'Cambridge Change' is the idea of something remaining the same yet changing in regard to other things. So, for example, last year I was taller than John - but this year (because John has grown) I'm shorter than him. I have not changed yet I have lost a property, a feature, a characteristic of my previous being. Cambridge Change is an important concept in theology - it shows how God might seem to change in relation to ourselves and yet be changeless in Himself.
I heard it whispered recently that the church I'm in was being seen by some as 'increasingly right wing' (theologically speaking I hasten to add). Which is odd because I didn't think it had particularly moved in any new direction theologically in recent years. It seems to me to not be being 'increasingly' anything different theologically from what it has been in the past. Maybe 'Cambridge change' is the real change here?
After all, 40 years ago if you agreed with the general theological position and beliefs of people like John Stott, Martin Lloyd-Jones, JI Packer and Leon Morris you would have been called 'Evangelical'. Now if you hold the same general thinking you are required to be called 'conservative Evangelical'. Interesting!
Monday, May 09, 2011
Friday, April 08, 2011
Truth & Tactics in Love Wins
The publication of ‘Love Wins’ by Rob Bell has opened a whole raft of debate on the subject of Hell. My own position on Hell is summarised in a sermon I preached last year (HERE) – and indeed the Biblical shortcomings and dangers of RB’s view are well outlined by others such as Kevin DeYoung.
This blog therefore is not a direct interaction with Love Wins or the subject of hell. Rather it’s a reflection on some of the tactics of Rob Bell and others in their desire to promote their ideas.
Having their cake & eating it
Defenders of RB and others (one thinks of Brian McLaren for example) have a habit of denouncing public challenges to their views as violating good Christian practise. They protest that those who have issues with RB should take them up privately – rather than create a unseemly public spat. Whereas it’s seemingly quite acceptable for RB to write an internationally published best-seller to disseminate his strongly expressed views on what others have taught.
Holier than thou
I’ve noticed in one article how those supportive of RB were cited with warm descriptions such as, ‘fairly perceptive’, ‘a fairly careful theological thinker’, ‘one of the wisest and most Christlike New Testament scholars’ and ‘tremendously dedicated disciples of Jesus’. Contrastingly those who oppose RB’s teachings were categorised as ‘uncharitable’, shameful, putting people through ‘the Spanish Inquisition’, shooting first and asking questions later, ‘vituperative’, ‘intemperate’, and ‘unreasoned’.
This is a great tactic as it avoids having to deal with the substance of any objections. Instead opponents can be written off as spiritually sub-standard – after all you might feel more obliged to actually deal with the arguments of Piper & Driscoll if you credited them as ‘fairly perceptive’ guys or ‘Christlike’ or tremendously dedicated disciples of Jesus.
Name grabbing
Defenders of RB have a tendency to appeal an awful lot to third parties (i.e. non-Biblical sources). So some of the more esoteric thoughts of writers like CS Lewis are seized upon to back-up their position. Thus his thoughts on the dehumanising effects of sin are quoted as evidence of those in hell being in some sense unhuman. Or that Billy Graham thinks there might be some third, undefined and mystical, way to be saved for ‘good’ people in other religions.
Interesting stuff, all very beard-stroking, but you only have to bump down on the Bible for a moment to realise that such speculations are going way beyond anything it actually says (and indeed quickly run into some pretty big NT buffers). That’s the problem with so much modern revisionist theology – it is increasingly detached from any clear Bible texts – it is bolted on to the end of an ever rickety series of extensions. One man’s speculation becomes the next man’s foundation and so on.
Quiet please
This follows on from the second point – but it is the tactic of pushing back challenges under the cover of, ‘we don’t like your tone’. Now, of course, tone is important but is can also be a great smokescreen for avoiding accountability. So again, evangelicals who are passionate about the pastoral and theological dangers of revisionist teaching on hell – can be dismissed as strident or disrespectful. Likewise mainline evangelical understandings of hell are characterised as ‘stingy’ – in contrast to the new ‘generous’ take on the subject.
