This is me on top of Helvellyn in the Lake District!
Monday, December 17, 2007
NURSING - IN SEARCH OF IDENTITY.
Imagine the scene. It is a busy ward in a large teaching hospital. A patient has collapsed, is unresponsive, there is no pulse. A "Crash Call" goes out. The nurses start cardiac massage. The 'resus' trolley is wheeled up, the de-fib fetched. The 'Crash Team' come running up the corridor. Cannula inserted, nervous fingers snap open ampoules. Adrenaline, Calcium, DC shock. No output. As the drama unfolds a nurse steps forward and commences massage - not cardiac massage but foot massage.
In the ensuing exchange of conversation with the Senior Registrar, the nurse asserts that as a practitioner in Reflexology she alone is treating the patient's underlying disease, all the rest were merely treating symptoms. Sounds far-fetched? I'm reliably informed that this very scenario was played out in a London hospital recently. It invites the question, "What's going on in society in general and nursing in particular?"
There is a sea change at work in our culture. For three centuries or more the prevailing philosophy within western culture has been modernism. This emphasised the human intellect and the scientific, technological, rational approach to life. It is a materialist philosophy, rejecting any notion of the spiritual. Such a world-view questions the existence of a Creator and asserts that everything can be explained in secular and reductionistic terms.
Most of us will have had contact with some institution of higher education. Within these academic circles, modernism is the over-arching belief system. Until recently this has been the influence that has helped shape Medicine and Nursing as we know them, particularly as they move away from their earlier Christian roots. But now we are witnessing a sea-change. So while once-upon-a-time the general public showed great respect and deference to scientific experts, now attitudes are changing. People are more likely to question, probe and doubt the words of scientists. Indeed, whereas once science was viewed as mankind's hope for a better future, now people are more likely to blame it and the technology it has spawned for causing more problems than it has solved. The belief in inevitable progress is defunct.
This tendency occurring in society as a whole is magnified with nursing. Nursing as a profession is currently seeking to discover an identity of it's own, one that will make it distinctive from Medicine. In my view nurses will inevitably turn to alternative forms of medicine simply because they are alternative. The emerging 'post-modernist' nurse will emphasise the emotional, the intuitive and the holistic, as opposed to the rational, objective, quantifiable and material. As a thorough-going pluralist, the new nurse will accept that there are many different points of view about everything, all of which are equally valid. Indeed any "truth claim" is by definition coercive and domineering, aimed at forcing others to conform to someone else's version of the truth. In this context it is not surprising that an article in the Nursing Times last year urges nurses to avoid making moral judgements if one is asked to obtain the services of a prostitute for a client.
Although Christians have never felt entirely comfortable within modernist professions which denied the spiritual, Christians could at least work within Nursing and Medicine, appreciating the benefits of science but recognising that it did not present a complete picture of what it is to be human. Now, however, we are increasingly being faced not with a denial of spirituality, but with alternative spiritualities often dressed up as complementary therapy. It is easy to feel threatened and overwhelmed by the challenge that faces us at the start of the twenty-first century. I suspect that within Nursing, we will continue to see an on-going tussle between two opposing schools of thought, the post-modernist and a reactive modernist rear-guard action.
These are not easy times for Christians. And yet this situation presents Christians with an opportunity. "Spirituality" is on the agenda, and as Christian nurses we will need to prayerfully consider how best to use these new opportunities. Like the modernist, we too believe in objective truth and that it is knowable. But at the same time we appreciate the limitations of human knowledge and that to be human cannot be fully explained in purely material terms. The spirituality we would profess is one of dependence upon God, rather than one which depends on us manipulating real or supposed spiritual forces.
This article was first published in the Spring 2001 issue of "TRIPLE HELIX" and is reproduced here with the kind permission of the Christian Medical Fellowship.
Imagine the scene. It is a busy ward in a large teaching hospital. A patient has collapsed, is unresponsive, there is no pulse. A "Crash Call" goes out. The nurses start cardiac massage. The 'resus' trolley is wheeled up, the de-fib fetched. The 'Crash Team' come running up the corridor. Cannula inserted, nervous fingers snap open ampoules. Adrenaline, Calcium, DC shock. No output. As the drama unfolds a nurse steps forward and commences massage - not cardiac massage but foot massage.
In the ensuing exchange of conversation with the Senior Registrar, the nurse asserts that as a practitioner in Reflexology she alone is treating the patient's underlying disease, all the rest were merely treating symptoms. Sounds far-fetched? I'm reliably informed that this very scenario was played out in a London hospital recently. It invites the question, "What's going on in society in general and nursing in particular?"
There is a sea change at work in our culture. For three centuries or more the prevailing philosophy within western culture has been modernism. This emphasised the human intellect and the scientific, technological, rational approach to life. It is a materialist philosophy, rejecting any notion of the spiritual. Such a world-view questions the existence of a Creator and asserts that everything can be explained in secular and reductionistic terms.
Most of us will have had contact with some institution of higher education. Within these academic circles, modernism is the over-arching belief system. Until recently this has been the influence that has helped shape Medicine and Nursing as we know them, particularly as they move away from their earlier Christian roots. But now we are witnessing a sea-change. So while once-upon-a-time the general public showed great respect and deference to scientific experts, now attitudes are changing. People are more likely to question, probe and doubt the words of scientists. Indeed, whereas once science was viewed as mankind's hope for a better future, now people are more likely to blame it and the technology it has spawned for causing more problems than it has solved. The belief in inevitable progress is defunct.
This tendency occurring in society as a whole is magnified with nursing. Nursing as a profession is currently seeking to discover an identity of it's own, one that will make it distinctive from Medicine. In my view nurses will inevitably turn to alternative forms of medicine simply because they are alternative. The emerging 'post-modernist' nurse will emphasise the emotional, the intuitive and the holistic, as opposed to the rational, objective, quantifiable and material. As a thorough-going pluralist, the new nurse will accept that there are many different points of view about everything, all of which are equally valid. Indeed any "truth claim" is by definition coercive and domineering, aimed at forcing others to conform to someone else's version of the truth. In this context it is not surprising that an article in the Nursing Times last year urges nurses to avoid making moral judgements if one is asked to obtain the services of a prostitute for a client.
Although Christians have never felt entirely comfortable within modernist professions which denied the spiritual, Christians could at least work within Nursing and Medicine, appreciating the benefits of science but recognising that it did not present a complete picture of what it is to be human. Now, however, we are increasingly being faced not with a denial of spirituality, but with alternative spiritualities often dressed up as complementary therapy. It is easy to feel threatened and overwhelmed by the challenge that faces us at the start of the twenty-first century. I suspect that within Nursing, we will continue to see an on-going tussle between two opposing schools of thought, the post-modernist and a reactive modernist rear-guard action.
These are not easy times for Christians. And yet this situation presents Christians with an opportunity. "Spirituality" is on the agenda, and as Christian nurses we will need to prayerfully consider how best to use these new opportunities. Like the modernist, we too believe in objective truth and that it is knowable. But at the same time we appreciate the limitations of human knowledge and that to be human cannot be fully explained in purely material terms. The spirituality we would profess is one of dependence upon God, rather than one which depends on us manipulating real or supposed spiritual forces.
This article was first published in the Spring 2001 issue of "TRIPLE HELIX" and is reproduced here with the kind permission of the Christian Medical Fellowship.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
"DAYS OF ELIJAH!"
These are the "Days of Elijah", The "prophet's" word restored, New "Apostles" are arising, to bring us the Word of the LORD.
The Bible is yesterdays word and written scripture is dry, so we itch for new revelation, without new things we die.
"The prophet" speaks life, and yet your child lies dying. "It's you and your faith at fault, the prophet can't be lying!"
All the options covered, be vague and so obscure, selective recall, hindsight - the "prophet's" word made sure.
These are the "Days of Elijah", false prophets palms are greased, seers consulted like tarot and the sheep exist to be fleeced.
These are the "Days of Elijah", The "prophet's" word restored, New "Apostles" are arising, to bring us the Word of the LORD.
The Bible is yesterdays word and written scripture is dry, so we itch for new revelation, without new things we die.
"The prophet" speaks life, and yet your child lies dying. "It's you and your faith at fault, the prophet can't be lying!"
All the options covered, be vague and so obscure, selective recall, hindsight - the "prophet's" word made sure.
These are the "Days of Elijah", false prophets palms are greased, seers consulted like tarot and the sheep exist to be fleeced.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Lit Obit!
For nearly two and a half years I have foisted my intellectual pretensions upon an unsuspecting world which, truth be told, never actually asked for my opinion, and the time therefore has come to wind up this blog. I have a couple of articles in the pipeline but, as promised earlier this year, I will not continue blogging into 2008. To be frank I don't feel entirely comfortable curating my thoughts in a self-aggrandizing way to the onlooking world as if my person has something special to offer... and yet I did also sincerely desire to make a statement of sorts about where I stand on some of the issues of the day. I have only "something special" in the sense that I have been touched by God's love, there is nothing special as such about me personally. I am hugely impressed by the number of really good evangelical teachers and scholars out there too - so I'm not sure what I'm adding by means of my 'blog' anymore.
It is true that a few years ago I wanted to explore the doubts and challenges which had occured to me as a Christian and see how they stood up to examination. Were my answers equal to the questions posed by non-christians? Were the answers really satisfying to ME as an individual believer? Being a Christian has not been a cosey experience - Jesus never said it would be! - instead it has caused me to explore the fiercest criticisms and my own misgivings to see how the Gospel holds up.
What the reader makes of these I will have to leave to you. By way of a general disclaimer; the opinions in this 'blog' are entirely my own and it should not be inferred that they represent in any way the views of the various groups of which I am a member - any fault is my fault alone. If at times I sound irascible I hope the reader will be kind to me and weigh what I say on its merits. If you are inclined to conclude that I am a poor representative to speak on behalf of Jesus Christ you are undoubtedly correct.... my life is not all it should be.... or could be.... or will be. And if you are of a mind to conclude that I cannot possibly be a believer think how much worse I might have been if I wasn't a Christian at all!
For nearly two and a half years I have foisted my intellectual pretensions upon an unsuspecting world which, truth be told, never actually asked for my opinion, and the time therefore has come to wind up this blog. I have a couple of articles in the pipeline but, as promised earlier this year, I will not continue blogging into 2008. To be frank I don't feel entirely comfortable curating my thoughts in a self-aggrandizing way to the onlooking world as if my person has something special to offer... and yet I did also sincerely desire to make a statement of sorts about where I stand on some of the issues of the day. I have only "something special" in the sense that I have been touched by God's love, there is nothing special as such about me personally. I am hugely impressed by the number of really good evangelical teachers and scholars out there too - so I'm not sure what I'm adding by means of my 'blog' anymore.
It is true that a few years ago I wanted to explore the doubts and challenges which had occured to me as a Christian and see how they stood up to examination. Were my answers equal to the questions posed by non-christians? Were the answers really satisfying to ME as an individual believer? Being a Christian has not been a cosey experience - Jesus never said it would be! - instead it has caused me to explore the fiercest criticisms and my own misgivings to see how the Gospel holds up.
What the reader makes of these I will have to leave to you. By way of a general disclaimer; the opinions in this 'blog' are entirely my own and it should not be inferred that they represent in any way the views of the various groups of which I am a member - any fault is my fault alone. If at times I sound irascible I hope the reader will be kind to me and weigh what I say on its merits. If you are inclined to conclude that I am a poor representative to speak on behalf of Jesus Christ you are undoubtedly correct.... my life is not all it should be.... or could be.... or will be. And if you are of a mind to conclude that I cannot possibly be a believer think how much worse I might have been if I wasn't a Christian at all!
Monday, December 03, 2007
LUCA SWIFT!
A couple of days ago I received a post card from the vet's addressed to "Luca Swift". As readers of this blog may recall 'Luca' is the name of our "part time cat" - not, I hasten to add, that she is a cat some of the time and something else at other times! - rather it is the case that she would occasionally deign to grace us with her company, eat our food and bask by the radiator on cold wet days before returning to her secret home.... she was a mystery. She was a cat who led a double life!
Over the months we grew very fond of her and so it is only appropriate that she should now be receiving her own correspondence at our address!
The sad thing to report though is that we haven't seen her in over two months now and suspect that she has moved on to pastures new. I never figured myself as a "cat" sort of person but I do miss her!
A couple of days ago I received a post card from the vet's addressed to "Luca Swift". As readers of this blog may recall 'Luca' is the name of our "part time cat" - not, I hasten to add, that she is a cat some of the time and something else at other times! - rather it is the case that she would occasionally deign to grace us with her company, eat our food and bask by the radiator on cold wet days before returning to her secret home.... she was a mystery. She was a cat who led a double life!
Over the months we grew very fond of her and so it is only appropriate that she should now be receiving her own correspondence at our address!
The sad thing to report though is that we haven't seen her in over two months now and suspect that she has moved on to pastures new. I never figured myself as a "cat" sort of person but I do miss her!
Monday, November 26, 2007
The Bible Timeline.
One of the problems in understanding how to read the Bible and make relevant applications from it is our tendency to read it 'in the flat' without making any allowance for context. There are many sincere Bible believing Christians who misapply the text because they do not allow for what I will call The Bible Timeline. What do I mean? The Bible is an unfolding story of God's salvation plan for mankind.... it has a beginning, a middle and an end. If you focus on one element of this unfolding story at the expense of the rest you will misunderstand it all.
I would argue that there are five acts in the Bible story (not to be confused with the Dispensations of certain Fundamentalist groups). They are Creation, Fall, Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of God and the New Creation.
If in their mind's eye they focus on 'Creation' only - they will conclude that we live in the best of all possible worlds.... and they will have a 'Pollyann-ish' type Christianity. It will be an idealised, sentimental Christianity - actually it will be sub-Christian because it will hold to a naive belief in the perfectability of human nature outside of Christ. And it will be a belief system that will quickly hit the buffers when something evil occurs, because it has no theology of evil. It will be unable to conceive of the possibility of any sort of 'righteous indignation' at injustice and therefore God should have no issue with humanity as it is currently understood. It will be perplexed when noble, talented people do something wicked, or when suffering befalls those they consider 'innocent'.
If you emphasise the 'Fall' to the exclusion of all else - you will conclude that there is nothing good to be said about humanity and will have an unbalanced and unbiblical view of the positive things about Creation; effectively following Pagan Greek thought which held that matter itself was inherently evil.You may also deny any redemptive possibilities in those people you consider 'beyond the pale'.
Sometimes you will find some church folk talking as if we live (or ought to live) in a theocratic state - and here I believe that they are reading themselves into the 'Israel' section of the Bible narrative. They feel that somehow we will become a godly nation if only we could enact some godly laws. They will tend toward moralism rather than the grace of God and consequently they may perceive evil as an external rather than an internal enemy.... they will "otherise" evil. (Evil will always be a description of those in the 'outgroup' - they will never consider themselves evil ). It's possible that they will adopt a naive 'cause and effect' view of blessing and misfortune... 'obey the rules you get blessed, disobey and something bad will happen'. I say 'naive' because in reality this form of spiritual one-up-man-ship was rubbished by the Old Testament prophets let alone Jesus! They may also consider themselves as having some sort of prophetic role modelled on Elijah or Elisha. You may hear these people talking loosely about certain countries being "Christian" nations - which of course they are not. God's plan has moved on from simple nation building and has become something altogether 'cosmic'! We must read the Old Testament from the perspective of Jesus. (Please note: this does not mean that what was wrong BC becomes okay AD, far from it. Nor does it mean that Christians should not play an active role in a participatory democracy - we are obliged to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves). What it does mean is that God's salvation plan has made a step change with the advent of Christ.
You will also find some church people talking as if we are already in the 'New Creation'. For them all is "glory now!" Triumphalism, miracles galore, prosperity, sinless perfectionism etc will be the idealistic marks of such believers. This is unreality; and the danger here is that sincere (if misguided) people will make promises on God's behalf that God has reserved for a future time.... this is not to deny the possibility of a measure of glory now as the Kingdom of God breaks in upon this present age.... but the final consummation is not yet. The problem here is that expectations will be unfulfilled and people will become disillusioned.... or worse, they will live in a fantasy world cut off from reality.
