Y Safle

Stealing Jesus was a hugely wasted opportunity in my opinion. I bought the book because of (a) a recommendation, and (b) because it purports to show how fundamentalism is not the historical faith it claims to be. What I was hoping for was lots of discussion of the historical context that led to the distinctive American fundamentalist theology that we see today (and that is largely at odds with historical Christianity). To some extent this ground was covered in the chapters on Darby and the Scofield reference Bible. Even here though, this was not the best treatment I have seen on the subject. Martin Lloyd Jones, in the book “Prove all Things” [published 1985 but based on sermons he delivered in the 1950s], covers this same ground but also uncovers the development of the doctrine of the Secret Rapture from the Irvingite movement. Bawer’s account suggests that the doctrine is Darby’s invention entirely, which is wrong. Bawer’s suggestion that evangelicals are unaware of this development is also belied by the fact that Lloyd Jones and others have been making these same points for decades.

But Bawer’s ignorance of the evangelical tradition that opposes dispensational premillennialism also shows another major deficiency of this work. Bawer’s work is a classic case of over-reach. The book title suggests he is speaking about fundamentalism, but his polemic is delivered against not just fundamentalism but also conservative evangelicalism, Catholicism, Mormonism and indeed any section of the church that seems to hold to any credal statement. For this reason I was mystefied as to what the book intends to do.

To be clear, the book argues that much modern doctrine in the non liberal wing of the church is not historical Christianity. Inasmuch as the example of dispensationalism is presented, the case is well made – but to what end? Because we are invited at the end of the book to abandon any belief that suffers the “legalism” of orthodoxy for a faith that revolves entirely around a love for God and for one another (as Christ commanded of course). This he argues is found only in the liberal churches. But inasmuch as the book points out a lack of historical orthodoxy in modern fundamentalism, it returns in spades to his brand of Christianity which, in the course of this book, denies the doctrine of the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the miracles, much of Paul’s thought, the place of the Old Testament, the authenticity of Ephesians and so much more. Without a doubt there is nothing historical about Bawer’s conception of Christianity either.

Bawer succumbs to the common problem of harking back to a golden age. He writes approvingly of the historical Baptists who stressed tolerance, and of St Francis of Assissi as genuine examples of what Christianity ought to be. But he is wrong if he thinks either of these examples would recognise his brand of Christianity as the historical faith.

To what extent does that matter? Some will argue that if Bawer’s Christianity is the better way then it is just a lamentable reflection on Church history that it took 2000 years to develop, when the Jesus of love is so clearly seen in the gospels. But what gospels? When Bawer discusses Matthew 23 he makes it clear that he feels that this is Matthew’s later addition and not the authentic Jesus. He has already jetisoned the physical resurrection. How do we know that Bawer’s conception of Jesus is the authentic one?

Marcion – the second century theological dualist – did something like what Bawer is doing. He started with a conception of God and then adjusted his Bible to match. The rejoinder was “Marcion reads scripture with a knife”. Bawer does the same. We are fond of saying “what would Jesus do”, but the problem is that the answer to that question is largely informed by our own preconceptions of Jesus. Bawer claims he is a Christian because he has fallen in love with Jesus and his teachings – but it really is not clear that what he considers to be Jesus and his teachings is the historical Jesus and his teachings. As such, this book is fundamentally flawed.

The book is fundamentally flawed also for its over-reach (as I said above). Bawer does something at the start of his book that is quite illegitimate. He writes:

*

‘But it seems to me that the difference between conservative and liberal Christianity may be succinctly summed up by the difference between two key scriptural concepts: law and love. Simply stated , conservative Christianity focuses primarily on law, doctrine and authority; liberal Christianity focuses on love, spiritual experience, and what Baptists call the priesthood of the believer. If the conservative Christians emphasize the Great Commission – the resurrected Christ’s injunction, at the end of the Gospe; according to Matthew, to “go to all nations and make them my disciples” – liberal Christians place more emphasis on the Great Commandment, which in Luke’s Gospel reads as follows: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.”

