![]() |
| Followed by Cafe Fellowship @ 7pm |
The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. (Proverbs 18:17)
Monday, June 17, 2013
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
BTB on SSM
Back to Basics on Same Sex Marriage
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?'.
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.
Monday, May 20, 2013
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 21st 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.
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’.
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 21st 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’. Saturday, April 27, 2013
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.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Easter Sunday - The Emotions
Thoughts for Easter Sunday - THE EMOTIONSTrembling 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 STONEThe 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



