Homosexuality and Lines in the Sand (Part One)

This post and the next follows in the wake of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland's decision in May to continue on the trajectory of allowing at least some congregations - where the local leadership in the Kirk Session agrees to it—to induct practising gay and lesbian ministers as parish ministers. At the same time, the Kirk is maintaining as its "default position" the traditional Christian understanding that the covenant bond between a man and a woman in marriage is the only God-ordained sphere for sexual activity and that homosexual acts are contrary to God's will and therefore sinful, exactly in the same way as all heterosexual acts outside marriage are considered sinful.

Now, many evangelicals in the Church of Scotland are more than just saddened that the Church seems to be slowly but surely drifting from traditional Christian morality in this area. For them a line in the sand has been crossed here on this issue and it is time either to leave the Kirk now as a few others have done already or at least time to start concrete preparations for leaving in a year or two.

Now, supposing that the proposal does pass all remaining stages and becomes the Kirk's position. What then? What if the Kirk continues to adhere to the historic Christian position but allows individual congregations to depart from it if their conscience will permit it? Should that be an automatic trigger for everyone who disagrees with them to walk out of the Church of Scotland?

There are a couple of thoughts I would suggest we reflect on, in answer to this question, before we jump to any conclusions.

The first thing to point out, as I did in my letter to the Herald newspaper on 23 May, is that there is nothing fundamentally new revealed in this decision about the theological spectrum of views in the Kirk. It is misleading for people to talk about lines in the sand here. Evangelicals and liberals have co-existed in the Church of Scotland despite deep differences in their views on both doctrinal and ethical matters for a long, long time. There are liberal ministers and certainly members in the Kirk today (I think I am fairly safe in suggesting) who would deny such fundamental doctrines as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the deity of Christ, the Trinity as traditionally understood, the reality of sin, Satan or hell; there are those who teach salvation by good works and outright universalism (that all are saved), while others teach that all religions lead to God and many deny that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and so on and so on. In effect, there are people in the Church of Scotland right now, in membership, in leadership and in ministry who have views that evangelicals would spend our lives opposing with our very lifeblood.

Yet, evangelicals have never seen fit to walk away from the Kirk despite such views being tolerated within the Church of Scotland. We have separated ourselves and our congregations from such false teaching, while remaining within the organisation. Why then is the issue of homosexuality considered such a fundamental thing that it should be the line in the sand when outright heresies have been tolerated (and sometimes more than tolerated) within the Kirk for many years?

I have yet to see a satisfying answer to that most basic question. I have to say that if denominational separation from error or heresy is always right, then even if the traditional view of sexual sin had been upheld at the Assembly, no one who takes that line should have been able to remain, in good conscience, within the Kirk anyway. There are ministers who deny even the most basic tenets of the Christian faith according to Paul himself - that Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead. If anyone can remain in a denomination where people can deny that without facing church discipline and removal from office, why then would the fact someone is gay or lesbian in leadership tip the balance towards separation? Compared to denying the resurrection, homosexual acts are small matters in biblical terms. We need to keep things in proportion.

Or perhaps it is merely because this would be an instance of the Church officially taking a position we would disagree with, whereas much of the liberal teaching is "swept under the carpet" of the "liberty of opinion" clause in the ordination vows? Perhaps, but that argument does not really wash. The Kirk's official positions on a number of points are also biblically questionable, for example the Kirk's official position on the nature of the Bible is hardly a ringing endorsement of evangelical Protestant doctrine! The Church has officially adopted non-evangelical positions on a number of issues over the years.

So we are then left with the impression that it is people's gut reaction to this issue that leads them to see it as such a big deal. If we can tolerate resurrection deniers in leadership but not gays, that tells us something about us and it's not a pretty picture.

All that has really happened is that two groups who disagree over what the Bible is have now found that disagreement surfacing over the question of the morality of same-sex sexual activity. The bigger disagreement was already there and both sides have lived with it for a century or more. Evangelicals believe the Bible is the Word of God written. Liberals, to a greater or lesser extent, believe the Word of God is only somewhere "contained" within the Bible. These two positions on the Bible have now been applied to the morality of homosexual acts within committed homosexual relationships and come to different conclusions.