‘Am I suggesting that conservative Christians are without love or the liberal Christians are lawless? No. I merely make the distinction: Conservative Christianity understands a Christian to be someone who subscribes to a specific set of the theological propositions about God and the afterlife, and who professes to believe that by subscribing to those propositions, accepting Jesus Christ as saviour, and (except in the case of the extreme separatist fundamentalists) evangelising, he or she evades God’s wrath and wins salvation (for Roman catholics, good works also count); liberal Christianity, meanwhile, tends to identify Christianity with the experience of God’s abundant love and with the commandment to love God and one’s neighbour. If, for conservative Christians, outreach generally means zealous proselytising of the “unsaved,” for liberal Christians it tends to mean social programmes directed at those in need.’

This phrase: “conservative Christianity focuses primarily on law, doctrine and authority; liberal Christianity focuses on love” is wrong in the way that the phrase: “Librarians are old harridans with horn rimmed spectacles and two piece suits” is wrong. We know its wrong because we can find plenty of exceptions to the rule. Nevertheless we have a wry smile because we at least recognise the stereotype.

But having created a stereotype, and having then argued that he is “merely making a distinction” he goes and casts his net wide and suggests that the out-group that will be the focus of his polemic will be henceforth called the legalists, and that this shall include all non liberal forms of Christianity. He misunderstands conservative Christian thought in his generalisation above though when he suggests that for all conservative Christians, salvation is by adherence to a set of propositions about the afterlife, and through evangelism as a work (and for Catholics other good works too). This completely misunderstands the central Protestant tenet of justification by grace through faith. The Protestant position is summed up by Paul’s words in Romans:

‘That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved’ (Romans 10:9)

Interestingly Bawer suggests the original formulation of the doctrine (the one that he approves of) was just the profession that Jesus is Lord. He handily forgets: “and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead”. He does not explain why he omits the latter. In fact generally his work is lamentably short of footnotes that might serve to explain his many leaps of logic that leave one scratching one’s head.

But in any case, insamuch as conservative protestants believe that we are justified by grace through faith alone, Bawer’s argument that these people should be called legalists entirely misses its mark. He is wrong to say that the belief of protestants is that the doctrines of the afterlife must be subscribed to, because it is quite clear that adherents to the doctrine of justification by faith agree with Hooker that one need not know they are justified by faith to be justified by faith.

Bawer does not like Paul. He has a go at Paul “the lawyer” when he writes:

*

‘ Other propositions from the books traditionally ascribed to Paul, however, foreshadow the Church of Law. Indeed, some of the following passages are among the most quoted and preached upon by legalistic ministers:

‘ “Should anyone, even I myself or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel other than the gospel I preached to you, let them be banned! (Gal 1:8-9)’

*

My eyes went wide when I read this. Firstly because Bawer has changed his translation to suit here. I cannot find a translation that says “banned” (something the Christians must do). Rather the word here means something like “accursed”, although is rendered as “judged by God”, “eternally condemned” etc. in various translations. Bawer reads this through the eyes of a post Theodosius anaethema I think, but Paul is saying that it is God who condemns the other gospel of the Galatian error – not the church.

But what really made me sit up at this point is that the whole point of Paul writing to the Galatians is to argue that salvation is God’s gift of grace and nothing to do with legalism. It is not works done in our own righteousness – it is God’s gift. As such, this is the most antinomian book in the whole Bible. Galatians is the epistle of grace as opposed to law. This is not Paul the pharisee speaking. This is Paul the apostle telling us that we are under a covenant of grace. What Bawer does with that passage – suggesting it shows Paul as a pharisaical legalist – is nothing short of scandalous.

He does it again here:

*

‘In the King James Bible, the world law appears in the synoptic Gospels only thirteen times altogether, and crops up a dozen or so times in john. In the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul, by contrast, the word appears scores of times. Given Paul’s background as a Pharisee … this is not surprising.’

*

Actually it is Paul’s work preaching the gospel of grace, as opposed to law that accounts for this. Paul mentions law and consistently tells us we are not under law but under grace. How anyone can suggest that this shows Paul being Phariseical is beyond me. This attack is either profoundly ignorant, or more likely, utterly disingenuous. What could have been a well reasoned attack on how some strands of modern Christianity have become phariseical in their attitudes turns instead into an attack on the whole history of Christian thought (including the thought of those he claims to admire) because he completely ignores the intent of Paul’s words in the epistles.

