Sautéed Frog or FIEC

We’re familiar with the observation that if you put a frog in hot water it will immediately jump out, but if put in cold water you can gradually increase the heat and it will passively sit there while you eventually boil it. Now I’ve no idea if that’s actually true or not – but we understand the point: we react to immediate threats but can be overcome by equally deadly but just more subtlety applied danger. 

The great threat facing evangelical Christianity in the UK today is not full frontal persecution but the culmination of decades of attrition that has blunted its distinctiveness and sapped its confidence. Yes there are incidents of heavy handiness by the authorities in dealing with evangelicals and undoubtedly the framework of society is no longer a friendly place for Bible believing Christians – but on the whole we are not faced with imminent imprisonment or the kind of state endorsed full-on harassment often experienced elsewhere in the world. If we did, and perhaps if we do, our reaction might be a bit more energised than the slow fatalistic retreat we have settled for up until now.

For at least two generations, probably three, evangelicals have endured a relentless ‘drip drip’ of negativity towards their beliefs and way of life. Sometimes the negativity is, and has been, direct and hostile but more often it has just been a rising tide of indifference, incredulity and detachment. The effect can leave Christians, unable to get any traction for their own values and beliefs, feeling worn out and alienated. The resulting temptation is often either to give way or to give up.

Giving way becomes tempting because we yearn to relieve the pressure points (and indeed the loneliness) in those areas where our beliefs most jar with those that prevail in society. So we keep quiet on the controversial stuff, get all ambiguous and philosophical when questioned on it, and dress ourselves up in the buzz words and fashionable causes of the day. Thus we slowly morph from a people out of step with the world and calling on it to change – to being a people skipping and twisting to get in step with it.

The alternative (and often the follow-on) from giving way is simply to give up. The mismatch between ourselves and the culture in which we live can lead to a crisis of faith. The sense of being antiquated in our beliefs can lead to feeling embarrassed and the temptation to slip away and relax with the crowd becomes intense. The lure of this can be all the greater if we have spent our energies going from one ‘magic ministry bullet’ to another over the years – each one promising to be the great fix that will turn the tide and reinstate Christianity to its former glory days in society.

The reality, of course, is that the Gospel is not any less out of step, less out of date, or less relevant in Scotland today than it was in 1st century Rome or 20th century Moscow. As Lord Reith purportedly replied when it was suggested by a young BBC aide that it was perhaps time ‘to bury Christianity’: ‘Young man, the church will stand at the graveside of the BBC’ - just as it did at the graveside of Caesar and Stalin. Nonetheless the pressures are real and the above temptations take their toll. Our generation's ‘shift’ in the Kingdom of God might be to ‘dig in’ and ‘plod on’ without seeing the great harvest we pray that God is preparing - after all not every generation gets to surf the wave of revival.

Whatever happens, if evangelicals are, in the meantime, to avoid being imperceptibly overwhelmed (like the frog) then they need to find each other, encourage each other, challenge each other and show real commitment to each other. The spiritual environment of Scotland and the UK today means that isolationism is to risk a slow creeping death. 

FIEC was formed in the 20th century precisely for such a need - an ‘association of mutual helpfulness’ in which like-minded evangelical churches could support each other spiritually and practically. A fellowship in which gospel churches whether large or small, urban or rural, new or old - could help envision, encourage, equip and enable each other. Exactly the kind of association needed in the 21st Century by Independent Evangelical Churches if they are to keep faithful and keep going. 

Should auld acquaintance be forgot?

PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS VERY MUCH A PERSONAL BLOG POST RATHER THAN A MINISTRY ONE. Christians can & do have opposite opinions on this non-theological and non-moral matter. So if you're not interested in non-ministry stuff then just skip this one.

As a Christian my ‘Kingdom’ is not of this world but is the eternal and everywhere Kingdom of Jesus Christ – the ‘king-dominion’ present across the world wherever there are men and women who are seeking to live under God’s rule. The kingdoms of this age rise and fall but the Kingdom of Jesus Christ will ultimately fill the earth and outlast the years. 

