The Day I Realised I Wasn't a Catholic!

I was raised in a Catholic family and attended RC schools until I was 18. Three of my Grandparents were Irish who moved to Bradford in the north of England before WW1, but I never knew them because they had all died before I was born. So to say that I come from an Irish Catholic family is a bit of a stretch because we had no links with the old country, and if asked I would have said I was from Yorkshire. In fact the only Grandparent I did know was a true Yorkshireman. Bradford was a boom town in the 19th Century and attracted Irish people looking for work. My Irish Grandfather, Patrick, had several brothers who emigrated to the USA. Bradford obviously had its attractions, with a sizeable population of Irish descent, even having its own soccer team, Bradford Park Avenue with its Celtic-like strip. Bradford City Football Club being its protestant counterpart.

If my ties to Ireland were tenuous my connection to the RC church was little better - I did the stuff required by the Catholic school system but had no personal attachment or sense of belonging. At primary school it was expected that all the lads would serve as altar boys in the parish church on a Sunday. I refused point blank, not that I was making any courageous sort of 'statement' by it, I just felt it looked daft! I gathered later that the Head-Sister (we were taught by nuns) spoke to my parents about this; 'doesn't he realise what an honour it is?!' In fairness to my parents, who were regular church-goers, they never pressed the issue and when I was 13 they allowed me to decide if I still wanted to go to church. I did not.

Despite going through a 'raving atheist' phase in my teens, in one respect being Catholic did remain with me. In the late 1960's when I was 10 or 11 years old 'The Troubles' started in Northern Ireland and I vividly recall the parish priest coming to our house and speaking to my mother about the possibility of the violence spilling over to the UK mainland. My mother was in genuine fear and even though I didn't understand all that was said, being of a sensitive nature too I registered that sense of foreboding. Occasionally school would finish early and I recall that we would be told to go home directly when rumours circulated that gangs were planning to target Catholic kids - often in response to some IRA bomb outrage. Looking back now it may seem far-fetched that 'The Troubles' should affect us but the fear was genuine enough at the time, even if it never came to anything.

When I was 17 I started attending an Evangelical church and it grieved me that some people I knew felt a sense of betrayal far more acutely then than when I had ceased to attend Mass.

Later when I left school, in 1976, my first job was working in the Criminal Litigation department of a firm of solicitors in Bradford. The senior partner was an amiable gent called Desmond Joyce who, as this story will go on to relate, was a pillar of the Irish Catholic community, a point I had completely failed to register. One day I took a phone call for Mr Joyce from his golf partner arranging a game, I wrote down his name phonetically having asked him to repeat it a couple of times. Later I passed on the message to the Senior Partner, 'an Italian bloke called for you' I said. He looked mystified, slowly I read out the name, 'a Signor Roncelli'. Mr Joyce looked at me in despair, 'that should be Monsignor Ron Kelly, stupid boy!'
That was the day I realised that I really wasn't a Catholic!

Gender, Authority & Sexuality.

Excellent talk this morning at church on Gender, Authority and Sexuality. Check out www.shmedia.org.uk for free mp3 downloads. Or try iphone: http://goo.gl/G5Y2C or Android: http://goo/Owl2Bl or search for "St Helen's" on Apple App or on Google Play.

Sixth Form Theology.

For non UK readers the "Sixth Form" is a High School designation. When I was in the 6th form in the 1970's some, what now appear tired, forms of theological discussion were considered devastating to the Christian cause. The "imperfection of nature" was one such argument. Arthur C Clarke, a leading thinker of his age, had postulated an ideal Human form; it would be triangular and with an eye on top. This ideal design would allow rain to run off and the upward looking eye would enable the ideal Human to avoid large falling objects.
Of course this assumes that the only problems for Humanity's existence are rain water and large falling objects.
Quite how someone of obvious intellectual ability came to such pathetic conclusions is anyone's guess: although the Bible does take such silly posturing in its stride... the wise of this world are fools.

Someone, I won't say who, recently suggested that the imperfection of the oespheageal and tracheal tract implies an imperfection of design unworthy of a benevolent creator. My problem with this argument is several. For a start who has ever claimed 'perfection' as a design feature?

And then are we not setting up a phoney linguistic contradiction between 'perfection' and 'dysfunctional' which in actuality does not exist - ie something may be perfectly functional even if it is not considered by some to be 'perfect' - like Arthur C Clarke.

 And even allowing for all of the above the startlingly obvious point is that perhaps nature requires a certain economy of effort - perhaps it makes sense for a single structure to perform duplicate functions.
There is nothing inherently 'wrong' about that.

I find myself a little surprised to find myself revisiting discussions of my school age, which are intellectually out dated by 30 years, as if they are current. They are not. These are silly and trivial objections.

New Bogeymen and the Media Meta Narrative.
I've been thinking a lot recently about how the media report on religious crazies and how they 'tag' them. The media is rightly criticised for quoting people like of Anjem Choudary as if he is representative of the wider Muslim community. But the same logic also applies to the likes of Terry Jones, the Qu'ran burning pastor, or failed prophet Harold Camping. Quite why the media give these eccentric characters such prominence when they would never dream of giving similar coverage to mainsteam Evangelicals is mystifying. And who gives these men the 'tag' of being Evangelical in the first place? If they describe themselves as such, so be it, I'll have to live with that; but if that 'tag' has been attributed to them by the media one may question their motives for doing so.

