Part 76. Doing the research at local level.

Should your church wish to campaign on an issue what does it have to do to mount an effective campaign? An issue locally is a proposal to close a well-used Surestart Centre. How best to resist closure?

Why is closure proposed? Who will make the decision to close? Is an alternative provision proposed? How do you find this information? Who do you contact to make representations on the issue? Do you involve the local press and social media and if so when? What will be the effect of closure on users of the Surestart?

Most of the information you need is easy to obtain. The Centre probably has a website and possibly a Facebook page. The council also has a website and relevant documents placed on it. Contact your councillor and ask for information. Also find out which department of the council is responsible for the Centre, who is the officer in charge? Who is the Cabinet councillor responsible for the department.

So, you know what is proposed and why. You know also the names of the individuals who will play the key roles in making the final decision. Your research has possibly shown up areas where you question the validity of the information and conclusions as to the effect of the closure.

The next task is to find out how the closure will affect users. Some may be known to you. Ask them what the problems will be. The main issue probably will be the inaccessibility of the proposed new location, particularly for those reliant on public transport. Cost and travel time are major considerations quite apart from the detrimental effect on children not having access to nursery provision. Find this information yourself . Do not rely on others to provide it as they may have their own agendas and skew the information: eg a political party may wish to make political mischief. However there is no harm in seeking to work with other interested parties so long as your church is not dragged into an overtly party political campaign. The important outcomes are the church showing a willingness to cooperate with others, standing with and supporting the community and that it is outgoing and responsive to local needs. It is part of the community.

Part 75. Justice for the marginalised, the oppressed and the poor.

The Salvation Army originated in East London, an area of squalor. Such areas existed in other cities and towns in the United Kingdom and the Army expanded to serve across the nations. Today the physical environment has improved as has public health, education and working conditions. However there are areas of severe deprivation extant today and people who are marginalised by poverty, debt, relationship breakdown, racism, homophobia, alcoholism, unemployment, homelessness, health issues etc etc. 

The Army steps in with practical help and there are many examples of the excellent contribution it makes to support people. The annual report on the Army's social work is available on The Salvation Army website.

All very commendable. However do the Army and other churches press hard enough to demand transformative changes to alleviate or abolish the causes of deprivation? One has one's doubts.

Part 74. Interpretation

How do you interpret the Bible? It is a subject considered elsewhere in this blog. Suffice it to state that I oppose literalist interpretation and the premis that scripture is God given. I support the concept that words mean what the reader intends them to mean, however guided towards the understanding reached.

Understanding scripture is not an issue of right or wrong. Sadly, in the Church of England the issue regarding gay marriage is an instance of of the battle being fought over interpretation. Neither 'side' can win. The Church of England has been always an uneasy accommodation between evangelicals, liberals and traditionalists. Now, even more so than in the issue of female ordination, the rift between opposing views has become a chasm.

Is schism a possibility? 

Part 73. A brief pause

Three key issues coming up. Time for reflection.

* Proposed legislation banning conversion therapy.

* Gay marriage by the Church of England.

* Election of a new General of the Salvation Army and the prospect (distant) of full inclusion regardless of sexual orientation. 

Part 72. Back to basics

There is a risk that a blog may become repetitive and this post is an example, so my apologies to my long-suffering readers.

My theology, if my thoughts may be considered remotely thus, is quite simple. To be a Christian is to follow Jesus and obey his two Great Commandments. That's it. We don't need to delve into the Old Testament, nor do we need the New Testament commentaries of Paul and others as they are just that, commentaries.

We need to concentrate on the radical transformative message of Jesus.

part 68. Appeasement fails

 Appeasement is used as a derogatory word to attack individuals and policies seeking to avoid conflict. A policy of appeasement may be entered into with the best of intentions but will fail to as it is construed as a sign of weakness.

The furore generated by the bishops of the Church of England over gay marriage is an example of the failure of a policy of appeasement (perhaps you prefer compromise).

Supporters of gay marriage regard the proposed blessing of individuals in such marriages as a sop to church 'traditionalists' whilst the latter believe the proposals will lead to the church eventually authorising gay marriage.

Part 71. A dying church?

The Church of England is suffering a decline in attendance at services in parishes. Many parishes are in financial difficulty and resent having to pay their 'share' to the diocese. The merging of parishes is causing disquiet.

