Sunday, February 26, 2006

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES &
THE TROJAN HORSE!


While trawling through blog world I came
across some Christians whose love for a
particular version of the Bible seems to
have affected their better judgement. The
result is that they are unwittingly conceding
the argument we have with JWs over the
Trinity.

Let me explain; these Christians argument goes as
follows:- certain modern Bible versions relegate
one particular verse to the footnotes [eg 1 John 5v7].
This verse has a strong Trinitarian content but has
generally been thought to be a later addition. So
these good hearted Christians are naturally outraged
and decry this as a terrible compromise of a critical
Bible doctrine. they insist that only their favoured
Bible translation faithfully reflects this truth and that
real Christians should stick to this one and reject
other, more modern,translations as fatally flawed.

At this point I could imagine an onlooking Jehovah's
Witness smiling and saying, "so you are telling me
that the whole edifice of Trinitarian theology stands
or falls on a handful of verses in one Bible translation
which are disputed by the majority of the original texts?!"
I bet he or she couldn't believe their luck when they
turned up on your doorstep!

Of course the whole argument is vacuous. One verse
may be disputed, but the doctrine of the Trinity rests on
infinitely more evidence than that. Our Christian bloggers
have made a well intentioned but dreadful error of
judgement in implying the critical nature of Bible versions
in this matter.

I would suggest, for starters, that one looks up the
prophecies attributed to Jehovah (upper case LORD in
most regular Bibles) which are subsequently fulfilled by
Jesus Christ. One also needs to check out what Jesus
claimed for himself, John chapter 8 has some interesting
surprises.

If any JW out there in blog world wants to take issue with
me I am open for comments. [Comments mark you - over
lengthy sermons WILL be deleted - you can use your own
blog space for that!]

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

ST HELEN'S BISHOPSGATE,
LONDON.

Exactly fifteen years ago today, in 1991, I made the
move from Yorkshire to London thinking I would only
be here for a year or two. How wrong can you be?
I have been here half my adult life which is quite a
scary thought.

I have enjoyed London it is a great city with a real
buzz, but it can also be a rootless sort of place too,
where we all live together in civilised indifference.
As much as I have loved being a Londoner I cannot
say that this is where I would wish to retire. I am
of an age when I want to put down some solid roots
within a smaller community.

I am really pleased that I joined a good church within
a few days of my arrival and I've stayed a member
there since. It has been an enormous privilege to be
part of St Helen's Bishopsgate where the Bible
teaching has been second to none. I would never have
believed that I would end up in an Anglican church
coming -as I had- from a strictly free, charismatic sort
of church background. The fact is I had grown weary
of simplistic theology and pop prophecy but knew
enough to know that I craved some solid spiritual food
and that is something St Helen's has in spades. The
church also provided me with some sense of community
in an otherwise anonymous city.

It always seems rather a curious allegation that
Christians in general and evangelicals in particular are
"unthinking". The truth is as a Christian living in a
materialistic society I have been compelled to think
through so many issues and sift my own motivations
as God's word does it's work. You cannot simply
drift with the spirit of the age and be a committed
Christian - you have to swim against the current and
that requires thoughtful commitment from the heart.
Of course at this point the gainsayers will say that
St Helen's is too "intellectual" - you can't win can you?
Either Christians are too unthinking or they think too
much, if you're not guilty of the one they'll get you on
the other! You have to laugh don't you? It seems to me
that it isn't helpful to pay too much attention to the
attitude of the world.

Anyway! My point is if you are thinking of coming to
London and you're looking for a church why not
check us out!

www.st-helens.org.uk

I should add that the views expressed in this blog are
entirely my own as a member of St Helen's and it should
not be inferred that they represent any official position
of that church.
God Bless.






---------------------------------------------------------
tagline: Peter Swift. 1991. Guy's Hospital. London.
SHB. St Helen's. St Helen's Bishopsgate.
---------------------------------------------------------




Saturday, February 11, 2006

Patrick Sookhdeo.

Patrick Sookhdeo heads up a couple of Christian organisations
and has the ear of some of the leading lights of the evangelical
church in the UK. He has had some quite extensive exposure
in the evangelical press in this country - but I have a problem
with him.

It seems to me that while he consistently talks up the threat
presented by Islam in the UK he does not offer a genuinely
Christian analysis of that problem. He presents Islam as a
terrible threat and leaves it at that. This -it seems to me- is
woefully inadequate. As a Christian I need to know how to
respond Christianly to this issue and that is something
Sookhdeo consistently fails to give a lead on. What strikes
me about his writing is the gracelessness of it all....as if
the Gospel has nothing to say about how Christians should
respond to these sorts of challenges. I do not deny that
there is a challenge - that is not the point at issue here -
the lack of guidance is the issue I have with Sookhdeo.

In last December's issue of the Barnabas Fund's magazine
was an insert requesting information from churches in the
UK about Muslim attacks on believers here. First up; if such
attacks do occur I will deplore them, but I do not have
sufficient confidence in Sookhdeo to collate such information.
It seems to me that he is only too willing to talk up the threat
level rather than dispassionately sift the evidence. What
standard of proof is he looking for? Beyond reasonable doubt?
Balance of probability? Reasonable suspicion? What if some
church premises are vandalised or a white happens to be
mugged by an asian looking guy - will these events be
classified as Muslims persecuting Christians?