The suspicion in my mind is that the media is creating a sense of fear and loathing among its audience and using that fear to promote a narrative of its own. That narrative views all religious belief as a socio-pathology and to that end promotes a new set of bogeymen to scare the public into condemning the innocent along with the guilty. This bleak prospect is eased by the thought that by so doing the media demonstrate - to those with eyes to see - that its alleged Liberal values, of justice, fairness and impartiality, are so much pious cant.

Testimony.

My earliest memories are of growing up in a hardworking, Working Class home in 1960's Bradford. My family were very moral upright RCs of Irish extraction who regularly attended Mass. My father was 46 years old, and considered 'old', when I was born. I think he aspired to be Middle Class and he was proud that my brother and sister went to university. There was a large age gap between me and my siblings, and my brother's aspiration was to be a true proletarian by becoming a Marxist and a drop-out while at university. So my homelife was a confusion of Catholicism and (revolutionary) politics.

Never a strong Catholic I made a conscious decision to be a 'raving atheist' in my early teens. I was a firm believer in scientific progress (scientism really; although I did not know it as such at the time). I confused the idea of science explaining something with science explaining something away. I was very influenced by the naive optimism of the Sci-Fi I read, (I veered towards 'cosmism', again another term I was then unaware of), as I drank in the undeclared assumptions of my age.

When I was 17 I heard a garbled Gospel message of sorts which went something like; "God has a perfect plan for your life", "he'd be grateful to have you on his team", "why not give him a chance?" I suppose the message appealed to my ego-centric view of the universe - I was a teenager afterall and shared the conceits of my age that life owed me something! It seemed all too plausible that I had a destiny to fulfil.

Of course this "Gospel" message was woefully inadequate but it was the start of something; which only goes to prove that by sheer grace alone God can use any means to turn someone to him. At the time I would not have considered myself to be in any 'need' of God at all; I would have seen myself as a perfectly moral, upright sort of person - just the sort of person God would want on his side! I did not see myself as needing God's forgiveness - at least not much when I compared myself to others.

It was only over time that the truth began to dawn on me; being morally upright did not make me right with God. I had to unlearn the assumptions I had grown up with and I had to junk a lot of the triumphalist stuff I had initially been taught by well-meaning but misguided Christians who claimed the Bible as their authority. Perhaps at this stage I could have thrown the whole thing over and claim to have become disillusioned by the false promises I had been made. But by then I was drawn to the person of Jesus; whatever falsehoods I had been fed, by both unbeliever and believer alike, I realised that Jesus was special and what he said rang true! When he said "come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" that resonated with me.

The words that rang true sprang from the same Bible that was derided by the atheist and thoughtlessly handled by the Christian. There was a depth in this Word that lay unrecognised and unheeded by the ignorant.

Jesus reserved some of his harshest criticisms for the morally upright and the religiously punctilious... and he drew his theology from the Bible! His Gospel is deeply unattractive to all the self satisfied because it calls on us to put our trust in God rather than our own selves and our ability to be good people. It wasn't what I expected to hear and I wouldn't have known these things unless Jesus had revealed them. It had taken several years but I could see myself in the mirror that Jesus held up to my face! I realised that I was not the person I had once supposed myself to be. I could identify with the apostle Peter when he said to Jesus "who else can we turn to? You have the words of eternal life" when Jesus was being deserted by the fickle crowds. By a tortuous route I had come to trust in Jesus and develop an appetite for the Bible.

When Jesus died on the Cross it was my old self that died there too and the life I now live is his gift of resurrection life to me. The question I had had to ask myself was this; was I going to trust in myself or was I going to trust in him?

If you think I am still not much like Jesus you'd be right - but think what sort of person I might now be without him! I am a work in progress you know!!!

The God No One Believes in!
The Sola Panel Disproving God

A Response to Patrick Sookhdeo on Halal Meat. The December 2010 issue of "Evangelicals Now" carried a full page article by Patrick Sookhdeo concerning the general sale of Halal meat in UK supermarkets. The question he posed was this; 'should Christians eat Halal meat?' The March issue of EN published a letter I wrote in response to Patrick Sookhdeo's piece. Dear Sir, The article 'Supermarket Halal' starts well by giving an overview of the biblical position regarding meat sacrificed to idols and that faithful Christians need not feel compromised by eating halal meat. Patrick Sookhdeo mentions two contexts where the eating of such meat may be problematic: where a weaker brother's conscience may be adversely affected by our example or where we are publicly associating ourselves with the deity to whom the meat has been sacrificed. So far so good. But I am frankly baffled by the author then leaping to the conclusion that eating halal meat purchased in a supermarket can mean we are 'embracing Islamic law' and 'furthering the Islamisation of society'! These assertions simply do not follow from his exegesis and consequently look contrived. If the conclusions do not flow from sound Bible teaching the casual onlooker may conclude that evangelicals are simply stirring up people's fears about national identity. To imply some sort of Islamic conspiracy is unwarranted and the suspicion will arise that we are fellow travellers with some very dubious political elements. This concern will compromise our witness to what is afterall a minority group who will have cause to fear the tone we have struck. Of course, this whole halal discussion could be resolved by adequate food labelling, but if I do eat halal unknowingly, what of it? My faith in Jesus is not compromised even if I knowingly share a halal meal with a Muslim friend or enjoy a curry on Brick Lane. Everday scenarios are covered by 1 Corinthians 10:25 and it is extremely difficult to pinpoint the real life contexts that lead to the consequences EN predicts. Surely, in so far as halal is an issue at all, it can be a means to demonstrate the freedom in Christ we have from all such dietary concerns. In fact, to take an overly ostentatious stance against certain foods runs the risk of appearing to be just as legalistic as any Islamist! Irony aside, there is a major spiritual question here, but it is not about what we eat, it is about whether, as Christians, we respond to these sorts of issues with faith and love, or are we motivated by unbiblical fears? Sadly, this article and EN are veering towards the latter: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out. Sincerely, Peter Swift. Addendum: It is not my wish denigrate the work Patrick Sookhdeo has done over the years in helping support hard-pressed Christian minorities overseas. My concern is that such work may be tarnished by ill considered teachings in a field where he is considered by some to be an authority.