On top of this there is now the debilitating issue of gay marriage. Some members of the General Synod want no change to the present position. Others are content to support the proposed arrangements for blessing individuals in gay civil marriages. Then there is the group pressing for the CofE to authorise gay marriage. Given the current composition of the General Synod the proponents of no change will win any vote, although approving the arrangements for blessing might succeed. Those seeking approval for gay marriage in the CofE will be defeated.

It is my opinion that there is no scriptural bar to gay marriage. Indeed it can be argued persuasively that the command of Jesus to love others is the fulfilment of the law and outweighs any Old Testament or Pauline theology.

Part 70. Christian love is inclusive.

I have argued before in my posts that Christian love is inclusive, not hedged around with exceptions or caveats. Jesus calls us to love others. Sadly there are those who interpret scripture in a different way and have a bible-based faith rather than a Jesus-based outlook.

Following Jesus is about seeking justice for all. We should be striving to enable anyone to participate fully in the life of the church. The Church of England and The Salvation Army are failing to follow Jesus. We should call out fudge, compromise and hypocrisy in both churches.

Part 69. Two quotations

Two quotations which encapsulate my thinking.

Many Christians fail to grasp the basic point. To follow Jesus. Unfortunately, many Christians love the Bible more than Jesus. Theys say things like 'a biblical worldview' and 'we are a bible-believing church' and 'we believe in the Bible'. But in reality, they should be having a Christ-like worldview where they 'act like Jesus' and 'believe in the words and actions of Jesus'.

Stephen Mattson

We worshipped Jesus instead of following him on the same path. We made Jesus into a mere religion instead of a journey towards union with God and everything else. This shift made us into a religion of 'belonging and believing' instead of a religion of transformation.

Richard Rohr

Part 67. The elephant in the room

The current edition of the Salvationist (22 January 2023) two articles on the subject of injustice and exclusion. Neither makes any reference whatsoever to the exclusionist rules of the Army relating to gay people in a relationship wishing to be officers. Not good enough.

Part 66. My ideal church

My ideal church would have the following characteristics: 

* It would based on fulfilling the two Great Commandments and the call of Jesus to follow me.

* It would be fully inclusive.

* It would be outgoing, active in the community, tackling injustice with direct support.

* It would be transformational, campaigning for change to eradicate the causes of injustice.

Part 65. The coalface is where the grassroots go.

When I was active in party politics the highlight each year was contesting elections. Grassroot members were encouraged to participate in the process by delivering leaflets, acting as tellers outside polling stations and canvassing. Ah, the joys of canvassing, knocking on doors and asking people if they supported your party and would be voting for your candidate. A variety of responses anticipated and delivered, politely or otherwise. It was drilled into me that the purpose of canvassing was not to argue about the merits of supporting our candidate but simply to ascertain voting intentions. Identify your supporters and then on the day of the election encourage them to vote.

The party expected candidates to maintain a high profile in the area being contested: being seen at public events, letters in the local newspapers etc. No social media in those days but now it is essential to be social media savvy. Our election team, a diverse group, formed lasting friendships based on our common interest.

Compare and contrast this with how faith organisations communicate with their local communities of geography and interest. Is their coalface the local community or is the focus elsewhere? How does your church engage? Does it even bother? It does? What does it hope to and in fact achieve?

Part 63. Churches in crisis (3)

Why is there a disconnect between many churches and the population? Why are church attendances falling in all the major denominations? There are areas of stability and growth, mainly in churches which hold literalist/fundamentalist interpretations of scripture. Could it be that they have 'got it right' and those of a progressive/liberal persuasion are sadly disillusioned?

This is not my interpretation of the position. Those following the teaching of literalists and fundamentalists are chasing a dream looking in ancient texts for certainty, chasing a chimera. Those of a liberal/progressive attitude are seeking to make our faith relevant to the 21st century. I believe this to be the only way open to us to proclaim our faith and gain disciples. Our faith is focussed on Jesus, following him to establish his kingdom on earth, pressing for justice for the marginalised and oppressed, expressing our love for others in words and deeds.

We have to go out into communities and show the love of Jesus in action. We must love all, we must be inclusive, we must be beacons of hope. We should not be exclusive, insulated from the world in our church communities. Our faith should be based on acting out the two Great Commandments.

Part 64. Sitting on the fence.

Church of England bishops have decided not to recommend to the February meeting of the General Synod that the Church should permit marriage services for gay couples. However gay married couples will be able to receive prayers and blessings, but not for the marriage itself. The 1991 document stating that gay priests in a same-sex relationship must be celibate will be withdrawn.