Let’s just be friends
This is one of the last cards played in these debates – e.g. ‘well even if X is wrong, he’s a great guy and we should welcome him in our churches’. You could imagine people saying the same thing to the apostle Paul – ‘look Paul, don’t get so uptight about Hymenaeus and Philetus’s new view on the Resurrection. After all they’re really top guys, have done a lot of good work and are really popular church leaders’.
But truth is not a beauty pagent of church leaders – doctrine really matters. Getting it right can be a matter of life – getting it wrong, death. Paul doesn’t base his acceptance or readiness to partner with other church leaders on the basis of their ministry CVs – or even whether he thinks they are ‘genuine Christians’ (‘The Lord knows those who are his’ 2 Tim 2:19). Rather he basis it on his assessment of their faithfulness to the revealed apostolic gospel – and he has little time for those indulging in secondary speculations (1 Tim 1:3-6).
But what if RB is right, that we have been too strident on the subject of hell, too unhopeful about its finality, too exclusive in thinking how people might avoid it? Well then, I’ll meet folks in heaven who I thought probably wouldn’t be there – happy thought! But if RB is wrong, then missing from heaven may be folks who heard that hell was not final, repentance could be postponed, and that their own religious thoughts might suffice for God. This is serious.
Finally
The final irony is that in claiming to have the best interests of the Gospel at heart the proponents of such teachings simply cause a huge distraction to its proclamation – they suck energy out churches as yet another wave of liberalism arrives on the church’s doorstep. Because there is nothing new in this – the doctrine of hell has been challenged repeatedly over the centuries. The church has been down this path many times – the late 1800’s, the 1960’s and now at the start of the 21st century. As the Duke of Wellington once wearily remarked after one of his many battles – ‘they came on the same old way, and we beat them off the same old way’.
Ultimately, the best way for most of us to respond to RB (and those keen to push evangelical churches into a more liberal mould) – is not to get bogged down in trying to untangle the slippery knots of Love Wins. Instead we should push back such unhelpful and pastorally dangerous speculations by simply asserting clearly & calmly what we do believe is clear about hell, the exclusivity of Christ, and the need for faith & repentance. We keep on declaring the faith as once delivered to the saints – others will bear their own responsibility for what they teach.
This blog therefore is not a direct interaction with Love Wins or the subject of hell. Rather it’s a reflection on some of the tactics of Rob Bell and others in their desire to promote their ideas.
Having their cake & eating it
Defenders of RB and others (one thinks of Brian McLaren for example) have a habit of denouncing public challenges to their views as violating good Christian practise. They protest that those who have issues with RB should take them up privately – rather than create a unseemly public spat. Whereas it’s seemingly quite acceptable for RB to write an internationally published best-seller to disseminate his strongly expressed views on what others have taught.
Holier than thou
I’ve noticed in one article how those supportive of RB were cited with warm descriptions such as, ‘fairly perceptive’, ‘a fairly careful theological thinker’, ‘one of the wisest and most Christlike New Testament scholars’ and ‘tremendously dedicated disciples of Jesus’. Contrastingly those who oppose RB’s teachings were categorised as ‘uncharitable’, shameful, putting people through ‘the Spanish Inquisition’, shooting first and asking questions later, ‘vituperative’, ‘intemperate’, and ‘unreasoned’.
This is a great tactic as it avoids having to deal with the substance of any objections. Instead opponents can be written off as spiritually sub-standard – after all you might feel more obliged to actually deal with the arguments of Piper & Driscoll if you credited them as ‘fairly perceptive’ guys or ‘Christlike’ or tremendously dedicated disciples of Jesus.
