"a government unburdened by doctrine"

Standing on Downing Street, the newly electing PM has promised us "a government unburdened by doctrine." 

Charitably, he means he will be pragmatic and not doctrinaire or ideological. 

However, a government entirely without doctrine is neither possible nor desirable. 

We cannot imagine that even if his Manifesto was a little thin, Sir Keir will really approach every issue entirely without beliefs and seek to work out what works. What works for whom? To achieve what? We are back to doctrine. 

The British Army would tell him that you need your doctrine worked out, understood, shared, applied and open to revision. It is no good turning up in a battle and launching a three year study with options for how the enemy might be defeated. 

Even if Sir Keir has a very broad and ill defined aim such as the flourishing of the British nation, he will still need doctrines about what constitutes the good life, who shares in the British nation, and how advancement for many or all might be achieved. 

We do not want a government burdened by false doctrine, but served by true, good and healthy doctrines, which are open to reformation if there are new arguments or evidence, and which may be adapted to changing circumstances. 

Sir Keir also offered actions not words. In a speech. And it would be petty to quibble that words are actions. But let us hope that what Keir does is perhaps a bit better thought through than what he says, or tells us he believes.  

Disagreeing and assuming harmony: reading the Bible again

 I have sometimes been surprised that people more learned and cleverer than me read some Bible texts so differently from the way I do.

Our assumptions or presuppositions make a big difference. 

A huge question is whether we are inclined to read a text in its canonical context (that is, as Holy Scripture) and whether we assume it is in harmony with the rest of the Bible and the Christian tradition of not. If this is the Word of God, we should look for unity in it, whilst acknowledging its rich variety. 

It is obvious that no two texts are exactly the same. If they were there might be little point in having them both. Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, John and Mark all have distinctive things to say in their different voices. 

But do we assume that Paul got Jesus wrong? 

That Peter and Paul couldn't agree?

That Paul and James had a different gospel? 

Or that John contradicts Mark?

And that is before we try to bring Old and New Testaments together. 

In my experience, biblical scholars are sometimes especially prone to make a difference into a contradiction unnecessarily. But is a reasonable harmonisation possible? If so, why not embrace it?

A difference of emphasis need not be a repudiation of substance. 

Someone obviously thought that these texts could be read coherently together as they collected them up. 

The great tradition knew about the law of non-contradiction and has affirmed all these texts as infallible. The differences are not a new discovery and were not thought an insurmountable problem or a barrier to affirming all these texts as true. 

Augustine and Aquinas may have erred in many ways, but we should take their sense that the Bible's many voices constitute the voice of God to us seriously. Our Anglican formularies commit us to such a view. The human Scriptures are the Word of God to us - and God does not contradict himself. 

Each bible text enriches our understanding. It qualifies but it does not cross out the other texts. 

Leadership, accountability, 1 Corinthians 4 and how to read the Bible

 

In 1 Corinthians 4, Paul has some pretty strong things to say about his accountability to God alone: I do not care if I am judged by you or by any other human court. Let us wait for God’s judgement.

 

This could be a disastrous text if we applied a particular spin on it in a simplistic way.

 

As always, we must read the text in context and alongside other texts. The text is “true” and has an important and useful meaning, but we must not read it in a particular way and then totalise or absolutize its meaning and apply it to other contexts unreflectively. We must always say, “this Bible text is obviously correct and relevant to us (we know that: it is the Word of God), but in what sense is what it says true for us and what does it mean in our context?”

 

Any text can be used or abused. And it isn’t hard to see how this text could be license for the most unaccountable maverick self-indulgent and frankly dangerous off the rails ministry practices – even potentially for illegality.

 

One might say Paul was an Apostle. Quite right. He was uniquely called and authorised by Christ compared to ministers today. But even this doesn’t “solve” the issue as we know that Paul held Peter publicly accountable for his conduct. Even the Apostles did not, or should not, act as they please and say, “O, God alone can judge me: I am the Authorised Ambassador of Christ, don’t you know!” The Apostles were not perfect and infallible and they knew it. They were open to learning from others.

 

So if there are some things the Bible text does not mean, what does it mean?

 

The broad thrust in context is clear, true and useful, I think.

 

Christian leaders (and indeed all believers) are ultimately responsible to God alone. God is the ultimate judge. It is vanishingly unlikely, but it is possible that God will be true and every man a liar and that it will be you against the world. If this seems to be the case, it should give you serious cause, but it might just feel as if all your circle think you are mad. You should still do the right thing. Though of course your conscience might need educating.

 

We can see the particular relevance of saying all this in 1 Corinthians 4 if there is a temptation for charismatic leaders to win a following for themselves by their worldly wisdom, learned rhetoric or supposed power. In the context of division and factions with groups seeking to attach themselves to impressive or influential patrons, what Paul says makes perfect sense.

 

You are called by Christ. Responsible to Christ. Ministry is not a popularity contest. We are not holding a referendum on the Word of God.

 

It obviously does not mean that leaders (or anyone else) should fail to listen to others, or follow rules, or can never be held accountable to any human standards or tribunals. Not least, Paul’s whole argument is a correction, a rebuke, a warning, a call to repentance and reform, to conform ourselves to the cross of Christ and the counter-cultural wisdom of God which has us on display as the scum of the earth, called to humble self-sacrificial service, not arrogantly grandstanding and asserting our independence or untouchability.