A couple of years ago a friend of mine (who happens to be an
elder of an inner city church) was threatened by a gang of
asian youths. The fact that this was a drug gang resisting the
influence of the local church may not register as such with
Sookhdeo. Will this be clocked up as a Muslim attack? Will
he be that picky?

Reviewing his articles in the Evangelical press in 2005 the
striking feature is that they could be lifted and reprinted
in publications of the far right. They wouldn't even need to
edit out the Gospel because it's not there. That is what
troubles me about his message.........it is not authentically
Christian.

Saturday, February 04, 2006

THE DANISH CARTOON ROW!
& a Christian response to it.

In today's Guardian newspaper in the UK
there is an excellent letter from Joel Edwards,
General Director of the Evangelical Alliance.

"In a week when many celebrated the defence of
free speech in the racial and religious hatred bill,
but then had to swallow the consequences of
liberty with the BNP [British National Party]
court case victory, we are presented with
another challenge. Islam is known as a religion
of peace. In light of the controversial publication
of Danish cartoons showing the prophet Muhammad,
here is an opportunity to engage with a bemused
public and sceptical press about Islam and to
recognise that in a liberal democracy arguments
must be won through engagement and not
intimidation. The Evangelical Alliance supports
the Muslim Council of Britain for distancing itself
from violence. As Christians we understand only
too well the pain still caused by seeing one's faith
ridiculed, but urge Muslims to defend their beliefs
through dialogue."

The letter can be found on page 35 of The Guardian,
Saturday, 4th February 2006.


Post-Script. 7th Feb 06.
I had a letter of my own published in today's
Guardian regarding the police reaction to the
slogans used at last Friday's demo in London.

"The police have been unfairly criticised in my
view for taking a softly softly approach to the
inflammatory rhetoric at what was otherwise
a peaceful demonstration. What would the
headlines have said if they had waded in purely
on the strength of the language used? It's time
to take a deep breath and calm down."

Thursday, February 02, 2006

VOLTAIRE on Doubt & Certainty!

February 2006's thought from my agnostic
calendar is; "Doubt is not a pleasant condition,
but certainty is absurd." Voltaire.

On balance I'm with Voltaire on this one. One would
need to be all wise and omniscient to have the certainty
Voltaire alludes to. Humans are limited in time and
space, so our knowledge can only ever be provisional
and tentative.

Jesus does not despise the faith of the man who cries
"I believe, help my unbelief!" Mark 9v24. And the
Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 talks about "knowing
in part...the partial passing away...giving up childish
ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly...Now I know
in part; then I shall fully know, even as I have been
fully known". Paul can say this because he grasps that
the Gospel isn't merely a set of propositions. It IS
propositional, but it is not JUST a set of propositions.
Paul realises that Christians need to grow into those
truths and we won't know it all this side of heaven. It
would be absurd to imply that the instant a Christian
becomes a Christian - crash, bang, wallop he or she
should know everything with certainty. A disciple is
"a work in progress!" There isn't a problem with the
transmitter but there is a problem with the receiver.
The Christian knows this and asks the Holy Spirit to
help him grow in understanding. This is why we are
called disciples and not sooth-sayers. God does not
require us to be superhuman - merely to recognise
that we are human.

Christians teach "the sufficiency of scripture", not
that it's a comprehensive compendium of all possible
knowledge, past, present and future. Rather it is
better to say that scripture is sufficient for us to
have confidence to direct the believer in matters of
faith and conduct. That is the common sense approach
.....and that is what it claims for itself.

It seems to me that real life never deals in "certainty".
Nor do we live our lives in a haze of doubt. Voltaire is
in danger of setting up "doubt" and "certainty" as a
false dichotomy when real life actually resides between
those two. In 1980 I did my first [and only] solo parachute
jump. Was I "certain" the parachute would work? Well,
actually no - I couldn't claim certainty for it or for the
reserve if the main failed. Does that mean I was in "doubt"?
Well; no - I wouldn't have left the ground if I was - instead
I made a judgement, one I was prepared to act on. We make
similar judgements each day in real life, well away from the
absurdities thrown up by the extremes of language [what
happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable
object - sort of thing!] To ask, am I "certain" I will arrive
safely home from work today? Or am I "certain" this salmon
mousse I am about to eat won't kill me? isn't how real life
actually ticks is it? We do not have that degree of control
and autonomy. What we do is make a judgement call. Just
as I entrusted myself to the parachute all those years ago
I am now entrusting myself to Christ - I have made a
judgement and believe he is trustworthy.

"Certainty" [or at least the desire for it] is more to do with
a desire for autonomy - being an island "entire of itself" and
making a "judgement" turns on what one has trusted in -
the recognition of the limitations of oneself and ones
connectedness with things outside of oneself, which inherently
mean dependence...and risk...as all relationships do. A child
(unaware of the dangers of electricity) who is told not to
stick it's fingers in the electric socket must make a judgement
call - to trust the carer or to believe the worst of them - it
cannot "know" autonomously.

"Certainty" is indeed absurd, but perhaps we can say that
"doubt in oneself " is the beginning of wisdom.


tag-line. Voltaire. Calendar of Doom. Certainty. Doubt.