So the outcome of the Referendum on September 18^th will ultimately, for all the drama and hyperbole now, be just another footnote in the history of a dying world. That means Christians should be very wary of attaching themselves to this debate in ways that might cause antagonism or create ill-feeling. It also means that any elation or despair felt on September 19^th must be tempered by Biblical realism and Biblical hope - as neither The Union or Independence will solve our deepest problems. Rather it is Christ alone, whose power is contingent on neither outcome, who will still be the only Saviour worth Scotland’s trust. 

That is not to say I have no opinion or preference; in fact this is an issue I feel strongly about – but not for spiritual reasons, rather the everyday mix of emotion and pragmatism that influences us all. Biologically I am a ‘child of the Union’ with a Scottish father and English mother (who in turn had a Welsh mother). Politically I lean to the right more than the left, so thoughts of non-left wing governments are not the stuff of nightmares for me. These factors in themselves would probably make me pro-Union but more than that I’m perhaps just a bit cynical in my middle-age.

Firstly, my faith in grand political promises has worn thin over the years. A while ago I came across some old newspapers from the 1950s and noted that they were full of stories about problems in the National Health Service and worries about the economy. I fully expect that, in the event of Independence, Scottish newspapers in the 2050s will still be full of political wrangles about education, complains about welfare and accusations of economic mismanagement. My worry, however, is that we will have an intervening period of huge upheaval and enormous financial costs – all accompanied with a lot of ‘bad blood’ as negotiations over defence, currency, shared assets and even the ownership of artworks are painfully progressed with the remainder of the UK. At the end of which we will just be left with another set of politicians arguing over the same basic problems.

Where does the confidence come from that Scottish politicians will become much more just and capable if they have an office in Edinburgh as opposed to London?  Up until 2010 (just 4 years ago) the UK had 13 years of a Labour administration – which incidentally was exactly the government Scotland voted for. We had a Scottish Prime Minister and during every one of those years we had a Scottish Chancellor plus a sack-load of Scottish Ministers. Presumably those same Scottish politicians weren’t able to make all the changes they would have desired because they were constrained – by available finances, by interest groups, by international business and trading conditions, by European Union obligations and all the other political realities of Statehood. It seems unlikely, to say the least, that Scotland, being a tenth of the economy and population of England, would be in a stronger position to resist such pressures or negotiate more favourable terms for itself. If the 6^th largest economy in the world struggles to get Amazon and Starbucks to pay their taxes what hope will there be for the country entering the world rankings at No.45?

Some hope that Independence will allow greater ‘social justice’ and ‘equality’ (terms of course, that can mean very different things depending on who you talk to – including some deeply un-Christian definitions at times); but a genuinely good society will not arise out of Nationalism but out of Christian principles. If the Gospel gains influence again in Scotland then society will improve; otherwise we can expect further moral and social decline even if we do get richer. As a Christian, money is not the least of my concerns but it’s certainly not No.1.

Independence seems to rest on a degree of hubris that Scottish people make better choices that English people. We are told that Scottish politicians would never take us into an ill-judged and catastrophic war such as in Iraq – but they did. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Scots have to wait for it just like everyone else.

I worry about nationalism as a political agenda. I accept the SNP’s claim to be civic nationalists as opposed to xenophobic ones but either way the thrust seems to be divisive. That’s not to say I believe in a great international brotherhood of man with aspirations for some kind of global government (that would give me nightmares) but, where peoples have lived peacefully and rather successfully together for centuries, it seems to me retrograde and tribal to agitate for their break-up and separation.

I also bridle at the suggestion that I’m oppressed by England generally or London specifically. I have never had the council I voted for in Glasgow or the government I voted for in Scotland – but that’s democracy for you. I don’t like everything David Cameron stands for and I don’t like everything Alex Salmond stands for; but the beauty of living in Scotland just now is that neither gets it all their own way – which strikes me as ‘the happy avoidance of the worst of both worlds’ (now there’s a slogan for you!).