British Humanist Association.

I was very amused today to receive a recruitment leaflet for the British Humanist Association; spelling mistakes aside it is quite hilarious to see one's own beliefs are misconstrued by those who think they know better. I needed a good laugh. Thanks!

One of the many unsubstantiated assertions made in this literature is the assumption that a belief in God is irrational. I do not accept that premise. I believe that it is perfectly rational to believe in God. Nor do I accept that the BHA has the monopoly on rationality it supposes.

What a bizarre world the BHA lives in if it assumes that people like myself believe what we do for no readily apparent reason. Surely a rational human being would conclude that people like myself must have their reasons for believing what they do even if one doesn't accept those reasons oneself? I would argue that I have a coherant philosophy of life which accords with the world I experience.

I think what the BHA is trying to say is that they believe that life, the universe and everything can be explained in purely material terms. They would regard that as a simple statement of fact. But to say that one does not believe that it can all be explained in purely material terms is regarded by them as a "faith statement" when grammatically they are equivalent clauses. Why interpret one clause one way and make out the other to be of an entirely different order? There is an unexamined presupposition there.

Qur'an Burning in Florida. It has been reported on the news that a church in Gainsville, Florida, is proposing to burn copies of the Qur'an in order to mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11. Ostensibly justified as a protest against militant Islam it is difficult to see how this action will not alienate all Muslims, and indeed appal all people of good-will. As a Christian, and as an Evangelical Christian at that, I want to go on record and state that this proposed action falls far short of the conduct all followers of Jesus are called to follow. The tendency among some professed Christians toward loathing and fear of Muslims in general is a denial of the Evangelical faith we claim to profess; instead of loathing we should respond with love, instead of fear we should respond with faith. I can only assume the church in question are publicity seeking but in doing so they have not brought any honour to the name of the Lord Jesus and one day they will have to account for that to Him.

Heidelberg Catechism.
How are you right with God?

Only by true faith in Jesus Christ (1).
Even though my conscience accuses me
of having grieviously sinned against all God's commandments
and of never having kept any of them (2),
and even though I am still inclined toward all evil (3),
nevertheless - without my deserving it at all (4),
out of sheer grace (5),
God grants and credits to me
the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ (6),
as if I had never sinned or been a sinner,
as if I had been as perfectly obedient
as Christ was obedient for me (7).

All I need to do is to accept this gift of God with a believing heart (8).

1. Romans 3 v21-28; Ephesians 2 v8-9.
2. Romans 3 v9-10.
3. Romans 7 v23.
4. Titus 3 v4-5.
5. Romans 3 v24; Ephesians 2 v8.
6. Romans 4 v3-5; 2 Corinthians 5 v17-19; 1 John 2 v1-2.
7. Romans 4 v24-25; 2 Corinthians 5 v21.
8. John 3 v18; Acts 16 v30-31.

Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962).

Niebuhr's comment about modern theology sadly seems to be increasingly true of evangelical preaching too...

"A God without wrath, brings men without sin, into a kingdom without judgement, through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

It seems to me that unless we have the courage of our convictions and teach key ideas like Sin, Wrath, Judgement and the Cross, the Evangelical Church will have nothing of worth to say to the on-looking world. We will be compelled to reflect back to the world what it finds congenial. There is a coherent philospohical message in the Gospel, but when we compromise on any of these teachings a sceptical world will point out that our message has ceased to have any coherence.
Unless we understand sin and God's anger towards it we will not have a realistic understanding of the world we live in nor an understanding of the conflicted nature of humanity, nor will we be able to adequately describe who Jesus is, or what his ministry meant, we will be supremely unable to explain the purpose of the Cross.

Lunchtime Service at St Helen's Bishopsgate!

If I can't get to church on Sunday because of my shift pattern I try to get to a midweek lunch time service instead.

St Helen's is located in The City near 'The Gherkin' and all the talks are downloadable for free from www.shmedia.org.uk

William Taylor is currently doing a series of talks from the Gospel of Luke. Can I recommend his series called 'Light & Lies' order code SE10/023-s1-ACD.

"Evangelicals are a Force for Good", says Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times.