If we walk away over this, we must do so in repentance for our own sin and the sins of our fathers and grandfathers in the faith who stayed within the liberal Kirk all these years and fought their corner, for if it is right to go now, then it was never right to be there in the first place—at least not in the last 100 years or so.

We have to tread very carefully here or it will merely look as if our true motivations are homophobic rather than theological or biblical.

(To be continued)

Pentecost

Today the Christian church celebrated Pentecost (also known as Whitsunday). The day celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Christian believers in power as recorded in Acts 2. Jesus promised that when he went away he would then send another "helper" (John 14:16).

The word used by Jesus was "paraclete" which is a rich word, difficult to translate by one English word. It means a helper, a comforter, a counsellor, a guide, an advocate, an encourager, an interceder, an uplifter. The meaning of the Greek word parakletos implies that the one helping and so forth gets right alongside the person being helped or comforted. It implies an intimate, close relationship. In the case of the Holy Spirit's relationship with the Christian believer, he could not be closer to us, for the Holy Spirit dwells inside every Christian (1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Timothy 1:14).

As I sat in church this morning, seeing a wide variety of nationalities present in the service, I couldn't help but imagine the impact of the apostles speaking in foreign languages and being understood by various nations, undoing the events of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) and signalling that God's Spirit and God's Word were now about to go out into all the earth to draw people to the Saviour.

And I gave thanks to God the Holy Spirit for coming like a rushing wind to Scotland over a thousand years ago. May the Holy Spirit come in power upon the Church of Scotland General Assembly this week for what will be a difficult and costly debate no matter what the Assembly decides. We all need his help, guidance and encouragement as much today as ever.

Ascension Day

We never fail to mark Christmas, Good Friday and Easter as Christians, but how many of us forget about the fourth leg of Christ's amazing salvation journey? Today is Ascension Day, when the church marks the fact that 40 days after his resurrection, Christ "ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty" (in the words of the Apostles' Creed). The event is recorded both in Luke's Gospel and in Acts.

The Ascension matters for a number of reasons including

1. It signals the end of his earthly ministry and his physical departure from this world. God the Father had lovingly sent His Son into the world at Bethlehem, and now the Son was returning to the Father.

2. It signified the ultimate success and complete triumph of his earthly work. All that he had come to do, he had accomplished.

3. It marked the return of his heavenly glory. Jesus' glory had been veiled during his sojourn on earth, with one brief exception at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9) but now he is revealed in all his cosmic glory.

4. It symbolises his exaltation by the Father (Ephesians 1:20-23). The Son with whom the Father is well pleased (Matthew 17:5) was received up in honour and given a name above all names (Philippians 2:9).

5. It allowed him to prepare a place for us (John 14:2).

6. It indicates the beginning of a new work as High Priest making intercession for us (Hebrews 4:14-16) and being the Mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 9:15).

7. It allowed him to send the Holy Spirit on his disciples (which happened 10 days later at Pentecost) as he promised. (Acts 2).

So let's celebrate the ascension of the Lord Jesus today.

The Christian Year

Why follow the Christian Year?

Recently I have been thinking on the benefits of following the Christian year in our churches. In the evangelical tradition I am part of the emphasis has traditionally been placed on systematic expository preaching through books (or sections of books) of the Bible, Sunday-by-Sunday, with little emphasis given to the Christian calendar except for Christmas and Easter.

Some have argued that there is no biblical justification for following a set pattern of festivals throughout the year marking the significant events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection or significant milestones in the life of the Church. Two things might be said in reply to this. First, there is biblical justification for marking significant events in the story of the people of God by special days and festivals because that is exactly what God commanded Israel to do in the Old Testament and the for the very same reason: so they would not forget their story as a people. There seems to me to be a good case to be made for taking this biblical principle and applying it to the story of God's people in the New Testament, though since the New Testament is not explicit about this, there must be liberty of opinion allowed in this matter. Never again should there be shameful days when one part of the Church would persecute another part of the Church because one part would or would not observe significant days in the Christian calendar. Second though, to those evangelical brothers and sisters who are suspicious of the Christian year and favour systematic expository preaching Sunday by Sunday, the point needs to be made that it is no more commanded in the Bible that we preach through whole books of the Bible or sections of larger books week by week than it is that we follow the Christian seasons in the traditional church calendar. Both are ways of organising the teaching schedule for the church; neither is laid down in Scripture as the right way.

