Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical

On the excellenent Theologican website, The Most Rev Dr Peter Jensen (former Archbishop of Sydney) explains why he is a Protestant, Reformed Evangelical. (3 talks) I am one too and I look forward to one day finding out whether I agree with everything the former Archbishop has to say.

Hierarchy

I have argued elsewhere (below) that the Christian view of reality is hierarchical. God is king and he has established people, kings, husbands, fathers, elders, employers and others to govern the world under him.

I agree the word hierarchical is infelicitous and may come with all sorts of unhelpful and misleading baggage. Perhaps you can suggest a better one?

To reflect on the nature of some of these hierarchies, consider the case of the general and the private soldier. They are of course equal in dignity and worth as human beings. They are God's image bearers. But the private is to obey all the lawful orders of his commanding officers. Note that he is to do that whether he agrees with them or not. In fact, the private may be a better, more moral, cleverer person than the general. The private's battle plan may be better, but it matters not. The private obeys the general (within limits) because of the general's status, role and function not because of his essence or worth or ability.

So it is with husbands, fathers, rulers, elders and employers and whatsoever lawful authorities there be.

Now, you could argue that perhaps the private should be appointed a general, but that is another point. Also the wise general will listen to the appropriate useful suggestions of his men when circumstances allow, but again that is not the point here.We obey because of the office not the man.

Are food banks a disgrace?

According to the headline on the front page of today's Telegraph, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, has said that it is disgraceful that many are forced to rely on food banks.

If the Archbishop is rejecting, say, restrictive work practices that lead to a lack of jobs, I can see his point.

But if he thinks government benefits are better than private charity I'm not sure why he thinks that. Private charity would seem more biblical. It is freely given whereas tax is coerced from people for the payment of benefits. Charity seems morally superior to me.

 Far from being disgraceful, food banks depend on grace. Their giving is more personal, direct and immediate than the state's. Many Christians motivated and empowered by the grace of God show grace to others through food banks.

Discuss.

2 problems with preaching Ephesians 6:5-9 today

Let me suggest to you 2 apparent problems with preaching Ephesians 6:5-9 (and its instructions to slaves and masters) today and say why I don't think they are real problems at all.

(1) These verses are apparently irrelevant.

None of us is a slave nor a slave master so we can move on, right?

No. I think there are principles here that apply to any hierarchical relationship.

I realise some people will be spooked by the word hierarchical but I'm afraid that's life. And indeed that's the word of God. There are kind of hierarchies in the Godhead (the Son submits to the Father), the Family (wives submit to their husbands and children obey their parents), the World (there are kings and rulers) and the Church (the people of God obey the Elders). Relationships of inferiority and superiority or of subordination, call it what you will, are inevitable. This passage transforms them all. Alongside all these voluntary roles, there is a profound and far reaching equality. Equal worth, dignity and status. Different jobs and ways of relating.

We may not be slaves or slave masters but many of us are employees or employers or both and there is much we can learn from these verses. I find a surprising number of people round here seem to have domestic servants of a sort too!

And maybe even if we are not employed or employing, there are lessons here for voluntary work, family, world and church.

(2) These verses are apparently immoral.

As I have said they smell of wicked hierarchy which we do not like.

They might also be seen as coming near condoning slavery, which we know is wicked.

Well, much needs to be said here.

We should distinguish Old Testament "slavery", slavery in the ancient world and the 18th Century slave trade.

In the Old Testament a brief period of indentured servitude (up to 7 years) was a bankruptcy and social security provision for those who could not afford to repay their debts. The debtor would be given food and a home in return for their labour and their rights were strictly safeguarded.

It seems to me that the gospel radically transforms slavery.

William Wilberforce and other Bible believing Christians rightly saw that the Word of God required the immediate and complete end of the 18th Century slave trade as immoral. It is not lawful to kidnap a man, transport him to the other side of the world away from his family and force him to work like an animal and for no pay. God will judge those who treated his Image Bearers as their personal property. That of course is obvious.

But these verses can teach us an important lesson of how to live under an imperfect and often unjust system. And we know enough of those. The ultimate aim, of course, is the removal of all such systems, but not by further sin. And how do we carry on in the meantime.

Ephesians 6:5-9 turns out to be highly relevant and appropriate to Godly living today.

And perhaps one can watch 12 Years A Slave and call it sermon preparation?