What is the largest US-based international relief organisation? Save the Children? Care? Neither, says Nicholas Kristof; it's actually World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian group. The organisation has 40,000 staff in nearly 100 countries - more people than all the other big US relief groups combined. While the American view of evangelicals is still shaped by "preening television blowhards and hypocrites", the reality is that a growing number of conservative Christians are "acknowledging that to be 'pro-life' must mean more than opposing abortion". They are getting out there and helping the needy, doing "superb work" on issues such as Aids and malaria. And, contrary to the myth, it's not all about proselytising. Today, such groups as World Vision "ban the use of aid to lure anyone into a religious conversion". Secular liberals, who have a "snooty" disdain for all faith-based groups, haven't recognised their contribution. Indeed, some are pushing to end the long-standing practice of channeling US aid through such groups. That would be a "catastrophe", since it would destroy many of the "indispensable networks" the US relies on to distribute emergency aid. America mustn't make the world's most vulnerable people the casualties of its own "cultural war".



As quoted in The Week, issue 757, 13 March 2010. http://www.theweek.co.uk/

DOUBT IN PERSPECTIVE.

Unbelief is an act of will, rather than a difficulty in understanding.

Doubt often means asking questions or voicing uncertainties from the standpoint of faith. You believe - but you have difficulties with that faith, or are worried about it in some way. Faith and doubt aren't mutually exclusive - but faith and unbelief are.


Doubt is probably a permanent feature of the Christian life. It's like some kind of spiritual growing pain. Sometimes, it recedes into the background; at other times, it comes to the forefront, making its presence felt with a vengeance. A medical practitioner I knew once remarked that life was a permanent battle against all sorts of diseases, with good health being little more than an ability to keep disease at at bay. For some people, the life of faith often seems like that - a permanent battle against doubt. It is helpful to think of doubt as a symptom of our human frailty, of our reluctance to trust God. Let's develop this by thinking about how people come to faith.



Coming to faith - with unresolved doubts.

One way of understanding conversion runs like this. What stops people from coming to faith in God is doubt. After wrestling with these various doubts and overcoming them, the way is clear to come to faith. Coming to faith this happens once all doubt has been cleared out of the way. Faith excludes doubt! Now it is quite possible that some people do come to faith this way. However, most do not. Experience suggests that a rather different way of understanding conversion is more reliable.


Many people feel deeply attracted by the gospel, despite their doubts. On the one hand, their doubts are real, and hold them back from faith; on the other, the pull of the gospel is strong, and draws them towards faith. In the end, they decide to put their trust in God and in Jesus Christ, despite unresolved anxieties and difficulties. They are still in two minds. They hope their doubts and difficulties will be sorted out as they grow in faith. The seventeenth-century philosopher Francis bacon commended this way in his Advancement of Learning (1605): 'If a man will begin with certainties, he will end in doubts; but if he is content to begin with doubts, he will end in certainties.'

An analogy may make this clearer. Suppose you are at a really boring party one evening, when you meet someone you feel drawn to. You get to know this person, and, as time goes on, realize you're falling in love. However, you hold back from allowing the relationship to develop any further. After all, you don't really know the other person that well. There might be some dark side to their character. Can you really trust them? And, like many people, you may have a sense of personal inadequacy: what, you wonder, could this other person possibly see in you? Could they ever possibly fall in love with you? You are profoundly attracted to them, yet you hold back. You have doubts. You're in two minds about it.


Now in this situation, you have two options. You can still hold back, and become a prisoner of your doubts and hesitations. If we all did this all the time, we'd miss out on many of life's great adventures and surprises - including both falling in love and discovering the Christian faith. Or you can take a risk. You can say, 'I'm going to give this a try, and hope that my doubts and anxieties will be resolved as things go on.' And so you allow the relationship to develop.


Many people become Christians in that kind of spirit. They are aware of the enormous attraction of the gospel; they are deeply moved by the thought of Jesus Christ dying for their sins; they are excited by the great gospel promises of forgiveness and newness of life. Or they have experienced glimpses of transcendence, and just know there is a God out there. They decide to reach out in faith, and claim these as their own. As for their doubts and anxieties? They hope they will be resolved and put in their proper perspective as their relationship with God develops. 'I believe; help my unbelief!' (Mark 9:24).



Quoted from pages 14 & 15 of "Doubt in Perspective" by Alister McGrath., published by Inter-Varsity Press (IVP), ISBN: 978-1-84474-137-3.

Anjem Choudary, Wooton Bassett and a Christian Response.

Wooton Bassett is a small town in Wiltshire near the Royal Air Force base to which the bodies of fallen British servicemen are repatriated. In recent years the town has become the scene for dignified grief as many funeral corteges have passed through and the townspeople taking these sad sights to heart have turned out to pay their respects.

It is not surprising then that the planned anti-war march through Wooton Bassett by an Islamic group headed by Anjem Choudary should have caused such deep outrage among many people. It should be pointed out that in no sense could the good people of Wooton Bassett be described as pro-war; regardless of ones views about the politics of war one can still grieve for those who die serving their country.

I suppose the obvious point to make is that, never having heard of Anjem Choudary, this is simply a crass publicity stunt by an unrepresentative group who wish to gain some notoriety for themselves. Whether the march goes ahead or not the angry response has acheived exactly what he calculated it would do - it has granted him a national platform.

It should also be pointed out that there will be those on the far-right of British politics who will also seek to exploit people's natural anger by taking advantage of this march. Anjem Choudary's march is a gift to them too! The far-right will seek to paint all Muslims as closet jihadists and any event which can be used to this end will exploited ruthlessly to the full.