Name grabbing
Defenders of RB have a tendency to appeal an awful lot to third parties (i.e. non-Biblical sources). So some of the more esoteric thoughts of writers like CS Lewis are seized upon to back-up their position. Thus his thoughts on the dehumanising effects of sin are quoted as evidence of those in hell being in some sense unhuman. Or that Billy Graham thinks there might be some third, undefined and mystical, way to be saved for ‘good’ people in other religions.
Interesting stuff, all very beard-stroking, but you only have to bump down on the Bible for a moment to realise that such speculations are going way beyond anything it actually says (and indeed quickly run into some pretty big NT buffers). That’s the problem with so much modern revisionist theology – it is increasingly detached from any clear Bible texts – it is bolted on to the end of an ever rickety series of extensions. One man’s speculation becomes the next man’s foundation and so on.
Quiet please
This follows on from the second point – but it is the tactic of pushing back challenges under the cover of, ‘we don’t like your tone’. Now, of course, tone is important but is can also be a great smokescreen for avoiding accountability. So again, evangelicals who are passionate about the pastoral and theological dangers of revisionist teaching on hell – can be dismissed as strident or disrespectful. Likewise mainline evangelical understandings of hell are characterised as ‘stingy’ – in contrast to the new ‘generous’ take on the subject.
Let’s just be friends
This is one of the last cards played in these debates – e.g. ‘well even if X is wrong, he’s a great guy and we should welcome him in our churches’. You could imagine people saying the same thing to the apostle Paul – ‘look Paul, don’t get so uptight about Hymenaeus and Philetus’s new view on the Resurrection. After all they’re really top guys, have done a lot of good work and are really popular church leaders’.
But truth is not a beauty pagent of church leaders – doctrine really matters. Getting it right can be a matter of life – getting it wrong, death. Paul doesn’t base his acceptance or readiness to partner with other church leaders on the basis of their ministry CVs – or even whether he thinks they are ‘genuine Christians’ (‘The Lord knows those who are his’ 2 Tim 2:19). Rather he basis it on his assessment of their faithfulness to the revealed apostolic gospel – and he has little time for those indulging in secondary speculations (1 Tim 1:3-6).
But what if RB is right, that we have been too strident on the subject of hell, too unhopeful about its finality, too exclusive in thinking how people might avoid it? Well then, I’ll meet folks in heaven who I thought probably wouldn’t be there – happy thought! But if RB is wrong, then missing from heaven may be folks who heard that hell was not final, repentance could be postponed, and that their own religious thoughts might suffice for God. This is serious.
Finally
The final irony is that in claiming to have the best interests of the Gospel at heart the proponents of such teachings simply cause a huge distraction to its proclamation – they suck energy out churches as yet another wave of liberalism arrives on the church’s doorstep. Because there is nothing new in this – the doctrine of hell has been challenged repeatedly over the centuries. The church has been down this path many times – the late 1800’s, the 1960’s and now at the start of the 21st century. As the Duke of Wellington once wearily remarked after one of his many battles – ‘they came on the same old way, and we beat them off the same old way’.
Ultimately, the best way for most of us to respond to RB (and those keen to push evangelical churches into a more liberal mould) – is not to get bogged down in trying to untangle the slippery knots of Love Wins. Instead we should push back such unhelpful and pastorally dangerous speculations by simply asserting clearly & calmly what we do believe is clear about hell, the exclusivity of Christ, and the need for faith & repentance. We keep on declaring the faith as once delivered to the saints – others will bear their own responsibility for what they teach.
Monday, April 04, 2011
The Hard Yards of Spiritual Growth
John Newton puts the experience so vividly....
I asked the Lord, that I might grow
In faith, and love, and every grace;
Might more of His salvation know,
And seek more earnestly His face.
I hoped that in some favoured hour
At once He'd answer my request,
And by His love's constraining power
Subdue my sins, and give me rest.
Instead of this, He made me feel
The hidden evils of my heart;
And let the angry powers of hell
Assault my soul in every part.
Yea more, with his own hand He seemed
Intent to aggravate my woe;
Crossed all the fair designs I schemed,
Blasted my gourds, and laid me low.