I believe that we are in the fourth act of the five part Bible drama. This in my view accurately describes the world we actually live in.... it is a wonderful creation which should be celebrated joyfully as God's gift, but something rotten has entered the hearts of people and consequently creation is marred by evil, injustice and suffering.... a state of affairs God cannot tolerate indefinately.
God's rescue plan is to bring about a restoration of his creation = "God's people, in God's place, under God's king". This was foreshadowed in the Old Testament but finds it's fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God but right now we live in an overlap of the ages while we wait for him to return to establish his kingdom in full. There is an uneasy co-existence of these rival kingdoms for the time being. The role of the church is to live out the values of God's kingdom even while we live in this present age. This does not mean that the church is perfected, it does not mean that Christian people are ideal. The Church is not co-terminus with the Kingdom of God. Christians are a work in progress... realising this can save us from the cynicism that may come from disappointing servants of Christ.
One of the problems in understanding how to read the Bible and make relevant applications from it is our tendency to read it 'in the flat' without making any allowance for context. There are many sincere Bible believing Christians who misapply the text because they do not allow for what I will call The Bible Timeline. What do I mean? The Bible is an unfolding story of God's salvation plan for mankind.... it has a beginning, a middle and an end. If you focus on one element of this unfolding story at the expense of the rest you will misunderstand it all.
I would argue that there are five acts in the Bible story (not to be confused with the Dispensations of certain Fundamentalist groups). They are Creation, Fall, Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of God and the New Creation.
If in their mind's eye they focus on 'Creation' only - they will conclude that we live in the best of all possible worlds.... and they will have a 'Pollyann-ish' type Christianity. It will be an idealised, sentimental Christianity - actually it will be sub-Christian because it will hold to a naive belief in the perfectability of human nature outside of Christ. And it will be a belief system that will quickly hit the buffers when something evil occurs, because it has no theology of evil. It will be unable to conceive of the possibility of any sort of 'righteous indignation' at injustice and therefore God should have no issue with humanity as it is currently understood. It will be perplexed when noble, talented people do something wicked, or when suffering befalls those they consider 'innocent'.
If you emphasise the 'Fall' to the exclusion of all else - you will conclude that there is nothing good to be said about humanity and will have an unbalanced and unbiblical view of the positive things about Creation; effectively following Pagan Greek thought which held that matter itself was inherently evil.You may also deny any redemptive possibilities in those people you consider 'beyond the pale'.
Sometimes you will find some church folk talking as if we live (or ought to live) in a theocratic state - and here I believe that they are reading themselves into the 'Israel' section of the Bible narrative. They feel that somehow we will become a godly nation if only we could enact some godly laws. They will tend toward moralism rather than the grace of God and consequently they may perceive evil as an external rather than an internal enemy.... they will "otherise" evil. (Evil will always be a description of those in the 'outgroup' - they will never consider themselves evil ). It's possible that they will adopt a naive 'cause and effect' view of blessing and misfortune... 'obey the rules you get blessed, disobey and something bad will happen'. I say 'naive' because in reality this form of spiritual one-up-man-ship was rubbished by the Old Testament prophets let alone Jesus! They may also consider themselves as having some sort of prophetic role modelled on Elijah or Elisha. You may hear these people talking loosely about certain countries being "Christian" nations - which of course they are not. God's plan has moved on from simple nation building and has become something altogether 'cosmic'! We must read the Old Testament from the perspective of Jesus. (Please note: this does not mean that what was wrong BC becomes okay AD, far from it. Nor does it mean that Christians should not play an active role in a participatory democracy - we are obliged to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves). What it does mean is that God's salvation plan has made a step change with the advent of Christ.
You will also find some church people talking as if we are already in the 'New Creation'. For them all is "glory now!" Triumphalism, miracles galore, prosperity, sinless perfectionism etc will be the idealistic marks of such believers. This is unreality; and the danger here is that sincere (if misguided) people will make promises on God's behalf that God has reserved for a future time.... this is not to deny the possibility of a measure of glory now as the Kingdom of God breaks in upon this present age.... but the final consummation is not yet. The problem here is that expectations will be unfulfilled and people will become disillusioned.... or worse, they will live in a fantasy world cut off from reality.
I believe that we are in the fourth act of the five part Bible drama. This in my view accurately describes the world we actually live in.... it is a wonderful creation which should be celebrated joyfully as God's gift, but something rotten has entered the hearts of people and consequently creation is marred by evil, injustice and suffering.... a state of affairs God cannot tolerate indefinately.
God's rescue plan is to bring about a restoration of his creation = "God's people, in God's place, under God's king". This was foreshadowed in the Old Testament but finds it's fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God but right now we live in an overlap of the ages while we wait for him to return to establish his kingdom in full. There is an uneasy co-existence of these rival kingdoms for the time being. The role of the church is to live out the values of God's kingdom even while we live in this present age. This does not mean that the church is perfected, it does not mean that Christian people are ideal. The Church is not co-terminus with the Kingdom of God. Christians are a work in progress... realising this can save us from the cynicism that may come from disappointing servants of Christ.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
"The Clash of Fundamentalisms!"
The Clash of Fundamentalisms is a phrase I believe was coined by Tariq Ali who is a left wing political commentator in the UK. I am a firm believer in broadening my intellectual horizons so I read all sorts of stuff; I don't neccesarily agree with all that I read but I do benefit from the exposure to conflicting ideas. I find some of Tariq Ali's political analysis over-simplistic but it is always refreshing to read something from a totally unfamilar perspective! "The Clash of Fundamentalisms" is the title of a book he wrote in 2002.
The phrase is one that has cropped up (I note) in some serious news magazines in the UK but has been used in a way alien to Tariq Ali's original meaning. As with all such phrases they acquire a life of their own and ultimately come to represent something quite different to the author's intentions. The "Fundamentalisms" he had in view were those of Radical Islam versus Modernity or The Enlightenment. But the subsequent pundits use the phrase to mean a conflict between a form of Christian Fundamentalism represented by the Evangelical Right in the USA (fronted allegedly by George Bush) and Islamic terrorism, which are treated by the pundits as moral equivalents. In their view Evangelicals have brought down on all our heads a dreadful Islamic nemesis!
Their thesis is that Islamic terrorism arose in direct response to the proselytizing activity of Evangelicals over the last three centuries and that the war in Iraq is merely the latest manifestation of this. I believe this is utter nonsense of course.
Personally I believe that Tariq Ali's grasp on the facts is better - radical Islam has an issue with The Enlightenment - it is the godlessness of The West they are combatting not evangelicalism per se. If the pundits really do believe that people like me have provoked terrorist outrages they are very seriously mistaken. I also note that some pundits believe that people like me "make the world safe for terrorists!" Toleration, properly understood, starts where approval ends.... a point "Liberals" have yet to grasp. It isn't difficult to see where this line of reasoning is taking us - the "Liberal" is positioning himself as an innocent victim of a conflict in which he has no stake - he can equitably condemn both sides as equally evil and can vilify them all even handedly.
But having said that there are some issues here which do need to be seriously examined and the time has come to draw together a few threads as this 'blog' starts to wind down. First up we need to define what we mean by "Fundamentalism". In the early 20th Century a series of books entitled "The Fundamentals" was written by a number of leading Christian writers who sought to define Protestant Christianity in the face of the rise a combative "Liberal" theology. "The Fundamentals" were actually a broad set of beliefs but ones most Evangelicals could muster around.
In the following decades "Fundamental-ISM" arose which had a MUCH narrower remit. It has a "Dispensational" interpretation of the Gospel which brought in tow certain understandings of Middle Eastern politics which I (among many Evangelical Christians) do not identify with! "Fundamentalism" also acquired a separationist streak. This brand of Christianity was popularised by the Scofield Study Bible which was published nearly 100 years ago and caught on in a big way in the USA. The Scofield theology was later popularised in a series of books on pop prophecy. I can understand why onlookers might worry about the politics of Fundamentalism drawn from these dubious sources.
I once attended a private seminar at which a Dispensational preacher I will call Mark Sugary spoke. He had us complete a series of questions on 'Are You Born Again?' One question he had was our view on the state of the Mid-East peace process (such as it was at the time); if one thought it was 'a good idea' one might well NOT be a Christian was his conclusion! As an Evangelical Christian I took issue with him on this. He defended himself vigorously - he was NOT saying one cannot be a Christian and believe in Middle Eastern peace merely that that MIGHT indicate that you are not a Christian - my argument was that very question was utterly irrelevant because one is saved by faith in Christ alone and he was introducing another factor: it seemed to me that he was adding criteria the Bible does not demand of a believer, he reasserted that it did.... faith in Christ and the modern state of Israel were bound up inextricably together in his view. We had to agree to disagree but the reality is his opinion is not (what I will term) Classical Evangelicalism it is a modern innovation - and this, let me add, is no mere hair-splitting it is crucial to what we understand Jesus is about. Modern day "Christian Fundamentalism" isn't quite as Christian as it thinks and I have little sympathy for it but "The Fundamentals" I have no issue with..... so am I a "Fundamentalist" or not - you tell me?!
Of course in more recent years the term fundamentalism has been applied to any religiously motivated group - especially terrorist movements.
The crucial question it seems to me is "what is your understanding of The Kingdom of God"? Depending on where you place yourself in the Bible Time-Line you will position yourself on the current political map.... and whether as Jew, Christian or Muslim you believe that human force brings in God's Kingdom. I believe the Biblical position is that the Kingdom is a present spiritual reality (to be fulfilled physically when Christ returns) but those who believe in Eretz (ie Greater) Israel or an Islamic Caliphate (Kalifah) or any sort of theocracy may indeed feel mandated to use physical force. More anon about this in "The Bible Time-Line" blog to follow - but suffice to say that "Classical Evangelicalism" completely rejects the notion of any form of compulsion to bring about The Kingdom of God.... force is antithetical to its nature.... this is a uniquely Evangelical reason for the separation of church and state!
So where does that leave me? I am not recognised as a fellow believer by these Christian Fundamentalists and I feel under the cosh from "Liberals" (so called) who have no grasp on spiritual realities and who regard us all as 'tarred with the same brush'.... but let's face it you can't get much more equitable than condemning the innocent with the guilty! It was ever thus!
The Clash of Fundamentalisms is a phrase I believe was coined by Tariq Ali who is a left wing political commentator in the UK. I am a firm believer in broadening my intellectual horizons so I read all sorts of stuff; I don't neccesarily agree with all that I read but I do benefit from the exposure to conflicting ideas. I find some of Tariq Ali's political analysis over-simplistic but it is always refreshing to read something from a totally unfamilar perspective! "The Clash of Fundamentalisms" is the title of a book he wrote in 2002.
The phrase is one that has cropped up (I note) in some serious news magazines in the UK but has been used in a way alien to Tariq Ali's original meaning. As with all such phrases they acquire a life of their own and ultimately come to represent something quite different to the author's intentions. The "Fundamentalisms" he had in view were those of Radical Islam versus Modernity or The Enlightenment. But the subsequent pundits use the phrase to mean a conflict between a form of Christian Fundamentalism represented by the Evangelical Right in the USA (fronted allegedly by George Bush) and Islamic terrorism, which are treated by the pundits as moral equivalents. In their view Evangelicals have brought down on all our heads a dreadful Islamic nemesis!
Their thesis is that Islamic terrorism arose in direct response to the proselytizing activity of Evangelicals over the last three centuries and that the war in Iraq is merely the latest manifestation of this. I believe this is utter nonsense of course.
Personally I believe that Tariq Ali's grasp on the facts is better - radical Islam has an issue with The Enlightenment - it is the godlessness of The West they are combatting not evangelicalism per se. If the pundits really do believe that people like me have provoked terrorist outrages they are very seriously mistaken. I also note that some pundits believe that people like me "make the world safe for terrorists!" Toleration, properly understood, starts where approval ends.... a point "Liberals" have yet to grasp. It isn't difficult to see where this line of reasoning is taking us - the "Liberal" is positioning himself as an innocent victim of a conflict in which he has no stake - he can equitably condemn both sides as equally evil and can vilify them all even handedly.
But having said that there are some issues here which do need to be seriously examined and the time has come to draw together a few threads as this 'blog' starts to wind down. First up we need to define what we mean by "Fundamentalism". In the early 20th Century a series of books entitled "The Fundamentals" was written by a number of leading Christian writers who sought to define Protestant Christianity in the face of the rise a combative "Liberal" theology. "The Fundamentals" were actually a broad set of beliefs but ones most Evangelicals could muster around.
In the following decades "Fundamental-ISM" arose which had a MUCH narrower remit. It has a "Dispensational" interpretation of the Gospel which brought in tow certain understandings of Middle Eastern politics which I (among many Evangelical Christians) do not identify with! "Fundamentalism" also acquired a separationist streak. This brand of Christianity was popularised by the Scofield Study Bible which was published nearly 100 years ago and caught on in a big way in the USA. The Scofield theology was later popularised in a series of books on pop prophecy. I can understand why onlookers might worry about the politics of Fundamentalism drawn from these dubious sources.
I once attended a private seminar at which a Dispensational preacher I will call Mark Sugary spoke. He had us complete a series of questions on 'Are You Born Again?' One question he had was our view on the state of the Mid-East peace process (such as it was at the time); if one thought it was 'a good idea' one might well NOT be a Christian was his conclusion! As an Evangelical Christian I took issue with him on this. He defended himself vigorously - he was NOT saying one cannot be a Christian and believe in Middle Eastern peace merely that that MIGHT indicate that you are not a Christian - my argument was that very question was utterly irrelevant because one is saved by faith in Christ alone and he was introducing another factor: it seemed to me that he was adding criteria the Bible does not demand of a believer, he reasserted that it did.... faith in Christ and the modern state of Israel were bound up inextricably together in his view. We had to agree to disagree but the reality is his opinion is not (what I will term) Classical Evangelicalism it is a modern innovation - and this, let me add, is no mere hair-splitting it is crucial to what we understand Jesus is about. Modern day "Christian Fundamentalism" isn't quite as Christian as it thinks and I have little sympathy for it but "The Fundamentals" I have no issue with..... so am I a "Fundamentalist" or not - you tell me?!
Of course in more recent years the term fundamentalism has been applied to any religiously motivated group - especially terrorist movements.
The crucial question it seems to me is "what is your understanding of The Kingdom of God"? Depending on where you place yourself in the Bible Time-Line you will position yourself on the current political map.... and whether as Jew, Christian or Muslim you believe that human force brings in God's Kingdom. I believe the Biblical position is that the Kingdom is a present spiritual reality (to be fulfilled physically when Christ returns) but those who believe in Eretz (ie Greater) Israel or an Islamic Caliphate (Kalifah) or any sort of theocracy may indeed feel mandated to use physical force. More anon about this in "The Bible Time-Line" blog to follow - but suffice to say that "Classical Evangelicalism" completely rejects the notion of any form of compulsion to bring about The Kingdom of God.... force is antithetical to its nature.... this is a uniquely Evangelical reason for the separation of church and state!
So where does that leave me? I am not recognised as a fellow believer by these Christian Fundamentalists and I feel under the cosh from "Liberals" (so called) who have no grasp on spiritual realities and who regard us all as 'tarred with the same brush'.... but let's face it you can't get much more equitable than condemning the innocent with the guilty! It was ever thus!
Monday, November 19, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
DANIEL BEAK V.C. ... and my Grandad.A year ago I wrote about my grandfather's experiences in the First World War as an NCO in the Royal Naval Division. I had had to reconstruct the account from his service record which I found online in the National Archive because he never actually spoke that much about the war right up until the time he died over 35 years ago.
