bye bye baby blue

Last week the UK Crown Prosecution Service decided not to take to action against doctors in the UK who offered to carry out abortions on the basis of gender . This decision was taken, not because there wasn't enough evidence or because the law isn’t clear, but because the CPS deemed such a prosecution ‘not to be in the public interest’. Now to be fair there has been considerable condemnation and unease expressed since in the media and political circles – and with the matter now being reviewed it may well be that action will be taken in the light of this pressure.

However, the moral confusion and double standards around abortion have been starkly highlighted by this case. For a start  the controversy has not been generated because people are concerned about on-demand abortions being carried out on an industrial scale in the UK (that is just accepted), rather what has upset people is the thought that sexism could be a factor (the phrase, ‘Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel’, does come to mind!).

Now, of course, to say abortion on the basis of gender discrimination is unacceptable cuts both ways – that is, it should protect both sexes. But we also know that the big driver for such gender based abortions is that in certain cultures, for economic and cultural reasons, boys are more valued than girls.  So let’s not be naive in recognising that globally this is largely an issue about girls and hence why it is so politically sensitive. 

David Cameron at PMQs (11/9/13) stated that abortion on the basis of gender was unacceptable. The question that assertion begs, and which no-one in public life seems to want to ask, is why? After all if it is unacceptable to abort a human life on the basis of gender discrimination - why is discrimination in the womb acceptable for the disabled, the poor, the inconvenient, and the unwanted. 

The whole basis of abortion is that foetuses are not really fully functioning human lives and thus can be disposable. But if so, what exactly is the relevance of gender?

It leaves us with the bizarre, indeed grotesque, situation where it seems the only defence to life in the womb (that our society actually cares about) would be because you’re not a boy. Sorry boys but the reality is that any protection you will get because of your gender will largely come because of a concern for girls.

Keep the clubs in the bag

At a meeting of church leaders I attended a while back one of the speakers challenged us about getting balance in ministry. Now keeping things in proportion, not neglecting important truths and avoiding unhealthily pre-occupations with single issues in ministry is important - the other way the cults lie!

However, in this instance the dichotomy being presented to us was misleading. The danger we were told was too much emphasis on doctrine and theology. This was the scourge of evangelical churches - and here comes the analogy - our churches historically have been too taken up with just one 'club' (i.e. doctrine) and thus neglected the other 'ministry clubs' such as evangelism, mercy ministry, community building pastoral care etc.

To be honest I can't remember exactly how it was put - but 'clubs' was the analogy and this blog is about the bigger presentation of these issues rather than a one-off comment - so apologies if I've over-stated that particular incident. However, the general point being made is a common one. Indeed the accusation that evangelicals are obsessed with doctrine is pretty old news - are there any sensible thinking evangelicals who aren't aware of the dangers of 'just having head knowledge' or who think evangelism, mercy ministries and pastoral care aren't really important. As a challenge to evangelicals it is somewhat hackneyed.

What got me intervening in the debate though was not the un-originality of the comments but the false premise of setting doctrine against those other things as if they are separate components of ministry. Doctrine/theology is not a separate club - but 'the bag' in which all the other clubs are kept. Get rid of 'the bag' or forget to take it with you, and all the other 'clubs' will soon be all over the place.

So when someone says (and they will sooner or later), 'Let's stop fussing about doctrine and just get out there and share Jesus'. The question is, 'What are you going to share - what will you say to people?' Because as soon as you make as statement, claim or pronouncement about Jesus - we're talking doctrine.

The 'clubs' of evangelism, mercy ministry, pastoral care, fellowship, praise (you name them) are all drawn out of the bag of doctrine and theology. So make sure the bag is in good order and make sure your clubs are kept inside it.

Summer Evening Services in Greenview

Followed by Cafe Fellowship @ 7pm

Summer Morning Services in Greenview

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.