'Lord, why is this?' I trembling cried,
'Wilt thou pursue Thy worm to death?'
'Tis in this way,' the Lord replied,
'I answer prayer for grace and faith.
These inward trials I employ
From self and pride to set thee free
And break the schemes of earthly joy,
That thou may'st seek thy all in me.'
Quoted in 'Knowing God' by JI Packer - the accompanying chapter (21) on 'Inward Trials' is well worth a read.
I asked the Lord, that I might grow
In faith, and love, and every grace;
Might more of His salvation know,
And seek more earnestly His face.
I hoped that in some favoured hour
At once He'd answer my request,
And by His love's constraining power
Subdue my sins, and give me rest.
Instead of this, He made me feel
The hidden evils of my heart;
And let the angry powers of hell
Assault my soul in every part.
Yea more, with his own hand He seemed
Intent to aggravate my woe;
Crossed all the fair designs I schemed,
Blasted my gourds, and laid me low.
'Lord, why is this?' I trembling cried,
'Wilt thou pursue Thy worm to death?'
'Tis in this way,' the Lord replied,
'I answer prayer for grace and faith.
These inward trials I employ
From self and pride to set thee free
And break the schemes of earthly joy,
That thou may'st seek thy all in me.'
Quoted in 'Knowing God' by JI Packer - the accompanying chapter (21) on 'Inward Trials' is well worth a read.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
End Time Earthquakes
The recent earthquakes in Japan & New Zealand (not to mention the quakes elsewhere in recent years - Pakistan, Iran, Peru...) can't but help to prompt thoughts on the Second Coming - which is of course exactly what they're supposed to do...
There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains. (Matt 24:7-8)
Such thoughts are all the more pointed in the light of a 'superswarm' of quakes reported by geologists. The Times (13/3/11) reported that there has been an increase in the number of earthquakes registering between 7 and 7.9, with 21 occurring in 2010 (there was only 10 in 2006). That some scientists think the 9.1 earthquake off Sumatra in 2004, which killed 230,000 people, may have caused the entire world to shake slightly as it has been followed by an unusually number of other large quakes.
The point of such events (in terms of the End Times) is the ongoing reminder that we inhabit a world that is 'groaning and travailing' as it waits for God's final intervention. Below are a few notes from a sermon I preached last year on the 'Signs of the Times' in Matthew 24 (Second Coming Part 2, see podcasts above).
1. Wars / Rumours & Natural Disasters (v6-8)
There will be an ongoing cycle of conflict & catastrophes
The hallmarks of a world – out of joint with God – groaning & travailing
Notice – Jesus describes these things as ‘birth pangs’ (v8)
Like birth pangs – those contractions – every one – signal an arrival
They are warning shocks of coming judgement – of Christ’s own arrival
We live in that world – in such days...
Rather than frighten us, cow us or make us despair they are to focus us...
Every news story of conflict / every disaster
Every turn of the screw on Christian freedom / every new attempt to twist the Gospel
Should flash up before our eyes – 'The Bridegroom is coming!'
Pakistan floods – a spur to try & witness to our friends
The latest Terror Alert – a reminder to keep ourselves pure
The popularity of ‘The Shack’ – a call to ‘stand firm’ on Biblical truth
Christian Foster parents rejected – a prompt to invest all the more in the Kingdom to come
My old Pastor – used to have a parting comment: ‘Keep looking up’
That 2000yrs have passed has not taken Scripture by surprise
That Jesus is coming back - should not take us by surprise
The concern of the Bible – in giving us these Sign of the Times
is not to furnish us with a detailed timetable – or to distract us from living our lives
but that we might observe this world with a heavenly perspective –
and thus be focused us & motivated – in living fully for Christ now.