Let us be clear: Inasmuch as Bawer says that legalistic Christianity is “Stealing Jesus” he says exactly what Paul does in saying let the legalists be anathema. The problem is that Bawer’s definition of legalistic Christianity is way to broad in complete ignorance of conservative Christianity that really does stress grace, the love of God, tolerance, aesceticism, concern for our world and the people in it etc. He cannot argue that love is the preserve of the liberal churches when it is clearly not the case. He lambastes Willow Creek Community church and yet has to grudgingly admit that in fact they do have plenty of social programmes (ah but many other churches don’t, he argues. Quite right – they don’t to their shame – but he fails to recognise that conservative Christianity is not all as he wishes to paint it).

Part of his problem is with what he sees as the simplicity of the Christian message. He argues that conservative Christianity is successful because it spoon feeds a pre-packaged faith that does not require people to think. Again we recognise some truth in the stereotype, but it is lamentably over drawn. Whilst we could draw attention to Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians that the wisdom of God is foolishness to men, perhaps the mor important point here is that for Bawer, it is not just the simplicity of the message at fault, but that it is – for him – the wrong message (and if his argument were more carefully drawn, many would agree with him – but the scatter gun approach he uses makes the argument meaningless).

Bawer argues that if people like hack writing, we should not give them more hack writing – we should refine their tastes. But no! That is intellectual snobbery of the first order. Writing is communication. If one communicates through writing then the writing is good – whether we call it hack writing or not! We cannot mandate that tastes need to be re-educated to fit our preconceptions of good writing. And so his analogy to religion: if God communicates to people, and changes hearts and minds, then who are we to say that the people are consuming “hack” religion? Who are we to argue that their tastes be refined? This is one of the most insidious statements in the book – that somehow people should be re-educated to want liberal Christianity.

I think Bawer makes some good points that, in a more carefully reasoned work, could have led to a convincing thesis and call for change. He writes for instance:

‘their [conservative churches] success owes everything to American missionary work among the poor and undereducated. In their suspicion of the intellect and their categorical assertion that the Bible contains all truth’

There is truth that church growth usually arises this way. Although in fact that was also clearly the historical model. Paul tells us that God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise.

If course even in this passage Bawer over-reaches. I am not sure I ever met a conservative Christian who believes the Bible contains all truth. Rather it is argued it contains all truth necessary to salvation. It contains the words of God, they will say. But there are truths not in the bible. Methane is a symmetrical molecule with no dipole moment. That is a truth, but I don’t remember reading it in the Bible. I could be wrong but I doubt it is there! No conservative Christian thinks that the Bible contains all truth.

Speaking on the resurrection, Bawer tells us that Mark’s gospel is almost certainly the earliest dated gospel, and it does not mention the resurrection. This will be a surprise to those familiar with Mark 16, but there are arguments as to why textual critics think we should jetison the ending of that chapter. But those same textuial critics date the gospel no earlier than 70 AD (cannot possibly have the prophetic events described having been foreseen). So the argument Bawer propounds – that the early Christians did not believe in a physical resurrection of Christ – rather loses its force when we consider that 1 Corinthians was probably written in 52 AD, was certainly among the earliest writings of the Church and is quite specific in, for instance, chapter 15 – that Christ was raised from the dead – and that there exist witnesses to His resurrection “alive today” (i.e. in 52 AD).

Bawer simply cannot assert that the early church did not believe in the ressurrection of Christ. That view is ahistorical, and profoundly silly.

He also time and again misrepresents evangelical doctrine. For instance he writes of the doctrine of plenary inspiration of scripture:

*

‘a generation later, however “his son, A. A. Hodge, and colleague, Benjamin Warfield, pushed his ideas to new heights of certainty. . . . literalism became dogma.” In their view, God had not merely inspired the Bible; he had dictated it word for word.’

*

It is clear that Bawer has not read Warfield’s work on the Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Because in that work he specifically denies that God dictated words to the apostles. He does argue that every word is inspired by God, of course. He argues that every word therein is as God wanted it, but when asked how God imparts these words to the apostles, Warfield says it is not dictation. Rather, to ensure that Paul, for instance, would write the exact words God wanted in the Bible, God ensured that the man Paul was raised up in just such an environment with just such experiences and knowledge and giftings that he would naturally write, in the circumstances to which he wrote, those exact words that God wanted in the scriptures.