So much for the cynicism – but my tendency to the Union is not all ‘better the devil you know’. I love the fact that one of greatest, most international and exciting cities in the world is ‘my Capital’ (along with Edinburgh). I like the fact that Mo Farah, Jess Ennis, Steve Redgrave et al win medals for ‘my country’. I like the fact that Robert Burns and William Shakespeare are both part of ‘my country’s’ contribution to world culture. I like the fact ‘my country’ sits at the ‘top table’ in world affairs and decision making because I think on the whole it stands up for good things like democracy, the rule of law and being tolerant. I love the fact that my son was born in England but is a not foreigner. I love the fact that Edinburgh Castle and Windsor Castle, the Clyde and the Thames, The Proclaimers and The Beatles, The Black Watch and The Welsh Guard, the invention of the Steam Engine and the invention of the Internet, are all equally part of 'my country’s' heritage.

Should ‘auld acquaintance be forgot?’ – not for the sake of a few hundred pounds, not for some new branding on old problems, not for an even less constrained and more parochial politics, not for a narrower and contracted heritage, not for less ability to be an influence for good in a fractured and menacing world. Not for me. 

Rotherham & the Hercules needed to clean up British society

Latest blog - published at CHRISTIAN TODAY 

Rotherham child abuse scandal: we need to clean up British society

Kingdom Vision

An article written for FIEC.

In less than two weeks, the residents of Scotland will be voting on whether their country should remain part of the United Kingdom. Andy Hunter explains why we should all take a prayerful interest in the outcome.

Article Tags

• Scotland

The televised leadership debates are over but the matter is far from settled. Up until September 18th (and perhaps beyond) the matter of whether Scotland should be an Independent country will be the preeminent preoccupation of most Scots.

The arguments around economics, politics and national identity are being exhaustively discussed and dissected – the prize being the ‘missing million’, that section of Scottish society who don’t usually vote and aren’t picked up in regular opinion polls. One thing both the ‘Yes’ and ‘Better Together’ campaigns are agreed on is that a ‘yes’ vote will change the whole equilibrium of the United Kingdom – irreversibly – for ever.

Kingdoms change

Some Christians may take the view that “kingdoms rise and kingdoms fall” and this is not something for the church to be overly interested in. Certainly at one level there seems to be little to choose between Westminster and Holyrood from a Christian vantage point; both parliaments seem to be avowedly secular and have passed a steady stream of legislation at odds with Biblical truth.

As John Mason, a Scottish National Party MSP, has stated, the environment for the Scottish church, Independence or not, is likely to be increasingly unfriendly. For these reasons, among others, Christians on both sides of the debate are rightly cautious in claiming any moral or spiritual high ground for their viewpoints.

Kingdom implications

However, Christians should at least consider whether the implications of Independence are more or less likely to help or hinder Gospel Work throughout these islands.

For example, would the further divergence of administrative systems and laws created by Independence be a burden or impediment to Gospel ministries currently working across the UK and thus reduce their effectiveness and capabilities? If Scotland did end up with a separate currency would that create problems for Gospel workers receiving cross-border support from England or vice versa? Currently workers abroad can see their income fluctuate significantly depending on exchange rates.

Conversely, would a smaller nation and political structure allow some of our able and engaged Scottish church leaders to have more influence with law makers and opinion formers? Would a new written Constitution give the chance for religious freedoms to be better enshrined in law? Could Independence reinvigorate the Scottish Churches and encourage greater Gospel unity?

None of these questions can be easily answered and in truth all are to some degree unknowable. However, they should be at least as much a point of interest for Christians as whether they would be £500 per year better or worse off.

Kingdom vision

For these reasons FIEC are hosting the Kingdom Vision debate in Glasgow on September 12th to give Christians a chance to reflect on how Independence might affect Gospel work and local churches. The debate held in Harper Memorial Baptist Church will hear the views of two Christians MSPs (John Mason, SNP and Murdo Fraser, Conservative) on these matters. Find out more here.

Whatever the Referendum result on the 19th of September 2014, Scotland will still be a country in desperate need of the Gospel if it to see the kind of renewal that can heal souls and transform lives. The good news is that that hope is not dependent on either Union or Independence but rests in the eternal saving power of Jesus Christ. Please pray that Scotland might have a new Gospel beginning whatever happens on September 18th.

