When making the rules means missing the point!

During my theological training in Cambridge I had the pleasure of attending several lectures by Dr Edward Kessler of The Centre for the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations. Central to much of his teaching was a passion to help Christians understand the Jewish world of both the Old and New Testaments.
He detailed how Jewish thought placed wider teaching around the central idea of loving God in order to help adherents to remain faithful. You will see this depicted in the diagram below. Given that the central teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures is that we should love God there is a need to place a set of laws, the Ten Commandments, around this to ensure that we remain faithful to the instruction to love God.
Our need for certainty doesn't stop there are we look to build a further fence around these laws in order to ensure we do not risk failure. These are known as the Mitzvah which represent the other 613 laws detailed in the Old Testament.
In order to ensure adherence to the Mitzvah another fence is added called the Halakha. This literally means walk and contains instruction on he the laws might be lived out.
All of the above is informed by commentary writings known as Midrash.
So we see how each fence, aimed at ensuring obedience to the central instruction, removes us further away. In the end it becomes harder to see what the main point is and so our discussions become focused on the rules rather than on God.
At this point it might be easy to consider the pictures of the Pharisees in the New Testament. Before we paint them as necessarily having wrong motives we should pause for a moment. Could it be that that in their genuine search to remain faithful they created too many extra fences. We in the church seem to find it all to easy to fall into the same trap.
I read a blog recently reminding us of Wayne Grudem's attempt at providing 83 rules to help churches know when are where women are allowed to serve (link below).
As I read this list I was reminded of Dr Kessler's teaching about the Pharisees.
How does a church become so focussed on rules that, in producing 83, it fails to see the God who longs to liberate all without reference to gender.





http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/03/wayne-grudem-83-biblical-rules-for-gospel-women/
To listen to my sermon on John 3:16 in which I explain some of the above, click on the link below:
www.airevalleycommunitychurch.com/wp-content/uploads/AJM-For-God-so-loved-210413.mp3

The Male Gaze and The Complementarian Church

In 1975 the feminist writer and theorist, Laura Mulvey, highlighted a problem to be found in the film and media industry in how it portrays women. She suggested that:

The male gaze occurs when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man. It may linger over the curves of a woman's body, for instance. The woman is usually displayed on two different levels: as an erotic object for both the characters within the film, as well as the spectator who is watching the film. The man emerges as the dominant power within the created film fantasy. The woman is passive to the active gaze from the man. This adds an element of 'patriarchal' order and it is often seen in "illusionistic narrative film". Mulvey argues that, in mainstream cinema, the male gaze typically takes precedence over the female gaze, reflecting an underlying power asymmetry.

The key element here is that women are essentially referenced by men in terms of value and function. I would suspect that very few evangelicals would disagree with her view that women are over sexualised in such a way. I would like to suggest, however, that the same critique can be used in response to complementarianism; in terms of value and function if not in sexualisation.

Let's see if this theory works:

1) The male gaze occurs when the preacher puts the congregation into the perspective of the heterosexual man.

2) The woman is usually displayed on two different levels: unregenerate whore or wholesome homemaker.

3) The man emerges as the dominant power within the created ecclesiology.

4) The woman is passive to the active leadership of the man.

5) In complementarian churches the male gaze typically takes precedent over the female gaze, reflecting an underlying power asymmetry.

The destructiveness found in the media industry is worthy of challenge. The effects of the theological male gaze in church is equally in need of question.

Discuss!

One man's ceiling is another man's floor - Evangelical Sophistry

Have you ever listened to a sermon or read a blog that seems to have the ring of truth about it but leaves you with misgivings because you recognise that what's on offer it is not the whole story. I heard one recently and it left me with the need to dig a little deeper into what was being said. The speaker made huge statements about key issues facing evangelicalism at this time and linked them in ways that appeared to be legitimate. It didn't help that his audience seemed to be lapping up every word.

He was attempting to make a reasoned, and thought out argument, but what we were given was a great example of sophistry.

