BTB on SSM

Back to Basics on Same Sex Marriage

It’s been a fairly gruelling period for Bible believing Christians. Despite the many petitions, letters, radio interviews and other attempts to argue the Christian position on Marriage – Westminster, The Church of Scotland (and undoubtedly Holyrood next) are pushing full steam ahead on recognizing and legislating for Same Sex Marriage (SSM). The air of triumphalism in the media is palpable – the arguments for SSM on the grounds of equality are now seemingly so invincible that anyone who argues otherwise is generally pilloried. Evangelicals on this issue are the comic-book Nazis in Indiana Jones films – fit only for unqualified contempt (witness the onslaught against Ian Paisley Jnr on a recent edition of Question Time). Now, of course, the debate is not completely over and we should all get behind The Christian Institute and others as they continue their work in the House of Lords and elsewhere.  

However, for now it’s plain that the arguments for a ‘traditional Christian' understanding of Marriage have by and large failed to ‘get traction’. This, in hindsight, was perhaps inevitable in a society that has drifted so far from its Christian heritage. Christians, of course, recognised this and as a result often felt compelled to argue not on Christian/Biblical premises but on secular ones. We were aware that arguments ‘from the Bible’ would be largely dismissed as invalid by our secular society – so we attempted to argue on grounds we thought would be more credible and acceptable, e.g. health, societal, cultural. It was a valiant effort but all too often it got bogged down in a quagmire of claim, counter-claim, anecdote and statistics.

Indeed if the highest value that could be employed in such debates was an essentially humanistic view of equality – then frankly Christians were doomed to appear wanting and out of touch. If the Christian tactic was largely to cite cultural traditions or appeal to notions of ‘normality’ - then a society that esteems individual freedom as its most precious value was always going to reply, ‘You do your thing if you want, but don’t stop us doing our thing’. Thus the Achilles Heel of much of the recent Christian approach to SSM was the felt need to argue not on core Christian premises but on secular ones.

The great Christian Apologist Alvin Plantinga argued that non-believers can only make their anti-faith claims on the basis of ‘borrowed capital’. That is, the very notions of logic, linear argument and reason rest on a Christian understanding of the universe, i.e. that the universe has sense and rationality at its core and there exists transcendent truth that is knowable and attainable. This means that, for example, the anti-faith (materialistic) premise that the human brain is simply a haphazard conglomeration of random events and processes, actually nullifies any claim to objective reasoning made by those who argue for it. It means that Christians can push back the angry question, 'How can you can say XX is wrong?', with the reply, 'How can you say anything is wrong?'. 

So where now for Christians in the aftermath of our failure to convince a humanistic and secular society that not having SSM will be good for them? Well let me suggest we need to go right back to our most basic premises. We need to ‘come clean’ that our objection to SSM is at core a religious or faith belief. We need to be upfront that our view on Marriage is based on a belief in a God who is the Creator of humanity. That this God has revealed Himself and given a disclosure about how humans should relate to each other in the world He made and will hold accountable to Himself. That God has made it clear what is good for men and women and what is not. We need to be very clear that this is our premise and that without it we accept that everything becomes relative and negotiable. The argument then becomes is the existence of such a God believable and is the Bible credible in those terms – which is the debate, of course, we would all much rather have.

Now, of course, we may not get that debate – the very mention of God and the Bible is likely to be met by Mars Hill-esque ridicule. Nevertheless we’ll be honest about our starting point, be consistent in our reasoning, and – an important residual benefit – be clear that we are a people of faith convictions and ‘the Law’ will have to persecute us on that basis should Parliament choose to do so.

Sadly, we have compounded our failure to defend Marriage by too often giving the impression that our beliefs are flimsy and arbitrary – borne out of preference, traditions and even fear. We too often vacated our ‘capital’ and accepted ‘terms and conditions’  set by opponents that left us with little more than references to opinion polls and demographics.  We will not win the SSM debate by such means, we may not win it at all, but we can be clear that such matters go to the very heart of how we understand humanity and the existence of the universe. We need to move our arguments back to the ground we have most confidence in – Scriptural revelation.