This is not dictation. It is a recognition that Paul spoke the words as they occurred to him for the occasion to which he wrote, and yet even as he did so they were the very words of God.

Now people are entitled to disagree with this doctrine – but to characterise the doctrine as divine dictation is to misunderstand it, to set up a straw man and is thus totally fallacious as an argument. Bawer does not understand evangelical doctrine, and this is demonstrated time and again in his book, and the book suffers greatly for that.

Elsewhere Bawer complains:

*

‘Robertson declares for instance, that the Anglican Church is full of “liberals” who are “fighting to secularise the Anglican creed.” The people to whom he refers are, of course, Christians, but because they believe differently, he calls them secular.

*

There may be many problems with what Robertson says and how he says it – but this example is not obviously one of them. Bawer does not footnote this as usual – his work is devoid of footnotes, so one cannot be sure what Robertson was alluding to. But the argument that is often made is that the liberal church is trying to secularise the creed by expunging areas that the church is not seen as politically correct – for instance when it says that sex outside of the marriage relationship is sinful.

If this is what Robertson was saying, then note that in the above he is not saying that it is the liberals who are secular. He is saying that it is what they are doing to the creed that us an attempt to secularise it (making it more like the secular thinking). Bawer reads this as an attack on the Christianity of liberals – but I don’t think the argument is sustained.

But then Bawer goes into what he sees is the nub of the problem. He writes:

*

One legalistic church in Ohio that seeks to be “culturally relevant” complains on its Web site that “in the liberal church, even the doctrines of the Bible are allowed to change. But even then they often continue to refuse change in structural and cultural areas. This is the worst-case scenario – changing the things we should never change, but holding fast to the things we should be willing to change.” This is the cry of many a legalistic pastor, and it is 180 degrees off on both counts. Legalistic churches by definition cleave to doctrines that can’t hold up, while discarding liturgies designed to create holy space and time.

*

They cleave to doctrines that can’t hold up? Like the resurrection of Christ. The defining doctrine of the church? As we saw, it is only Bawer’s view that this was not the doctrine of the early Church. We know from 1 Corinthians that this was in fact the defining doctrine of Christianity from the very beginning.

Yet what Bawer values is a liturgy designed to create holy space and time. The liturgy that consists of credal statements and responses that are derived entirely from the historical orthodox Christianity. How a liturgy derived from a doctrine one rejects somehow makes its way to the essence of Christianity baffles me in much the same way as this book baffles me. Other than being a lengthy polemic against non liberals, this book seems to have no real purpose.

And yet it is so sad that all this seeks to hide the occasional gem that could, in a more studied and sympathetic work, lead to genuine change where the problems of fundamentalism are identified. Bawer writes astutely: “so if you want to be seen as saved, you pretend not to have problems.” And inasmuch as that happens in the Church (and it happens), this statement is profound and needs to be considered carefully. Unfortunately I doubt anyone who needs to hear that will find it in Bawer’s book.

Bawer again shows his predisposition with this statement:

*

A favourite text is Ephesians 5:22-24, which is traditionally (but, most biblical scholars now say, erroneously) attributed to Saint Paul.

*

Most scholars? He seeks to imply a lack of debate here that is quite inappropriate. Indeed there are easily as many scholars who contend for the Pauline authorship as who oppose it (and for very good and well discussed reasons). That is not to deny that some scholars do have good arguments why they contest Pauline authorship – but rather than engage in, or even footnote the debate here, Bawer does what he does repeatedly – he seeks to close down the argument as though the debate is over! This is what he does with his inflammatory and counter intuitive “legalist” label too, to the very great detriment of his work.

He also contradicts himself often because of his over-reach:

*

It does not seem entirely a coincidence that the advent of television has coincided with the rise of legalistic Christianity …

*

And yet in the chapter on Darby we are led to believe this rise came long before the advent of television, and indeed as he uses “legalistic Christianity” to mean “non liberal”, we might note that the thing he berates has always been with us. It is simply wrong for him to assert that this is a modern phenomenon. This is where Bawer has over-reached. If he were speaking specifically of fundamentalism, and if he had spent some time on defining and understanding fundamentalism (something that is made somewhat tricky by the myriad uses of the term – as a church historian friend of mine was speaking to me about recently), then he could have noticed a correlation between the rise of fundamentalism and the rise of TV, although in any case, correlation does not imply causation, and without some theory as to how one influenced the other, the argument would be post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy for finding causation where only a correlation is identified.