At its heart sophistry is an argument, viewpoint, or thesis that at first sounds plausible but is essentially misguided - at least in the way that the case is made. It is not that I am saying that the conclusions are without merit but that the style of argument does not prove what the speaker intended.

It went a little like this (shortened for the sake of space):

Speaker 'we need to be biblical' - Audience 'yes'.

Speaker 'we need to have a balance of grace and truth'. - Audience 'yes'

Speaker 'family life is breaking down'. - Audience 'yes'

Speaker 'people have no respect for God'. - Audience 'yes'

Speaker 'Pastor X has questioned beliefs that we hold dear'. - Audience 'yes'

Speaker 'She/he is undermining God's word'. - Audience 'yes'

Speaker 'this means that they are no longer an evangelical'. - Audience 'yes'

At first glance it may not be completely apparent why this is problematic; let me try to explain.

Sophistry can take many forms but in the context discussed here it follows this well worn pattern:

1) The speaker/writer makes a number of statements that are seemingly easy to agree with. For example 'we need to be biblical' or 'we need to have a balance of grace and truth'.

Neither of these two statements are easily measurable. To quote Paul Simon 'one man's ceiling is another man's floor'. The listener/reader is inclined to agree with what is on offer because they judge them from their own context and so are drawn into the sophistic trap.

Most Christians will concede that having the correct mix of grace and truth is essential because it suggests to them a comforting balance; but who is to judge what the correct mix is.

I am a big of a fan of television cooking competitions. Watch a few shows and it is not long before you hear the idea offered that good cooking needs the correct balance of both sweet and savoury. Here is where the difficult lies. Every judge has a different palate. They approach the dish in different ways. They can agree with the idea of balance but they cannot agree with how this should be achieved. In this context the statement 'good cooking needs a good balance of sweet and savoury' becomes a truism in that it does not offer any useful, measurable guidance. So it is with the notion of 'a balance between grace and truth' - we can agree with it as a statement but how on earth can we measure whether we are agreeing with the same theology or practice.

2) The next stage is to introduce statements that appeal to the hearers sense of fear. Often these revolve around the various levels of dysfunctionality found in society. The link is made to the problems highlighted in point 1 and so we see cause and effect confirmed in the mind of the listener/reader.

3) Added to the above is a good number of statements about unrelated subjects that show how poor the theology is of the Christian preacher being disagreed with. Quite often there is enough reference to the original speakers work to be recognisable but in truth what is offered is a caricature.

4) It is often at this point that questions are raised about the opponents evangelical pedigree; sometimes even to the point of calling them a heretic. Firstly it is worth noting here that the original meaning of the word was 'a free thinker' and used to identify those who didn't tow the party line so to speak. This is where evangelicals have a problem; essentially there is no formal party line. For sure people will trot out various reference points that suggest there is common agreement, but most groups are subject to being called heretical by other sincere evangelicals at some point. It is not that long ago that some reformed evangelical Calvinists were throwing the accusation at Pentecostals. Indeed, if you care to read the comments section on most Christian blogs it still occurs today all too regularly. Again Paul Simon's ceiling and floor analogy is useful to us here in understanding our own folly.

All of the above is intended to ensure that the audience agrees with the stated position of the speaker. This is done by a growing sense of the hearers need, or inclination, to say yes to the various statements being proposed.

We emotionally say 'yes' to the truisms of 'we need to be biblical' and 'we need to have a balance of grace and truth' even though they are subjective and not measurable.

Our insecurities are engaged and we agree that 'family life is breaking down' and that 'people have no respect for God'.

It seems obvious that 'Pastor X has questioned beliefs that we hold dear' and that 'She/he is undermining God's word'.

At this point the hearer has become so used to saying 'yes' to the statements offered that the final premiss is agreed to without question ensuring that the audience will feel comfortable in dismissing Pastor X and their 'heretical' views and nod assent to the conclusion that 'this means that they are no longer an evangelical'.

The reason that the above example can be called sophistry is because it sounds like a reasoned argument when in fact the link between the initial truisms (being biblical and the need for grace and truth) and societal dysfunctionality has not been proved, at least not in this sermon. Added to this is that Pastor X's views are being linked to the other statements in a spurious way.