Bulls, Lambs & Turtledoves

‘...an aroma pleasing to the Lord’ (Lev 1:9,13,17)

 The Brethren Communion Service in its ‘traditional’ format, i.e. led by members, open and spontaneous - is one of the hallmarks of a church like Greenview. It draws its ethos from NT texts such as ‘When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation’ (1 Cor 14:26) and ‘Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God’ (Col 3:16).

In many ways the Brethren’s (19th Century) re-invention of this format was ahead of its time – seemingly traditional and basic, and yet this simple, stripped down time of worship is exactly what so many seem to crave at the beginning of the 21^st Century. The Emergent kick-back against shiny, professionalised, slick evangelical services and the expansion of cell & house churches – has been, in part, a desire for such an authentic and organic church experience.  

It is a service that provides a real opportunity for real (ordinary) people to contribute, to share and to encourage each other in worship. In many ways the (re)introduction of this type of service by the Brethren was radical and risky – no controls, no clergy-lock on what could be said, just trusting that ordinary Christians could have something spiritual, edifying and tangible to bring on a Sunday morning.

But what to bring? Bring what’s on your heart! Sounds a bit pietistic (even cheesy)?  But remember it’s your heart the Lord is looking at whatever you bring. The externals are always secondary to God – the ‘widow’s mite’ will always be esteemed above throw-away largess. Equally, of course, scraps thrown from banqueting tables will be seen for what they are.

For some, scholarly and acquainted with the deep things of God’s Word, their offering will be an 'Ox' – substantial, weighty, developed, enough for some to nibble and others to chew. But brought by those with such a gift to share – it is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. Others, bring a lamb or a goat – more digestible, more common and readily given – but an expression of the gifts and blessings they have received from the Lord. Others bring their turtle doves – small and quickly offered – but just as precious to the Lord when given at heartfelt cost.

So whether you bring deep expositions from Isaiah, reminders of things familiar from the Gospels, or a two sentence prayer – bring it – if it’s on your heart.   Bring that which reflects you, your faith, your experience, your blessings, your circumstances – and together the worship of all God’s people will be ‘an aroma pleasing to the Lord’.

Easter Sunday - The Time

Thoughts for Easter Sunday - THE TIME

Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise (Mark 16:2). All four gospels record the timing of the resurrection news. Just as the stone had symbolism so does the time. The resurrection is literally 'a new dawn'. As God began creation on the 1st day of the week, so He begins new creation. You see the resurrection was never going to happen on a Tuesday afternoon. Its very timing points us towards the start of a new era. An era in which men and women could become part of a new humanity initiated by a risen Saviour.

It is the reason that Easter Sunday is a great day on which to have baptisms - symbolising the beginning of new life - resurrection life in Christ. It is why it is a great day to preach the gospel and a great day to receive it.

Easter Sunday - The Emotions

Thoughts for Easter Sunday - THE EMOTIONS

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb (Mark 16:8). The authenticity of the gospels is palpable - there is no air-punching triumphalism, no joy or celebrations. This is real. No-one expected resurrection - this was emotional and intellectual overload. Everything assumed and expected was being turned on its head. We are so familiar with the ending to the story that we become blase about it - 2000yrs ago at dawn they were getting to grips with something staggering.

How do we feel confronted by the resurrection today? It's ok to be unsettled by it - it is a life changing proposition after-all. What matters is what we will do about it. Mark leaves his readers hanging concerning those first witnesses - what will they do? Will they believe, will they go, will they tell? Will we?