Bawer also denies the Trinity can be found in the writings of the early church, to which I can only reply by recommending “What St Paul really Said” by N T Wright – a Pauline scholar who will show you exactly why this view is wrong. I will not rehearse the arguments here in this already overlong review.

Bawer also finishes off by denying the divinity of Christ. He says:

*

‘Jesus never claimed to be anything but human.’

*

Actually it is well established that Jesus did claim that very thing. Without a doubt he claimed that he and the father are one. He claimed on several occasions to be God, which is why he escaped being stoned for heresy, but was later put to death on a cross. Bawer nails his colours to the mast. He believes in a non miraculuous non resurrected Jesus who preached a message of love but claimed no divinity, and was followed on by legalists who misunderstood that message. That is not the faith of the church though, so a book that berates errant eschatology in a wing of the protestant church seems very very odd.

Finally, Bawer closes with a discussion that goes:

*

‘Christians today are extremely uncomfortable with the implications of Jesus’ humanity – with among much else, the notion that he experienced such emotions as fear, vulnerability, and sexual attraction.’

*

To which I can only point to John White’s excellent “Eros Defiled”, where he makes exactly those points –and non controversially, because in fact Christians are very comfortable with the idea that Jesus was fully human. It is just they believe he was also fully God.

So again, with a better understanding of that which he attacks, and a more carefully reasoned, sympathetic and targetted book – Bawer might have had something useful to say. I fear however that the occasional gem he does uncover is largely lost amongst error, irrelevancy and his own theological mindset that deserves to be challenged itself.

Religion and politics seem to be highly polarised in America. Anyone who has spoken at length with American Christians will be familiar with the way that all too often political thought seems to seep into the Christian dialogue, and from the perspective of an outsider, it seems that these notions are frequently unchallenged, and often at odds with the message of the gospel.

This book is then a timely call to Christians to re-evaluate their unchallenged assumptions, and to realise that so much of politics is anti Christian, that they do the church a dis-service in not taking a stand against it. The book has practical ideas of how to make a stand, and is a wake up call for anyone who thinks God would vote for a certain political party!

There is less here for non Americans. The context of the book is clearly America and its politics, and an outsider would be wrong to read this book to feel smug about their own politics. In the UK religion is much less polarised, but the policies of the parties are no more moral for this. Non US readers should read the book with humility, wondering how the lessons and ideas here can be applied in their own context.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that I have not been writing so much on my blog over the last year or more. The reason is I am spending more of my time clearing my very long reading list. But it occurred to me that I could blog about what I am reading, so here for starters is my review of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”.

This novel hardly needs a review to encourage someone to buy it, when you consider one point alone: It is over 50 years old and people still read it and enjoy it. It is a classic and nothing I can say can detract from that.

But it is also a product of its time, espousing a philosophy that is only internally consistent if one makes rather more assumptions than the author admits to. The characters all speak with Ayn Rand’s voice, in a manner that might be familiar to readers of Galileo perhaps, but not so much with readers of a good modern novel. The characters feel unreal. The whole setting is preposterously unreal, and here is a novel that would have been better set in an alternate universe of a science fiction writer, in the manner – say – of Philip Dick’s “The Man in the High Castle”. Perhaps that was her intent in fact, but she gives us no anchor into the world she is describing and the action of the novel dances across an empty stage.

For anyone seeking rich characterizations, realistic interactions, or a sense of place in the narrative, you will be disappointed in this novel. The novel is merely the platform for Rand’s polemic, and jumps from unbelievable to the preposterous without apology.

This being said, it was still a jolly good read. The conflict in the novel is engrossing and draws you in quickly. The first time someone defeats a “looter government”, you want to applaud. When Dagny (the protaganist) completes a railway line against all the odds you can feel her exhilieration – even if you wonder how she managed it! The concept of the plot is refreshingly original, and readers will want to finish the novel.