Yet beyond these negative reasons for not prohibiting following the Christian year I think there are also a number of positive reasons why churches might consider following at least the basic pattern of the Christian year. In doing so we are following a rich tradition that has at least the wisdom of many generations of believers behind it. Let's look at a few of the arguments.

First, if we follow the Christian year there is a natural and welcome tendency to focus directly on the life and teachings of Jesus and the key events in the life of Christ's people, the Church. The Christian year is basically marked by reference to the key events in the life of Christ: his birth, his death, his resurrection and his ascension, the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the birth of the community of believers. Following the Christian year keeps Jesus and his life and teachings centre stage in our thinking. This is not always the case when pursuing a long series of expository sermons from the Old Testament or on other themes chosen by an individual minister or pastor.

Second, following the Christian year is a demonstration of the unity we share with Christians from many different churches and theological traditions. The Christian year can be a tool to remind us that we are part of a worldwide family and it fosters a sense of unity to be thinking of similar themes throughout the year with a large number of other believers. It gives us a sense that the whole church is sharing in worship together at particular times of the year. This is especially the case if the church is using a lectionary for readings shared across denominations.

Third, following the Christian year gives a pattern to our worship through the year and from year to year. For many people there is great comfort and spiritual benefit in the cycle of observing the great festivals of Christmas and Easter which focus on the two great truths of Christianity - that God became incarnate and came to earth in the man Jesus of Nazareth and that through his sacrificial death and rising from the dead he is shown to be the Lord and Saviour of the world.

Having grown up in a church which did tend to follow the basic pattern of the traditional year, with the addition of other "set days" like Mothering Sunday, Harvest Thanksgiving, Remembrance Sunday and Christian Aid Week I find it difficult at times to now be in a fellowship where such things are either totally ignored or perhaps briefly mentioned to the children but do not often form the backdrop to the sermon.

Perhaps this just means I am more of a traditionalist than I thought. There is benefit to working systematically through "the whole counsel of God". All Scripture is God-breathed and so all Scripture should be read and preached through in church services. That's agreed. But it should be possible to combine systematic expository preaching with marking the significant days in the Christian year. This is particularly the case if a church has two services on a Sunday, where different patterns could be used for morning and evening worship.

What is the Christian Year?

The Christian year begins in late November or early December with Advent and then runs through to twelve months, ending with Christ the King Sunday just before the beginning of the following advent. The seasons and significant days are shown in the following picture:

Advent

In the Christian year, "New Year's Day" is Advent Sunday, which is always fourth Sunday before Christmas and so it can occur be the last Sunday in November or the first Sunday in December. The season of advent follows, which focuses on waiting for the coming of the Messiah, whether that be his first coming as a baby or his second coming as Lord of glory

Christmas

Advent ends on Christmas Eve and then comes the Christmas season or Christmastide, the twelve days of Christmas, beginning on 25th December with Christmas Day and running through the (secular) new year to the evening of 5th January ("Twelfth Night"). This joyful time marks the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem and the coming of "the Saviour, who is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:11). Christmas Day is, along with Easter, one of the two greatest days of the Christian year. The Christmas period either includes one or two Sundays depending on what day of the week Christmas Day falls.

Epiphany

After Christmastide comes Epiphany on 6th January. The word "epiphany" comes from the Greek and means "manifestation" or "significant appearing". This festival celebrates the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ and particularly the fact that God came to earth for all the nations of the world. This was shown in visit of the Wise Men recorded in Matthew 2 which is usually the focus of Epiphany Bible readings. In some churches epiphany is celebrated on the nearest Sunday to the 6th January instead of on the 6th.