I suggest that this form of argument treats neither the subject nor the audience with respect. If we feel the need to disagree with another's theology surely we can do so without resorting to sophistry.

I intend to write a further blog on how preaching and propaganda can overlap. Watch this space!

Does God owe us anything?

It is a regular Calvinist suggestion, when questioned about the harder issues of life, that 'God owes us nothing'. I presume that the statement is either meant to stop us on our tracks or to shame us into becoming silent followers of a doctrine that presents God as a vulnerable and careless creator (rather than the sovereign and benevolent deity that they try to offer).

I think, however, that such statements are far from rooted in the teachings of Jesus even though Calvinists are at pains to display their 'biblical' credentials.

Perhaps the greatest, and most consistent, teachings of Christ about God is the idea of fatherhood. Leslie Newbigin highlights this when he shows that the use of the aramaic term 'Abba' in the predominately Greek New Testament shows a care for the actual words of Jesus in showing an intimacy within the creator/creature relationship.

Every parent has a responsibility for their child that must include the space for 'why' questions. This alone demands that the parent owes the child both a duty of care and a responsive attitude to the pleadings of their offspring. The alternative would suggest that the parent is lacking in both responsibility and love.

So it must be with God; the creator, or parent, owes the created, or child a loving response that must be open to question. In this space questions of 'why' become sacred rather than sinful.

The Polite Misogynists are The Worst Kind

There has been a recent row concerning the treatment of Mary Beard, Cambridge Professor, after her appearance on BBC's Question Time. A discussion website called 'Dont Start Me Off' contained comments from contributors that were incredible offensive.
I support the idea of free speech and am reluctant to say that some things should be censored. The level of abuse seen here, however, that included comments about Mary's female body parts and suggestions of rape, were an affront to the gift of free speech that we long to protect.
Argue with Mary's opinions if you like but do not demean humanity by making it about things that really don't concern others.
The owner of website has since closed it down but not before suggesting that Mary hasn't got a sense of humour.
Then came an article by Rod Liddle in The Spectator suggesting that Mary wasn't blameless in the whole debacle. According to Rod we need to be a little more grown up about things. Thankfully Rod is grown up and to prove it says that he runs a competition on his website called 'The Most Stupid Woman to have appeared on Question Time in the last 12 months'.
Now before you look to make your nominations it's worth noting here that Rod is only looking for Stupid Women. It could be that Question Time doesn't allow stupid men to appear. Or it could be that Rod is revealing his own misogyny, albeit in a refined and humorous way.
It seems to me that whenever I see vile, misogynist, and aggressive people expressing their views they are quickly followed by eloquent and seemingly reasonable commentators who reinforce their objectionable opinions; often calling women "whiners" or "shrill" in order to undermine a woman's viewpoint.
The overtly vile are, in one sense, easier to dismiss; people like Rod are not because they have what looks like a legitimate voice on a legitimate platform.
This behaviour is not good enough; no matter how refined it appears.

Steve Chalk and the Silence of the Shepherds

I have been struck by the relative silence on the Internet and media in reaction to Steve's recent statement about reshaping the evangelical attitude to the LGBT community. The public reactions seem to a fallen into a number of camps:

1) There are those, including me, who have offered support to Steve and see his comments as both useful and brave.

2) There are those who have made a definitive stand against what he says; some of whom have questioned his evangelical status.

3) There are some who have expressed support for Steve at a personal level but have have critiqued his conclusions.

4) There are some who have remained silent.

It is this last group that interests me most as, understandably, we have no way of knowing what has motivated them to remain silent at a public level. There are some key Evangelical voices, shepherds, that are yet to be heard on this matter.

I propose that there could be two main reasons for this lack of public response:

One - It could well be true that some wish the subject would just go away. They are perhaps hoping not to add any fuel to the current fire of discussion so that it extinguishes itself.

Two - It could be that some are where Steve Chalk was a few years ago. They have legitimate concerns about the usual evangelical stance on homosexuality but have not yet found the place where they can speak openly. In fact to speak openly will cost them a great deal and so they remain silent.