Given its length though, finishing can be tricky – especially where it comes to a 90 page speech espousing Rand’s epistemology. Some aspects of the plot were also tiring, and one wonders whether the book could have achieved its purpose whilst being edited a little. Ok, the 90 page speech was probably why she wrote the book – but perhaps Rand forgets the maxim here: “show don’t tell”

Ultimately though, the book’s philosophy suffers for being the product of an age that does not exist any longer. Marxism is a target of Rand’s polemic, but also social programmes that have clearly worked and brought tremendous benefit to the world (including the US), such as the Marshal plan. At the same time, she defends a world of producer industrialists that largely no longer exist now, and rather misses the point that invention in our modern world is hardly the preserve of big business (even if only businesses have the resources to patent their inventions). I could say more on this, but this is a review – not a critique, so I will stop!

All in all I enjoyed this book, I thought about it, I disagree with a good deal of it and a very fundamental level, but I do not regret it. Neither will you.

Should children be present in the communion service? This was a question recently on MInTheGap’s weblog. It is also a question I have come across before regarding practices in churches where infant baptism is practiced. The question is asked, “if baptism is the mark of a Christian, what right do we have to refuse communion to children?”

As I understand it, membership of the Christian Church is through
baptism. This is, I think, a subtlety that is important to protestant congregations that practice infant baptism. Because those who believe in baptising children too young to answer for
themselves, do so on the belief that there is some special benefit of
so being a part of the Church, whilst not actually a believer. c.f. 1
Cor 7:14 (which is talking about marriage partners, but it perhaps
conveys the same idea).

Now if this accepted, then it follows that when one comes to faith,
the promises made for them at baptism are now owned by them. Their
membership of the church is confirmed in some sense by their faith.

On the other hand, those of us who hold to believers baptism say that faith should precede the baptism, and the baptism itself is the symbolic or sacramental enactment of our new birth. But even so, we can still hold to a view that the children present in our church are in a priveleged position, benefiting from teaching and nurture and the love of our community. Churches that practice believer’s baptism usually have some kind of dedication ceremony symbolising the special responsibility of the church to that child.

Now communion is a feast for the believer, and only for them. If
people are baptised into the Church, and properly instructed as to the
purpose and meaning of communion, then the act of taking communion
itself is a declaration of faith. Thus, someone who might say that the
eucharist defines the church is quite right. The true Church, the body
of baptised believers is self defined by the very act of taking communion.

This being so, it seems to me that any age limit applied by us on the
taking of communion simply says that we do not believe anyone under
that age can be a true believer, or sufficiently capable of making a
declaration of faith.

Now we might argue that this is so, but I wonder how this differs from
the argument that is thrown against “believer’s baptism”, which
argues that very young children are either unjustly denied baptism, or
else the believers baptism is virtually infant baptism in any case.

One minister I spoke to recently suggested we don’t *baptise* the children until they are eight, but this still suggests we do not believe the statement of faith of a
seven year old, if they should make one.

It is all something of a knotty issue, but I think the key issues are
flexibility, a good understanding of grace, and the ability to believe
the testimony of young children, without falling into gullibility.

But one thing is clear: if we don’t allow children at the communion table – if we just ship them off to their own age specific activities – then we are making a statement that these people are *not* believers.

The solution, as practiced in many churches, is to allow children to take part in the communion service but suggest that they receive a special prayer rather than the bread and the wine.

Now in churches with believer’s baptism, we have a good date for when they first take communion – at the first opportunity after their baptism. Churches that have infant baptism, or believer’s baptism only after a certain age have a thornier problem. But if children are really to benefit from the worship of a communion service, and if they are to understand how deeply we feel about Christ’s sacrifice, and the glorious hope that we will one day drink from the fruit of the vine with Christ in His Father’s kingdom, then however we deal with this issue, we are wrong to take them out of the service altogether.

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

Noah Webster (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language)

Photo by
Jonathon D Colman

Selahv mentioned in a comment the disdain of the world for America – but there are in fact two distinct types of anti-Americanism. There is one kind which is just prejudice. There are people who disdain Americans simply because they are in a different “in group”, and it is fallen human nature to disdain out groups. Therefore every bad thing from America (fast food and sugary drinks for instance) is held against them. Every good thing (Clam chowder for instance) is ignored.

Such prejudice is hard to battle against, but it really is not Americans that need worry about this. The same people that hate Americans because of this prejudice probably have similar prejudices about any out group they care to consider.