My grandfather was wounded on 13th November 1916 when the 63rd Royal Naval Division was involved in a major operation to destroy a German held salient at Beaucourt near Beaumont Hamel (probably held by the 'Leipzig Regiment'). For years afterwards this date would be commemorated as 'Beaucourt Day' by the survivors of this closing phase of the Somme campaign known variously as the Battle of the Ancre or the Tenth Phase of the Battle of the Somme. My grandfather was in "Howe" battalion when they launched their assault that fateful morning. I recently saw some photographs of the battlefield and I was horrified to see the fields of mud they would have had to run over when they 'went over the top'. The casualties they suffered were horrendous. I have just discovered that out of close on 1,000 men 'Howe' battalion only had 21 left unscathed when all their final objectives were taken several hours later. The attack was considered an outstanding success.
My grandfather was in hospital for a couple of months and then seems to have spent 1917 working as an instructor back in England. I think he may have spent some time at a "grenade school" at Bretton's Bench in the New Forest, where recruits would have been trained in the use of munitions to clear trenches and obstacles.
In 1918 he returned to combat on The Western Front and was posted to 'Drake' battalion 'Howe' battalion having been disbanded. I was amazed to discover that during the closing months of the war when the allies were advancing on the Hindenburg Line 'Drake' battalion played a pivotal role in the British offensive. As the attack faltered 'Drake' battalion provided some backbone to the assault. My grandfather's immediate battalion commander was called Daniel Beak and for actions carried out principally on 25th August he was awarded the Victoria Cross (the UK's highest award for bravery): interestingly the citation says he was accompanied by a 'runner' during this action. My grandfather dismissively described himself as just 'a runner' and curiously his service record shows that he was wounded for a second time within 24 hours of Beak's charge!
It was only when I turned up this record did any of the family even realise that grandad, my mother's father, had been wounded for a second time. My mother wasn't even aware that grandad had been at the Somme! Of course I have to be careful in how I interpret all of this because I would like to believe it was my grandad who was with Beak that day - but it does make you wonder doesn't it? What is for sure is that he was with this unit at the right time and in the right place when they attacked the German defences and he was wounded in action the very next day as the fighting continued.
I think the thing I most admire about this story is NOT that my grandad was a hero - which he undoubtedly was whatever role he played - but that he never drew attention to the fact!
Saturday, November 03, 2007
"GOD IS NOT GREAT!"
Christopher Hitchens recently published a book by this title in which he attributes all of Humanity's ills to "religion" in one guise or another. The word 'religion' isn't one I entirely feel comfortable with because it is hardly a Biblical word at all and it is a word which often brings a lot of preconceived notions in tow which I don't believe are very helpful. I am a Christian but I do not consider myself "religious"! But for the sake of argument let's stick with the word Hitchens uses.
Hitchens is another shrill voice in a recent spate of attacks upon religion. There seems to be an element of panic within the intelligentsia which once confidently predicted the extinction of all religions and anticipated the inevitable dawn of a new rationalist era. The resurgence of religion as a force on the world stage has left these complacent opinion shapers non-plussed and fearful for the future of humanity. History is not following their script.
Hitchens appears to attribute all evil to religion and all good to the Humanist cause. To this end he conveniently redefines the secular ideologies of Hitler and Stalin as "religions" and dragoons Christians like Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer into the ranks of the Humanists! So much special pleading will cause even the most ardent Hitchens' fan some pause for thought surely! It seems to me a rather desperate expedient which causes him to twist the facts to fit his ideologically driven argument... and surely it is the ideologue's desire to rewrite history we all should beware! It is the natural default setting of humans to "otherise" evil - to attribute all that is wrong with the world to some outgroup and to make out that one's own tribe is on the side of the angels. And surely it is that condemnation of the innocent with the guilty for ideological reasons that is the real cause of evil.... Hitchens has fallen head first into that trap.... secularists are all good, religionists are all bad in a 'cowboys and indians' argument.
There is one aspect of Hitchens' argument which does bear some consideration. The means by which he redefines Nazism and Stalinism as "religions" is their "messianic" and utopian pretentions. And in that regard he is not wrong. But it is precisely those pretentions which caused thoughtful (as opposed to duped)Christians at the time to see these ideologies as anti-thetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.... in a very real sense these belief systems were "Anti-Christ" systems. The Bible already had a category for critiquing such movements when history shows that it took a good deal longer for the intelligentsia to realise these idols had feet of clay. As astonishing as it seems now there were many western secularists and humanists who defended Stalin and the Soviet system as a force for good. At the time the Stalinist and the Nazi would have argued that their beliefs were firmly founded on scientific rationalism - Marxist economics and Social Darwinism respectively, each claiming the imprimatur of scientific certainty. They certainly would never have regarded these as matters of 'faith'! And certainly not faith in God! Given that historical background, the question is how can you ever know whether your beliefs are truly rational? And if Hitchens' idea is correct how can you ever know if your beliefs are even truly secular?
Applying Hitchens' criteria Humanism is a "religion" because it has a utopian vision of mankind and even if it lacks a specific "messiah" figure it certainly exalts the human spirit so that each individual is their own saviour. Oh and it even has its own heresy hunters too!
In the final anaysis it is only the Gospel which accurately describes the world as it truly is. Quite why it is assumed that people like me make irrational "leaps of faith" rather than weigh up which viewpoint actually describes the world as it really is is a mystery to me, the truth is I never could make the credulous "leap of faith" required by humanist doctrine! When such dogma repeatedly misdiagnoses the human condition and Jesus gets it unerringly right everytime I don't consider that much of a 'leap' at all!
The solution to all anti-christ ideologies is not secularism (whatever that now means!) but Jesus - the real Christ.
Christopher Hitchens recently published a book by this title in which he attributes all of Humanity's ills to "religion" in one guise or another. The word 'religion' isn't one I entirely feel comfortable with because it is hardly a Biblical word at all and it is a word which often brings a lot of preconceived notions in tow which I don't believe are very helpful. I am a Christian but I do not consider myself "religious"! But for the sake of argument let's stick with the word Hitchens uses.
Hitchens is another shrill voice in a recent spate of attacks upon religion. There seems to be an element of panic within the intelligentsia which once confidently predicted the extinction of all religions and anticipated the inevitable dawn of a new rationalist era. The resurgence of religion as a force on the world stage has left these complacent opinion shapers non-plussed and fearful for the future of humanity. History is not following their script.
Hitchens appears to attribute all evil to religion and all good to the Humanist cause. To this end he conveniently redefines the secular ideologies of Hitler and Stalin as "religions" and dragoons Christians like Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer into the ranks of the Humanists! So much special pleading will cause even the most ardent Hitchens' fan some pause for thought surely! It seems to me a rather desperate expedient which causes him to twist the facts to fit his ideologically driven argument... and surely it is the ideologue's desire to rewrite history we all should beware! It is the natural default setting of humans to "otherise" evil - to attribute all that is wrong with the world to some outgroup and to make out that one's own tribe is on the side of the angels. And surely it is that condemnation of the innocent with the guilty for ideological reasons that is the real cause of evil.... Hitchens has fallen head first into that trap.... secularists are all good, religionists are all bad in a 'cowboys and indians' argument.
There is one aspect of Hitchens' argument which does bear some consideration. The means by which he redefines Nazism and Stalinism as "religions" is their "messianic" and utopian pretentions. And in that regard he is not wrong. But it is precisely those pretentions which caused thoughtful (as opposed to duped)Christians at the time to see these ideologies as anti-thetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.... in a very real sense these belief systems were "Anti-Christ" systems. The Bible already had a category for critiquing such movements when history shows that it took a good deal longer for the intelligentsia to realise these idols had feet of clay. As astonishing as it seems now there were many western secularists and humanists who defended Stalin and the Soviet system as a force for good. At the time the Stalinist and the Nazi would have argued that their beliefs were firmly founded on scientific rationalism - Marxist economics and Social Darwinism respectively, each claiming the imprimatur of scientific certainty. They certainly would never have regarded these as matters of 'faith'! And certainly not faith in God! Given that historical background, the question is how can you ever know whether your beliefs are truly rational? And if Hitchens' idea is correct how can you ever know if your beliefs are even truly secular?
Applying Hitchens' criteria Humanism is a "religion" because it has a utopian vision of mankind and even if it lacks a specific "messiah" figure it certainly exalts the human spirit so that each individual is their own saviour. Oh and it even has its own heresy hunters too!
In the final anaysis it is only the Gospel which accurately describes the world as it truly is. Quite why it is assumed that people like me make irrational "leaps of faith" rather than weigh up which viewpoint actually describes the world as it really is is a mystery to me, the truth is I never could make the credulous "leap of faith" required by humanist doctrine! When such dogma repeatedly misdiagnoses the human condition and Jesus gets it unerringly right everytime I don't consider that much of a 'leap' at all!
The solution to all anti-christ ideologies is not secularism (whatever that now means!) but Jesus - the real Christ.
Monday, October 29, 2007
THE NIGHT OF THE LONG SKIVES!
British Summer Time ended yesterday night when the clocks went back. Give a thought for those of us nurses and doctors and physios & etc etc etc who were working on the night shift when we had the extra hour! When I volunteered to cover this shift on PICU at the SNC Hospital I hadn't appreciated that daylight saving time was due to change! So while the rest of you got an extra hour in bed we had a very very VERY long shift! The only thing that made it remotely tolerable was the fact that we could take a bit longer over our breaks. In fairness I should add that I worked the short night last spring when the clocks went forward so I guess it all evens out in the end.
British Summer Time ended yesterday night when the clocks went back. Give a thought for those of us nurses and doctors and physios & etc etc etc who were working on the night shift when we had the extra hour! When I volunteered to cover this shift on PICU at the SNC Hospital I hadn't appreciated that daylight saving time was due to change! So while the rest of you got an extra hour in bed we had a very very VERY long shift! The only thing that made it remotely tolerable was the fact that we could take a bit longer over our breaks. In fairness I should add that I worked the short night last spring when the clocks went forward so I guess it all evens out in the end.
Just for the record; we had a 1am BST followed an hour later by 1am Greenwich Mean Time.
On the whole I enjoy working shifts - I like the variety in the work pattern. I also enjoy having time off midweek: you can go places when it's quiet rather than follow the herd working 9-5 and being off when everyone else is!
I even enjoy night shifts: you can actually focus on caring for patients without all the other extraneous hassle which the NHS seems to generate. The only drawback to night duty being that my body clock always wakes me up by midday when I'm trying to sleep, like it's saying 'hey, it's day time you should be up!' But I get by on 3-4 hours sleep. By the end of four night shifts though I usually feel wiped out... I finish four nights on Tuesday morning.
The thing is as I get older I'm not so sure that I can keep up working crazy nurse's shifts but I don't know what else I'd do!
Monday, October 22, 2007
I'm Baffled by Brian D McLaren
& Steve Chalke.
I've recently finished reading a couple of books by putative leaders of the "emerging (or emergent) church" movement. Brian D McLaren's "The Secret Message of Jesus" and Steve Chalke's "The Lost Message of Jesus". I wanted to know more about this movement and rather than rely on secondhand accounts I thought I'd better go to the source and see what they had to say for themselves.
I have to say that I am not a little baffled by their books. I don't understand why anyone thinks they are breaking new ground because there is nothing original in either book.
I found very little to disagree with for the first hundred pages or so with these books. There are some ungainly phrases which are open to misinterpretation but I appreciate that these books are 'pop theology' and are not meant for serious analysis; even so it would be better to get the basics right. Also, we all have anecdotal horror stories about churches we've encountered - the real issue is how far can one generalise from them without perpetrating an injustice oneself?!
All the criticisms they make of contemporary Evangelicalism are ones I would echo - not least because I've been guilty of them myself! There is indeed a tendency toward pharasaism in Evangelicalism, no-one is denying that. "Works" based 'religion' is the natural default setting of all human beings after all. Consequently it should come as no surprise to find a 'formal evangelicalism' which is actually no better than any other of the world's religions! Only an understanding of 'Grace' will cure this - and that is a unique feature of the Gospel.... and it is something so wonderful it is difficult for us to grasp, even when one has been in the faith for over thirty years like me. However the danger inherent within a movement which seeks to create a 'new' church by its own lights is that it merely creates a new pharisaism with all the elitist presumptions of 'superiority'. That is the lesson of history with all supposedly radical church movements.... they're never as radical as they suppose themselves to be! I know because I've been there before!
I suppose the major point of departure comes when Steve Chalke starts to discuss the Cross of Christ. First of all let me say that I do not recognise his caricature of this doctrine so I won't take offence at it.... he is attacking someone but it can't be me! The fact that he talks about it being "morally dubious" and is antithetical to the notion of a God of Love is one attack too far and is worthy of a response, I cannot let that go unanswered
I believe that if God takes on himself a penalty rightly due to me - there is no inconsistency with his nature as a God of love. I am speaking as a Trinitarian Christian you understand.... Christ is not something outside of God... it is God himself who takes on himself the penalty rightly due to me - isn't that an act of love?!
Also - it is very important to realise - that love is not only about mercy. Isn't love about justice too. Is it loving to let all the world's injustices go with a 'it doesn't matter' shrug of the shoulders? (Auschwitz, Cambodia, Bosnia, Darfur etc or the social ills closer to home. In the course of time these examples will appear dated and quaint - the future reader will (I am sure) be able to substitute your own contemporary examples!) Doesn't love ever get passionate about wrongdoing - and if so how do you think that that is expressed? And if I count myself amongst the evil (rather than the self righteous) what is my escape - assuming I need to escape? How do I pay for the things I've done wrong? If I conclude that I cannot do this can I trust someone else to do it for me?
You might ask 'How can one person pay a penalty for someone else?' I was with my brother-in-law when we drove into a 'pay & display' car park. (I don't mean to be trivial when I use this as an example - I am merely demonstrating that these concepts are not 'rocket science'). He queued to get the ticket while I stood nearby. He realised that he had no coins for the machine and called to me. Yes, I had the right change and paid what he could not. No-one, but no-one, in that queue that day said "Hey! You can't do that!" Incidentally no-one, but no-one said "If you pay for him you have to pay for us all!"
Too often we draw in our own culture into our interpretation of the Bible and I believe Chalke is thinking in terms of modern criminal law when the better model is civil law... CS lewis made this very point over fifty years ago. The "dubious morality" charge is actually bound up in an unstated modernistic presumption of "equity" - the dubious notion that no distinction can ever be made about anybody for any reason. There is no issue here which demands the redrafting of classical protestant doctrine which seems to be the end point Chalke is driving toward. The real issue is this - how far do we go along the road of accepting the world's theology in order to curry favour? And what do we acheive thereby?
At one point Chalke relates how a friend had asked a group of scholars and ministers for a simple one sentence definition of the Jesus' message - nothing satisfactory emerged from the discussion. This is a rather revealing tale.... but not for the reason he thinks. The phrasing of the question imposed a false presupposition that the message of Jesus is somehow different to what Jesus came to do. No wonder people were confused.... and that should tell you something. The message of Jesus is 'the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep'. Jesus did not come to deliver a word from God but to be The Word! Surely someone would think to say something like "for Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring [us] to God" 1 Peter 3 v18? I thought about what Steve Chalke wrote and it occurs to me that maybe the people his friend had asked don't believe in penal substitution either (or weren't prepared to own up to it in his prescence) and when you think about Chalke's challenge from that perspective how DO you define the Gospel sans 'penal substitution'? I'd be stumped too!
As for Brian D McLaren I had no real issue with his book (outside the general comments above) until the appendices! Entitled "Why didn't we get it sooner?" I was baffled and scribbled in the margin -"but you haven't said anything original!" (Even the stuff that was wrong wasn't new!) It is not a little arrogant to presume that you are the first person to point out the inconsistencies of the evangelical church with the Gospel we proclaim. Carl Henry did this over sixty years ago - and I bet he wasn't the first. If you review my blog you will find much the same stuff here. In fact, quite coincidentally, my home church is currently running a series of lunch time talks on the subject "RSVP - Jesus unveils Heaven's surprising guest list" - with individual talks on 'Jesus is anti-pride', 'Jesus is anti-religion' and 'Jesus is pro-outcast'.* I haven't heard the earlier talks or even know who the speaker is; but I'm prepared to bet everyone out there in blogworld 100 to 1 that all the issues dear to McLaren & Chalke will be addressed there.... as they always have been from faithful Bible teaching churches the world over. It makes you wonder what circles McLaren & Chalke move in.