There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains. (Matt 24:7-8)
Such thoughts are all the more pointed in the light of a 'superswarm' of quakes reported by geologists. The Times (13/3/11) reported that there has been an increase in the number of earthquakes registering between 7 and 7.9, with 21 occurring in 2010 (there was only 10 in 2006). That some scientists think the 9.1 earthquake off Sumatra in 2004, which killed 230,000 people, may have caused the entire world to shake slightly as it has been followed by an unusually number of other large quakes.
The point of such events (in terms of the End Times) is the ongoing reminder that we inhabit a world that is 'groaning and travailing' as it waits for God's final intervention. Below are a few notes from a sermon I preached last year on the 'Signs of the Times' in Matthew 24 (Second Coming Part 2, see podcasts above).
1. Wars / Rumours & Natural Disasters (v6-8)
There will be an ongoing cycle of conflict & catastrophes
The hallmarks of a world – out of joint with God – groaning & travailing
Notice – Jesus describes these things as ‘birth pangs’ (v8)
Like birth pangs – those contractions – every one – signal an arrival
They are warning shocks of coming judgement – of Christ’s own arrival
We live in that world – in such days...
Rather than frighten us, cow us or make us despair they are to focus us...
Every news story of conflict / every disaster
Every turn of the screw on Christian freedom / every new attempt to twist the Gospel
Should flash up before our eyes – 'The Bridegroom is coming!'
Pakistan floods – a spur to try & witness to our friends
The latest Terror Alert – a reminder to keep ourselves pure
The popularity of ‘The Shack’ – a call to ‘stand firm’ on Biblical truth
Christian Foster parents rejected – a prompt to invest all the more in the Kingdom to come
My old Pastor – used to have a parting comment: ‘Keep looking up’
That 2000yrs have passed has not taken Scripture by surprise
That Jesus is coming back - should not take us by surprise
The concern of the Bible – in giving us these Sign of the Times
is not to furnish us with a detailed timetable – or to distract us from living our lives
but that we might observe this world with a heavenly perspective –
and thus be focused us & motivated – in living fully for Christ now.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Reclaiming our, eh like, convictions or something
Great clip: Christians who think it's trendy, cool & sophisticated to 'question everything' take note!
HT: Nicky Mackison
HT: Nicky Mackison
Monday, February 21, 2011
Baptism is for Believers
Had the privilege to do a baptism last night and by way of explanation here are my comments to the congregation...
Salvation in the New Testament (NT) is firmly focused on faith – that is, we become Christians not by doing but by believing...
• The NT writers are very concerned to resist the natural human instinct to look to ourselves in how we get God's approval;
• Great battle in NT between Paul and those whose mindset is one of pleasing God by our works / activities.
No, the way to be reconciled to God, to enter His family, to become accepted by Him...
• is by simply believing – trusting that Jesus in His death - cleanses us from our guilt
• And that when we put our faith in him – Jesus' own flawless righteousness is credited to us.
So the Christian life is not one measured out by ceremonies, religious activity, or even our best efforts...
• But by a simple faith & deep gratitude – to Jesus for saving us - doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.
So the Christian faith, in the NT, is very different from its pagan alternatives – even its Jewish past;
• No elaborate ceremonies, rituals, holy days, food laws, hierarchies of holiness...
• Indeed Paul calls such legalism ‘weak & beggarly’ (Gal 4:9) – mere shadows of the true spiritual reality to be found in simply trusting Jesus (Col 2:17).
The NT sweeps away vast tracts of such activity – the outward & physical – to be replaced by inner faith...
• Yet – not entirely – because delivered to Christians were certain physical practises...
• The Breaking of Bread – Laying on of Hands in prayer - and Baptism
And as Christians have sought to understand – these outward & physical practises...
• They have described them among other things as...
• the ‘outward sign of inward grace' (Calvin)’ or ‘a visible sign of an inner reality’.
The idea of them being signs is crucial – that is, they point us to something else...