It all smacks of compromise. The Anglo-Catholic and conservative evangelical groups will be delighted that same-sex marriage is not to be authorised in the Church and possibly will accept very grudgingly the crumbs of comfort tossed by the bishops in the direction of the liberals and progressives, although I doubt it.

It is so desperately sad that the bishops have failed to provide strong leadership in favour of modernising the Church by moving it away from suffocating literalism and legalism. No wonder the Church continues to lose members and fails to attract young people.

Part 62. Churches in crisis (2)

The Church of England is a troubled organisation.  Parishes are finding it difficult to stay afloat financially.  Many parishes are struggling to pay their diocesan share,  money used to pay for  diocesan administration.

Although attendance has fallen dramatically the Church of England has never had more bishops whether diocesan, suffragen or area than it has now. Too many chiefs.  The lack of ordained clergy is driving the amalgamation of parishes, reduction in services and destroying the close link between the parish church and the community.  The church  becomes remote and this accelerates the breakdown of the connexion between church and people.  Result: a further decline in attendance and financial support.

The Church of England is in a downward spiral akin to that being experienced by The Salvation Army in Ireland and UK Territory. 

 

Next part:  thoughts on disconnection and reconnection, causes and solutions.  

Part 61. Churches in crisis (1)

The recent Census figures show that for the first time since its introduction the number of people in the UK identifying as Christian has fallen below 50% of the population.  The figures include nominal Christians. The number of Christians attending services and participating in church life is much lower.

For the Salvation Army the loss of people, whether they be officers, soldiers, adherents or attenders, is a particular worry.  The number of officers resigning or retiring far outweighs the number of cadets in training. The number of corps closing outweighs new expressions of Army presence. Even where there are active corps problems are arising in providing officer cover.  It is a spiral of decline.  The key issue is how this decline can be arrested. Achieving this may provide the springboard for renewal and growth.

In the United Kingdom and Ireland Territory a start has been made to revitalise its structure. The number of Divisions is reducing from 20 to 14 with the various expressions of mission better integrated and improved administrative and management systems introduced.  The hope is that the changes will enable the Army to engage in its mission with renewed vigour.  Those of a more cynical disposition wonder if this is an example of rearranging the deckchairs on the sinking ship.

The test will be what happens on the ground.  The Army is well-thought of by the general population. People are generous with donations where bands play in public  and where the War Cry is sold.  It is respected for its work with the homeless and impoverished.  Sadly though it is also regarded by some as homophobic in that gay people, particularly those in a relationship, cannot become or remain as officers unless they lie.  It is a position the Army must review. There are Salvationists who cling to a literalist fundamentalist approach to the interpretation of scripture and who are likely to press hard for no change to the status quo.  

This issue apart, how should Salvationists engage with individuals? What should be done to build the Army? Are these matters being considered at local level?

To be continued......

Part 60. Keep it simple

Hello. So far I have managed, for the most part, to avoid the use of jargon.  Jargon may act as a useful shorthand for a concept, but it can be off-putting,  especially to new enquirers. Faith is not an exercise in swallowing a dictionary. Keep is simple.

Èxamples of jargon:

Salvation,  sanctification,  justification, trinity,  advent,  teleological,   exegesis, hermeneutics,  doctrine,  sacrament,  atonement, covenant,  transubstantiation,  paraclete,  parousia, eschatology,  supersessionism,  propitiation,  righteousness,  predestination.

We have heard these words used in sermons but are congregations clear as to their meaning?  We shouldn't endorse the use of jargon. It acts as a barrier to understanding unless explained clearly.  Keep it simple.  Language is for communication not to perplex.  Language used in services can entrench a sense of exclusivity and repel potential joiners.  

Part 59. Faith or politics or both?

Should Christians avoid involvement in politics? Should we embrace and be part of the political process?  The latter of course.  We can hardly campaign for radical change in society unless we engage,  not in party politics, but in arguing for changes to the social and economic policies of national, regional and local governments.  We need to be bolder and more forthright in campaigning for change. The commandment to love our neighbour demands action on our part if we are to follow Jesus.

How often does your Christian community discuss issues concerning  the marginalised in our society, the changes that are needed and what you are going to do?  It is no good simply to discuss problems: there has to be a move from talking to doing.  

Over the years I have attended many bible study groups and mulled over the meaning of Old Testament texts and the intricacies of Pauline theology.  We are good at looking over our shoulder at history, but we are not so enthusiastic when it comes to considering what Jesus tells us to do for the future.   The Kingdom of God is not advanced by ploughing through Deuteronomy in earnest discussions. We should be considering how we can follow Jesus, we should be looking forward.

