bestiality are OK. At least, not this decade. But who makes up the rules? It is a sliding scale, a majority vote morality.
So we have the nonsense that perfectly good and wholesome homes like that of the Johns will be denied to many children who need love and stability and who need to know the meaning of absolutes and of Equality and Diversity in their unsullied youth, and the same poor children may instead be placed quite possibly with homosexual or lesbian couples who also worship at the altar of the god Relativism and the great qualifying factor is that they will 'affirm' children in any sexual choices they care to make. This, it appears, is the definition of 'supportive' in the kingdom of Relativism. To such doctrinaire nonsense are we reduced when we lose our grip on moral absolutes.
For whom should we weep? It is sad for people like the Johns of Derby. But it is a tragedy for society, for our nation. The salt of the earth is being confined to the salt cellar of private opinion; the light of the world is being extinguished in our land as Christians are pushed to the sidelines. Children are being sacrificed to the Molech of Relativism. The nation is cutting off the branch on which it sits as God's Word is ridiculed and rejected. It is for the nation we should pray, and ask God to raise up a generation of preachers whose voices he will cause to be heard.
Unlike the message Paul proclaimed, though, which, however it might have been initially misunderstood, could have done nothing but good to the intellectually curious but spiritually confused Athenians, this current pair are themselves a couple of faded old harridans who are doing nothing but harm.
Take 'Equality' for example. She used to be a beauty. Every man or woman stood equal before God. Arising out of this, every man or woman stood equal before the law. The person created in God's image was precious and was not to be maltreated. She proclaimed and protected, by law where necessary, the principle of strict justice in the treatment of individuals.
Time has not treated this old girl well. Her back is bent - principial scoliosis perhaps? She no longer stands erect to defend persons. She has been twisted to apply to ideologies. Not individuals, but beliefs, moral standards and values are all declared 'equal'. Not a person's right to hold them, but the ideas themselves. Poor old Equality. She was a handmaid to a higher principle and a maidservant of the true God, but now she has been tarted up and made into a goddess in her own right. She has been prostituted, in fact, to the service of a tyrant, the great god Relativism. She is not herself; she cannot be. For people are equal before God and before the law. Ideas are not. Some are wrong, even if in a free society we may defend a person's right to hold them; some ideas are right. But Relativism holds no ideas to be wrong other than, of course, the idea that something may be wrong. In Relativism's realm, only the statement that some statements are False is false; only the myth, so clear it is painted across the sky in letters of Scotch mist, that there are no Absolutes, is absolute.
And to this god Relativism, Equality, once so fair a maid, is a slave, a poor downtrodden thing, a shadow of her former self, so that people who once delighted in her feel ashamed to mention her or be acquainted with her. Because after all, she is not in truth the lady she once was. She is exploited to perpetrate the lie that all ideas are the same, instead of preserving the truth that all people are equal before God and the law.
Or take Diversity. She and Equality would be seen walking arm in arm, Diversity a delightful complement to her elder sister, preserving the truth that because all are equal, differences will be tolerated and even rejoiced in. Equality and Diversity therefore represented two sides of the same coin, and both could hold their heads high in a society that professed Christian values.
As Equality faded, however, inevitably Diversity was tarnished too. She now means in practice that 'whatever you believe or however you live will be tolerated'. Funnily enough, though, that is what the jaded version of Equality means too. As a Lady, Diversity complemented Equality; now she merely echoes her. As the servants of a higher God have become the slaves of a lesser god, they have become more and more alike. Sin does that. The two principles have become so alike that they have come to mean the same thing: anything goes.
Except of course, when someone comes along and says 'not everything is the same' and 'not everything goes'. Such as, for example, consistent Christians, like Mr and Mrs Johns who will not tell children who might be fostered to them that homosexuality is OK. They are quite right not to agree to say that, because it would truly be an offence to their conscience and against the law of God. Now the masks of Equality and Diversity slip and the ugly face of the real god behind them both, Relativism, is seen in his full horror. As Ladies, Equality and Diversity protected the weak; now these raddled old harpies devour human flesh.
The sheer irrationality of evil is also seen, for of course not everything does go. Not only does the view of the Johns 'not go' but the social workers and courts who have deprived the Johns of the right to foster children will of course not insist on foster parents telling children that paedophilia or bestiality are OK. At least, not this decade. But who makes up the rules? It is a sliding scale, a majority vote morality.
So we have the nonsense that perfectly good and wholesome homes like that of the Johns will be denied to many children who need love and stability and who need to know the meaning of absolutes and of Equality and Diversity in their unsullied youth, and the same poor children may instead be placed quite possibly with homosexual or lesbian couples who also worship at the altar of the god Relativism and the great qualifying factor is that they will 'affirm' children in any sexual choices they care to make. This, it appears, is the definition of 'supportive' in the kingdom of Relativism. To such doctrinaire nonsense are we reduced when we lose our grip on moral absolutes.
For whom should we weep? It is sad for people like the Johns of Derby. But it is a tragedy for society, for our nation. The salt of the earth is being confined to the salt cellar of private opinion; the light of the world is being extinguished in our land as Christians are pushed to the sidelines. Children are being sacrificed to the Molech of Relativism. The nation is cutting off the branch on which it sits as God's Word is ridiculed and rejected. It is for the nation we should pray, and ask God to raise up a generation of preachers whose voices he will cause to be heard.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Changing Times: the Christian in a secular society
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)