Indeed I would argue that between radical Islamic groups and the British far-right there is some mutually re-enforcing ideological myth-making going on. If people's anger at Anjem Choudary can be hitched to an anti-muslim agenda then the far-right is well served for obvious reasons; and if that anger alienates Muslims from mainsteam national life then groups like Anjem Choudary's can only grow in strength. As Christians we need to be very cautious about how we respond to these challenges - shall we engage in some sort of 'culture war' or will we allow the Gospel of God's Grace help shape our response?

As an Evangelical Christian I don't want my natural anger to be exploited by either of these odious groups and I believe that the Lord Jesus would want us to have some critical self-reflection before giving vent to any sense of moral outrage. It is better - in the final analysis - to suffer a wrong than lash out indiscriminately at others. Indeed a dignified refusal to 'respond in kind' is actually the bravest and hardest thing to do - but that is ultimately our calling as disciples of Jesus Christ; to display by our actions and words the Grace of God to a world naturally inclined to anger, self righteousness and hatred. This is an opportunity to manifest by our love that the Kingdom of God is present among us!

WESLEY OWEN & the decline of High Street Christian Book Retailing in the UK.

I can't say that I am entirely surprised by the demise of "Wesley Owen" but I was taken aback by "Borders" recent difficulties.

Each Autumn I visit the centre of Leeds to do some Christmas shopping - even though I moved to London nearly 19 years ago I still think that the shopping is better in my adoptive home town; it has everything from Harvey Nichols to a cheap & cheerful market, and every brand in between all in a pedestrianised area.

When I first moved to Leeds from Bradford to start my nurse training at St James' Hospital in the early 1980's the main Christian book retailer in town was 'Scripture Union' with a shop in King Edward Street in the heart of the retail district. I visited 'SU' almost on a weekly basis and built up a collection of books, some of which have stood the test of time and I still have them on my bookshelf.

'SU' subsequently became purely a publishing company and the shops were taken over by Wesley Owen. In Leeds the shop relocated to the other side of The Headrow (Leeds' equivalent of Oxford St!) and away from the main shopping centre.

Each year I would make a point of going into Wesley Owen and this has become my bellweather on the Christian retail scene for what it is worth. What has struck me quite forcefully in recent times is how little floor space is actually given over to books! There was a very large 'greetings card' section and a large area for music and DVDs, a sizeable space for religious knick-knacks and "art"; easily less than half the shop was for books (maybe 40% max if you include childrens books and sunday school material). They had staples like Bibles and a selection of BST commentaries (fair enough!) but I was confused by the section headings - under "Doctrine & Theology" they had books like 'The Shack'!

Readers of this blog will know that I do not rate 'The Shack' and yet even so I would not argue that this book should not be in a Christian bookshop - I do, however, have a problem with it being in that section of a Christian bookshop! The book I was looking for, John Dickson's "Sneaking Suspicion", an evangelistic book, was ostensibly to be found in the children's area an assistant informed us! Overall the selection of books on offer were, in my opinion, "lightweight" at best.

Some have argued that Christians should get out there and support shops like Wesley Owen because they are a witness to the Gospel on the high street. To which I have to say "how can I support them if they don't sell what I want to buy?"

I buy a lot of Christian books but as I've grown older I tend to buy weightier, thoughtful books and publications I will continue to refer to - not the pop paperbacks on offer at Wesley Owen. The stuff generally on sale will date very quickly and most Evangelicals will rapidly out grow this stuff - or, more worringly, the new believer will become very disillusioned with the brand of Christianity on sale there and will move on to other things entirely as they mature.

I also visited 'Borders' in Leeds the morning that company announced that it was going into liquidation. I loved 'Borders' as a book shop because it offered a wide range of unusual books and it had a great DVD section which included a lot of 'world cinema'. On this visit I noticed that it too was selling more pop books and the cinema section had also shifted down market. No doubt they had good commercial reasons for doing this but can a high street store really compete head to head with the internet and supermarkets? Such stores need to have a unique selling point. Surely it should have tried to retain its niche as an up-market bookstore that was a joy to visit and browse around!

If 'Borders' can't succeed on the high street by shifting down market Wesley Owen stands no chance! Surely the way to go is to become a specialist up-market book shop with a particular niche on the high street? But it seems to me that Wesley Owen has lost its soul.

We couldn't find the book I went in to buy - so the assistant very helpfully gave us the web address of an internet book retailer who did stock it! Need I say more?


Post Script dated 6-Jan-2010.
I gather that some of the Wesley Owen stores have been taken over by an Australian company called Koorang and these stores will continue to trade under the WO brand. Some other stores have been taken over by CLC. There remains a large number of WO shops, as yet, without a buyer including the one in Leeds.

UGANDAN LAW ON HOMOSEXUALITY!

There is a proposal in Uganda to pass a law which would include the ultimate sanction against homosexuals.
From an Evangelical Christian perspective I have never understood the church invoking the methods of the world to make people behave as if they are Christian. Such lobbying, at home and abroad, effectively substitutes law instead of grace, judgment instead of mercy and belies our professed trust in the sovereignty of God. When we use the methods of the world, or approve of them, we are in danger of bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ into disrepute.
In the final analysis only Christ can change people's hearts and these sorts of Post-Millennialist projects to enculturate non-believers into Christianity leaves me cold.
"Not by might, nor by power but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts", Zechariah 4 v6.

"Federal Vision" (aka Auburn Avenue Theology).