Ordinary Time
 
The Sunday after Epiphany is usually used to mark the Baptism of Jesus and the beginning of his public ministry. This jump from his birth to his baptism is in line with the same jump found in the Gospel narratives. The period after this is the first period of so-called "Ordinary Time" in the Christian year. "Ordinary" in this sense has the same root as "ordinal" and means "counted" period. This period of Ordinary time lasts until Shrove Tuesday and can include anywhere from three to eight Sundays depending on when Easter falls in a given year. In terms of the secular calendar, this period occurs from January to either February or March. The teaching during this period usually focuses on Christ's earthly ministry and his teachings in parables.The last day of Ordinary Time is Shrove Tuesday.

Lent

Lent is a period of forty days between Ash Wednesday and the Saturday before Easter (although there are actually 46 days between Ash Wednesday and Easter, the six Sundays are not part of Lent). Lent is a period of re-dedication to God and solemn preparation for Easter through prayer, repentance, self-denial and giving to the poor and needy. The teaching focus during Lent is on Christ's life of dedication to his Father's will and his sacrificial giving of himself on the cross. The forty day period is reminiscent of Israel's 40 year wandering in the wilderness and Christ's 40 days of fasting and temptation in the desert. Many Christians will give up certain luxuries as a token of self-denial and reliance on God (often giving the money that would have been spent to charities working with the poor).

Passiontide and Holy Week

The last two weeks of the Lent period is known as Passiontide and Passion Sunday (the fifth Sunday of Lent) traditionally focuses on the atonement made by Christ on the cross. Passion here refers to Christ's sufferings on behalf of believers.

The final week of Lent is usually known as Holy Week. Beginning on Palm Sunday when Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the beginning of his last week on earth is commemorated. The following days of Holy Week tie in with the events recorded in the Gospels during this week. The week comes to a climax on Maundy Thursday, the day that Christ celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples and then Good Friday itself which commemorates Christ's crucifixion. Holy Week ends with the Saturday during which Christ was dead and buried in the tomb.
 
Easter

Easter Day is the most important day of the Christian year. It is the Sunday when the whole church celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The dates of most Christian days and seasons are determined in relation to Easter which is a "movable feast" meaning its date varies from year to year. The date of Easter itself is determined by a very complicated method relating to the full moon near the vernal equinox, but it can be any date from 22 March through to 25 April. This means that in the Northern Hemisphere, Easter comes during the spring season when the land changes from the death of winter and new life comes to the world, which makes a striking backdrop to the new life that comes through Christ.

Easter Day marks the beginning of the Eastertide period or "Great Fifty Days" that run from Easter Day through to Pentecost or Whitsunday. Eastertide is a fifty day celebration of the resurrection. The period corresponds to the fifty days in the Gospels and Acts between Christ's resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It includes Ascension Day which is always on a Thursday, exactly 40 days after Easter.

The teaching themes in this period typically focus on Christ's resurrection and ascension and the implication of these great truths for the people of God.

Pentecost

Pentecost (which means "Fiftieth Day" in Greek as it occurs fifty days or seven weeks after Easter). Pentecost is also known as Whitsunday. It is the day when the church celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost always occurs in May or June.

Ordinary Time and Kingdomtide

The second period of Ordinary Time begins the day after Pentecost in May or June and runs right through to the day before Advent Sunday in late November or early December.

The first Sunday of this period, a week after Pentecost, is called Trinity Sunday and the church's teaching focuses on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, that the one true God exists as three persons. Other significant dates within this period include All Saints' Day on 1st November, which, in Protestant terms, marks the unity between all Christians (who are all "saints") and the bond between the church militant on earth and the church triumphant in heaven, and Christ the King Sunday which is the last Sunday of the Christian year and focuses on Christ's lordship over his church and the world.

In some parts of the church, the second half of the Ordinary Time period, from the Sunday nearest 31st August through to Christ the King Sunday is known as Kingdomtide and focuses on the concept of the Kingdom of God and the reign of Christ on earth and heaven with all that is implied by that for the world in spiritual, missional and political terms including the need for social justice in the world. Although Kingdomtide is not commonly observed now as a distinct period, I think there is good reason for reviving this season in the church calendar.