"Will we see John Wesley in heaven?"

John Wesley and George Whitefild disagreed about God’s sovereignty and so on.

The story is told:

One of Whitfield's supporters asked him whether we would see Wesley in heaven.

Whitefield replied, “No, no, we won’t see him there.”

“I thought so!”, exclaimed his questioner.

Whitfield explained, “We won’t see Wesley in heaven. He will be far nearer the Throne of God than we are. We won’t see him.”

Some work statistics

Suresh Menon quotes some statistics about work which he says he got from a tabloid newspaper in July 2011.

79% of people would give up their job tomorrow if they could.

6/10 people are totally stressed out because of / at work.

7/10 people consider themselves underpaid.

8/10 feel undervalued, unjustly treated or overworked.

http://www.stebbes.org.uk/talks/2011/jul/suresh-menon/slaves-and-masters

Actually, I think its quite good going that 21% of people would perhaps apparently carry on with their work even if they didn’t need the money.

Child Euthanasia & 50-odd Facebook Gender Options

Two very different headlines have caught my eye today:

(1) Beligium has introduced provision for child euthanasia

(2) Facebook has adjusted the gender options by which one is able to identify oneself in one's profile from Male or Female to 50 different choices

It seems to me that these two stories have something in common. They are both possible consequences of not believing in God. If we are committed to human autonomy, these may be stages on the road. There is no saying where we will end up.

Let's take them in turn:

(1) If there is no God, then surely my life belongs to me. It is my right to choose. If, being of sound mind, I consistently want to kill myself, does anyone else have the right to stop me? If I am terminally ill and in constant pain and I have made that choice, wouldn't it be kind for someone to help me? Could there be circumstances in which that kindness should be extended to children? Although there are no doubt dangers, there seems a kind of undeniable logic to the position.

But the Christian view is different: we belong body and soul to the Triune God. He alone gives life and he alone can take it.

Of course, that leaves questions for the Christian to answer, most notably why a loving powerful God would allow a child to suffer from a terminal and painful illness in such misery that he wants to die. The Christian has some things to say about that, but, granted, he might not be able to give a perfect answer. But the Christian view does tell us why euthanasia and suicide are always wrong. God our maker, owner and king has said "you shall not kill." It is his perogative to take human life in this way and he reserves it to himself, as is his right as the Almighty Holy God.

(2) If there is no God, human beings are an evolutionary accident and it is up to me to describe my "gender", whatever that is, as I wish. I will label myself if I want to and I will make up my own lables too if that's what seems right to me and what's it to you? But out you controlling freak! Live and let live, eh?

But the Christian view is different: God has created people male and female.

Again, there are still questions for the Christian here. Life is not quite that simple. But the principle is clear. If God is God, he undoubtedly has the right to say what the labels are in his universe and to whom they apply.

Further, if God is God, and if he exists, we have to believe that his laws (no suicide or euthanasia and in general understand your gender as basically male or female) are good, true and beautiful. His laws might seem oppressive and restrictive to those who desire autonomy, but that autonomy is impossible. We are God's offspring. In him we live and move and have our being. He is not far from each one of us. And living according to his word, is our human flourishing, our best, who we were created to be. For God to say that we must normally think of ourselves as male or female and for him to tell us what that means is no more oppressive than for him to create the universe in the first place. We had no choice over that and we'd do well to get with the Maker's programme.

Of course, this does not prove that God exists, but if we are going to have a world with child euthanasia and an infinite number of gender choices, I think I rather wish he did. If we are the Captains of our own souls there is no knowing where we might sail and whether it will prove to be a good and happy place. Whereas God has promised that in Christ, he will make all things new. In Jesus all pain, confusion, inauthenticity and stigmatisation will be no more. His service is perfect freedom.

Whom Isaiah saw

In Isaiah chapter 6 the prophet has his great vision of the glory of Yahweh, the LORD, the thrice holy king.

Listening to a brother preach at a great little Proclamation Trust conference this week I realised what I surely ought to have seen before that John 12:39-41 which cites Isaiah 6 tells us that the prophet said these words because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. Surely it s therefore reasonable to think that John takes Isaiah 6 as a vision of the glory of the pre-incarnate Christ.

