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.

"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!

JONATHAN SWIFT.

You just knew that I had to have at least one quotation from my namesake!

"I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed."
Jonathan Swift (1667-1745).

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!

"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.