It maybe the case that McLaren & Chalke have led relatively sheltered Christian lives and ministries within triumphalist and separationist churches for whom this sort of cultural engagement was alien and whose corporate lives were marked by unreality; it is only now that they are reacting against these attitudes. They have some, perhaps many, cogent criticisms to make of evangelical practice - but it will not be the first time that well-meaning men have allowed their enthusiasm for their particular hobby horse to get the better of their judgement.
Recommended further reading: "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" by Don Carson.
Recommended audio: Tim Keller who spoke at the Evangelical Ministers Assembly 2007 on the theme "Defining Times: What is an Evangelical?" Available from Proclamation Trust at http://www.proctrust.org.uk/
& Steve Chalke.
I've recently finished reading a couple of books by putative leaders of the "emerging (or emergent) church" movement. Brian D McLaren's "The Secret Message of Jesus" and Steve Chalke's "The Lost Message of Jesus". I wanted to know more about this movement and rather than rely on secondhand accounts I thought I'd better go to the source and see what they had to say for themselves.
I have to say that I am not a little baffled by their books. I don't understand why anyone thinks they are breaking new ground because there is nothing original in either book.
I found very little to disagree with for the first hundred pages or so with these books. There are some ungainly phrases which are open to misinterpretation but I appreciate that these books are 'pop theology' and are not meant for serious analysis; even so it would be better to get the basics right. Also, we all have anecdotal horror stories about churches we've encountered - the real issue is how far can one generalise from them without perpetrating an injustice oneself?!
All the criticisms they make of contemporary Evangelicalism are ones I would echo - not least because I've been guilty of them myself! There is indeed a tendency toward pharasaism in Evangelicalism, no-one is denying that. "Works" based 'religion' is the natural default setting of all human beings after all. Consequently it should come as no surprise to find a 'formal evangelicalism' which is actually no better than any other of the world's religions! Only an understanding of 'Grace' will cure this - and that is a unique feature of the Gospel.... and it is something so wonderful it is difficult for us to grasp, even when one has been in the faith for over thirty years like me. However the danger inherent within a movement which seeks to create a 'new' church by its own lights is that it merely creates a new pharisaism with all the elitist presumptions of 'superiority'. That is the lesson of history with all supposedly radical church movements.... they're never as radical as they suppose themselves to be! I know because I've been there before!
I suppose the major point of departure comes when Steve Chalke starts to discuss the Cross of Christ. First of all let me say that I do not recognise his caricature of this doctrine so I won't take offence at it.... he is attacking someone but it can't be me! The fact that he talks about it being "morally dubious" and is antithetical to the notion of a God of Love is one attack too far and is worthy of a response, I cannot let that go unanswered
I believe that if God takes on himself a penalty rightly due to me - there is no inconsistency with his nature as a God of love. I am speaking as a Trinitarian Christian you understand.... Christ is not something outside of God... it is God himself who takes on himself the penalty rightly due to me - isn't that an act of love?!
Also - it is very important to realise - that love is not only about mercy. Isn't love about justice too. Is it loving to let all the world's injustices go with a 'it doesn't matter' shrug of the shoulders? (Auschwitz, Cambodia, Bosnia, Darfur etc or the social ills closer to home. In the course of time these examples will appear dated and quaint - the future reader will (I am sure) be able to substitute your own contemporary examples!) Doesn't love ever get passionate about wrongdoing - and if so how do you think that that is expressed? And if I count myself amongst the evil (rather than the self righteous) what is my escape - assuming I need to escape? How do I pay for the things I've done wrong? If I conclude that I cannot do this can I trust someone else to do it for me?
You might ask 'How can one person pay a penalty for someone else?' I was with my brother-in-law when we drove into a 'pay & display' car park. (I don't mean to be trivial when I use this as an example - I am merely demonstrating that these concepts are not 'rocket science'). He queued to get the ticket while I stood nearby. He realised that he had no coins for the machine and called to me. Yes, I had the right change and paid what he could not. No-one, but no-one, in that queue that day said "Hey! You can't do that!" Incidentally no-one, but no-one said "If you pay for him you have to pay for us all!"
Too often we draw in our own culture into our interpretation of the Bible and I believe Chalke is thinking in terms of modern criminal law when the better model is civil law... CS lewis made this very point over fifty years ago. The "dubious morality" charge is actually bound up in an unstated modernistic presumption of "equity" - the dubious notion that no distinction can ever be made about anybody for any reason. There is no issue here which demands the redrafting of classical protestant doctrine which seems to be the end point Chalke is driving toward. The real issue is this - how far do we go along the road of accepting the world's theology in order to curry favour? And what do we acheive thereby?
At one point Chalke relates how a friend had asked a group of scholars and ministers for a simple one sentence definition of the Jesus' message - nothing satisfactory emerged from the discussion. This is a rather revealing tale.... but not for the reason he thinks. The phrasing of the question imposed a false presupposition that the message of Jesus is somehow different to what Jesus came to do. No wonder people were confused.... and that should tell you something. The message of Jesus is 'the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep'. Jesus did not come to deliver a word from God but to be The Word! Surely someone would think to say something like "for Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring [us] to God" 1 Peter 3 v18? I thought about what Steve Chalke wrote and it occurs to me that maybe the people his friend had asked don't believe in penal substitution either (or weren't prepared to own up to it in his prescence) and when you think about Chalke's challenge from that perspective how DO you define the Gospel sans 'penal substitution'? I'd be stumped too!
As for Brian D McLaren I had no real issue with his book (outside the general comments above) until the appendices! Entitled "Why didn't we get it sooner?" I was baffled and scribbled in the margin -"but you haven't said anything original!" (Even the stuff that was wrong wasn't new!) It is not a little arrogant to presume that you are the first person to point out the inconsistencies of the evangelical church with the Gospel we proclaim. Carl Henry did this over sixty years ago - and I bet he wasn't the first. If you review my blog you will find much the same stuff here. In fact, quite coincidentally, my home church is currently running a series of lunch time talks on the subject "RSVP - Jesus unveils Heaven's surprising guest list" - with individual talks on 'Jesus is anti-pride', 'Jesus is anti-religion' and 'Jesus is pro-outcast'.* I haven't heard the earlier talks or even know who the speaker is; but I'm prepared to bet everyone out there in blogworld 100 to 1 that all the issues dear to McLaren & Chalke will be addressed there.... as they always have been from faithful Bible teaching churches the world over. It makes you wonder what circles McLaren & Chalke move in.
It maybe the case that McLaren & Chalke have led relatively sheltered Christian lives and ministries within triumphalist and separationist churches for whom this sort of cultural engagement was alien and whose corporate lives were marked by unreality; it is only now that they are reacting against these attitudes. They have some, perhaps many, cogent criticisms to make of evangelical practice - but it will not be the first time that well-meaning men have allowed their enthusiasm for their particular hobby horse to get the better of their judgement.
Recommended further reading: "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" by Don Carson.
Recommended audio: Tim Keller who spoke at the Evangelical Ministers Assembly 2007 on the theme "Defining Times: What is an Evangelical?" Available from Proclamation Trust at http://www.proctrust.org.uk/
* No doubt these talks will be available from St Helen's Media in due course.
Monday, October 15, 2007
ULLSWATER! THE DODDS!
And THE RAVEN!
For many years I have travelled up to The English Lake District by train and camped out near Lake Ullswater to explore the surrounding fells. These mountains are described in Wainwright's "Pictorial Guides to the Lakeland Fells" books 1 and 2, 'The Eastern Fells' and 'The Far Eastern Fells' respectively. I generally camp out for about five to seven nights usually in the Autumn at a campsite at Pooley Bridge. A few years ago I set myself the goal of tackling all the major elevations around Ullswater.
The most famous fell in this region is Helvellyn at 950m but it has some sizeable companions such as the equally challenging Fairfield (873m) or - to the east of the lake - High Street (828m). I had covered the highest fells in my target group with the exception of Stybarrow Dodd, Watson's Dodd and Great Dodd which were my main objectives for this trip. I also revisited my old friend Helvellyn - I've lost count how many times I've ventured up there but I never tire of it. I've also learnt to appreciate the lesser fells - as a young man I always wanted to do the highest and the toughest mountains - but I long since realised that these are not automatically the most interesting climbs, sometimes the most beautiful and challenging things in life modestly draw little attention to themselves.
Someone might ask 'why base yourself at Pooley when that is the furthest end of the lake away from the mountains?' It's because I love the journey along Ullswater and while it may not be the most practical location for a base it is aesthetically pleasing. For example the day I did the 'Dodds' I caught the early morning bus towards Patterdale and all along the lake one could see this thick layer of mist brooding over the still water - it was magical. Also at the end of the day, when I've completed a walk, I adore the "steamer" ride back along the lake. It is wonderful to sit on board "Raven" and watch the mountains go by on my way back to my camp.
Recommended eateries: "Fellbites" in Glenridding and "The Sun Inn" at Pooley.
I love Ullswater because it is so unspoilt - I find the usual tourist rat-run along the A591 and Windermere hideously busy and best avoided. If you want my advice keep well to the East or West of that axis. In any event I generally start my walks at first light - that way I have the mountains to myself and rarely meet anyone else until I'm well on my way down.
One lovely aspect of camping out so far away from the 'light pollution' of big cities is the night sky. One evening I lay out in my sleeping bag and gazed at the canopy above. I could see the Milky Way and myriads of brilliant stars. Occasionally one could see satellites in orbit serenely sailing from one horizon to the other. Meteors would flash into view and just as quickly vanish in a burst of light. One morning when I threw back the cover of my tent there was the planet Venus, the "Morning Star", like a dazzling jewel in a velvet sky. Absolutely brilliant.
My dream home would be a residential boat-house in a secluded corner of Ullswater!
And THE RAVEN!
For many years I have travelled up to The English Lake District by train and camped out near Lake Ullswater to explore the surrounding fells. These mountains are described in Wainwright's "Pictorial Guides to the Lakeland Fells" books 1 and 2, 'The Eastern Fells' and 'The Far Eastern Fells' respectively. I generally camp out for about five to seven nights usually in the Autumn at a campsite at Pooley Bridge. A few years ago I set myself the goal of tackling all the major elevations around Ullswater.
The most famous fell in this region is Helvellyn at 950m but it has some sizeable companions such as the equally challenging Fairfield (873m) or - to the east of the lake - High Street (828m). I had covered the highest fells in my target group with the exception of Stybarrow Dodd, Watson's Dodd and Great Dodd which were my main objectives for this trip. I also revisited my old friend Helvellyn - I've lost count how many times I've ventured up there but I never tire of it. I've also learnt to appreciate the lesser fells - as a young man I always wanted to do the highest and the toughest mountains - but I long since realised that these are not automatically the most interesting climbs, sometimes the most beautiful and challenging things in life modestly draw little attention to themselves.
Someone might ask 'why base yourself at Pooley when that is the furthest end of the lake away from the mountains?' It's because I love the journey along Ullswater and while it may not be the most practical location for a base it is aesthetically pleasing. For example the day I did the 'Dodds' I caught the early morning bus towards Patterdale and all along the lake one could see this thick layer of mist brooding over the still water - it was magical. Also at the end of the day, when I've completed a walk, I adore the "steamer" ride back along the lake. It is wonderful to sit on board "Raven" and watch the mountains go by on my way back to my camp.
Recommended eateries: "Fellbites" in Glenridding and "The Sun Inn" at Pooley.
I love Ullswater because it is so unspoilt - I find the usual tourist rat-run along the A591 and Windermere hideously busy and best avoided. If you want my advice keep well to the East or West of that axis. In any event I generally start my walks at first light - that way I have the mountains to myself and rarely meet anyone else until I'm well on my way down.
One lovely aspect of camping out so far away from the 'light pollution' of big cities is the night sky. One evening I lay out in my sleeping bag and gazed at the canopy above. I could see the Milky Way and myriads of brilliant stars. Occasionally one could see satellites in orbit serenely sailing from one horizon to the other. Meteors would flash into view and just as quickly vanish in a burst of light. One morning when I threw back the cover of my tent there was the planet Venus, the "Morning Star", like a dazzling jewel in a velvet sky. Absolutely brilliant.
My dream home would be a residential boat-house in a secluded corner of Ullswater!
Friday, October 05, 2007
Euthanasia and the Arguments
of Straw Men!
From time to time one hears supporters of euthanasia pressing their case in the national media. To judge from the "debate" one would probably conclude that it is the 'accepted custom and practice' for patients to be allowed to die in pain and that health care professionals are solely concerned with employing every conceivable technology to prolong every individuals life to the last uttermost second regardless of the pain involved and the patient's (or their family's) wishes.
I have to tell you in all candour I have NEVER witnessed this scenario in over the twenty five years of my nursing career - the bulk of which has been in critical care. Funny that.
Funny that the commonly accepted "truth'"is that only those who are in favour of euthanasia are motivated by compassion and the rest of us are motivated soley by professional arrogance. There is not a little humbug attached to the argument of the euthanasia lobby.
I qualified as a registered nurse twenty five years ago. I went on to do my paediatric course and subsequently worked on a childrens cancer ward before making a move into Paediatric Intensive Care. I feel that I have earned the right to speak on the subject of euthanasia.
Advocates of euthanasia generally set up a phoney scenario of a patient dying in agony when compassion would demand that we put them out of their misery. As someone who has worked extensively in a variety of critical care settings I can tell you that I find such allegations utterly repugnant and a slur on my
profession. If someone does die in pain that is a matter of professional incompetence not (as euthanasia advocates would have it) accepted 'custom and practice'. And frankly I cannot help but feel that the public is being hoodwinked by their spurious arguments.
There is no excuse for anyone to die in pain. None whatsoever. This is a 'no brainer' as issues go. Period. If you find yourself witnessing such a scenario then I would say that that is clinical mismanagment.There is no excuse for it.
I will give as much pain relief as is required to prevent pain - if their disease process is such that that required analgesia actually foreshortens their life - then so be it. That is NOT euthanasia, that is pain control. As a Christian and a nurse I have no issue with this.... it is a none issue! (It is exactly the same situation as giving any drug with a known side-effect in such circumstances).
Perhaps it is a dated term but no-one seems to mention the principle of "double effect". This is where one carries out one action i.e. to control pain, but which secondarily foreshortens life.
Euthanasia (which is Greek literally meaning 'good death') actually means intentionally terminating a life as the primary purpose.
Now some one will say that this is splitting hairs but I will reply that speaking as someone at the coal-face of these ethical dilemmas this distinction is crystal clear... there is no ambiguity. Killing someone is murder, dying as a consequence of a pathological disorder which professional people are trying but failing to arrest is an entirely different matter.
The real question is why are the advocates of euthanasia pushing a "false choice" argument? Presumably it's simply because the truth will not do.
Another 'straw man' is the implication that patients are having medical treatment "forced" upon them. But the reality is that everyone has the right to refuse treatment, to compel someone to undergo procedures they have declined is assault. (There are some rare instances where perhaps a patients mental state causes medical staff to follow through a legal process to compel a patient (or the parent of a sick child) to have treatment....but that is not the issue in view here). Sadly it is my experience that such legal proceedings that do occur are more often when a parent refuses to let go of a loved child - and insist on futile attempts at resuscitation.... it is heart breaking for all concerned. The purpose of medical treatment is to support a patient through an acute episode of illness to a point where they have recovered sufficiently not to require such support. If the consensus of opinion is that no such recovery is possible, then in my view, the removal of this life support causes no ethical problems - we are merely allowing the pathological process to takes its course. I have been involved in countless such discussions and contrary to the arguments put forward by the pro-euthanasia lobby there are no legal ambiguities about it.
Another 'straw man' is that somehow people like me are in some sort of legal limbo and therefore society should sanction euthanasia. That is yet more codswallop! If I sound irritated - I am. I detest being used as bait to manipulate an unsuspecting public.
The REAL question is this; when so many 'straw men' are being marshalled to emotionally intimidate the innocent onlooker into sanctioning the demise of our fellow human beings where do you think the REAL end point of this argument is?