Footnotes

Yes/No photo by Elektra Grey Photography, used and modified under a Creative Commonslicence.

Photo of Scottish Parliament debating chamber by Shelley Bernstein, used under aCreative Commons licence.

Andy Hunter - FIEC Scotland Director

Before joining FIEC in November 2013, Andy worked for Greenview Church in Glasgow for nine years, prior to which he trained at Oak Hill College in London. He is married to Jessica and they have three children.

Doing unto others...

Last month Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, called on David Cameron and the Commonwealth Games organisers to speak out against the criminalisation of homosexuality in many of the countries represented at the Glasgow Games. Tatchell and others point out that homosexuality is a punishable offence in 42 of the 53 Commonwealth nations. Penalties range up to life imprisonment and even, in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan, the death penalty. These measures are in place despite every Commonwealth country having signed up to the Commonwealth Charter which states: "there shall be no discrimination against any country or person on any grounds whatsoever, including race, colour, gender, religion or politics" (Article 7). 

Some Christians may wonder why they should be concerned about this, or indeed rally to the side of a campaigner like Peter Tatchell who has not been, shall we say, a great friend of the church in recent years. Further, Christians may be asking where such high profile media campaigns for fundamental human rights are being made when it comes to religion. In the same period that Peter Tatchell received considerable airtime on this topic, a brutal programme of persecution against Christians was being carried out by ISIS in the city of Mosul without any great outcry among the Western political class.

Nonetheless this is an issue that Christians would do well to make their voices heard on – and do so by supporting Peter Tatchell in his call to end persecution against homosexuals wherever that happens. Believing that someone should not be persecuted (or vilified) is not the same as agreeing with them. There are many things that Christians would regard as inappropriate, sinful even, but would see no benefit in criminalising – e.g. hetrosexual adultery or promiscuity. The same Bible passages that warn against homosexual activity include injunctions against gluttony, gossip and boasting – woe betide all of us if these should become grounds for imprisonment or state sponsored harassment. Law and morality are complex bed-fellows but we can all recognise that State Law can’t deal with all immorality – indeed often the best Law can do is mitigate the effects of fallen human behaviour by facilitating and thus managing the consequences of things we’d rather didn’t happen (e.g. the OT divorce laws). 

There is also an issue here of Christians having to treat others the way they themselves would want to be treated. Again this is a complex area and one that doubtless requires a number of nuanced qualifications. However, Christians cannot expect that in multi-cultural and multi-religious societies (where they themselves may be in a tiny minority) that their beliefs will be privileged. We may feel we are right and it would be better if our beliefs were privileged (i.e. held sway over others) but that is not going to be countenanced by a majority who don’t share our basic convictions and faith premise. Christians can, however, make the case that their beliefs and the resulting way of life should be protected – that is, allowed the same freedom to be held and expressed as others. If I would wish such freedom for myself – I should (indeed will need to) be prepared to grant it to another, even if I might personally be appalled by their use of it. In the end God will judge on such matters and we can confidentially leave that to Him.

For those outraged at the treatment of Christians in many places today; for those who would be horrified at the thought of LGBT friends or family members being publicly hounded or castigated; for those who believe that tolerance is more than, our secular culture’s definition of, insisting that everyone hold the same beliefs, but actually involves standing up for those you disagree with – then this is an opportunity to show that Christians are not just another pressure group only concerned with themselves.


This piece has also been published on CHRISTIAN TODAY 

What's your vision for the Kingdom?

SOLAS DEBATE ON SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

CHARLOTTE CHAPEL - 11th June 2014

All are agreed that the decision on whether Scotland should become an independent country or remain in the United Kingdom is a political, economic and indeed emotional choice. But is it also a spiritual one? Or in other words, would God be voting ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on September 18th this year? 

It was to consider that aspect of the Independence question (among others) that SOLAS brought together leading Christians on both sides in Edinburgh this week. On the ‘Yes’ side were John Mason MSP and David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland (and SOLAS). On the ‘No’ side, Murdo Fraser MSP and Richard Lucas of SOLAS. 