However, there is another kind of anti-Americanism which is really anti-American policy, rather than the nation or its people. This is the feeling expressed in surveys that suggest people across the world believe that America is the biggest threat to world peace. This feeling comes around because of the gun boat diplomacy of one or other American administrations.

The Opium Wars

Note that America is no different from other nations here. In the 19th Century, the UK fought two wars against China to force them to accept the trade in opium. The drug was legal in the UK at the time – used as a seditive – particularly for gripey babies! But China banned the drug, citing public morals as the reason. After an incident when Chinese authorities boarded British ships and confiscated smuggled opium, a contingent of the British navy, including the new “iron clads” steamed into China. The fleet was larger than anything the Chinese had expected, and the first opium war was quickly lost. The peace treaty opened up a number of Chinese ports and ceded a lease on Hong Kong island to the British.

If you asked at that time who was the biggest threat to world piece, the answer in Shanghai would no doubt have been “the British”.

All countries act out of self interest most of the time. The thing that people dislike about American policy is its willingness to flout international law and order to pursue its self interest. Failure to become signatories to the ICC, arming of Israel as they kill people in Lebanon, The invasion of Iraq, support of regimes that persecute their own people, the arms trade, sidelining the UN and excessive use of the veto when the issue concerns client states, failure to ratify the Kyoto protocol – the list goes on (and these are just the recent examples).

But whilst I personally have a problem with all of these policies, I am not personally against Americans. (Indeed I am opposed to much UK policy for very similar reasons, but I am not anti-British).

Iraq

Selahv was speaking about Iraq, so the question is: how does this help Iraq?

We are where we are, and Iraq is suffering. What can we do? Cut and run? That would cause the disintegration of the nation. Stay the course? There is no sign that this strategy will ever succeed.

We pray for peace in Iraq – and we pray for wisdom and humility in our leaders. Particularly the humility to go to the United Nations and ask for help. If the occupying force could be replaced with a peace keeping force, and if we gave up our claims to Iraqi assets, just as we forced Russia and France to give up their claims, then there may yet be a hope for this country.

It would take a miracle for the US to willingly humble themselves and pursue this problem through the UN. It would take another miracle to see the policy succeed, and peace finally come to the nation of Iraq.

But fortunately, I believe in miracles.

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

Over several months of last year I reposted some essays I had written on the book of Joel. These formed a series which you can find using the “Joel” tag on this site, but now for the first time here is a table of contents for the whole series:

1. Joel 1:1
2. Joel 1:2
3. Joel 1:3
4. Joel 1:5
5. Joel 1:7-13
6. Joel 1:14
7. Joel 1:15-19
8. Joel 2:1-11
9. Joel 2:12-13
10. Joel 2:13-14
11. Joel 2:15-16
12. Joel 2:17-18
13. Joel 2:19,21
14. Joel 2:22-25
15. Joel 2:26-27
16. Joel 2:28-29
17. Joel 2:30-32
18. Joel 3:1-3
19. Joel 3:5-8
20. Joel 3:9-13
21. Joel 3:14
22. Joel 3:15-21

Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalm 22:21 (Authorised Version of King James)

What is that doing there? That was certainly the question of someone writing to me who wanted to argue that the Bible is full of mythology.

Fortunately it is an issue that is well descrobed in a number of works, including Isaac Asimov’s Guide to the Bible. ISBN-13: 978-0517345825.

Asimov tells us that there is
a certain animal, known to the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures as the ראם (”re’em”)
and to modern zoologists as the aurochs (Bos primigenius) or wild ox, that is often portrayed in Mesopotamian murals and bas-reliefs as well as the famous Lascaux (Cro-magnon) cave paintings.

The aurochs is nearly always shown in profile, so that
one horn is completely hidden behind the other. It thus appears to have only
one horn, and apparently it was sometimes nicknamed “the one-horned.” It is
completely extinct today (despite being an ancestor of the modern domesticated cow), and even in the time of the scholars who translated
the Psalms from Hebrew into Greek for the Septuagint (LXX), it was seldom seen, certainly
in Egypt.

Thus those scholars, who knew it only from the bas-reliefs and had
never seen an actual specimen, and who had no word in Greek for an aurochs,
called it “monokeros,” meaning one-horned. (By the same token Rhinoceros, means
nose-horned, and triceratops means three horned face).