If anyone wants to take issue with me the comments box is open as always.
of Straw Men!
From time to time one hears supporters of euthanasia pressing their case in the national media. To judge from the "debate" one would probably conclude that it is the 'accepted custom and practice' for patients to be allowed to die in pain and that health care professionals are solely concerned with employing every conceivable technology to prolong every individuals life to the last uttermost second regardless of the pain involved and the patient's (or their family's) wishes.
I have to tell you in all candour I have NEVER witnessed this scenario in over the twenty five years of my nursing career - the bulk of which has been in critical care. Funny that.
Funny that the commonly accepted "truth'"is that only those who are in favour of euthanasia are motivated by compassion and the rest of us are motivated soley by professional arrogance. There is not a little humbug attached to the argument of the euthanasia lobby.
I qualified as a registered nurse twenty five years ago. I went on to do my paediatric course and subsequently worked on a childrens cancer ward before making a move into Paediatric Intensive Care. I feel that I have earned the right to speak on the subject of euthanasia.
Advocates of euthanasia generally set up a phoney scenario of a patient dying in agony when compassion would demand that we put them out of their misery. As someone who has worked extensively in a variety of critical care settings I can tell you that I find such allegations utterly repugnant and a slur on my
profession. If someone does die in pain that is a matter of professional incompetence not (as euthanasia advocates would have it) accepted 'custom and practice'. And frankly I cannot help but feel that the public is being hoodwinked by their spurious arguments.
There is no excuse for anyone to die in pain. None whatsoever. This is a 'no brainer' as issues go. Period. If you find yourself witnessing such a scenario then I would say that that is clinical mismanagment.There is no excuse for it.
I will give as much pain relief as is required to prevent pain - if their disease process is such that that required analgesia actually foreshortens their life - then so be it. That is NOT euthanasia, that is pain control. As a Christian and a nurse I have no issue with this.... it is a none issue! (It is exactly the same situation as giving any drug with a known side-effect in such circumstances).
Perhaps it is a dated term but no-one seems to mention the principle of "double effect". This is where one carries out one action i.e. to control pain, but which secondarily foreshortens life.
Euthanasia (which is Greek literally meaning 'good death') actually means intentionally terminating a life as the primary purpose.
Now some one will say that this is splitting hairs but I will reply that speaking as someone at the coal-face of these ethical dilemmas this distinction is crystal clear... there is no ambiguity. Killing someone is murder, dying as a consequence of a pathological disorder which professional people are trying but failing to arrest is an entirely different matter.
The real question is why are the advocates of euthanasia pushing a "false choice" argument? Presumably it's simply because the truth will not do.
Another 'straw man' is the implication that patients are having medical treatment "forced" upon them. But the reality is that everyone has the right to refuse treatment, to compel someone to undergo procedures they have declined is assault. (There are some rare instances where perhaps a patients mental state causes medical staff to follow through a legal process to compel a patient (or the parent of a sick child) to have treatment....but that is not the issue in view here). Sadly it is my experience that such legal proceedings that do occur are more often when a parent refuses to let go of a loved child - and insist on futile attempts at resuscitation.... it is heart breaking for all concerned. The purpose of medical treatment is to support a patient through an acute episode of illness to a point where they have recovered sufficiently not to require such support. If the consensus of opinion is that no such recovery is possible, then in my view, the removal of this life support causes no ethical problems - we are merely allowing the pathological process to takes its course. I have been involved in countless such discussions and contrary to the arguments put forward by the pro-euthanasia lobby there are no legal ambiguities about it.
Another 'straw man' is that somehow people like me are in some sort of legal limbo and therefore society should sanction euthanasia. That is yet more codswallop! If I sound irritated - I am. I detest being used as bait to manipulate an unsuspecting public.
The REAL question is this; when so many 'straw men' are being marshalled to emotionally intimidate the innocent onlooker into sanctioning the demise of our fellow human beings where do you think the REAL end point of this argument is?
If anyone wants to take issue with me the comments box is open as always.
Monday, October 01, 2007
AN APOCRYPHAL STORY.
2006 was my sciatica year when I was incapacitated for a few weeks with excruciating back pain. It took several months to resolve sufficiently for me to return to clinical work. I've been back at work properly for a year now but it was only few weeks ago that I discovered that there is a story about me doing the rounds from that period. It is entirely apocryphal, but I thought that it was so good I'd post it in my 'blog'.
While I was incapacitated and house bound some unctous visitor came to encourage me (so the story goes). Presumably she believed in the ennobling power of suffering because she is said to have said "I expect that God must be teaching you an awful lot through all of this!"
I am said to have replied, "Yes, how bl++dy painful a back can be!" The story is entirely apocryphal of course.... but it is what I would have said!!!
2006 was my sciatica year when I was incapacitated for a few weeks with excruciating back pain. It took several months to resolve sufficiently for me to return to clinical work. I've been back at work properly for a year now but it was only few weeks ago that I discovered that there is a story about me doing the rounds from that period. It is entirely apocryphal, but I thought that it was so good I'd post it in my 'blog'.
While I was incapacitated and house bound some unctous visitor came to encourage me (so the story goes). Presumably she believed in the ennobling power of suffering because she is said to have said "I expect that God must be teaching you an awful lot through all of this!"
I am said to have replied, "Yes, how bl++dy painful a back can be!" The story is entirely apocryphal of course.... but it is what I would have said!!!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The WAGES of SYNTACTICAL ANALYSIS.
This is a follow-up article to an earlier post relating my experiences in "Youth With A Mission" (YWAM) in this mid 1980's. After my "Discipleship Training School" (DTS) in 1985 I had returned home to Yorkshire for a couple of years, but in 1987 (almost exactly twenty years ago) I went back to YWAM to do a year-long "School of Biblical Studies" (SBS) at The King's Lodge, near Nuneaton, in Warwickshire. At the time I still regarded myself as a Charismatic Christian but the glaring lesson from my DTS was just how disasterous it is to cut loose from the anchor of God's Word. The DTS implied (as did the wider charismatic movement) that Bible study was somehow dangerously 'cerebral' and therefore 'unspiritual': the stress they had laid on the experiential failed to grasp the obvious point that even "experiences" require some sort of interpretation: no end of authoritative pronouncements were made on the strength of leaders' supposed experiences and without the checks and balances of God's Word the leaders' own subjective "anointing" became an unimpeachable authority. I recall meeting one of the leading lights of the housechurch movement in the UK who, although he had been invited to speak about Jesus, actually spoke only about himself! But when you think about it - if you exalt the experiential at the expense of propositional teaching you have only your own self reverential ego to refer to. To faithfully teach Christ - a real person in space and time - you must preach because you can only convey who He is and what He did in world history by using words and propositions (you can no more communicate this wordlessly than you can convey anything meaningful about The Battle of The Somme without using words!) Nor can you model Christ adequately because what He did at The Cross was utterly unique!
Most (but not all) of the Charismatic leaders I had met over the years fostered a self referential arrogance I couldn't buy into and it made me want to learn more about the Bible..... not as an academic exercise, but because it was about the Lord Jesus - I loved Him and wanted to know all about Him! Of course even in this I couldn't claim to be without some mixed motives - I also supposed that I had some sort of "ministry" inside me waiting to be 'discovered' and 'recognised' (that was modelled to me). Maybe I even fancied myself as one of God's 'great ones' too - but that is probably a conceit common to young men like myself as I was at the time! So it was with these thoughts in mind that I signed up for the School of Biblical Studies.
The "SBS" was led by a quiet American called Charlie Bassett who exemplified the ideal Bible Study leader's attitude "pass the ball, don't strike at goal!" ie help others see for themselves what the Bible teaches. The 'big idea' of the SBS was called 'Inductive Bible Study' - students were encouraged to read the Bible for themselves without any preconceived ideas - it was wonderfully liberating. All questions and opinions were open for discussion unlike on the DTS two years earlier which was not as freeing as its advocates fondly thought. Quite how easily the SBS sat with the other YWAM courses I'm not entirely sure. During my time at The King's Lodge there was a DTS and a "Biblical Counselling Course" running and the members of the various groups might share thoughts over coffee about what we had all been learning and, I have to say, some of the ideas current on these other courses were a bit "iffy". Reading between the lines I think that some senior YWAM leaders had given the SBS their support because they realised that YWAM was acquiring a reputation for promoting unbiblical beliefs and some were keen to reassert basic Gospel teaching. Others in the leadership, I suspect, viewed the SBS as divisive (as if all these other teachings weren't!)
Until I did the SBS I had always read the Bible "in the flat", treating each verse as applicable to me; and I always used to put myself at the heart of the text. Maybe its a 'man thing' but I would identify myself with, for example, David fighting Goliath but what I now realised was that this is wrongly positioning myself within the text; if I was in that scenario at all it was among the quivering Israelite army who needed a champion to fight on their behalf! Another way of reading the Bible "in the flat" is to treat each verse as if it was a 'stand alone' aphorism. The SBS woke me up to the need to read those verses in context and to be sensitive to the genre of the particular literature I was reading. It was a 'revelation' to me, no pun intended! My experience of reading the Bible prior to this was like reading my way through a jumble of meaningless words and ideas occassionally stumbling upon a purple passage which I invariably felt I understood. After the SBS I realise just how important it all is and now I have a better idea of what those purple passages actually mean!
The biggest shock to me as a Charismatic Christian, as I was then, was when we read the Book of Acts and the penny dropped about "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit". I had previously just lifted what happened in Acts and applied it to me without any regard to what the author of Acts was aiming to communicate. The reality is "The Baptism of the Spirit" occured as new people groups were included within the people of God: as the church expanded geographically following the structure of the book (see Acts 1 v8), each expansion was endorsed by the Holy Spirit. For us after Acts looking back on these events it seems the Baptism of the Spirit occurs when we become part of God's people when we are 'born again'. The Word had challenged my long held belief that there was a two stage message - a Gospel message for sinners and a 'second blessing' message for believers. Bible Study is always most exciting when it challenges our preconceived ideas. The irony is that it was a Charismatic group which caused me to adopt an Evangelical position on the 'Second Blessing'!
This realisation was actually very important because it also made me realise that the Gospel is not a portal through which a Christian then progresses onto some 'higher', 'deeper' or 'more abundant life' teaching - I realised something revolutionary; the Gospel is the Christian life! If you are at the North Pole you cannot go any further North; any so-called step "forward" will take you South! Most of my Christian life upto that point was obsessed with 'moving on' and now I realised it was because I had not yet even remotely begun to understand the implications of the Gospel itself! It is more than a mere entry point. 'Higher ', 'deeper' or 'more abundant life' teaching will inevitably and subtly take us into elitism, where we feel we are a cut above the common clay. The cosey triumphalism which passes for modern day Evangelicalism (which I had always found cloyingly sentimental and unreal) assumes that the Christian is above (or ought to be above) the common experiences of mankind. Yet as I read the Bible all the great issues in life are there, death, evil, failure, suffering, justice, hope, redemption and grace - "life, the universe & everything" are all laid bare.... with total honesty.
I could mention how our study of the Book of Revelation was staggering - I have rarely ever been so encouraged by a book: suffice to say that we let the structure of the book itself help inform how the text should be read.... a repeating cycle of seven, written in the apocalyptic genre. Those Evangelicals who take their theology from pulp paperback prophecy have completely lost the plot on this book, sorry but there really isn't a kind way to say it! (If you want to, check out my posts tagged Revelation - I won't repeat myself here). Besides Charlie Bassett we had some visiting speakers including a South African called Dr Bennie Wolvaardt who taught us how to really look at the Bible text with a series of talks on 'syntactical analysis'. I know this sounds terribly highbrow but basically it is about following the line of an argument, which is especially important in the epistles. Those 'stand alone' Bible verses will trip us up if we cannot set them in their rightful place in the flow of the author's thoughts.
After the SBS concluded in the Summer of 1988 a handful of us went on to the newly acquired YWAM base at Highfield Oval in Harpenden to learn about preaching and teaching for six weeks. Bennie organised and led this phase. After a year studying the Bible I had come to realise that I was not the man I supposed myself to be; the Word of God had held a mirror up to my face and revealed a face I don't show anyone - that's how I know it's true! - I was not one of God's 'great ones' after all. I returned home, did a course in paediatric nursing at St James' Hospital in Leeds and worked on a children's oncology ward there for a year. I had joined a charismatic church in the meantime but the harsh realities of a children's cancer ward don't sit easily with the sentimental triumphalism of charismatic christianity. The glib answers and unreality of this fellowship jarred on me and caused me to re-evaluate my beliefs. I realised that I was no longer a 'charismatic' and started describing myself as an 'evangelical'. I know that that word is fraught with misunderstanding and difficulties, and is often grotesquely caricatured and misrepresented (often by those who should know better), but it is the least worst option! The fact is a lot of what passes as contemporary evangelicalism is only loosely based on the Word of God - but I am loathe to disown these people because my own experience has taught me that God is a God of Grace. God did not disown the "crazies" in the church at Corinth but remonstrated with them using the Word of God. When I became a Christian it was on the basis of a feeble triumphalist Gospel message but it was the start of something. I had to unlearn a lot of what I will call "evangelical folklore". I suspect that there will be many people like myself sluicing around the church scene - coming to faith on the basis of an incomplete, faulty "gospel" message, poorly taught, confused and badly led; but in the Faith nonetheless.
As for the Leeds fellowship I gather that others felt ill at ease too by the same things as me but they moved toward, what would in later years be known as, the "Emerging Church" movement because they had lost confidence altogether in evangelicalism. I shared some of their reservations but what I had witnessed during the SBS had confirmed my confidence in the Bible as the Word of God and I wasn't prepared to give up on it so easily. Nor did I feel compelled to ditch key classical protestant doctrine as some of my contemporaries did. For a variety of reasons I decided (sadly) to leave Yorkshire and it was in 1991 that I moved to London to work on a children's intensive care unit. By sheer coincidence I found that I had moved to within walking distance of St Helen's Bishopsgate which has proved to be my spiritual home ever since. At the time one of my old Leeds contacts warned me off of St Helen's because it had a reputation for being a "teaching church" - the same phoney old argument that teaching the Bible kills spiritual life!
If anything I am more convinced than ever that when the Bible is faithfully taught God's voice is heard. You cannot separate the Spirit from the Word.The fact is God is a God of Grace, whose Word illuminates our darkened minds and whose Spirit softens our hardened hearts!
This is a follow-up article to an earlier post relating my experiences in "Youth With A Mission" (YWAM) in this mid 1980's. After my "Discipleship Training School" (DTS) in 1985 I had returned home to Yorkshire for a couple of years, but in 1987 (almost exactly twenty years ago) I went back to YWAM to do a year-long "School of Biblical Studies" (SBS) at The King's Lodge, near Nuneaton, in Warwickshire. At the time I still regarded myself as a Charismatic Christian but the glaring lesson from my DTS was just how disasterous it is to cut loose from the anchor of God's Word. The DTS implied (as did the wider charismatic movement) that Bible study was somehow dangerously 'cerebral' and therefore 'unspiritual': the stress they had laid on the experiential failed to grasp the obvious point that even "experiences" require some sort of interpretation: no end of authoritative pronouncements were made on the strength of leaders' supposed experiences and without the checks and balances of God's Word the leaders' own subjective "anointing" became an unimpeachable authority. I recall meeting one of the leading lights of the housechurch movement in the UK who, although he had been invited to speak about Jesus, actually spoke only about himself! But when you think about it - if you exalt the experiential at the expense of propositional teaching you have only your own self reverential ego to refer to. To faithfully teach Christ - a real person in space and time - you must preach because you can only convey who He is and what He did in world history by using words and propositions (you can no more communicate this wordlessly than you can convey anything meaningful about The Battle of The Somme without using words!) Nor can you model Christ adequately because what He did at The Cross was utterly unique!