Until last Summer I had never even heard of "Federal Vision" and since then I have done a bit of a crash course to get up to speed as it has become a hot topic within some churches and organisations I know of. (St Helen's is not directly affected I hasten to add!). Trawling the internet is a bit of a minefield - you find skilful proponents of "Fed Vis" and passionate critics, along with 'the good, the bad and the ugly' voices in between. In a nutshell "Federal Vision" seeks to reaffirm the importance of the sacraments within the life of the church and indeed to reform our view of the Church itself. In support of these ideas they look to the Westminster Confession and Book 4 of John Calvin's "Institutes of Christian Religion" among other worthy sources, so at first glance it would be unfair to say that these people are outside the Reformed faith or that they are heretics. The most visible practice of the movement is a passionate belief in infant baptism for reasons which will become clear below.

Reading "The Baptized Body", by Peter J Leithart, has shaken me and caused me to review what it is I believe. I thought that we, the Reformed church, were all singing from the same hymn sheet. Have I so badly read the Bible that I have imposed on it my own pre-suppositions? An issue for me is, have I misidentified myself as a 'Reformed' christian? To be a 5 point Calvinist seemingly isn't enough. Can I still at least say I'm reformed with a small 'r'? But then again John Calvin didn't actually write 'The 5 Points'; they were written by his successors and dedicated to him. Nonetheless I feel a bit of an orphan.

I am not an academic theologian but I consider myself to be a reasonably well read layman who has a clear idea about what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about; and even if I do not know how to winkle out every nuance hidden within the curlicues of academic vocabulary I am sufficiently concerned to make this modest attempt. It may be that in writing on this topic I am making a right charlie of myself and merely displaying my ignorance for all of blog world to see - but I would far rather run that risk than say nothing.

Not knowing where to start - or frankly which source to trust - I figured the best place to begin was with some of the literature written by Peter J Leithart who is a leading proponent of "Fed Vis". This movement arose within reformed circles in the Presbyterian Church of the USA but has made significant inroads into the reformed scene in the UK. And when I say significant this is not mere hyperbole.

Peter Leithart's seminal book is "The Baptized Body". He asserts that when the word baptism is used in the New Testament it normally means the sacrament of water Baptism. I will have to consider the texts carefully again but if he is correct then the rite does achieve some remarkable things for the recipient. In Leithart's view water Baptism is a 'radical life transforming event'. But I always thought that the word "baptism" has a range of meanings or at least it could be used as a metaphor. Could not the word be legitimately translated as "immersed" rather than being transliterated from the Greek without neccesarily doing an injustice to the text? Is it so unfair, as Leithart suggests, to treat the word "baptism" as shorthand for the process of conversion which culminates in a public, symbolic identification with Christ's death and resurrection (a rite of passage if you like) and official welcome into the local church community? Leithart thinks this is playing fast and loose with the plain meaning of the text; put simply 'the sign effects what it signifies'. I do find that hard to swallow because it does seem to set these texts at odds with many others that seem to impute the benefits of salvation to the believer by the sheer grace of God alone without the agency of the sacraments. I will have to think on these things some more, but I am still inclined to view baptism as a testimony to regeneration rather than a regenerative act in itself!

There are some helpful correctives in the book. When we come to Christ we are called to be part of the church community and not just live our lives in splendid spiritual isolation. We also need to be aware of the dangers of an inward looking, pietistic form of spirituality. Both these stress "me" and "my walk with God" to the exclusion of our relationships with other believers. A distinction is drawn between the personal and the individual in the Fed Vis lexicon - personal is good: individual bad, an issue that will pop up again in this essay. Leithart makes a fair point about infants being able to form trusting relationships and that there isn't some magical age of responsibility; but that argument really scores against Arminianism rather than believers' baptism as such because faith is a gift of God at whatever age.

Here I want to draw attention to the problem of language and why Federal Visionists(?), Federal Visionaries(?), Federal Visionistas(?) often find themselves 'talking past' people like me... and indeed start to arouse concern. Fed Visers are very intelligent and articulate people who use language with precision - usually borne out of academic rigour - but the words used mean something signifcantly different to the men and women in the pew, or at least the evangelical in the pew. For example the word "Reformed" is used of this theology but something much more sacramental is meant by it than I would hitherto have thought possible. I accept this is probably sheer ignorance on my part.

That aside I am troubled by several aspects of the book, which I read genuinely in good faith. A lot of the words with which we are familiar on the evangelical scene seem to be radically redefined by "Fed Vis" eg, "regeneration", "sanctification" and even "justification" are to be applied to anyone who happens to be Water Baptised regardless of whether they are ultimately saved. "Baptism" texts can be advanced which seem to imply these amazing benefits - but, of course, for Leithart that almost invariably means literal water Baptism and invariably fall short, in the final analysis, of actual salvation. I can't help feeling that this 'radical life transforming event' is not so life transforming after all! Within this new lexicon it is possible to be justified, adopted, sanctified and regenerate and yet ultimately remain unsaved.