Whatever causes these key voices to remain silent I would simply say the following:

To the first group - The subject is not going away, you will have to deal with it if you want to live in the real world.

To the second group - It is time for the kind of bravery shown by Steve.

Calvinism's Untrustworthy God

Those who know me will have little doubt of my dislike of Calvinism. I am not dispassionate about it because I believe it to be a dangerous belief system not least because of the way it suggests to its adherents that the value of some human beings is less than that of those who are elect.

Of course the theologians who support this version of reformed belief will give reasons why these un-favoured created beings are not of less value and that it is all to 'the glory of God', but I am not convinced.

I have theological reasons for disagreeing with them and can find significant scriptural support for saying that they have created a closed system that is wrong.

Here however I want to offer an emotional, and hopefully thoughtful, response to their view that God has favoured some people before they were even born.
I find no comfort in being loved by a God who, without explanation, chooses to include me and yet not others. You have to remember that, given the Calvinist's belief in total depravity there is nothing moral about the one elected that sets them apart from from the one damned. In this environment their can be no security. To counter this argument they offer the idea of the Perseverance of the saints (once saved always saved) in order to make sure that believers do not lose hope.

Of course they produce scriptures to prove their point but it is not hard to show that the weight of the New Testament in general, and the life and teaching of Christ in particular, shows a God who loves all that he has created.

The favoured child of dysfunctional parents will never be free from the neurosis caused by being surround by love that is selective. It is only unconditional love that is complete: it is only inclusive love that is able to satisfy.

My wife and I have just watched a television report about people, mainly women, being raped, killed, and burnt in Syria. The majority of those victims would never have had the opportunity of hearing, at least in any meaningful way, about God's answer in Christ. The Calvinist answer would be a mixture of 'none of us deserve salvation anyway', 'God is just', and 'we shouldn't question God'. Occasionally you will hear the real truth of their belief from a particularly devout commentator: 'God hates some people and loves others'.

I fail to be impressed by such ideas. I fail to be impressed by a God who would have no compassion on those who we witnessed being brutalised in Syria. How can God have less compassion than we have.

You may wonder at why I am so passionate in my objection to Calvinism. It's not as if Calvinists would perpetrate the kind of behaviour seen in Syria. It is difficult for me not to draw a comparison, however, with the wasteful acts of those who would do such things in this life and the suggested fate of those who are supposedly predestined to suffer condemnation without hope in the next. Holding a belief in a God who is so selective must influence one's view of the value of humanity: especially of those who are deemed to not be 'in' the elect.

In this regard I have no wish to be loved by a God who has favoured me whilst possibly damning those I love without offering them the opportunity of being included. I am pleased to say that they are wrong: God IS love and he is not a untrustworthy.

Now that is good news!

Steve Chalke: Brave or Foolish?

In light of Steve Chalke's statement on the evangelical response to homosexuality I am struck by a few thoughts regarding the reaction offered by some commentators. The following are three of the observations that I trust will be of use in the conversation.

1) I am concerned that some of those who oppose Steve Chalke's position wish to all too quickly suggest he can no longer be considered an Evangelical. This behaviour only serves to silence the conversation it does remove the need for it. It is a lazy form of debate to use this tactic.

2) I have noticed that some have suggested that Chalke's motives are questionable. I always find this a concern as no-one can really know what moves another person to act in the way that they do. It also serves to distract us from the discussion at hand. Take this tweet from Andrew Evans (@andysstudy)

RT @andysstudy: New on the blog: Steve Chalke's selective reading of Scripture lacks compassion and seeks to make himself God

I appreciate that Andy has a valid opinion but I am somewhat bemused that he would state that Steve 'seeks to make himself God'. There is nothing in Steve's original essay that suggests he is motivated by wanting to be God. In fact I see a certain humility in his writing as he looks for the very compassion that Andrew says he lacks.