We need to engage with those who control the levers of power, maybe even to the extent of direct action.  No tut tutting, Jesus engaged in direct action:  

Matthew 21:12-14

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written", he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer' , but you are making it 'a den of robbers'".

When was the last time your faith community collectively engaged with your local government councillors or officers or with officials or elected members of national parliaments?  Have you engaged as an individual?

Is Jesus calling you to follow him?

Part 58. Christian living is faith in action

I do not presume to tell anyone how they should lead the Christian life. I am not a gatekeeper.  Sadly there are those who wish to control what Christians should think and do. Beware church personnel and theologians who tell you that their understanding is the true one to the exclusion of all others.

In my opinion our Christian life is determined by the two great commandments,  the instruction of Jesus to follow me and the working of the Holy Spirit. 

Christianity is not an armchair faith. We cannot sit back and luxuriate in the belief we are saved by faith alone. Mere intellectual assent is insufficient.  Jesus calls us to action: to a dynamic faith, not a passive one. An example is to be found in Matthew 25: 31-46. Jesus us tells that if you don't help those in need you go away to eternal punishment. Those of you who do help have eternal life.  Very clear.

In James we are informed at James 2: 26 that faith without deeds is dead.  See also James 2: 24: You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Contrast the above with the concept of justification by faith alone, discerned by Martin Luther from the letters of Paul. I never fail to be amused by efforts to reconcile the two concepts. In my search for understanding  I some stage I may delve into the relationship between the leaders of the Jerusalem Church and Paul as documented by Luke in the Book of Acts.

For now I prefer the words of Jesus to the theology of Paul.

Part 57. Guidance and control. Principles and rules. (5)

The twin tyrannies of literalism and legalism continue to haunt our understanding of and acting on the dynamic principles of Christian faith as stated by Jesus in the two great commandments. Two simple yet profound principles urging us to take action: to love God and to follow him in the pursuit of justice. The synoptic gospels contain numerous examples of Jesus tackling  literalism and legalism as well as their purveyors. It serves us well to consider how Jesus challenged the gatekeepers of his time and in so doing equip us to counter present day proponents of literal interpretation and narrow legalism.

In Matthew 5 there is a phrase used as a formula to contrast a rule and  the interpretation placed on it by Jesus:

You have heard that it was said......But I tell you.

In each case Jesus develops a broad principle out of a narrow rule.

Matthew 23 and Luke 11 expound the views of Jesus on the attitudes and behaviour of the Pharisees and the experts in the law. It is an exposition of all that Jesus considered to be wrong with the law and its interpreters and practitioners. It is unremittingly harsh. Two examples:

Woe to you Pharisees,  because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practised the latter without leaving the former undone. Luke 11:42

Justice and the love of God: the two great commandments. A move from rules to principles.

You experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not Lift one finger to help them.  Luke 11:46

Jesus freed us from the burden of the law by  fulfilling it in the two great commandments. The restrictive narrow rules are swept away on the wave of dynamic enabling principles.

A further illustration.  In Mark 3 we read of a man with a shrivelled hand who was healed by Jesus on the Sabbath contrary to the law.  Jesus said: 

Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?

Jesus challenged the religious leaders of his time. He challenges us to do likewise,  to confront those who would seek to deny and exclude individuals from Christian communities by hiding behind doctrine or legalistic, literal interpretation of scripture.

Part 56. Guidance and control. Principles and rules (4)

According to Oliver Wendell Holmes the law has no metaphysical or natural law basis. It is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky. The prophecies of what a court will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law.

Such an approach applied to scripture 

would not commend itself to bible literalist fundamentalists, but should pose no problems for those whose doctrinal belief is that scripture is human inspired.

We may take inspiration on how scripture should be read by referring to Holmes observations on the method that should be adopted to applying the provisions of the USA Constitution. Unlike the UK the USA has a written Constitution. Holmes argues that the Constitution should not be read as a statute is but as the common law is read.

The provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas that have their essence in form: they are organic and living institutions.  Their significance is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary,  but by considering their origin and line of growth. 

When interpreting scripture I commend the approach outlined above. We have a living faith relevant to our time. Therefore, we must interpret scripture accordingly. Our faith must not be hampered by interpreting scripture as we would a statute. 

Beware those who seek to control, or guide us towards a static exclusive  introspective faith.  Embrace those who guide us towards a dynamic, outgoing and inclusive faith. Chuck out the dictionary, welcome Jesus.