The Pilling Report and The Church's Response to Homosexuality - some jottings

 The traditional teaching of the church

Faithful, monogamous, life-long heterosexual marriage is the only (ideal) God-given context for sexual intercourse

Homosexual sex is wrong

It is not sinful to be tempted or to experience same sex-attraction

(Some Christians experience same sex attraction from a young age and no heterosexual attraction. Even if something seems to come naturally to me or feels right, that doesn’t make it right. Often our sexuality is more complicated than “gay or straight”. The nature / nurture debate continues. Some people who predominately experience(d) same sex attraction have formed happy heterosexual marriages.)

People who experience same sex attraction, like all people, are called to celibacy or heterosexual marriage if that is possible and wise for them

A change in attitudes in our culture and a conversation in the church

The church is called to be distinct from the world and counter cultural where necessary – Romans 12:1-2

As Dean William R. Inge said: “Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next”

The Pilling Report

Part of an on-going conversation about homosexuality

A working party report to The House of Bishops

The report suggests:

It is not clear what the Bible teaches / how it should be applied today

A process of facilitated listening is needed to work out God’s will

By way of a pastoral accommodation, clergy, with the agreement of their PCCs, should be allowed to hold public services (for which no authorised liturgy would be provided) to mark the formation or continuation of a sexually active same sex relationship

(It seems to me these services would inevitably be seen as some kind of “blessing” even if the report wants to avoid that language)

Questions of method

The supreme authority of Scripture as God’s Written Word

Jesus always treated the Bible as authoritative – and Jesus is Lord

On Jesus’ attitude to the Bible see John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Wipf & Stock Publishing; 3 edition)

On the doctrine of Scripture see, Timothy Ward, The Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God (Nottingham, IVP, 2009)

The Bible is the Church of England’s theological norm

Canon A5: “The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teaching of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.”

The 39 Articles of Religion: “VI. Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation: Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.”

“VII. Of the Old Testament: The Old Testament is not contrary to the New….  Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.”

“XX. Of the Authority of the Church: The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.”

“XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils: General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.”

The declaration of assent made by the clergy etc.: Preface: “The Church of England… professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.” Declaration: “I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness;…” (Common Worship, p.xi)

The clarity (or perspicuity) of Scripture

God’s Word a light to our path - Psalm 119:105, 130 – gives understanding to the simple

The Bible writers generally seem to assume that the Bible can be understood and applied

E.g. Dt 6 – it is expected that parents will be able to explain the Law of Moses to their children

Dt 29:29

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) 1.7

For more on this see, Mark D. Thompson, A Clear and Present Word: The clarity of Scripture – New Studies in Biblical Theology series (Nottingham, Apollos IVP, 2006)

The sufficiency of Scripture

Ps 119:1; 2 Tim 3:15; Rev 22:19-19; The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) 1.6

The helpful but subordinate role of Tradition and Reason (and experience)

What the Bible says about homosexuality

Genesis 1 and 2 foundational – quoted by Jesus

Genesis 19:1-29 – the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, though homosexuality is not the only issue in that passage – see also Jude 7 – “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire [lit. other flesh], serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

Leviticus 18:22 – “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

How does the Old Testament law apply today? The 39 Articles – Article 7 - Of the Old Testament (above)

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 – “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality, [Greek: μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

malakoi – the passive partner in male homosexual sex e.g. in Philo as Robert A. J. Gagnon has shown in The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press)

arsenekoitoi – those engaged in homosexual sex,  a compound of “male” (arsen) and “intercourse” (koites, literally “bed”) - used in the Septuagint (= LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament of Leviticus 20:13, suggesting that Paul is talking about the same things and has a man lying with a man as one lies with a woman in mind.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 (esp. v10) – “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality (arsenekoitoi), enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”

Romans 1:18-32 – esp. vv24-28: “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.”

Some people have argued that had the Bible writers known about sexually active, loving, faithful, life-long homosexual relationships they would have approved of them. There is no evidence for this. It seems that the ancient world did know of some such relationships, though there was great variety then as there is today.