Most (but not all) of the Charismatic leaders I had met over the years fostered a self referential arrogance I couldn't buy into and it made me want to learn more about the Bible..... not as an academic exercise, but because it was about the Lord Jesus - I loved Him and wanted to know all about Him! Of course even in this I couldn't claim to be without some mixed motives - I also supposed that I had some sort of "ministry" inside me waiting to be 'discovered' and 'recognised' (that was modelled to me). Maybe I even fancied myself as one of God's 'great ones' too - but that is probably a conceit common to young men like myself as I was at the time! So it was with these thoughts in mind that I signed up for the School of Biblical Studies.
The "SBS" was led by a quiet American called Charlie Bassett who exemplified the ideal Bible Study leader's attitude "pass the ball, don't strike at goal!" ie help others see for themselves what the Bible teaches. The 'big idea' of the SBS was called 'Inductive Bible Study' - students were encouraged to read the Bible for themselves without any preconceived ideas - it was wonderfully liberating. All questions and opinions were open for discussion unlike on the DTS two years earlier which was not as freeing as its advocates fondly thought. Quite how easily the SBS sat with the other YWAM courses I'm not entirely sure. During my time at The King's Lodge there was a DTS and a "Biblical Counselling Course" running and the members of the various groups might share thoughts over coffee about what we had all been learning and, I have to say, some of the ideas current on these other courses were a bit "iffy". Reading between the lines I think that some senior YWAM leaders had given the SBS their support because they realised that YWAM was acquiring a reputation for promoting unbiblical beliefs and some were keen to reassert basic Gospel teaching. Others in the leadership, I suspect, viewed the SBS as divisive (as if all these other teachings weren't!)
Until I did the SBS I had always read the Bible "in the flat", treating each verse as applicable to me; and I always used to put myself at the heart of the text. Maybe its a 'man thing' but I would identify myself with, for example, David fighting Goliath but what I now realised was that this is wrongly positioning myself within the text; if I was in that scenario at all it was among the quivering Israelite army who needed a champion to fight on their behalf! Another way of reading the Bible "in the flat" is to treat each verse as if it was a 'stand alone' aphorism. The SBS woke me up to the need to read those verses in context and to be sensitive to the genre of the particular literature I was reading. It was a 'revelation' to me, no pun intended! My experience of reading the Bible prior to this was like reading my way through a jumble of meaningless words and ideas occassionally stumbling upon a purple passage which I invariably felt I understood. After the SBS I realise just how important it all is and now I have a better idea of what those purple passages actually mean!
The biggest shock to me as a Charismatic Christian, as I was then, was when we read the Book of Acts and the penny dropped about "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit". I had previously just lifted what happened in Acts and applied it to me without any regard to what the author of Acts was aiming to communicate. The reality is "The Baptism of the Spirit" occured as new people groups were included within the people of God: as the church expanded geographically following the structure of the book (see Acts 1 v8), each expansion was endorsed by the Holy Spirit. For us after Acts looking back on these events it seems the Baptism of the Spirit occurs when we become part of God's people when we are 'born again'. The Word had challenged my long held belief that there was a two stage message - a Gospel message for sinners and a 'second blessing' message for believers. Bible Study is always most exciting when it challenges our preconceived ideas. The irony is that it was a Charismatic group which caused me to adopt an Evangelical position on the 'Second Blessing'!
This realisation was actually very important because it also made me realise that the Gospel is not a portal through which a Christian then progresses onto some 'higher', 'deeper' or 'more abundant life' teaching - I realised something revolutionary; the Gospel is the Christian life! If you are at the North Pole you cannot go any further North; any so-called step "forward" will take you South! Most of my Christian life upto that point was obsessed with 'moving on' and now I realised it was because I had not yet even remotely begun to understand the implications of the Gospel itself! It is more than a mere entry point. 'Higher ', 'deeper' or 'more abundant life' teaching will inevitably and subtly take us into elitism, where we feel we are a cut above the common clay. The cosey triumphalism which passes for modern day Evangelicalism (which I had always found cloyingly sentimental and unreal) assumes that the Christian is above (or ought to be above) the common experiences of mankind. Yet as I read the Bible all the great issues in life are there, death, evil, failure, suffering, justice, hope, redemption and grace - "life, the universe & everything" are all laid bare.... with total honesty.
I could mention how our study of the Book of Revelation was staggering - I have rarely ever been so encouraged by a book: suffice to say that we let the structure of the book itself help inform how the text should be read.... a repeating cycle of seven, written in the apocalyptic genre. Those Evangelicals who take their theology from pulp paperback prophecy have completely lost the plot on this book, sorry but there really isn't a kind way to say it! (If you want to, check out my posts tagged Revelation - I won't repeat myself here). Besides Charlie Bassett we had some visiting speakers including a South African called Dr Bennie Wolvaardt who taught us how to really look at the Bible text with a series of talks on 'syntactical analysis'. I know this sounds terribly highbrow but basically it is about following the line of an argument, which is especially important in the epistles. Those 'stand alone' Bible verses will trip us up if we cannot set them in their rightful place in the flow of the author's thoughts.
After the SBS concluded in the Summer of 1988 a handful of us went on to the newly acquired YWAM base at Highfield Oval in Harpenden to learn about preaching and teaching for six weeks. Bennie organised and led this phase. After a year studying the Bible I had come to realise that I was not the man I supposed myself to be; the Word of God had held a mirror up to my face and revealed a face I don't show anyone - that's how I know it's true! - I was not one of God's 'great ones' after all. I returned home, did a course in paediatric nursing at St James' Hospital in Leeds and worked on a children's oncology ward there for a year. I had joined a charismatic church in the meantime but the harsh realities of a children's cancer ward don't sit easily with the sentimental triumphalism of charismatic christianity. The glib answers and unreality of this fellowship jarred on me and caused me to re-evaluate my beliefs. I realised that I was no longer a 'charismatic' and started describing myself as an 'evangelical'. I know that that word is fraught with misunderstanding and difficulties, and is often grotesquely caricatured and misrepresented (often by those who should know better), but it is the least worst option! The fact is a lot of what passes as contemporary evangelicalism is only loosely based on the Word of God - but I am loathe to disown these people because my own experience has taught me that God is a God of Grace. God did not disown the "crazies" in the church at Corinth but remonstrated with them using the Word of God. When I became a Christian it was on the basis of a feeble triumphalist Gospel message but it was the start of something. I had to unlearn a lot of what I will call "evangelical folklore". I suspect that there will be many people like myself sluicing around the church scene - coming to faith on the basis of an incomplete, faulty "gospel" message, poorly taught, confused and badly led; but in the Faith nonetheless.
As for the Leeds fellowship I gather that others felt ill at ease too by the same things as me but they moved toward, what would in later years be known as, the "Emerging Church" movement because they had lost confidence altogether in evangelicalism. I shared some of their reservations but what I had witnessed during the SBS had confirmed my confidence in the Bible as the Word of God and I wasn't prepared to give up on it so easily. Nor did I feel compelled to ditch key classical protestant doctrine as some of my contemporaries did. For a variety of reasons I decided (sadly) to leave Yorkshire and it was in 1991 that I moved to London to work on a children's intensive care unit. By sheer coincidence I found that I had moved to within walking distance of St Helen's Bishopsgate which has proved to be my spiritual home ever since. At the time one of my old Leeds contacts warned me off of St Helen's because it had a reputation for being a "teaching church" - the same phoney old argument that teaching the Bible kills spiritual life!
If anything I am more convinced than ever that when the Bible is faithfully taught God's voice is heard. You cannot separate the Spirit from the Word.The fact is God is a God of Grace, whose Word illuminates our darkened minds and whose Spirit softens our hardened hearts!
CHILD POVERTY!
Dominic Lawson commenting in the UK newspaper, "The Independent", a few months ago stated that the most significant determinant of a child's progress in life is not his or her schooling but their parenting. Lawson relates an encounter between Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead, and the headmaster of a school he recently visited:
"There's one thing you should understand," said the principal, "about 40% of the pupils in front of you will never have had the experience of adults at home who think of putting their children's needs ahead of their own desires."
It's not "Education, education, education" that should be our new PM's slogan. It's "Family, family, family", said Lawson.
But from a Christian perspective the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart. No government can change human hearts.
Dominic Lawson commenting in the UK newspaper, "The Independent", a few months ago stated that the most significant determinant of a child's progress in life is not his or her schooling but their parenting. Lawson relates an encounter between Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead, and the headmaster of a school he recently visited:
"There's one thing you should understand," said the principal, "about 40% of the pupils in front of you will never have had the experience of adults at home who think of putting their children's needs ahead of their own desires."
It's not "Education, education, education" that should be our new PM's slogan. It's "Family, family, family", said Lawson.
But from a Christian perspective the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart. No government can change human hearts.
Monday, September 10, 2007
The rise of the
"UBER-CONSUMER"
and the decline of
PROPOSITIONAL TRUTH!
In our post-evangelical, post-modernist, post-consumerist age there is some talk about how propostional truth is passe. This is the kind of drawing room talk which only cuts much ice among the chattering classes at their dinner parties as they crack open another bottle of Chablis. "Mere words cannot convey meaning still less 'truth' - whatever that is. All truth claims are culturally bound. Yes, they say, the important thing is the debate - the dialogue is all - conclusions are so declasse!" The reality is this is a "debate" which can only truly exist (not in a post consumer age meaning they have 'moved on' from consumerism) but in an uber-consumer age when we arrogantly assume we can smorgasbord the philosophy table and select the "reality" which suits our taste. It is even possible to snack at the "Jesus" table and select the Jesus which suits us - the "another Jesus" of 2 Corinthians 11 v4! ("Uber" is a German prefix meaning "super" or "ultra", when this prefix is adopted in English it indicates quizzical disbelief. Please feel free to substitute the word Ultra if you prefer - ultra-consumer fits my meaning just as well). Reality is a human construct in this propositionless, ultra-consumer world; why not select one that is congenial? For them the "dialogue" is all and any attempt to draw universal conclusions is arrogant and mere "power politics"; any 'truth' claim is an exercise in oppression and control. Truth cannot be contained within a proposition they insist!
Of course I firmly believe this is all utter nonsense and fantasy-land thinking. If you want to dispute the point with me come and join me on the ward round on the children's intensive care unit here in London on Planet Earth. When we stand at the foot of the bed of a critically ill patient and their course of treatment is being debated why don't you chime in with your wisdom about the "meaninglessness of words" and how the "discussion is all", that conclusions are "oppressive" and how we represent an outmoded modernistic paradigm. (Don't misunderstand me; I do not believe that a reductionist scientific model describes the whole of reality - I wouldn't be a Christian if I did! - but as far as it goes it represents a model of physical reality. It is the truth and nothing but the truth, even if it is not the whole truth, because it completely misses out the spiritual dimension to reality).
Back on the ward round as we sift the results of investigations undertaken and discuss options and courses of treatment we may well not have a complete picture of the patient's condition (we rarely deal in "certainty") but we must draw some conclusions from what evidence we do have and work out an action plan - indeed it would be outrageous and morally indefensible to pass by without formulating some treatment plan even if it is only a provisional one. It may well be that over the following hours and days we will revise and refine our plans as we get a clearer picture of the disease process. Isn't this the "hermeneutical spiral" principle, constantly homing in on the truth? So do not confuse the cowardice of indecision with the virtue of humility. Do not confuse humility with merely having ceased to care! What the uber-consumer calls toleration is more likely to be indifference..... or, just possibly, despair.
But as that ward round unfolds why not discuss your insights into oppressive 'truth claims' with the parents of one of our patients? I'm sure that they would be only too interested to hear from you.... but I won't answer for how they might respond! You see we live in an uber consumer society cut off from reality but once in a while reality impinges on our illusory world that once seemed so secure; when nasty things happen then we don't want a "dialogue" with the chattering classes. When push comes to shove we recognise our need for conclusions and a course of action by experts in their field not a philosophical debate about the meaninglessness of propositions or how 'truth' is culturally determined and a
function of oppression! (Disease and misfortune are not culture bound and in fact they are a compelling international language). This whole outlook is one which can only ever arise in a complacent consumer mindset which has never had to deal with difficulty or danger as previous generations have; the uber-consumer merely wants to be left to luxuriate in a world where there are no difficult choices to make and no challenges to unsettle us. We tolerate everything not because we are caring people, we tolerate everything precisely because we have ceased to care!
Do you ever wonder why people get angry and even violent with health care workers? I've seen it happen within my own intensive care unit. It's because the health care worker tells them the truth about reality when they've always thought that they could choose their own... they are uber-consumers who bought into the post modern lie. Someone given the task of breaking bad news becomes the official representative of the society who has denied them their right to the reality of their choice! Afterall the uber-consumer's catch phrase is "I know my rights!"
It would be a shame if evangelicals buy into this sort of mentality too. The danger, as I see it, is that in an attempt to be culturally 'relevant' to the uber-consumer we tailor the Gospel message to flatter our target group - but when we do that we also cease to have anything meaningful to say, we can only reflect back the conceits of the uber-consumer and we can never challenge them. The uber-consumer does not want to be unsettled in fact they will demand (with menaces) the craven approval of the church..... for all their talk about "toleration" they will never tolerate any group not geared to flatter them.
We Evangelicals only have something distinctive to say when we are authentically counter-cultural, and we have not always been faithful in this regard, but that is something the Lord Jesus requires us to be if we are to be worthy of the name Evangelical, that is "Evangel people", literally Gospel people!
"UBER-CONSUMER"
and the decline of
PROPOSITIONAL TRUTH!
In our post-evangelical, post-modernist, post-consumerist age there is some talk about how propostional truth is passe. This is the kind of drawing room talk which only cuts much ice among the chattering classes at their dinner parties as they crack open another bottle of Chablis. "Mere words cannot convey meaning still less 'truth' - whatever that is. All truth claims are culturally bound. Yes, they say, the important thing is the debate - the dialogue is all - conclusions are so declasse!" The reality is this is a "debate" which can only truly exist (not in a post consumer age meaning they have 'moved on' from consumerism) but in an uber-consumer age when we arrogantly assume we can smorgasbord the philosophy table and select the "reality" which suits our taste. It is even possible to snack at the "Jesus" table and select the Jesus which suits us - the "another Jesus" of 2 Corinthians 11 v4! ("Uber" is a German prefix meaning "super" or "ultra", when this prefix is adopted in English it indicates quizzical disbelief. Please feel free to substitute the word Ultra if you prefer - ultra-consumer fits my meaning just as well). Reality is a human construct in this propositionless, ultra-consumer world; why not select one that is congenial? For them the "dialogue" is all and any attempt to draw universal conclusions is arrogant and mere "power politics"; any 'truth' claim is an exercise in oppression and control. Truth cannot be contained within a proposition they insist!
Of course I firmly believe this is all utter nonsense and fantasy-land thinking. If you want to dispute the point with me come and join me on the ward round on the children's intensive care unit here in London on Planet Earth. When we stand at the foot of the bed of a critically ill patient and their course of treatment is being debated why don't you chime in with your wisdom about the "meaninglessness of words" and how the "discussion is all", that conclusions are "oppressive" and how we represent an outmoded modernistic paradigm. (Don't misunderstand me; I do not believe that a reductionist scientific model describes the whole of reality - I wouldn't be a Christian if I did! - but as far as it goes it represents a model of physical reality. It is the truth and nothing but the truth, even if it is not the whole truth, because it completely misses out the spiritual dimension to reality).
Back on the ward round as we sift the results of investigations undertaken and discuss options and courses of treatment we may well not have a complete picture of the patient's condition (we rarely deal in "certainty") but we must draw some conclusions from what evidence we do have and work out an action plan - indeed it would be outrageous and morally indefensible to pass by without formulating some treatment plan even if it is only a provisional one. It may well be that over the following hours and days we will revise and refine our plans as we get a clearer picture of the disease process. Isn't this the "hermeneutical spiral" principle, constantly homing in on the truth? So do not confuse the cowardice of indecision with the virtue of humility. Do not confuse humility with merely having ceased to care! What the uber-consumer calls toleration is more likely to be indifference..... or, just possibly, despair.