Jesus said a lot on the subject of interpretation as we shall discover in the following post.

To be continued.......

 

Part 55. Guidance and control. Principles and rules. (3)

Do you consider the meaning of a passage of scripture without any preconceptions? Highly unlikely. We do not act and think in a vacuum: in the background or foreground there are influences at work as a consequence of our knowledge,  experience and  motivation. Family, economics, politics, social policy, educational attainment, employment, class, income, hobbies, faith, newspapers, television et al all conspire to shape our opinions, our thinking, our action.  Whether it is a judge deciding a case, a bishop commenting on a theological issue, or the man at the bar in the pub holding forth there is a complicated potpourri of factors shaping their thanking.  

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was a long- serving judge of the USA Supreme Court and a distinguished jurist. He coined the phrase inarticulate major premises as a description of how in deciding cases judges take into consideration factors outside the facts of a case and a logical application of the law to the facts, sometimes knowingly, sometimes unconsciously.  In other words, a cartload of baggage. What baggage do we bring to our interpretation of scripture? When reading opinions on the meaning of scripture we should ask what agenda the author is promoting.  Consider this statement by John Piper a USA Baptist minister and theologian. 

If you alter or obscure the Biblical portrait of God in order to attract converts, you don't get converts to God, you get converts to an illusion. This is not evangelism  but deception.

In other words, if you don't accept Piper's interpretation of scripture you are deluded and deceived.   Piper bring his inarticulste premise to bear on biblical interpretation.

Holmes was a prolific writer. Below I have summarised three points he made concerning his understanding of the law, points which may be equally applicable to our understanding of scripture.

* The life of the law has not been logic  it has been experience.

* Law is a set of generalisations of what judges did in earlier cases.

* Words are the skin of living thought.

I proffer the thought that our understanding of scripture should be akin to that of Holmes in respect of the  common law. Postmodernism has drawn out the fluidity of words. Faith is not based on pure logic but on hope and experience. We should not interpret scripture as a set of static, rigid, fixed rules but as fluid and dynamic guides to faith.

To be continued......

Part 54. Guidance and control. Principles and rules (2)

It is said that in England judges do not make law. Law making is for the Crown in Parliament through legislation.  The judiciary is a mere interpreter of statutes and subordinate legislation. There are clear rules of statutory interpretation.

But what are we to make of the common law? After all,  it is not made by the legislature but exists in law reports over which Parliament has no authority. Legislation may be passed to overrule or amend the common law. The myth is that judges do not make the common law,  they merely interpret it.  This is nonsense intended to divert attention away from the ability of an unelected body of judges to make law. (The House of Lords in not an elected body but it cannot make laws in its own power.)  

A simple illustration of the myth. Regard the common law as a lump of potters clay. The clay may be made into all manner of shapes but it stays a lump of clay. No new clay has been created, it has simply been moulded into a new shape. The common law is shaped and moulded by the judiciary, but nothing new is created. The common law is being applied to the facts in cases, not being changed by novel judicial ideas.  Nonsense.

Instead of common law think Old and New Testaments.  Think of these as a lump of clay. How is this clay shaped and moulded? How is it applied to modern society? Who is responsible for determining the meaning of scripture and its application?  Who indeed?

To be continued......

Part 53. Guidance and control. Principles and rules (1)

Hello. Have you read all 52 of my posts? You have, congratulations, or should that be commiserations?  A set of disjointed ramblings they may be, but I trust I conveyed my empathy for an approach to Christian faith rooted in postmodernism and deconstructivism with strong elements of Liberation theology and progressivism thrown in. I call it a melange of strands of theological ideas, although others may not be so polite.

My background is in law as a student and a lecturer. I lectured in jurisprudence and legal theory.  For this and following posts I intend to concentrate on how judges in common law legal systems in the UK and USA  decide cases and how the process has parallels to assist our understanding scripture. Apart from statutes English law is based on the common law as ameliorated by equitable jurisdiction.  Don't  worry it will be explained later.   

 Common law is so-called because it applies across England. It consists of judicial decisions in legal cases known appropriately as case law. Case law consists of published reports that set out the facts of a case, the consideration by the judge(s) of the relevant law (as they perceive it), the reason(s) for the decision and judgment. We have a system based on precedent which means later cases with similar facts should be decided in like fashion to earlier cases in order to produce 'certainty'.  Simple really but no, judges will distinguish cases on the facts so as not to have to follow the decisions in earlier cases. 