• The signpost to London is not ‘London’ – it is simply directing us to the reality that is London;
• So with Baptism – the water, the immersion, the act – is not in itself spiritual, or changing;
• It’s simply an act – to point us to the existing spiritual reality which has already come about in the life of the Christian being baptised
That’s why 'P' won’t be more a Christian – after tonight – than he was before
• The Spiritual realities that Baptism speaks of – cleansing, confession, identification – already exist in him.
So why you might ask – bother with Baptism at all – why be baptised after all these years?
• Well because – Baptism is faith strengthening – not faith creating – but strengthening;
• In these signs – we as physical, feeble people – are given a physical reminder of that inward spiritual reality;
• For Christians– as they experience Baptism & look back to it – it very tangibly reminds & assures them....
• that in Christ – they are cleansed, they were counted in, they did make that good confession.
Baptism is a token of God’s mercy to weak & earthly creatures.
Salvation in the New Testament (NT) is firmly focused on faith – that is, we become Christians not by doing but by believing...
• The NT writers are very concerned to resist the natural human instinct to look to ourselves in how we get God's approval;
• Great battle in NT between Paul and those whose mindset is one of pleasing God by our works / activities.
No, the way to be reconciled to God, to enter His family, to become accepted by Him...
• is by simply believing – trusting that Jesus in His death - cleanses us from our guilt
• And that when we put our faith in him – Jesus' own flawless righteousness is credited to us.
So the Christian life is not one measured out by ceremonies, religious activity, or even our best efforts...
• But by a simple faith & deep gratitude – to Jesus for saving us - doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.
So the Christian faith, in the NT, is very different from its pagan alternatives – even its Jewish past;
• No elaborate ceremonies, rituals, holy days, food laws, hierarchies of holiness...
• Indeed Paul calls such legalism ‘weak & beggarly’ (Gal 4:9) – mere shadows of the true spiritual reality to be found in simply trusting Jesus (Col 2:17).
The NT sweeps away vast tracts of such activity – the outward & physical – to be replaced by inner faith...
• Yet – not entirely – because delivered to Christians were certain physical practises...
• The Breaking of Bread – Laying on of Hands in prayer - and Baptism
And as Christians have sought to understand – these outward & physical practises...
• They have described them among other things as...
• the ‘outward sign of inward grace' (Calvin)’ or ‘a visible sign of an inner reality’.
The idea of them being signs is crucial – that is, they point us to something else...
• The signpost to London is not ‘London’ – it is simply directing us to the reality that is London;
• So with Baptism – the water, the immersion, the act – is not in itself spiritual, or changing;
• It’s simply an act – to point us to the existing spiritual reality which has already come about in the life of the Christian being baptised
That’s why 'P' won’t be more a Christian – after tonight – than he was before
• The Spiritual realities that Baptism speaks of – cleansing, confession, identification – already exist in him.
So why you might ask – bother with Baptism at all – why be baptised after all these years?
• Well because – Baptism is faith strengthening – not faith creating – but strengthening;
• In these signs – we as physical, feeble people – are given a physical reminder of that inward spiritual reality;
• For Christians– as they experience Baptism & look back to it – it very tangibly reminds & assures them....
• that in Christ – they are cleansed, they were counted in, they did make that good confession.
Baptism is a token of God’s mercy to weak & earthly creatures.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Precious in the sight of the Lord....(Ps 116:15)
Saw this obituary yesterday & felt deeply humbled and yet so 'proud' to be a Christian.
Eric Buchanan; Salvation Army Officer
Published on 7 Feb 2011 in The Herald Newspaper
Eric Buchanan was not brought up as part of a Salvation Army family.
He was born in Northern Ireland, where his Scottish father was a regular soldier. His mother had been a pub pianist in Aberdeen.
On leaving the army, his father moved the family to London to look for work. In 1939, he rejoined the forces. His eldest brother also enlisted and was killed in action.