The crux of the sacrament is to induct the recipient into civic society. This is a fundamental reorientation away from the Gospel which saves sinners through individual repentance and faith in Christ to a Gospel which seeks social and cultural change through the agency of the Church as a formal institution. In this context it is easy to see why infants can, indeed must, be regenerated and encultured into the Church by means of Baptism. The concept of believers' baptism is treated with some scepticism on the basis that the notion of choice is an illusion derived from our modern worldly mindset. The "baptistic" approach of believers' baptism, is viewed by Fed Vis as deeply suspect and compromised by worldly pre-suppositions rather than being truly Biblical. Maybe I missed a step in the argument somewhere but (as I said earlier) I've always viewed faith as a gift from God. None of these criticisms 'hit home' and I wonder if he really has Arminianism in his sights rather than the target he claims.

Please note that not all paedo-baptists are Fed Vis! There is a spectrum of thought within the church community as to how much continuity or discontinuity exists between the Old and the New Covenant. I tend toward the discontinuity end of the spectrum but others see much more continuity ie, water baptism is the new sign of the covenant taking over from the OT sign of circumcision. Water baptism is, for them, an appropriate sign used to include infants within the covenant people of God; personally I'm not convinced but I do not regard this theology as "beyond the pale" by any means. Maybe this was where John Calvin was positioned. The question is how much further down this Covenantal spectrum is Fed Vis and at what point do we consider it to have crossed the line? Or put another way, do the proponents of FV regard us, sotto voce, as too far up the line?

The essence of the argument goes much further beyond infant Baptism because it turns on our understanding of "the Body of Christ. Leithart says our concept of "The Body of Christ" should be taken literally to mean just that, it is not a metaphor. If I read him correctly he seems to be saying that the Church is an incarnation of Christ in the world today - to say otherwise is to be guilty of Nestorianism no less! Hence the 'federal' tag ('federal' being a Latin derivative alternatively translated as 'covenantal' in English). The body of believers are in a federal/covenantal union with Christ. I don't have a huge problem with this provided we take care to distinguish between the Body and the Head. I cannot help but feel that Leithart sees the Church as sharing in the Headship/Dominion of Christ. Here it is useful to say that "Fed Vis" is firmly 'Post-Millennial' in its philosophy, which means that, in its opinion, Jesus will return after a glorious millennial Church age during which the world's culture, economics and politics will have been transformed through the agency of the Church. (A-millennialists interpret the 1,000 year reign of Revelation ch. 20 as a present reality we call "the Kingdom of God" which will find its complete fulfillment when Christ returns. Pre-millennialists see Christ as returning beforehand to inaugurate his kingdom in the modern land of Israel).

The discussion within Evangelicalism about Christ and Culture in recent years has been a helpful way of thinking Christianly about how we interact with the world around us and as a way of proclaiming the Gospel meaningfully in a variety of settings. But the "Fed Vis" position seems to be that redeeming culture is the principal mission of the Church, which is a step up from classic "post-millennialism". The classic Post-Millennialists I've met would say that culture will be transformed coincidentally as people come to faith in Christ; I don't have a problem with this conceptually because they recognise that "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart!" You cannot change anything until the human heart is changed! However I worry that Fed Vis sees our primary mission as changing people's presuppositions as an end in itself, if so then they have started to lose sight of the grace of God and its ability to change the human heart; "not by might nor by power, but by my spirit" says the Lord Almighty. The danger in my view is that the Fed Vis version of post-millennialism will substitute mere formalism for spiritual reality as people are enculturated into Christianity and their confidence is focused on the institutions of the Church.

Perhaps the profoundest difference I have with Leithart is his view on assurance. I just cannot see how Baptism, or the Church minister's "absolution"(!) for that matter, offers objective assurance of anything. Indeed I would argue that the danger here is of placing our faith in people or institutions or rites rather than in Christ alone. Maybe Leithart would deny this on the basis that the Church is Christ, but I'm not convinced. Assurance can only be assurance when the focus is taken away from ourselves or our particular group and placed in Christ exclusively. I have assurance precisely because I have trusted Jesus and have no confidence in myself or any one or any thing else to see me right. I think Leithart would say that this is an unhealthy, disembodied, spiritualised, pietistic kind of belief. I think he is wrong.

I have to say that if Leithart is correct in his theology then my understanding of grace is actually wide of the mark, for the following reason: God would have instituted certain rites and religious practices, not as "a means of grace" - as if it were funnelled by the sacraments - but as grace itself! Not merely would these rites be crucial to our faith but faith itself would actually be more about sharing in the life of the Church community as expressed through the sacraments and less about who we have come to put our trust in. When Jesus promised the thief next to him on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise" the thief had had no opportunity to be water Baptised (ie in Leithart's theology = adopted, sanctified, justified, regenerated etc) did he? I cannot help but conclude that Federal Vision has moved from the concept of "by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone".... it's not that they neccesarily deny any of those beliefs per se, it is that they deny the 'alones' by making something critical of the sacraments.

I can understand why one Fed Viser I heard of described himself as a "Reformed Catholic". And, at least, that also leaves the door open for me to call myself a Reformed Protestant; I'm not an orphan after all!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

post-script: Monday 16th March 2009. I've been reading chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession (about Justification) and frankly it is difficult to square it with Leithart's take on the subject: Leithart says as much himself. Justification is about 'effective calling' in the W Conf (Rom 8 v30 etc) and for Leithart it is about the possibility of new life.

It seems to me that the contrast is between "Justification (in this strong Rom 8v30 sense) by Faith" versus "Justification (in the diluted Leithart sense) by Faithfulness"! Unless I've got completely the wrong end of the stick (and I am open to being put right!); this is no mere academic discussion, this is about the soul of the Evangelical/Reformed faith no less.