As well as these traditional church days and seasons, many churches also observe a number of other annual events and festivals. Among these would typically be in the UK a focus on international aid during Christian Aid Week in May, Harvest Thanksgiving in September or October, Remembrance Sunday in November. Some Protestant churches also have Bible Sunday on the last Sunday in October or perhaps they may mark the beginning of the Protestant Reformation on 31st October.

Ethics in a Permissive Society

Ethics in a Permissive Society
William Barclay
Collins, Fontana Books 1971

I first read William Barclay's little book on Christian ethics when I was a student in the early 1990s. I found a copy in the University library and remember reading it one rainy afternoon. The book was about 20 years old at that point and despite the dated title (the "permissive society" was a term used in the 1960s as shorthand for the huge changes in social, political and moral norms that were taking place in the UK at that time) it still read as an interesting book on Christian ethics. Now the book is over 40 years old and it still reads well as a vision of practical Christian ethics and paints a picture of the good society built on the Christian ethic of loving your neighbour that many of us would like to see.

The book originated in a series of public lectures (the Baird Lectures) that were televised on BBC. That in itself is a sign of how old the book is. Can you imagine a professor of divinity's lectures on Christian ethics being televised on BBC these days? Unfortunately I could find no trace of the broadcasts online but if anyone knows where these can be found, please put a link on a comment!

Barclay was a popular Christian figure during his lifetime. His books and commentaries are still widely read today. Barclay was a liberal Christian and there would be parts of his teachings (denial of miracles etc.) that I would strongly disagree with, but this book on ethics sticks quite closely to lines of biblical thought. Barclay's writing style is easy to read and marked by a welcome clarity and wisdom.

The first three chapters of the book sketch out some of the main ethical teachings of the Old Testament, Jesus and Paul respectively. Then Barclay explains and critiques the then popular ethical notion of "situation ethics" where there are no absolute rights and wrongs, it depends on the situation. From this platform, Barclay then explores a Christian view of work, pleasure, money and community in subsequent chapters and ends the book with a chapter on "Person to Person Ethics".

I found the chapters on the ethics of work and of pleasure the most useful. You don't often see "pleasure" being discussed in Christian ethics books but Barclay's practical approach is very wise and useful. Barclay sums up the view he defends like this:

In life there must be pleasure, and the ideal pleasure is that which is harmless to the person who indulges in it and to all other people, which brings help to him who practices it and happiness to others.

I don't think many Christians would disagree with that.

I also found it interesting that on ethical matters at least, a man who was a prominent liberal in the Church of Scotland 40 years ago would now likely be regarded as holding to very conservative evangelical ethical views. Whatever his other views, I think Barclay is to be commended for his honesty and integrity here. As the Church of Scotland prepares to debate the issue of homosexuality once again at this year's General Assembly in a few weeks, perhaps some might reflect on the words of Barclay's ethical views. Though discussing heterosexual sex outside marriage (I think Barclay would have taken it for granted that homosexual activity is wrong and it would certainly be included in the "sex outside of marriage" that he criticises), his words have a relevance for the forthcoming debate that is hard to miss:

If we support sexual intercourse before marriage or outside marriage, then I do not see how we can continue to call ourselves Christian, for a man cannot be a Christian and flatly contradict the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is one thing honestly to say that we will abandon the demands of Christian morality; it is quite another thing to abandon them and to deceive ourselves into thinking that we are still keeping them.

The book is long out of print but you may be able to find a second hand copy, often at a very low price. It would be a worthwhile purchase even for the chapters on work and pleasure alone, but there is much else here in a short book worth reflecting on.

William Barclay on the Importance of Games and Sport to Church Life

"In the new world, in which the time after work matters so much, the church must become the centre of the community. Of course, a church is a place where men praise and pray, but a church should be far more than that; the church should be the place to which men turn to find the satisfaction of every honest need in life. It is one of the great truths that the better we know a person the more deeply and truly we can worship with him. We can pray best with the man with whom we have played best. The man beside us in church should not be a holy stranger but a living friend."