After the war in 1945, he obtained a post as an apprentice printer. This completed, he undertook his national service in the RAF and met Anne, a beautiful Glaswegian member of the WRAF. They soon married and were then separated when Mr Buchanan was posted to the Korean War.
As a medical orderly, he was in the front line and witnessed many deaths. Not a religious man, he was impressed by the practical Christianity of an Australian Salvation Army officer.
On leaving the RAF, the young couple emigrated to the US. Mr Buchanan’s gift of the gab made him a successful door-to-door salesman while Anne, a trained tailoress, made coats. He never forgot the Salvation Army officer in Korea and they worshipped at the local corps.
Eventually, the Buchanans returned to Scotland where, in 1967, they adopted a boy, Andrew. Mr Buchanan obtained a well-paid post in a printing firm but he and Anne then gave up their affluent lifestyle to train as Salvation Army officers. Their first post, in 1974, was in the working-class housing scheme of Drumchapel in Glasgow. After nine years building a thriving centre, they were moved to Musselburgh.
The area was gripped by the miners’ strike following Government plans to close mines. The families faced great hardships so the Buchanans provided a hall and co-operated with the wives of miners to provide meals. At the end of the strike, the Buchanans were presented with a miner’s lamp.
Their last move was back to Glasgow, to Easterhouse when Mr Buchanan was 56. In the first two days his car was stolen and their windows were smashed. It didn’t put them off. Mr Buchanan walked the streets and got into conversations, while Anne was adept at chatting with women on the bus and in the shops and they became well known.
I moved to Easterhouse in 1987 and Mr Buchanan, on hearing that I was an experienced youth worker, drew me into his youth clubs which were full of lively youngsters.
By this time, the couple had built up an evening service. These were short and lively with corny jokes from Mr Buchanan. Usually he asked for someone to choose a favourite hymn. A well-known drinker always picked The Old Rugged Cross and one night Mr Buchanan joked: “Oh no, not again.”
The man protested, saying: “Right, I’m leaving. And what’s more I want my money back.” He took his contribution from the collecting box and marched out. But he was back the next Sunday.
Mr Buchanan’s ministry had three major characteristics: availability, responsiveness and passion. For years, the Buchanans lived over the hall and were the people the homeless and the penniless would come to. When their home was ruined by a fire, a mother and her children were put up in a council flat, although it was almost bare of furniture. Late on a winter night, Mr Buchanan provided food, bedding and clothes for the shivering family. Next day he delivered furniture.
If the Buchanans saw a need they tried to meet it. They started a Christmas Day dinner for those who struggled to afford a meal or were lonely. Anne and volunteers cooked the meal, Mr Buchanan was the waiter, while I had the unenviable task of organising games at the party. Pass the parcel and musical chairs were hotly contested and I was relieved when Santa arrived with a present for everybody.
Mr Buchanan was zealous that people should become Christians. At the shopping centre and in pubs, he would tell them about Jesus, sometimes to their annoyance, sometimes to their delight. He also felt passionately about those who suffered. I was in the Sally when a mother came in with her children. Her partner had beaten her before taking all their cash. Mr Buchanan wept. Among his followers were a number of hard men, former heavy drinkers. With them, Mr Buchanan marched round to her partner and warned him: “You touch her again and my men will beat you up.” Not professional, probably not lawful, but effective.
In 1993, Mr Buchanan had a stroke and retired. He was one of God’s mavericks who disliked administration and rules. Fortunately, his beloved Anne was there to put him right. His legacy is the people I still meet who thank him for getting them out of debt, drink, drugs, troubles and into stable and useful lives.
He is survived by Anne, by Andrew and his partner Fiona, and by grandson, Lucas..
Born: August 5, 1929; Died: January 13, 2011.
Eric Buchanan; Salvation Army Officer
Published on 7 Feb 2011 in The Herald Newspaper
Eric Buchanan was not brought up as part of a Salvation Army family.
He was born in Northern Ireland, where his Scottish father was a regular soldier. His mother had been a pub pianist in Aberdeen.