I'll have to make this a topic for a future 'blog' I think.

Rules of Engagement!
To facilitate useful discussion I have a few house-rules for anyone posting comments on this 'blog'.

1) This is my blog and as editor I reserve the right to... well... edit!

2) Behave as a guest in my home. See rule 1.

3) Anonymous comments may be deleted. See rule 1.

4) Try and be succinct; you can always come back and build on previous comments, treatises will be deleted. See rule 1.

5) Unauthorised Links to other sites will be deleted as a matter of principle. See rule 1.

6) With due regard to the laws of natural justice these rules are subject to arbitrary and capricious change without warning! See rule 1.

"The Shack" by Wm Paul Young

is a surprise bestseller and is doing the rounds within Christian circles, often hailed as a modern day "Pilgrim's Progress" no less!

It is "notoriously difficult to write a good review about a bad book" and I appreciate that this particular book has touched a lot of peoples' hearts. But I believe that they have not so much had an encounter with God but with a candy floss deity who reflects our own post modern values back to us.

The embittered hero, Mack, is invited to meet with God in "The Shack" which is where his young daughter was murdered several years previously. He encounters God in a variety of incarnations and is profoundly changed as a consequence. In my opinion, while the book does contain the odd nugget of gold (more ably expressed elsewhere) it is in truth a sentimental journey into the sort of God our age craves. As such it says much more about ourselves than it ever reveals about God.

This God is so respectful of human rights that he would never violate them; he refuses power because that is coercive by definition. (The Church is a power structure - of course!) God so loves mankind and respects its independence so much he limits himself against any responsibility for events, to interfere would be a denial of love. Given the book's plot presumably God is too loving to intervene to rescue the young daughter. (The problem of evil is not so easily answered!) I would imagine most grieving parents would rather God was a bit less 'respectful' and a bit more intervening. Either way the hero seems satisfied with this as an explanation. Indeed why should Shack-God intervene anyway? The God of The Shack isn't even vaguely disappointed with anyone because S/he has no 'expectations of humanity only expectancy' whatever that means! Presumably Shack-God is not even disappointed with the serial killer!

The God of The Shack will not judge sin (if there is such a thing) because 'it is its own punishment'. I don't see in the book how this principle is worked out in the life of the child's murderer. And it is a curious fact that the author concludes the novel by having the serial killer caught and imprisoned. When push comes to shove we all actually crave some sort of justice. We do want God to be angry when cruelty and evil are encountered: in fact it would be amoral if He wasn't angry. Shack-God never gets angry. We all know that the axiom of sin being its own punishment doesn't work in the real world and the author knows it too otherwise the book's conclusion would have been different. Again doesn't this reflect our society's conflicted view of sin? We want justice but we are not prepared to take the responsibility of making a judgment; we have a 'don't get involved' and 'don't be judgmental' approach to situations. Our post-modern world makes a virtue out of not caring and Shack-God's respectful 'hands off' approach to Mankind is in reality indifference by another name. Thank God Jesus did not look on the world with "benign neglect"!

In Shack-world there is no concept of sin or evil - it seems that being 'messed up' emotionally is the closest we ever get to it. We are somehow the victims of our circumstances. In this context forgiveness is a self-help therapy to get over those who have hurt us: forgiveness is never something of which we are in need of course. Which means that sin (in so far as it exists at all) is never a description of ourselves but always of someone other than us. Well, The Shack isn't exactly breaking new ground there is it? Everyone "otherises" evil don't they?

The Shack has no Cross. At the heart of the Christian faith is the Cross which reveals how God demonstrates his love for us; at the Cross His perfect love as expressed by his outrage at evil is reconciled with His perfect love as expressed in mercy.

The Shack is a cross-less christianity and consequently it is also graceless. There is a poor understanding of sin (which is odd given the occasion for this divine encounter!) and there is no concept of God's holiness. In the Bible when people encounter God they are profoundly shaken by His prescence. They are deeply conscious of their own unworthiness and are awed by God and are changed as a consequence. But this is not the God the world - or even some Christians - feel is marketable.

Mack's wife, Nan, is mentioned tangentially as a nurse who works on a cancer ward and who, as a Christian, has written about the subject of 'suffering'. I would have been curious to know how her theology held up under the pain she was feeling and, indeed, how Mack related to her spiritual understanding. That might have been a segue into the pastoral issues surrounding evil, suffering and redemption but it wasn't a path the book took us down.

As I said earlier; this book reflects our own sorry age, God is reduced to a therapeutic agent for those of us who recognise that we are 'messed up'. Was it my imagination or does Shack-God keep using the catch-phrase of Dr Phil McGraw "how's that working for you?" as the hero's behaviour is put under the spot light? Please don't get me wrong; I like "Dr Phil" (a US TV psychiatrist) I just don't think our model of God should be drawn from day-time TV.

At one point in the book Mack is reassured that the murdered daughter isn't really out of his family's life because they will continue to encounter her in their dreams! This is only one example of the cloyingly sentimental approach of the author. It is a gooey, sticky, candy floss God we encounter here, all sweetness and no substance. It is not a book I would give to any grieving parent.

The book's advocates promise an exploration of evil and redemption, it promises much and delivers little.... what we actually encounter is a godless deity who incarnates our society's value system.