But as that ward round unfolds why not discuss your insights into oppressive 'truth claims' with the parents of one of our patients? I'm sure that they would be only too interested to hear from you.... but I won't answer for how they might respond! You see we live in an uber consumer society cut off from reality but once in a while reality impinges on our illusory world that once seemed so secure; when nasty things happen then we don't want a "dialogue" with the chattering classes. When push comes to shove we recognise our need for conclusions and a course of action by experts in their field not a philosophical debate about the meaninglessness of propositions or how 'truth' is culturally determined and a
function of oppression! (Disease and misfortune are not culture bound and in fact they are a compelling international language). This whole outlook is one which can only ever arise in a complacent consumer mindset which has never had to deal with difficulty or danger as previous generations have; the uber-consumer merely wants to be left to luxuriate in a world where there are no difficult choices to make and no challenges to unsettle us. We tolerate everything not because we are caring people, we tolerate everything precisely because we have ceased to care!
Do you ever wonder why people get angry and even violent with health care workers? I've seen it happen within my own intensive care unit. It's because the health care worker tells them the truth about reality when they've always thought that they could choose their own... they are uber-consumers who bought into the post modern lie. Someone given the task of breaking bad news becomes the official representative of the society who has denied them their right to the reality of their choice! Afterall the uber-consumer's catch phrase is "I know my rights!"
It would be a shame if evangelicals buy into this sort of mentality too. The danger, as I see it, is that in an attempt to be culturally 'relevant' to the uber-consumer we tailor the Gospel message to flatter our target group - but when we do that we also cease to have anything meaningful to say, we can only reflect back the conceits of the uber-consumer and we can never challenge them. The uber-consumer does not want to be unsettled in fact they will demand (with menaces) the craven approval of the church..... for all their talk about "toleration" they will never tolerate any group not geared to flatter them.
We Evangelicals only have something distinctive to say when we are authentically counter-cultural, and we have not always been faithful in this regard, but that is something the Lord Jesus requires us to be if we are to be worthy of the name Evangelical, that is "Evangel people", literally Gospel people!
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
FLOODS - An "ACT OF GOD" or a Luke thirteen?
In the UK recently we have had some rather exceptional weather resulting in flooding which some Christians have interpreted as God's judgement on us as a nation. Some areas of Europe are experiencing a drought as are some other areas of the world and no doubt there too some people who fancy themselves as modern day Elijahs will draw similar conclusions as if we are still inhabiting an earlier act of the Bible timeline.
Were these floods an "Act of God"? The following comments are addressed to the British nation; if others can play Elijah why can't I?!
Some, no doubt well meaning people, have attributed certain recent weather events to God's wrath, presumably therefore the fine weather we enjoyed last Easter was a sign of God's favour - so what went wrong withYOU people out there during those few weeks!? Some of you dropped a clanger didn't you! Well I hope you feel proud of yourselves - spoiling everyone's Summer!
I take note of the fact that the weather has since perked up so all I can say is whatever it is that you are doing now keep it up!
In the UK recently we have had some rather exceptional weather resulting in flooding which some Christians have interpreted as God's judgement on us as a nation. Some areas of Europe are experiencing a drought as are some other areas of the world and no doubt there too some people who fancy themselves as modern day Elijahs will draw similar conclusions as if we are still inhabiting an earlier act of the Bible timeline.
Were these floods an "Act of God"? The following comments are addressed to the British nation; if others can play Elijah why can't I?!
Some, no doubt well meaning people, have attributed certain recent weather events to God's wrath, presumably therefore the fine weather we enjoyed last Easter was a sign of God's favour - so what went wrong withYOU people out there during those few weeks!? Some of you dropped a clanger didn't you! Well I hope you feel proud of yourselves - spoiling everyone's Summer!
I take note of the fact that the weather has since perked up so all I can say is whatever it is that you are doing now keep it up!
Monday, August 27, 2007
FIFTY NOT OUT!
I've hit a half century and I'm still batting! The great thing about being fifty years old is knowing that I'm half way through my race and I'm beginning to get an idea of what life is about! I believe that a guy should know what he is going to do with his life by the time he is fifty! Besides having a bit of maturity in life's university I'm also (reasonably) still fit and healthy; and that is a double blessing! Of course I've made some dreadful mistakes in life and hurt people in the process - I often wish I could make amends but the passage of time makes that inappropriate if not impossible; afterall who wants a bad penny turning up after a decade or two only to salve their own conscience - for whose benefit is that really?
Others may have hurt me or circumstances thwarted my ambitions - but I wouldn't exchange those reverses. These events are the very things which help shape us and make us who we are. And actually none of them are unique to us. The chief thing is knowing how God has had a hand on my life particularly at those times I felt most bereft. Again there is nothing uncommon in this. I want to emphasise how faithful the "enscripturated Word" has proved over the years. I see my story written there in all its ghastly detail, it holds a mirror up to my face and has faithfully shown me who I am; the face I show no one else! That's how I know it speaks the truth.
The usual format of a Christian "testimony" like this is to spell out what worldly depths I had sunk to - but that isn't the case with me. I was raised in a highly moral family (and that isn't a bad thing) so when I subsequently became a Christian my problem was not the usual suspects of sex, drugs or money but something altogether more insidious; the problem of pharisaiism! (Or moral rule keeping). Yes, the Gospel is not about moralism!. The trouble with this particular sin is that it is one which can pass unnoticed within evangelicalism. And if people thought highly of me in those early years it was because they didn't perceive this trait in me, but then nor did I. They had much too high an opinion of me - as I did! I hasten to add that the Gospel does not therefore give us licence to sin - Jesus said that 'our righteouness must exceed that of the Pharisees' in Matthew 5 v20; what it does mean is that righteouness is not a substitute for Grace. And if I've learnt anything in the last fifty years is that it's all about Grace!
I've hit a half century and I'm still batting! The great thing about being fifty years old is knowing that I'm half way through my race and I'm beginning to get an idea of what life is about! I believe that a guy should know what he is going to do with his life by the time he is fifty! Besides having a bit of maturity in life's university I'm also (reasonably) still fit and healthy; and that is a double blessing! Of course I've made some dreadful mistakes in life and hurt people in the process - I often wish I could make amends but the passage of time makes that inappropriate if not impossible; afterall who wants a bad penny turning up after a decade or two only to salve their own conscience - for whose benefit is that really?
Others may have hurt me or circumstances thwarted my ambitions - but I wouldn't exchange those reverses. These events are the very things which help shape us and make us who we are. And actually none of them are unique to us. The chief thing is knowing how God has had a hand on my life particularly at those times I felt most bereft. Again there is nothing uncommon in this. I want to emphasise how faithful the "enscripturated Word" has proved over the years. I see my story written there in all its ghastly detail, it holds a mirror up to my face and has faithfully shown me who I am; the face I show no one else! That's how I know it speaks the truth.
The usual format of a Christian "testimony" like this is to spell out what worldly depths I had sunk to - but that isn't the case with me. I was raised in a highly moral family (and that isn't a bad thing) so when I subsequently became a Christian my problem was not the usual suspects of sex, drugs or money but something altogether more insidious; the problem of pharisaiism! (Or moral rule keeping). Yes, the Gospel is not about moralism!. The trouble with this particular sin is that it is one which can pass unnoticed within evangelicalism. And if people thought highly of me in those early years it was because they didn't perceive this trait in me, but then nor did I. They had much too high an opinion of me - as I did! I hasten to add that the Gospel does not therefore give us licence to sin - Jesus said that 'our righteouness must exceed that of the Pharisees' in Matthew 5 v20; what it does mean is that righteouness is not a substitute for Grace. And if I've learnt anything in the last fifty years is that it's all about Grace!
Monday, August 20, 2007
CONFESSIONS OF AN ARMCHAIR ASTRONAUT!
Thirty years ago today in 1977 the Voyager space programme blasted off to explore the outer solar system. As an avid fan of all things spatial I followed all such exploration. Paradoxically it was Voyager 2 which lifted off first to travel to the outer solar system. Voyager 1 was launched on 5th September 1977 on a fast track to Jupiter and Saturn only. Thinking back to my books on astronomy written in the 1970's my recollection is just how sketchy they were about all these planets and the moons of these worlds were a complete mystery. The Voyagers revolutionised our understanding of our planetary neighbours. Jupiter's moons were no longer mere dots of light but worlds in their own right. And even worlds as far flung as Neptune had active cryo-volcanic features! These probes are even now moving out into interstellar space and looking back they can give us an astonishing view of our solar family from the outside.
I was first enthralled by the early manned space flights, and as an "armchair astronaut" I absolutely loved the Apollo Moon Shots. I vividly remember watching Neil Armstrong's first step on the Moon; to those of us on this side of the Atlantic Ocean that occured on 21st July 1969 - 38 years ago. As an excited eleven year old I got up in the early hours of the morning to watch that 'one small step'... I was entranced by the whole adventure of space flight and followed each moon shot closely. I laid out charts and maps and models as each mission unfolded.
Apollo 15, July/August 1971, though stands out in my mind to this day as the most visually exciting mission of them all. This mission launched in July of 1971 was the first to take a 'lunar rover' with its own freely operated TV camera. It was like sharing in this whole fantastic adventure, nothing will ever recapture the sheer delight of following those particular Moon walks. encompassing Hadley Rille. All the later Apollo missions were similarly equipped and I charted the progress of Apollos 16 and 17 just as avidly.
The Hubble Space Telescope was launched in 1990 and opened up the wider universe to us with some of the most breathtaking photographs imaginable. It is an amazing time to be alive to witness such things - I hope that future generations will have the opportunity to marvel as I did at the Universe we inhabit and that they will never grow blase about such
wonders.
Thirty years ago today in 1977 the Voyager space programme blasted off to explore the outer solar system. As an avid fan of all things spatial I followed all such exploration. Paradoxically it was Voyager 2 which lifted off first to travel to the outer solar system. Voyager 1 was launched on 5th September 1977 on a fast track to Jupiter and Saturn only. Thinking back to my books on astronomy written in the 1970's my recollection is just how sketchy they were about all these planets and the moons of these worlds were a complete mystery. The Voyagers revolutionised our understanding of our planetary neighbours. Jupiter's moons were no longer mere dots of light but worlds in their own right. And even worlds as far flung as Neptune had active cryo-volcanic features! These probes are even now moving out into interstellar space and looking back they can give us an astonishing view of our solar family from the outside.
I was first enthralled by the early manned space flights, and as an "armchair astronaut" I absolutely loved the Apollo Moon Shots. I vividly remember watching Neil Armstrong's first step on the Moon; to those of us on this side of the Atlantic Ocean that occured on 21st July 1969 - 38 years ago. As an excited eleven year old I got up in the early hours of the morning to watch that 'one small step'... I was entranced by the whole adventure of space flight and followed each moon shot closely. I laid out charts and maps and models as each mission unfolded.
Apollo 15, July/August 1971, though stands out in my mind to this day as the most visually exciting mission of them all. This mission launched in July of 1971 was the first to take a 'lunar rover' with its own freely operated TV camera. It was like sharing in this whole fantastic adventure, nothing will ever recapture the sheer delight of following those particular Moon walks. encompassing Hadley Rille. All the later Apollo missions were similarly equipped and I charted the progress of Apollos 16 and 17 just as avidly.
The Hubble Space Telescope was launched in 1990 and opened up the wider universe to us with some of the most breathtaking photographs imaginable. It is an amazing time to be alive to witness such things - I hope that future generations will have the opportunity to marvel as I did at the Universe we inhabit and that they will never grow blase about such
wonders.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
DEMONS WERE IN FASHION
THAT YEAR!
In YWAM in the mid 1980's Demonology was
all the rage. I had innocently signed up to do
a "DTS" residential course with the charismatic
missionary organisation "Youth with a
Mission". YWAM, pronounced 'why-wham', was
founded in the 1960's by an American called
Loren Cunningham in order to mobilise young
people into short term missionary work.
By way of preamble: If you feel that this article
is unduly critical of YWAM please bear in mind
that I will be posting another blog in Septem-
ber which will be more positive.
YWAM operates a course called a "Discipleship
Training School" which is the portal through
which people enter its work. DTSs have been
established all over the world and in 1985, aged
27 years, I went to the one at Holmsted Manor
in West Sussex in the UK. At the time I consid-
ered myself a Charismatic Christian. I had an
inflated view of my own importance and
wanted to develop my own "ministry" - a not
uncommon conceit among young men like
myself - and the DTS seemed like a good idea at
the time. And in God's providence it was a very
useful four months though not in the way I had
expected.
The church - or so it seems to me - goes
through phases; and various fads and fashions
sweep through from time to time and capture
the imagination.
Demonology was very much in fashion that
year in YWAM and no end of people's personal
difficulties were attributed to malevolent
spirits. Some individuals took to these sorts of
teachings with an unhealthy enthusiasm. The
biblical basis for much of their practice was at
best tenuous and usually what I would call
"derivative theology", that is founded upon
'extrapolations' based on their 'interpretation'
of their 'supposed' experiences in dealing with
troubled individuals together with some
wishful thinking.
I recall two of my contemporaries intently
discussing where "cat spirits" fall in the grand
scheme of things. (Apparently they are among
the most vindictive of demons - or so I was
reliably informed).
I am not denying the reality of malevolent
spirits in this blog, what I am denying is the
basis upon which they were given such
prominence. I believe there is a truly Biblical
spiritual warfare described in 1 Corinthians
10 that I am prepared to defend against
this "derivative" teaching which I believe
is 'dualistic' theology and barely (if that)
recognisable as 'Christian': the DTS implied
that the evil forces were, in effect, perfectly
balanced by the good and only we could tip
that balance! The effect on one such
officially recognised, "intercessor" was to
make her quite bitter about all those who
did not support her ministry fulsomely
enough; in her eyes only her constant,
possibly "obsessive", prayers were holding
back the demon hordes; (the "only I am left"
syndrome!)..... and she made it perfectly clear
that she thought that I was one of the
freeloaders. I don't believe she had singled
me out particularly for her ire, I think she
was merely doing the rounds. There was a
stark contrast between the image she projected
on the public platform to the one I experienced
in privacy!
The reality was that this poor woman was
being 'run ragged' by a theology which had
little room for Christ's victory at The Cross....
I am grateful that Satan has far more to fear
from those who are in Christ than we ever
have to fear from him! For her though it was
all about self effort and so it is no surprise that
that made her hard. The fact remains there
wasn't much 'grace' in evidence that year,
either doctrinally or relationally! And that
was the real spiritual battle that everyone
seemed oblivious to.
Demonology, aka "spiritual warfare", required
the identification of the controlling spirit in
order to directly confront it. A spirit may
control a geographical area, or a profession,
or a church, or an individual or a trait of an
individual. Some rather fanciful "research"
would be be done to this end, eg the city of
Coventry in England, was said to be a centre
of evil because of its connection with a witch's
coven - in reality the origin of the city's name
has an utterly innocent genesis. Anyway once
the demon could be named it could be defeated
by being ranted at or by endless singing, some-
times for hours into the night. But as those
who did the discerning also did the exorcism,
there was no objective way of knowing what
was actually being accomplished by the
exercise: "The spirit of unbelief has lifted
from China!" one intercessor declared.
Hmmm... My old dad used to say 'Don't ask a
barber if you need a haircut!'
The most troubling enthusiast was a mother
who was convinced her three year old
daughter's behavioural problems were due
to demonisation. I made it quite clear that I
thought this was nonsense. The fact is this
young child had been brought to a strange
country to live in this abnormal community
among people who spoke a strange language.
She needed to feel loved and secure I said.
I think most people took that to heart. But
some marked me down as not being one of
the cognoscenti.
On one occasion I was teamed up with a
young woman in order to approach likely
converts in Leicester Square in London to
tell them the Gospel. I think I made a reason-
able Gospel presentation about God creating
the world, how that we all have rejected
God's rule as something evil and made
gods of ourselves; God will not endure
this lie to stand forever but before He
judges the world he has set up a rescue
plan; God Himself came as a man and
graciously paid the penalty on The Cross
for all those who put their trust in Him -
and that man was Jesus. I made a call for
them to turn to Christ, which effectively
means turning around their lives and
living for God instead.
But the lady I was teamed up with
understood the Gospel to be about how
(and I quote) "everyone has demons which
mess up our lives and Jesus came to free us
from them". In her view everyone was a victim
and no-one was ultimately responsible for
their own actions - my jaw hit the floor!