On leaving the army, his father moved the family to London to look for work. In 1939, he rejoined the forces. His eldest brother also enlisted and was killed in action.
After the war in 1945, he obtained a post as an apprentice printer. This completed, he undertook his national service in the RAF and met Anne, a beautiful Glaswegian member of the WRAF. They soon married and were then separated when Mr Buchanan was posted to the Korean War.
As a medical orderly, he was in the front line and witnessed many deaths. Not a religious man, he was impressed by the practical Christianity of an Australian Salvation Army officer.
On leaving the RAF, the young couple emigrated to the US. Mr Buchanan’s gift of the gab made him a successful door-to-door salesman while Anne, a trained tailoress, made coats. He never forgot the Salvation Army officer in Korea and they worshipped at the local corps.
Eventually, the Buchanans returned to Scotland where, in 1967, they adopted a boy, Andrew. Mr Buchanan obtained a well-paid post in a printing firm but he and Anne then gave up their affluent lifestyle to train as Salvation Army officers. Their first post, in 1974, was in the working-class housing scheme of Drumchapel in Glasgow. After nine years building a thriving centre, they were moved to Musselburgh.
The area was gripped by the miners’ strike following Government plans to close mines. The families faced great hardships so the Buchanans provided a hall and co-operated with the wives of miners to provide meals. At the end of the strike, the Buchanans were presented with a miner’s lamp.
Their last move was back to Glasgow, to Easterhouse when Mr Buchanan was 56. In the first two days his car was stolen and their windows were smashed. It didn’t put them off. Mr Buchanan walked the streets and got into conversations, while Anne was adept at chatting with women on the bus and in the shops and they became well known.
I moved to Easterhouse in 1987 and Mr Buchanan, on hearing that I was an experienced youth worker, drew me into his youth clubs which were full of lively youngsters.
By this time, the couple had built up an evening service. These were short and lively with corny jokes from Mr Buchanan. Usually he asked for someone to choose a favourite hymn. A well-known drinker always picked The Old Rugged Cross and one night Mr Buchanan joked: “Oh no, not again.”
The man protested, saying: “Right, I’m leaving. And what’s more I want my money back.” He took his contribution from the collecting box and marched out. But he was back the next Sunday.
Mr Buchanan’s ministry had three major characteristics: availability, responsiveness and passion. For years, the Buchanans lived over the hall and were the people the homeless and the penniless would come to. When their home was ruined by a fire, a mother and her children were put up in a council flat, although it was almost bare of furniture. Late on a winter night, Mr Buchanan provided food, bedding and clothes for the shivering family. Next day he delivered furniture.
If the Buchanans saw a need they tried to meet it. They started a Christmas Day dinner for those who struggled to afford a meal or were lonely. Anne and volunteers cooked the meal, Mr Buchanan was the waiter, while I had the unenviable task of organising games at the party. Pass the parcel and musical chairs were hotly contested and I was relieved when Santa arrived with a present for everybody.
Mr Buchanan was zealous that people should become Christians. At the shopping centre and in pubs, he would tell them about Jesus, sometimes to their annoyance, sometimes to their delight. He also felt passionately about those who suffered. I was in the Sally when a mother came in with her children. Her partner had beaten her before taking all their cash. Mr Buchanan wept. Among his followers were a number of hard men, former heavy drinkers. With them, Mr Buchanan marched round to her partner and warned him: “You touch her again and my men will beat you up.” Not professional, probably not lawful, but effective.
In 1993, Mr Buchanan had a stroke and retired. He was one of God’s mavericks who disliked administration and rules. Fortunately, his beloved Anne was there to put him right. His legacy is the people I still meet who thank him for getting them out of debt, drink, drugs, troubles and into stable and useful lives.
He is survived by Anne, by Andrew and his partner Fiona, and by grandson, Lucas..
Born: August 5, 1929; Died: January 13, 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)