Easter Sunday - The Stone

Thoughts for Easter Sunday - THE STONE

The big concern for the little group of Jesus' female followers that first Easter Sunday was not resurrection or even religion - but the stone. That huge stone disc that sealed the entrance to the tomb. Such stones could take up to 20 people to shift once in place. Even so human nature in such situations is still to 'hope for the best' or to 'give it a go'.

But the stone was more than just a physical obstacle - it symbolised the immovable seal of death. Once a tomb is sealed or a grave covered - it is all over, there is nothing we can do about it - the life has gone. The stone is a powerful image of the final separation between the living and the death - and of our powerlessness to do anything about it.

But when they looked up, they saw the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away (Mark 16:4). Pause for a moment on these words - on a spring morning 2000 yrs ago - the grave became a two-way street.

The immovable and final seal of death had been rolled away. Death was no longer unchartered territory but had been exhausted and undone. He is risen.

shadows to the left, shadows to the right

Where do you feel the greatest threat to having a healthy and Biblically weighted Christianity comes from? Do you feel the most pressing threat is from ‘the right’ (those more conservative than you) or is the danger you feel most keenly, from ‘the left’ (those more liberal than you)? I use the word ‘feel’ deliberately, because while we would all say that any extreme would be unwelcomed – we tend to have a stronger emotional reaction to one of them than the other.

We all like to assume that ‘where we’re at’ (theologically speaking) is the best place. Indeed it’s a logical necessity of holding a viewpoint or position that you think it is right one to have. If you felt your opinion on some matter was wrong or deficient you would change it to one you felt was better – obviously! So we think that those on ‘our right’ (regarding theology & practise) would be better to move a bit to their left – i.e. to where we are! And vice versa, as regards those on our left.

But it doesn’t take long to realise that one of those (as we see it) off-balanced positions tends to arouse stronger antipathy in us than the other.  For myself feelings of emotional up-tightness and anxiety come predominantly when faced with those on my ‘left’. But that’s not because there is no-one to my ‘right’, or that I would want to be pulled in that direction. Nonetheless, the views & practises of those on my ‘right’ tend to unsettle me less psychologically. I might see extremes on my right as, ‘not helpful’, OTT, even a bit quaint – but I can engage with them feeling fairly relaxed. In contrast, when I feel pulled to the ‘left’ or sense the views and practises of those to my ‘left’ are pressing in or gaining ground, I can start to feel physically uneasy, tense and agitated. For me the theological shadows that I fear most are very much to the ‘left’ of me.

However, I observe the opposite in others - folks whose theological positions are pretty much the same as mine – that is, we would both want essentially the same kind of church and have the same general position re: our beliefs and practises. In contrast, however, the shadows they fear most are on their ‘right’. So while they can be relaxed when confronted with liberal-leaning theology and practises – they can quickly get stressed when they feel more conservative influences are knocking at the door. For them the ‘bogeymen’ they fear most come with black suits & hats as opposed to goaty-beards & toe-rings.

Past experiences will often play a big part in determining where our main fears lie. Of course, all this has implications, because even if the starting point is the same, those with an emotional aversion to the ‘right’ are more likely to get tugged over time ‘leftward’ and vice versa. Interestingly the drift of the church over past decades has generally been ‘left-ward’. Some of the reasons why ‘moving left’ theologically is much more common than ‘moving right’ are outlined HERE. In a subsequent post I’ll argue that the two directions are not equally dangerous in one key regard. But, for now, let me conclude my main point here with a final observation...

I think it’s helpful to see the part that our emotions play in how we react to different positions (at least it is for me). As noted, I personally start to feel uncomfortable when I feel the defences to the left are being slackened by those around me. This can happen in a discussion when the predominant criticism is towards more conservative thinking & practises, while liberal-leaning positions are more generously entertained. The reality though, is that often the essential beliefs of those in the discussion are the same as mine – the difference is in how individuals are reacting emotionally to alternative views. Recognising this is a big help in dissipating the social tension that can creep in at such times.