Unsurprisingly she scored more "responses"
than I ever dreamed of! Until this point in
time I had naively assumed that all Christians
had the same view on sin, faith and redempt-
ion by Jesus. I had just discovered just how
naive I was. The worrying thing was how many
of these enthusiasts were keen to make a
"ministry" out of this and sought financial
support from their home churches to this end.
The reality was they had found a niche for
themselves and a "sprituality" which could
only ever exist in a greenhouse of a likeminded
community. The young woman I mentioned
"went on staff" permanently after our DTS.
The trouble is that in a charismatic hot house
like this what is wacky is by that very reason
presumed to be "spiritual"; the stranger the
better. During that time at Holmsted Manor
we had a preview of the "Toronto Blessing":
the phenomena made famous in the mid 1990s
by The Vineyard Church in Canada. The same
things happened on my DTS - "slaying in the
spirit", uncontrollable laughter, people
acting oddly like animals etc.
Too much was uncritically accepted as
originating with the Holy Spirit. Sometimes
people would have these seemingly remark-
able experiences and yet remain utterly
unchanged by them. I remember two guys in
our dorm having a stand up argument (and I
mean they were really having a go at each
other) about which of them had "the best"
testimony of how they got saved: each in turn
trumping the sins of the other in a catalogue
of misdemeanours. I didn't know whether to
laugh or cry!
The other fad that year was John Wimber's
book "Power Evangelism".The big idea was
that a dramatic healing will take a non-
believer from unbelief to faith in one fell
swoop without all that tedious evangelism
business. So naturally a number of my fellow
DTSers enthused about this short cut to faith
which dispensed with the need for any other
discussion. The thing is, even then, I knew
enough Bible to know that this was wrong
headed because of what Jesus himself said
in Luke 16 v31. What Jesus said is very stark
- the real miracle is that anyone comes to
faith at all!
I vividly recall one of the small group leaders
challenging me - he couldn't see how I
could reconcile being a Christian and being
a health care worker. I responded by saying
that "I am on the side of health!" To him
anything to do with healthcare was bound up
in unbelief! (In fairness I should add that
YWAM operate a couple of hospital ships, so
this leader was certainly talking out the back
of his head!)
Yet this whole 'super-spiritual' way of thinking
was being given way too much prominence -
I could see that, why couldn't anyone else?
And that was the problem; the flimsiest
"biblical" justification would be proffered for
these sorts of teachings. These fads offered
quick fix solutions - and they never worked....
not long term once the wishful thinking
faltered and reality kicked in again.
The thing I learnt most forcibly during
those months was how disastrous it is to
cut loose from the anchor of God's Word.
I sincerely hope that those people I met
that year have come to a better mind on
all these issues.
In case someone says I am merely being
cynical about these things; in my defence I
will respond that I did not quit my job and
leave my flat and take four months out of
my life and pay good money with the
sole intention of merely scoffing at it all
twenty years later! The fact is, at the time
I wanted to be part of what was going on.
It seemed to me that everyone else was
getting "blessed" but me. Others would
be crashing to the floor around me as some
ranter would lay hands on them - but the
ranters always passed me by. "They could
sense that the spirit had not come to rest
on me" one said. At the time I felt crushed
and rejected by God but now I'm glad it
passed me by. Whatever was going on that
time it was nothing to do with God -
Jesus is not capricious!
The reality is this; all Christians struggle
with the drawing power of the world, the flesh
and the devil and yet we feel that such a
struggle should be alien to anyone born again
of the Holy Spirit. Different churches and
groups will couch their ideal of 'the normal
christian life' in different ways and
(presumably) whichever suits the fad of the
time.
The most crass fad being the "gospel" of
'health and wealth'. But other groups will
stress the 'victory' of the believer in other
more subtle ways; the victory over all known
sin for example which spawned 'the holiness
movement'. Others stress the charismatic
gifts and "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit"
or even "The Baptism of the Shekinah Glory"
(don't ask). What they all have in common is
the unreality of the 'quick fix' - it is all
fantasyland "christianity". The Bible faithfully
describes the believers actual experience - one
of struggle to live out the life of the world to
come in this present age. There are no quick
fixes!
Check out the bookstall of any given church...
are the books self-help guides to a holier,
healthier, wealthier, spirit-filled, more
glorious, sanctified and fulfilled life?
The proliferation of these sorts of books is
testimony to their failure to deliver. These
books are selling a dream which the authors
callously know chimes with the desires of
believers to live a glorified life. The trouble
is that is not where we are at in "The Bible
Timeline" -we are in the fourth act of a five
part play and the reality of the fourth act is
struggle not ease. The glory we desire lies in
the future when Jesus finally comes to rescue
His people - only He can ultimately cleanse
us and restore us. We need to treat the
panacea merchants as shrewd students of
human nature and who know how to tell us
what we want to hear...and know how to
market it!
The true preacher tells us as it is - no fantasy
land - he tells us what we need to hear whether
we want it or not....and invariably it is an
unflattering message. God's function in life
is not to soothe our precious egos rather our
function in life is to rejoice in the sheer grace
of our Saviour God who rescues us from our
own self destructive hubris.The Christian life
starts by waking up to reality not by living in
fantasy.
After my stint on the DTS I returned home to
Yorkshire, but in 1987 I did revisit YWAM
to do another course - the "School of Biblical
Studies" (SBS) at The King's Lodge in
Warwickshire, England, and that experience
was of a totally different order as I will explain
in a few weeks time. I'll conclude for now by
saying that for a few months back then in the
Summer of 1985 I lived in the "church at
Corinth".
No, that's not fair, it would be better to say that
I realised how "Corinthian" we all are!
THAT YEAR!
In YWAM in the mid 1980's Demonology was
all the rage. I had innocently signed up to do
a "DTS" residential course with the charismatic
missionary organisation "Youth with a
Mission". YWAM, pronounced 'why-wham', was
founded in the 1960's by an American called
Loren Cunningham in order to mobilise young
people into short term missionary work.
By way of preamble: If you feel that this article
is unduly critical of YWAM please bear in mind
that I will be posting another blog in Septem-
ber which will be more positive.
YWAM operates a course called a "Discipleship
Training School" which is the portal through
which people enter its work. DTSs have been
established all over the world and in 1985, aged
27 years, I went to the one at Holmsted Manor
in West Sussex in the UK. At the time I consid-
ered myself a Charismatic Christian. I had an
inflated view of my own importance and
wanted to develop my own "ministry" - a not
uncommon conceit among young men like
myself - and the DTS seemed like a good idea at
the time. And in God's providence it was a very
useful four months though not in the way I had
expected.
The church - or so it seems to me - goes
through phases; and various fads and fashions
sweep through from time to time and capture
the imagination.
Demonology was very much in fashion that
year in YWAM and no end of people's personal
difficulties were attributed to malevolent
spirits. Some individuals took to these sorts of
teachings with an unhealthy enthusiasm. The
biblical basis for much of their practice was at
best tenuous and usually what I would call
"derivative theology", that is founded upon
'extrapolations' based on their 'interpretation'
of their 'supposed' experiences in dealing with
troubled individuals together with some
wishful thinking.
I recall two of my contemporaries intently
discussing where "cat spirits" fall in the grand
scheme of things. (Apparently they are among
the most vindictive of demons - or so I was
reliably informed).
I am not denying the reality of malevolent
spirits in this blog, what I am denying is the
basis upon which they were given such
prominence. I believe there is a truly Biblical
spiritual warfare described in 1 Corinthians
10 that I am prepared to defend against
this "derivative" teaching which I believe
is 'dualistic' theology and barely (if that)
recognisable as 'Christian': the DTS implied
that the evil forces were, in effect, perfectly
balanced by the good and only we could tip
that balance! The effect on one such
officially recognised, "intercessor" was to
make her quite bitter about all those who
did not support her ministry fulsomely
enough; in her eyes only her constant,
possibly "obsessive", prayers were holding
back the demon hordes; (the "only I am left"
syndrome!)..... and she made it perfectly clear
that she thought that I was one of the
freeloaders. I don't believe she had singled
me out particularly for her ire, I think she
was merely doing the rounds. There was a
stark contrast between the image she projected
on the public platform to the one I experienced
in privacy!
The reality was that this poor woman was
being 'run ragged' by a theology which had
little room for Christ's victory at The Cross....
I am grateful that Satan has far more to fear
from those who are in Christ than we ever
have to fear from him! For her though it was
all about self effort and so it is no surprise that
that made her hard. The fact remains there
wasn't much 'grace' in evidence that year,
either doctrinally or relationally! And that
was the real spiritual battle that everyone
seemed oblivious to.
Demonology, aka "spiritual warfare", required
the identification of the controlling spirit in
order to directly confront it. A spirit may
control a geographical area, or a profession,
or a church, or an individual or a trait of an
individual. Some rather fanciful "research"
would be be done to this end, eg the city of
Coventry in England, was said to be a centre
of evil because of its connection with a witch's
coven - in reality the origin of the city's name
has an utterly innocent genesis. Anyway once
the demon could be named it could be defeated
by being ranted at or by endless singing, some-
times for hours into the night. But as those
who did the discerning also did the exorcism,
there was no objective way of knowing what
was actually being accomplished by the
exercise: "The spirit of unbelief has lifted
from China!" one intercessor declared.
Hmmm... My old dad used to say 'Don't ask a
barber if you need a haircut!'
The most troubling enthusiast was a mother
who was convinced her three year old
daughter's behavioural problems were due
to demonisation. I made it quite clear that I
thought this was nonsense. The fact is this
young child had been brought to a strange
country to live in this abnormal community
among people who spoke a strange language.
She needed to feel loved and secure I said.
I think most people took that to heart. But
some marked me down as not being one of
the cognoscenti.
On one occasion I was teamed up with a
young woman in order to approach likely
converts in Leicester Square in London to
tell them the Gospel. I think I made a reason-
able Gospel presentation about God creating
the world, how that we all have rejected
God's rule as something evil and made
gods of ourselves; God will not endure
this lie to stand forever but before He
judges the world he has set up a rescue
plan; God Himself came as a man and
graciously paid the penalty on The Cross
for all those who put their trust in Him -
and that man was Jesus. I made a call for
them to turn to Christ, which effectively
means turning around their lives and
living for God instead.
But the lady I was teamed up with
understood the Gospel to be about how
(and I quote) "everyone has demons which
mess up our lives and Jesus came to free us
from them". In her view everyone was a victim
and no-one was ultimately responsible for
their own actions - my jaw hit the floor!
Unsurprisingly she scored more "responses"
than I ever dreamed of! Until this point in
time I had naively assumed that all Christians
had the same view on sin, faith and redempt-
ion by Jesus. I had just discovered just how
naive I was. The worrying thing was how many
of these enthusiasts were keen to make a
"ministry" out of this and sought financial
support from their home churches to this end.
The reality was they had found a niche for
themselves and a "sprituality" which could
only ever exist in a greenhouse of a likeminded
community. The young woman I mentioned
"went on staff" permanently after our DTS.
The trouble is that in a charismatic hot house
like this what is wacky is by that very reason
presumed to be "spiritual"; the stranger the
better. During that time at Holmsted Manor
we had a preview of the "Toronto Blessing":
the phenomena made famous in the mid 1990s
by The Vineyard Church in Canada. The same
things happened on my DTS - "slaying in the
spirit", uncontrollable laughter, people
acting oddly like animals etc.
Too much was uncritically accepted as
originating with the Holy Spirit. Sometimes
people would have these seemingly remark-
able experiences and yet remain utterly
unchanged by them. I remember two guys in
our dorm having a stand up argument (and I
mean they were really having a go at each
other) about which of them had "the best"
testimony of how they got saved: each in turn
trumping the sins of the other in a catalogue
of misdemeanours. I didn't know whether to
laugh or cry!
The other fad that year was John Wimber's
book "Power Evangelism".The big idea was
that a dramatic healing will take a non-
believer from unbelief to faith in one fell
swoop without all that tedious evangelism
business. So naturally a number of my fellow
DTSers enthused about this short cut to faith
which dispensed with the need for any other
discussion. The thing is, even then, I knew
enough Bible to know that this was wrong
headed because of what Jesus himself said
in Luke 16 v31. What Jesus said is very stark
- the real miracle is that anyone comes to
faith at all!
I vividly recall one of the small group leaders
challenging me - he couldn't see how I
could reconcile being a Christian and being
a health care worker. I responded by saying
that "I am on the side of health!" To him
anything to do with healthcare was bound up
in unbelief! (In fairness I should add that
YWAM operate a couple of hospital ships, so
this leader was certainly talking out the back
of his head!)
Yet this whole 'super-spiritual' way of thinking
was being given way too much prominence -
I could see that, why couldn't anyone else?
And that was the problem; the flimsiest
"biblical" justification would be proffered for
these sorts of teachings. These fads offered
quick fix solutions - and they never worked....
not long term once the wishful thinking
faltered and reality kicked in again.
The thing I learnt most forcibly during
those months was how disastrous it is to
cut loose from the anchor of God's Word.
I sincerely hope that those people I met
that year have come to a better mind on
all these issues.
In case someone says I am merely being
cynical about these things; in my defence I
will respond that I did not quit my job and
leave my flat and take four months out of
my life and pay good money with the
sole intention of merely scoffing at it all
twenty years later! The fact is, at the time
I wanted to be part of what was going on.
It seemed to me that everyone else was
getting "blessed" but me. Others would
be crashing to the floor around me as some
ranter would lay hands on them - but the
ranters always passed me by. "They could
sense that the spirit had not come to rest
on me" one said. At the time I felt crushed
and rejected by God but now I'm glad it
passed me by. Whatever was going on that
time it was nothing to do with God -
Jesus is not capricious!
The reality is this; all Christians struggle
with the drawing power of the world, the flesh
and the devil and yet we feel that such a
struggle should be alien to anyone born again
of the Holy Spirit. Different churches and
groups will couch their ideal of 'the normal
christian life' in different ways and
(presumably) whichever suits the fad of the
time.
The most crass fad being the "gospel" of
'health and wealth'. But other groups will
stress the 'victory' of the believer in other
more subtle ways; the victory over all known
sin for example which spawned 'the holiness
movement'. Others stress the charismatic
gifts and "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit"
or even "The Baptism of the Shekinah Glory"
(don't ask). What they all have in common is
the unreality of the 'quick fix' - it is all
fantasyland "christianity". The Bible faithfully
describes the believers actual experience - one
of struggle to live out the life of the world to
come in this present age. There are no quick
fixes!
Check out the bookstall of any given church...
are the books self-help guides to a holier,
healthier, wealthier, spirit-filled, more
glorious, sanctified and fulfilled life?
The proliferation of these sorts of books is
testimony to their failure to deliver. These
books are selling a dream which the authors
callously know chimes with the desires of
believers to live a glorified life. The trouble
is that is not where we are at in "The Bible
Timeline" -we are in the fourth act of a five
part play and the reality of the fourth act is
struggle not ease. The glory we desire lies in
the future when Jesus finally comes to rescue
His people - only He can ultimately cleanse
us and restore us. We need to treat the
panacea merchants as shrewd students of
human nature and who know how to tell us
what we want to hear...and know how to
market it!
The true preacher tells us as it is - no fantasy
land - he tells us what we need to hear whether
we want it or not....and invariably it is an
unflattering message. God's function in life
is not to soothe our precious egos rather our
function in life is to rejoice in the sheer grace
of our Saviour God who rescues us from our
own self destructive hubris.The Christian life
starts by waking up to reality not by living in
fantasy.
After my stint on the DTS I returned home to
Yorkshire, but in 1987 I did revisit YWAM
to do another course - the "School of Biblical
Studies" (SBS) at The King's Lodge in
Warwickshire, England, and that experience
was of a totally different order as I will explain
in a few weeks time. I'll conclude for now by
saying that for a few months back then in the
Summer of 1985 I lived in the "church at
Corinth".
No, that's not fair, it would be better to say that
I realised how "Corinthian" we all are!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)