Both sides were quick to agree that this was not a moral issue or one on which any side could claim a higher spiritual position – but was a matter of judgement that Christians could rightly differ on. Indeed it was noted that it was a rare thing to have a SOLAS debate with Christians on both sides, as usually the subjects debated are ones with clear Biblical principles attached.

YES

The debate began with John Mason (a Scottish National Party MSP) outlining something of his testimony – brought up in The Church of Scotland, coming to faith through Scripture Union camps, and now a member of Easterhouse Baptist Church in Glasgow. It was while serving with Interserve in Nepal that he started to formulate his belief in Independence – observing how other small countries happily and successfully enjoyed full independence and self-governance. John outlined a number of what he saw would be the practical economic and social benefits of an independent Scotland. Independence, he believed, would give Scotland a greater chance of being a fairer and more equal society.

Regarding the place of the church and Christian influence, he was frank in predicting that, independent or not, Scotland like the rest of the Western World was going to be increasingly secular and the environment for Christianity was likely to be more difficult in the future. However, he stated that such adversity had actually caused the church to grow and thrive throughout history, and he was confident it would do so in Scotland. He also argued, however,  that an independent Scotland would give an opportunity for a constitution that could include safeguards for religious freedom.

NO

Arguing for Scotland to remain as part of the United Kingdom was Murdo Fraser (a Conservative MSP). Murdo is a committed, although he added ‘not uncritical’, member of The Church of Scotland. He began by outlining some of the historic achievements of the Union such as the abolition of slavery in the C19, the creation of the NHS in the C20, and the UK’s lead in being the second largest donor of overseas aid in the world today. He argued that the ‘immigration problem’ was a sign of how successful and esteemed the UK was, and that Scotland’s influence in the world was all the greater as part of that Union. Murdo also argued that Scotland was already in a position without Independence, through the Scottish Parliament, to make the social changes many desire.

Regarding implications for the Christian faith, Murdo expressed concern that the Independence campaign was viewed by many in the Scottish Secular Society as a way of accelerating their agenda. He also suggested that Scottish people were not more likely to vote for higher taxes or have a radically different society from that elsewhere in the United Kingdom. For Murdo the question was one ultimately of identity – which for him was to enjoy being both Scottish and British, rather than having that identity reduced.

BROKEN OR BETTER

The debate continued with follow-up contributions from David Robertson and Richard Lucas. David began by stating that his overriding concern was the spiritual state of Scotland and quoted Proverbs 14:34, ‘righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people’. He believed that the Union had gone past its ‘sell-by date’ precisely because it was no longer a union founded on Christian values. Increasingly he saw a rise of corruption and powerful elites making all parts of the UK more unequal and less democratic. He argued that a smaller nation state could allow more redress against such injustices and allow Christians to have more influence within the political system.

Richard argued that the issue was not one of ‘day to day’ politics but of national identity – that is, who do I feel responsible for and part of. He argued that nationalism sought to break that sense of collective identity by creating divisions, false problems and dissatisfaction between otherwise contented partners. He also questioned the economic arguments for Independence as a subtle form of greed at the expense of others. Richard stated his belief that nationalism was subjective and had no moral significance other than creating division.

FROM THE FLOOR

A time of questions from ‘the floor’ followed and covered a range of questions on policy implications.  One questioner asked what the evidence was that Scottish people would be better equipped or likely to create a more just society because they were independent – when Scotland has been just as quick to disregard Christian values as any other part of the UK. In response David Robertson said that he fully expected Scotland to continue to go ‘downhill’ along with England, but nevertheless saw more opportunities for Christian influence with Independence.

In the closing statements there was agreement on both sides that Independence in itself would not make Scotland a more spiritual nation, and that the ultimate hope for Scotland was in Christ.

REFLECTIONS

In less than 100 days those living in Scotland will have to make the most important political decision for the nation in over 300yrs. For the majority it will come down to politics, economics and emotions – but it is right that for Christians there should also be a bigger Gospel dimension to consider. Will it help or hinder gospel work in Scotland and indeed other parts of the UK? Would it create opportunities or throw up barriers to Mission? Will it be more likely to promote righteousness than facilitate sin? None of these are easily answered but they should be key in the deliberations of Christians and above purely political and economic considerations.