Which means that the next time you’re in a church/theological discussion, remember it may be that the tightening in your stomach is more experiential than exegetical, and that sometimes apparent differences are not so much about the light we should stand in but the shadows we fear. 

An elder's children

Some notes I prepared a few years ago on the need for elders to be good fathers and how we assess such a requirement. 

THE BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES

1 Tim 3

¹Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. ²Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. ⁵(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) ⁶He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. ⁷He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

Titus 1

⁶An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. ⁷Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. ⁸Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. ⁹He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

The requirements of elders are set high. God’s under-shepherds are to be godly, stable in character and men of the Word. It is also evident that a man’s home life is regarded as a key testing ground of his suitability to be an elder.

…the logic is plain. Parents cannot be expected to manage God’s family well if they have failed to manage their own. (Stott, BST p176)

In Timothy this requirement is expressed in terms of ‘managing’ his family, in Titus it is elaborated in terms of having believing or faithful children – who are (consequently) not open to accusations of being ‘wild and disobedient’ (variously translated: dissolute, unsalvageable, uncontrolled conduct, undisciplined, rebellious).

HOLDING TRUTH & KEEPING PERSPECTIVE

Thus like all of the requirements laid in Scripture for elders – we need to take these ‘family requirements’ seriously and test ourselves against it. That said, none of us will ever fulfil these characteristics perfectly – and we need to be wary of selectivity in the eldership requirements we focus on.

As with all characteristics – they actually need to be characteristics! That is, persistant and recurrent – the stuff of reputations. Kent Hughes expresses it well…

While standing firmly for this parenting standard, we must ensure that we are operating Biblically and not on first impressions alone. A number of distinctions are important to note in the apostle’s terminology. First the term for children is tekna, and it generally relates to children in the home, under parent’s authority. We should not hold leaders as accountable for the actions of independent children as we do for children under their care and supervision.

Second the word for children is plural. We are not necessarily looking at the beliefs and actions of one child but at the character of the family as a whole… our assessment is to be based on observations of children’s conduct and convictions made over time, not on isolated statements or actions….

We should all recognise that there are periods of life when raising children is more difficult and when beliefs of parents are naturally questioned… We are to make an assessment of leadership appropriateness on the basis of overall patterns, not exceptions. The parallel passage in 1 Tim 3 enriches our understanding of this standard. There Paul says that an elder should ‘manage his own family well’ (v4). How could this be determined if there were never any struggles in the family? Good leadership is not determined by the absence of difficulty but in the prudent discipline and handling of problems when difficulties come. Patterns of disbelief and unruliness in a man’s household should cause questions about his aptitude for church leadership, but occasional or exceptional difficulties well handled should not disqualify. Rather, they are precisely what do qualify.  (p296/297)

I would further add that the injunction to children ‘to obey parents’ (Col 3:20) means that the Bible doesn’t take it for granted that they will.  

OTHER POINTS

In Greenview we have a young eldership and consequently some elders have younger children – this means that we are appointing elders in some instances before their ‘family management skills’ are able to be fully assessed. However, even with younger children, who can often be quite wild and unruly by nature, it is possible to observe ‘good parenting’ by observing how such behaviour is approached or dealt with. That is, it would not be ‘encouraging’ to see a potential elder allowing their children (of any age) to go unchecked when behaving in a disruptive or inconsiderate manner.

Elders because of their profile are subject to greater scrutiny in the church – hence the need to avoid being a source of disrepute. Clearly if patterns of disreputable family behaviour persist over an extended period of time or if there is a clear negligence on the part of an elder in addressing such issues – then an elder’s position can become a hindrance to ministry and thus need reviewed.

However, we need to recognise that elders are especially vulnerable to unfair criticisms, accusations and indeed the attacks of the devil. Therefore, elders need to take special care of each other in the inevitable times of adversity that come in life – family problems being a classic example. Difficulties arise and recede in life over the years – the crises of past years can quickly feel very distant. Ministry is always long term.