Judaism had, and has, professions engaged in interpreting the Law, not just to circumvent a specific rule but also to apply it in vastly changed societies.  It is the age old battle between either rigorous rigid adherence to the original rules or applying fluid and flexible interpretive methods, a battle continuing to this day in interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.

The judiciary find another way round decisions in earlier cases by applying their equitable jurisdiction. There are a number of maxims or principles of equity which set out the parameters within which judges may exercise this jurisdiction. Equitable jurisdiction acts as a supplement, not as a replacement  to  common law. It seeks to produce fair and just outcomes for individuals in the circumstances where equitable maxims may be applied. 

Concepts of fairness and justice are central to Christianity yet sadly there are those who interpret the bible in a narrow rigid manner and would exclude other interpretive methods which seek to apply the broad  concepts articulated by Jesus.

To be continued......

 

Part 52. Defining Christian love (2)

Following on from my previous post I turn my attention to John's Letters and to James.

* 1John 3: 17-18

If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him. Dear children  let us not love with words or tongues but with actions and in truth.

* 1 John 4:7-8, 21

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

And he has given us this command: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

* 2John vv5-6

I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

Note John states that that love is not about words but about actions. This is the theme of James who argues that faith without deeds is dead. Our faith, according to James, requires us to love, not by mental or vocal assent,  but by deeds, by action.  James rails against discrimination and oppression of the poor and weak.  It is a call for justice and for Christians to act accordingly.

So,  taking on board the views of a range of authors  are we any closer to deciding what love is?  A few tentative thoughts:

* Love cannot be reduced to a set of concrete fixed rules as language is susceptible to different interpretations.

* Love shows itself in how we relate to people on an individual level.

* Love entails helping individuals in need by providing practical support

* Love requires us to demand justice in our society to eliminate, poverty, oppression, marginisation and exclusion.

Love entails being respectful to people and selfless in supporting them. Sadly many Christians and churches are not outward looking and inclusive. instead they are exclusive and self-centred.

I have expressed the opinion before that the two great commandments are not rules to be slavishly obeyed.  They are principles we may apply in an inclusive, progressive, expansive, transformative way. They give us strength to tranform our personal life, the lives of our neighbours  and the communities and society in which we live.

I finish with an observation by Richard Rohr with which  I agree.

We worshipped Jesus instead of following him on his same path. We made Jesus into a mere religion instead of a path towards God and everything else. This shift made us into a religion of 'belonging and believing' instead of a religion of transformation.

Part 51. Defining Christian love (1)

Love is a Christian buzzword. How do you define its meaning, never mind its application?  Tricky word, whether used as a noun or as a verb, yet so much hangs on the meaning we give to it. Do we define it narrowly or broadly? Do we qualify it or compartmentalise it? Are there degrees of love? Is it mental, physical or both?  I am reminded of the ideas of Derrida, that we can only express our understanding of  the meaning of a word though other words which in turn can only be...etc. A word means what a person believes it to mean no matter what the original author meant.  Meaning is subjective, not objective. Meaning is flexible, not rigid. It is fluid, not set in stone. There is no one objective true meaning of a word as bible literalist fundamentalists would have us believe. 

At this juncture you may be thinking what then is the point of my seeking to  define the meaning of love in a Christian context? Quite right, it means what you want it to mean, not what I might propose it to mean.  I am going to press on and consider the matter anyway!

Love is at the core of the ministry of Jesus. Witness the two great commandments instructing us to love God and love your neighbour as yourself. The parable of the good Samaritan is an example of love in action as are the  actions demanded by Jesus in the sheep and goats parable. (Matthew 25:31-46). Love manifests itself in deeds.

In his letters Paul articulates his thoughts concerning the concept of love. I have quoted a number passages to provide an overall picture of his views.

*Romans 13:8-10

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow-man has fulfilled the law. The commandments,"Do not commit adultery", "Do not murder", "Do not steal", "Do not covet" and whatever other commandments there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbour as yourself". Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.

Individual rules subsumed in a  principle broader in meaning than the totality of individual rules. A vital concept in our theological thinking on the meaning of passages of scripture. So, what is love?

*1 Corinthians 13:3-8

Love is patient, love is kind.  It does not envy  it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude  it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts , always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

* Galatians 5:22

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

* Ephesians 5:2

Live a life of love.

* Colossians 3:12-14

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved  clothe yourself with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And above all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.  