– William Barclay, Ethics in a Permissive Society (1970)

The Death of Margaret Thatcher

Like most Scots, I have always been politically opposed to Margaret Thatcher and the brand of conservatism that bears her name. She was the prime minister during a large part of my childhood, from I was still at primary school through till my first year at university. In Glasgow and the west of Scotland it was difficult to miss the immense social damage that Thatcherism did to ordinary working-class people, their jobs and their communities.

I don't disagree with everything the Thatcher government did, particularly the defence of the Falkland Islands and the islanders who have always been and always want to be British, not Argentines. And maybe a lot of what happened in terms of failing industries would have happened anyway, but that doesn't remove the hurt that the free market policies she introduced - essentially "the Market is king and to hell with the social cost" - were implemented with such apparent glee and lack of compassion. While her social policies may have their roots in her Methodist upbringing, the harsh monetarist economic policies her government pursued seem to me to owe more to social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) than Christianity (love thy neighbour).

It is hard to forgive the redistribution of wealth from the poorer to the richer as income tax rates were cut while VAT rates were increased. The final straw was the unjust Poll Tax under which a millionaire and his cleaner were both to pay the same amount in local taxation.

So do I mourn her? I could only mourn her as a politician and prime minister. I never knew her any other way. As a person she is a complete stranger to me. I mourn her no more than any other elderly woman's passing I might read about in the death notices. But will I mourn her in the terms in which I did know her? No I won't. The divisive manner in which she governed the country was a blessing only when that government left office. I see no reason to mark her passing as if a national heroine had died. A private funeral, like every other prime minister who has died since Churchill, would have been a much wiser and more healing event than the bloated spectacle being held tomorrow.

The Freedom and Responsibility of the Press

Make no mistake about it: freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental rights in a democratic society. They do matter and they do need protected. And perhaps they need protected most of all from governments. But saying that I do not believe the brouhaha stirred up by the Press this week over plans to introduce a framework of press regulation is anything other than a deeply cynical attempt to protect business interests of papers that peddle scurrilous gossip as news.

Near apocalyptic headlines about the end of press freedom have screamed out from bastions of freedom such as The Sun and The Daily Mail all week long but it just won't wash. The truth is that the tabloid press in this country have operated for years as if freedom of the press means them being above the law. The whole phone tapping scandal is merely the most obvious example of this kind of gutter journalism.

It's a cliche, but it's true: with freedom must go responsibility. Far too often the press has acted with no responsibility and with unfettered licence rather than dignified liberty.

Something needs to be done. I am not sure the proposed scheme is the right thing however. What I would do is even more radical perhaps but expensive and so unlikely to see the light of day. But if we did it, we would retain full press freedom and get rid of the need for a Press Regulator (Censor?). It's simply this - change the law so that individuals pursuing a newspaper or magazine for libel or defamation actions are eligible for civil legal aid. As well as damages, the courts should also have powers to issue orders regarding press apologies, corrections, etc. At the moment only the very rich can afford to sue in such case and I've never thought that was right. Imagine if only the rich could get justice for physical assaults? Why should it be that assaults on character are only protected for the rich and famous?

A Mother's Day Interview on the BBC

Just in time for Mother's Day, my disabled wife, Laura was featured in an interview with the BBC that is on today's BBC Scotland News. As well as the article, there is also a link to a podcast where Laura got the chance to speak in some depth about what it's like to be a mother who uses a wheelchair.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ouch/2013/03/im_a_crawling_mummy_how_one_di.html

Welcome to 2013

A belated happy new year to all my readers.

As we enter another year we enter into the unknown. We don't know what the year ahead will have in store for us in terms of joys and sorrows, hopes and fears, successes and regrets, gains and losses.

One thing I do know though. I would rather go through all these things with Christ as my companion than go through them on my own.

Hebrews 13:8 says: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

I pray that you will follow him this year and always as your Saviour and Lord.