Professor Sir Diarmaid MacCullouch thinks that “in this, as in much else, the Bible is simply wrong” but he recognises that the Bible teaches that same sex sexual activity is wrong:  “This is an issue of biblical authority. Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity…” (Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, p705)

An argument from creation

Men and women are biologically compatible and complimentary

Though some couples are infertile, heterosexual marriages are in principle potentially naturally “fruitful” (Gen 1:28) in a way that homosexual relationships aren’t

Some would argue that generally children are best brought up by their biological father and mother where possible

The official teaching of the Church of England / Anglicanism

The Higton Motion, General Synod, 11^th November 1987

'That this Synod affirms that the biblical and traditional teaching on chastity and fidelity in personal relationships in a response to, and expression of, God's love for each one of us, and in particular affirms: 

1. that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship;
2. that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;
3. that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal, and are likewise to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;
4. that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, including sexual morality; and that holiness of life is particularly required of Christian leaders.'

Issues in Human Sexuality, House of Bishops’ Statement

This endorsed the traditional Christian belief that the teaching of the Bible is that heterosexual marriage is the proper context for sexual activity between two people. It went on to declare that what it called 'homophile' orientation and activity could not be endorsed by the Church as:

'... a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality as complete within the terms of the created order as the heterosexual. The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience, even including the newly sympathetic and perceptive thinking of our own day, makes it impossible for the Church to come with integrity to any other conclusion. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally congruous with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry.'

It also argued that the conscientious decision of those who enter into such relationships must be respected, and that the Church must 'not reject those who sincerely believe it is God's call to them'.

Nevertheless, because of the 'distinctive nature of their calling, status and consecration', the clergy 'cannot claim the liberty to enter into sexually active homophile relationships' (Some Issues in Human Sexuality: A guide to the debate – A discussion document from the House of Bishops on Issues in Human Sexuality Church House Publishing 2003 1.3.19-20).

Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality of the 1998 Lambeth Conference

This Conference:

1. commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality [1];
2. in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
3. recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
4. while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;
5. cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
6. requests the Primates and the ACC to establish a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the Communion and to share statements and resources among us;
7. notes the significance of the Kuala Lumpur Statement on Human Sexuality and the concerns expressed in resolutions IV.26, V.1, V.10, V.23 and V.35 on the authority of Scripture in matters of marriage and sexuality and asks the Primates and the ACC to include them in their monitoring process.

A pastoral response

No “homophobia” – all people should be treated with respect and compassion

We are all sinners, homosexual sex is not the only or greatest sin, it is not unforgiveable

All sin should be met with a call to repentance and the promise of grace

Clarity is needed – 1 Corinthians 14:8 – what does the church recommend?

People who experience same-sex attraction who are seeking to live godly celibate lives will be hurt and confused if the church appears to start to “bless” sexually active same sex relationships

Further resources:

The Church of England:

The Higton Motion, General Synod, 11^th November 1987 - http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/human-sexuality/homosexuality.aspx

Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality of the 1998 Lambeth Conference - http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm

Issues in Human Sexuality: A statement by the House of Bishops – GS Misc 382 (Church House Publishing, 1991) – Google for PDF

Some issues in human sexuality: a guide to the debate – a discussion document from the House of Bishops’ Group on Issues in Human Sexuality (London, Church House Publishing, 2003) – Google for PDF

“The Pilling Report” – Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality (November 2013)  http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/human-sexuality/pilling-report.aspx

* * *

www.livingout.org

www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk

* * *

Paul Brown, Homosexuality: Christian Truth and Love (Day One, 2007)

Mark Christopher, Same-sex marriage: is it really the same? (Leominster, Day One, 2009)

Andrew Goddard & Don Horrocks (ed.s), Biblical and pastoral responses to homosexuality (London, Evangelical Alliance, 2012)

Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation – A contemporary introduction to New Testament Ethics (Harper One) chapter 16 on homosexuality

Wesley Hill, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010)

David Peterson (ed.), Holiness & Sexuality: Homosexuality in a biblical context (Milton Keynes, Paternoster, 2004)

John Richardson, What God Has Made Clean… if we can eat prawns, why is gay sex wrong? – Biblical Application Series (The Good Book Company)

Alex Tylee, Walking with Gay Friends: A journey of informed compassion (Nottingham, IVP, 2007)

Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and clarity in the homosexuality debate (Leicester, IVP, 1995)

Simon Vibert, Conduct which honours God: The Question of Homosexuality (Orthos Fellowship of Word and Spirit, 2003) - http://www.fows.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=72:conduct-which-honours-god&catid=40:orthos-archive&Itemid=59