Paul uses the word 'love'  as an overarching concept to link together and categorise under one label what he considers to be a set of virtuous attitudes and behaviour for Christians to follow.  In his letters Paul sets out a moral code for individuals to adhere to, a catalogue of dos and donts. The classic gatekeeper.  However, the words are so generalised that they are capable of being interpreted in many different ways.  We must beware of attempts to impose any one interpretation as being 'correct' to the exclusion of others.  We must resist any temptation to grant equal or more weight to Paul's ideas than we do to those of Jesus.

To be continued.......

Part 50. The enemy within.

Hello. Little did I think when I started to compose what masquerade as posts on theology that it would extend to fifty posts and counting.  My posts consist of random thoughts and are not in a logical order. I hope you have been kept amused.

Today I take aim at the real enemy of Christian faith.  Not atheists, nor agnostics, nor humanists.  My beady eyes are focussed on literalist interpreters of scripture. 

A church may state its approved method of interpretation in its doctrines which church members are expected to adhere to.  Doctrine should follow interpretation and not determine meaning. Doctrine should not be read into the meaning of scripture, rather we should derive doctrine from our understanding of scripture. As understanding of scripture changes so should doctrine.

The Salvation Army doctrine states:

We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by the inspiration of God and that they only constitute the Divine Rule of Christian faith and practice.

It leaves open the potential for a variety of interpretations of the meaning of the text. However the literalist fundamentalists within the Army have not been idle.  Step forward an unofficial Army equivalent of the Inquisition: SENTRY - Salvationists Fighting For Sanctity.  Some of the self- appointed roles of this group are:

* To defend the authority of the Bible as the absolutely trustworthy (infallible) revelation of the knowledge of God, His laws and the way of Salvation.

* To defend the sacred institution of marriage as described by God between one man and one woman for life. This union, as Scripture reveals, is the only proper context for sexual intimacy.

* To confront the propagation of false doctrine and teaching within The Salvation Army.

SENTRY states there must be no tolerance of deviation from Orders and Regulations for Soldiers of The Salvation Army. Concerns should be reported to the appropriate Salvation Army administration.

A sorry group,  trapped in a mindset which permits no biblical interpretation other than its own and fearful of any challenge to the stance it takes. What confidence can the group have in its theology if it has to threaten to report individuals who dare to disagree with its stance?

The breathtaking arrogance of SENTRY is matched by a statement made by The Christian Institute. 

Campaigners (for a ban on conversion therapy) want to outlaw any preaching, gentle prayer or pastoral care that seeks to help people live in accordance with the Bible.

Such arrogance. The Institute means anyone who wishes to live in accordance with its particular version of biblical understanding.  Many Christians do not subscribe to what the Institute understands as living in accordance with the Bible.  Thank goodness.

Part 49. Full inclusion (again)

The Salvation Army (TSA) is a Christian organisation. I joined as an Adherent nearly ten years ago as I admired the work it undertakes to bring practical help and support to the most needy in society. It is love in action. I argue that although its focus is on direct support at point of need, it should do much much more campaigning on policies to tackle the causes rather than the symptoms of poverty, marginalisation and deprivation. Continually repairing damaged broken lives is laudable but Christians have a duty to promote radical change to deliver the Gospel message of a positive option for the poor.

One issue dominating discussion within TSA is that of exclusion on the grounds of sexual orientation. The most contentious issue is the exclusion of gay individuals from soldiership and officership and certainly not if in a same sex stable relationship.  

The exclusionist argument runs along the lines that a same sex relationship is condemned in scripture and in any event is against TSA doctrine (a dubious proposition) which a soldier is required to adhere to.

The inclusionist view is that the exclusionist reading of scripture is incorrect: a matter considered in earlier posts. As to doctrine,  well change it if needs be is the simple answer.

I can understand why a deeply conservative traditional body such as the Roman Catholic Church retains an exclusionist stance and also why this is the case with extreme Protestant churches such as the Bretheren.

How did TSA get into this mess of its own making? TSA started as a radical offshoot of the Methodist Church which in its turn was an offshoot of the Church of England. 

From the outset TSA had female soldiers and officers and biblical injunctions against women speaking in churches were dismissed. So, if women are included, why not gay people?

TSA is an international organisation with branches (known as territories). The territories are not independent organisations and in theory cannot take unilateral action. The Anglican Communion is a collection of independent church organisations and they can and do take unilateral decisions. Thus the USA church has gay women bishops and gay male bishops in same sex marriages. Such developments are anathema to African Anglican church organisations.

Pressure is building for change in TSA's stance and it may only be a matter of time before some territories decide to act independently of the international organisation and become fully inclusive.