3) In offering a defence some have tried to suggest that many evangelical churches are infact inclusive even if they don't share Steve's acceptance of homosexuality in a committed relationship. The difficulty here is that as soon as weight is placed on acceptance of the usual evangelical position it makes it almost impossible for people to have an open discussion about the subject. The fear that one may be perceived as unorthodox is likely to silence anyone who wants to ask deeper questions. This in itself raises questions about the type of inclusion that some are suggesting is already present.

In areas that have the potential to be controversial it is all too easy to speak to our own constituency. Steve expresses that this pressure was one reason he has struggled to speak out before. If we fear being rejected by other leaders, our denominations, and our congregations we will be less likely to engage in the level of honesty that such subjects warrant.

Where others have viewed Steve as foolish I have considered him brave. Where some have suggested he has been unbiblical I feel he has expressed a Christ-like compassion.

The Sacred Place of Hiddenness

I can't imagine today that anyone in our country has grown up without some passing knowledge of Jesus. Having said that I am pretty certain that most people have a fairly sketchy view of the basic information.

I recall once taking an assembly at a primary school and being informed by one of the younger pupils that the mother of Jesus was Mary Mandolin; which to be honest sounds more like a 60's folk singer than a Blessed Virgin.

Given his fame over the past two-thousand years it is interesting to consider that in his lifetime Jesus was relatively unknown. For sure a few thousand people in Palestine had heard of him but in many ways he was irrelevant to most of the world's population.

The incarnation sees God becoming man in relative obscurity; he could have chosen to become a Roman emperor but preferred to be the child of an unknown maiden.

The following decades saw his fame travel across the known world but his incarnation was rooted in hiddeness.

There were other babies born to young Jewish girls. He was just one of many carpenters. He would have been compared with other travelling Rabbis of his day. His cross would have blended into the background of the numerous crucified trouble causers on the hill of Golgotha. Even his resurrection was somewhat understated in that he could be mistaken for a gardener.

I write this not to undermine his significance but to highlight the hiddeness chosen by God in bringing hope to the world. This was God becoming like us not highlighting some kind of cosmic divide. God became so part of our story that he was able to feel our pain.

Consider this in stark contrast to the way that we evangelicals see success in a church context. We call for distinctive lines and a sense of being separate from the 'world'. We categorise people as being either 'in' or 'out'. We tell stories that emphasise that we are different.

I wonder whether our mission should be to discover the sacred place of Hiddenness? To look like other people. For our churches to merge into the background of life a little more.

Our ecclesiology makes us want to celebrate those who have done notable exploits for God; planted churches, written books, composed worship songs, run missionary organisations.

By doing so perhaps we miss those who are hidden yet still bringing the kingdom of God to their communities in an unnoticed way.

The single mother who fights to give her children a better quality of life. The worker who shows diligence in producing quality product. The project leader who draws lonely people into community. The person struggling through failure trying to make a fresh start.

None of these make the headlines but it doesn't mean that they are incidental in God's plan. It is tempting to think that the more visible expressions of church are the most successful. Perhaps, however, it is those churches who become so close to their communities that they are able to feel the pain of the world that truly mirror the incarnate God.

Its time for the Bishops to stop moving diagonally

It may well have been a close run thing, six votes in fact, but the possible consequences for the Church of England are huge.

Even though Rowan Williams was gracious in defeat it is clear that the bishops were frustrated by the behaviour of the lay members of the general synod.

It seems that some of the vocal evangelical wing exercised the kind of influence that the top leaders can only dream of.

Leading up to the vote the bishops were attempting to stop division within their ranks and where keen to work within the rules that govern changes for worldwide Anglicanism.

It may well be that playing within rules of the game feels better when one is trying to act in what seems to be a Christian manner.

There are times, however, when the matter at hand is so important that staying within the well-defined squares of the chess board seems distinctly not Christ like. There has to be turning the table moments in every journey towards freedom.

It may be the lay members who scuppered the plans for female bishops but it is the leaders of the church who have failed to make this happen.

Diagonal moves may seem reasonable but sometimes there is need to knock down a knight or two and move some pawns out of the way in order to do what is right.