The evening was an example of the kind of Scotland all would want to see – considered, thoughtful, civil and good-tempered. It was great to see some representatives of the Scottish Secular Society present and to hear their questions (asked with good grace and indeed humour) – pray that the witness of Christians with different views treating each other with respect and gentleness will have a big impact on them.

Pray for John Mason and Murdo Fraser, Christian MSPs in the front-line of Scottish politics and whose example is a huge public witness to godliness in action. Pray for Scotland, pray for the growth and influence of Gospel churches - so that whatever the Referendum outcome Scotland would recover its Gospel heritage and be won again for Christ. 

New Growth Counselling

An article written for FIEC. 

Encouraging New Growth

Written by Andy Hunter on 20.05.2014

There is a growing interest in “biblical counselling” here in the UK. New Growth Christian Counselling in Edinburgh are seeking to put that model of counselling into practice as they work in partnership with local churches. Andy Hunter tells their story.

Article Tags

• CCEF
• Counselling
• Pastoral Care

David Armstrong is one of our Pastors’ Network members with a passion to see counselling shaped by the gospel and firmly rooted in the Bible. It’s possible for counselling done by Christians to become detached from the gospel and employ essentially secular models of therapy in helping people with life issues. In contrast, genuinely biblical counselling should be ‘a rivet’ that connects the gospel directly to life and doesn’t shy away from applying God’s Word.

One key biblical truth is the need for the church to be the community in which people can be cared for and work through problems. However, due to the complexity and depth of some problems, a component of church care may sometimes be the involvement of specialised counsellors. David wants to ensure that such counselling is not about solving problems in isolation but about discipleship – demonstrating that the gospel is something that helps us to face all of life.

Serving the church

It was with these desires and convictions that David, along with Louise Macmillan (from the Free Church of Scotland), started New Growth Christian Counselling in Edinburgh last year. The service is supported by both Charlotte Chapel and Bruntsfield Evangelical Church – support and connections that are an integral part of New Growth’s philosophy. Those using the service need to be referred by church pastors or must be willing to make positive connections with an appropriate church.

David is very clear that New Growth is not a substitute for the wisdom and care of church elders but exists to assist and compliment their shepherding. An emphasis that should reassure anyone who fears that such counselling might point people away from the church in seeking solutions to their problems. Rather a Christian’s relationship with a local church is key in helping them view their lives biblically.

Trained to help

In preparing to start New Growth, David and Louise have each spent a number of years undertaking training with CCEF (the Christian Counselling & Educational Foundation), which is centred around an ethos that is biblical and church-connected. David has also completed the Cornhill Training Course and his work as an elder of Charlotte Chapel gives him plenty of hands-on experience in church ministry.

As counsellors, David and Louise seek to help people struggling with a range of issues including addictions, marriage issues, fear, anxiety, guilt, shame and depression. While doing this they always work with other health and care providers where appropriate. The desire in all situations is to see people re-orientated in their thinking; to have greater confidence in God’s love and Christ’s sufficiency for them.

Future opportunities

David recalls attending the Changing Hearts conference in 2013 and being struck by how many people were there (you can read Richard Underwood’s report on that conference here). He saw the huge appetite that exists for this kind of ministry. The CCEF model of counselling is something that is relatively new and undeveloped in the UK, but hopefully it will be increasingly useful to the church in the coming years.

Please pray for David and Louise as they develop this ministry – especially for connections to those who they could help. Pray that it will be a great blessing to the wider church in Edinburgh and will lead the way for similar ministries elsewhere.

Find out more about Biblical Counselling UK, including details of future conferences, at biblicalcounselling.org.uk

Andy Hunter - FIEC Scotland Director

Before joining FIEC in November 2013, Andy worked for Greenview Church in Glasgow for nine years, prior to which he trained at Oak Hill College in London. He is married to Jessica and they have three children.