Whatever does happen will cause pain for either the exclusionists or inclusionists and may lead to a restructuring along the lines of the Anglican Communion. The one thing we may be sure of is that some change will come either in doctrine,  organisation or both. The question is when? It won't be soon.

Part 48. The cost of following Jesus.

In Luke 9: 23 Jesus is quoted thus:

If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

In so doing there is transformation. The sinful nature departs and in its stead the fruits of the Spirit come to the forefront of your thoughts and actions. But, it is not easy, it has to be worked at. There will be setbacks as you wean yourself off the sinful nature.

Becoming a follower or a disciple may be  tricky, a step into the unknown, certainty replaced by uncertainty, doubt instead of confidence and the loss of comfort in what you are leaving.  It may engender excitement, hope, confidence, joy, boldness.  Whatever the emotions stirred, things will be different and there may be no option of turning back.  Following Jesus stirs up emotions and has serious consequences not only for you but also for others.

So what does it mean in a Christian postmodernist context to pick up your cross and follow Jesus?

For many Christians following Jesus is a matter of personal salvation and no more. The problem for Christian postmodernists is that, as they dismiss the concept of overarching, objective, metaphysical concepts, following Jesus has to be something more than personal salvation. There is a need to deconstruct the teaching of the church.

Christian postmodernists argue that the injunction of Jesus to follow me is to work towards the vision proclaimed by Jesus of the reign of God on earth. As we noted in the part on Religionless Christianity we pray for strength to achieve justice for the poor, the disadvantaged,  the marginalised and the oppressed. We love our neighbour. Following Jesus thus takes on a new dimension. It is not inward looking concerned with personal salvation.  it is outward looking and challenging the rich and powerful. Thus it is not without  dangers

Part 47. Cheap grace, costly grace or both?

Options may be presented as stark alternatives whereas the reality is more nuanced. 

Bonhoeffer distinguishes cheap grace and costly grace.  

Kierkegaard argues that some Christians admire Christ rather than following Jesus.

In the case of both theologians  the cleavage is between those who hold to literalist interpretation of scripture, obedience to rules and moral codes to exclude those who do not conform, and the reward of salvation: and those who follow Jesus and work to transform lives of the disadvantaged in the present by engaging with the principles set out in the Great Commandments.

The distinction is clear-cut. However in practice many individuals have a foot in each camp. I love the language of the Book Of Common Prayer: the ambivalence and ambiguity of its theology.  Concurrently I have engaged in social justice  and action. However I do understand why in the age of postmodernity cheap grace is ignored and unacceptable to younger generations whereas costly grace with its concepts of justice and inclusion strike a chord. First and foremost I am a follower of Jesus.

Part 46. Following Jesus

Born in Sheffield aka Steel City it had to be Wednesday or United. I chose United, The Blades. A Unitedite. For many years l have been a supporter, spectator and follower of the club,  paying to watch them play home and away. I joined a community of supporters, sang songs on the terraces and made friends. Together we have been through times of despair, hope and joy and never been slow to express an opinion during a game. We regale stories of past seasons and of players past. We are unashamedly nostalgic yet filled with hope for the future. We listen to the statements of the directors and manager and interpret them as we see fit. We are focussed,  inward looking and never slow to denegrate The Owls. It's a religion!

You know where this is heading. Instead of football think church denomination or a specific branch of a denomination. You attend services, put money on a plate, sing, listen to a preacher and the reading of church notices, exchange pleasantries with fellow members of the congregation  then go home and await the next fixture, oops, service. You are a Christian, you have been saved  and you  support loyally your church. But do you support and follow the church or do you follow Jesus?  Is it as Bonhoeffer puts it cheap grace or costly grace?

Part 45. Religionless Christianity is not an oxymoron

Dietrich Bonhoeffer coined the phrase 'religionless Christianity' to encapsulate his understanding of christian theology. His ideas are of relevance in the postmodernist world. The two key concepts are:

1.  The need for intercessionary prayer, bringing before God those suffering injustice, identifying with them and praying for power and strength to stand up for what is right and just.   We act in God's power.  

2. We should seek to follow Jesus by engaging in action to promote justice for the marginalised and oppressed in our world.

In other words we should pick up our cross and follow Jesus into battle for the poor in society, not by mere intellectual assent, but by our actions.

Our focus should be on Jesus, not the religious trappings of doctrine, creeds, dogma and gatekeepers.

Bonhoeffer is promoting the centrality of the two Great Commandments and the imperative of our engagement through action, costly though it is.

Love God, love others. Don't just think it, do it.