This is what autrochs was called in the LXX, and the Latin translation
of the Psalms, being made fromthe LXX, reads “unicorn” (”corn” is Latin for
“horn” as in “cornucopia” meaning “horn of plenty”)

Now there are certain changes in words that follow regular patterns, as speakers of the language seek for easier and quicker ways to pronounce words. Certain letter changes can be followed from language to language. For some reason, it happens that in the course of a generation, one letter sound can be almost completely replaced with another. Early in the history of the Anglo Saxon languages, all words starting with “p” had the sound replaced with an “f” (thus “pisg” became “fisg” – fish and so on.)

Another of these letter changes is c, which often becomes “ch” as in “loch” or “bach”, and then becomes just an “h” (before dropping out of the language altogether).

In Latin, the “c” sounds are often replaced with “h” sounds in English. Hence Latin citra becomes English hither, caput becomes head and so on. Corn thus becomes horn. Unicorn is the one horned. Modern translations however, often call this animal the wild ox. That is, after all, what it was.

Did the ancient Hebrews suppose that the re’em actually had only one
horn? Apparently not, for in Deut 33:17, we read: “His glory is like the
firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of an aurochs.”
Here the word “re’em” is used in the singular, indicating that the single re’em had
more than one horn.

Someone raised an old bugbear that evangelists are in it for the money.

John Wesley (when asked to give an account of his taxable assets by a tax collection officer) replied that he had a silver teaspoon, but beyond that he did not think he had any such assets.

There are still many people with a like attitude today, but unfortunately all our attention is constantly turned towards the brood of vipers who spend every last minute begging money from their professional multimedia operations.

I don’t think they are really radicals in any sense: they do exactly what politicians do, and what the entertainment industry does. They package and sell a product, “guaranteed” to make you happy and prosperous, but when you part with your money and remove the trimmings you find you are left with nothing.

That is not Christianity. It is not representative of the Church, and many Christians openly oppose these people, but I guess that turning the tables on the moneychangers is old news (and the moneychangers have lawyers now).

Should we get involved in apologetic debates? And what do we hope to achieve with them?

I believe the most important method
of witnessing is through our personal testimony. That apologetic reasoning
is very occasionally succesful in winning people for Christ is undeniable. I
had a friend who became a Christian by such persuasion of the evidence, but
ultimately even he would not have become a Christian were it not for his
friendship with Christians.

Apologetics has its place, but I find it a fairly small place. It is the
Holy Spirit that does a work within us, and no one can reason themselves
into heaven without the promptings of the Spirit, and no one can resist the
Spirit’s call, even though they may have questions still.

This, I believe, is the normal way of these things. God calls us, we
respond, and the answers of apologetics are of some use in dealing with
doubts, but rarely of much use to those who are unsaved, unless they are
earnestly seeking people who are so constrained by doubt that they cannot
progress into a relationship with the invisible God, nor his image, his Son,
Jesus Christ our Lord.

I suppose that apologetics can be useful in convincing someone that Christians are not believing something without evidence – that we have a reason for our belief, and it is not mere superstition. But maybe that is all.

*

I think we so often get our emphasis wrong. We spend so much time
reading “apologetics” when all around us people are dieing unsaved. We
should instead be *praying*. If it is the Holy Spirit that moves our hearts,
and not a book by an apologist then reading the books is something of a
distraction – if only Christians would spend as long on their knees as they
do reading books (and don’t think I am talking to others and not myself here!)

I know why we so often avoid this spiritual imperative – it appears
unproductive to pray, when we could be acquiring so much knowledge – but
don’t you see that in so doing we deny the very power of God we seek to
profess. If God is the creator of the universe, the all powerful, almighty,
merciful and loving God of Scripture then how can we possibly spend so
little time in communion with him when he is so near to us?

I love books and reading and might easily spend several hours reading a book
on apologetics or some other Christian subject, but I find it much more
difficult to spend an hour in prayer, and I will admit that I cannot think
of a time I spent more than two hours in private prayer. John Wesley said he would
not give a fig for the spirituality of a man who spent less then three hours
in prayer each morning – how far we have sunk from such ideals.

Whilst we might rail against the words of Wesley as unrealistic, I believe
his *emphasis* was right. He knew the power of prayer. Even though he never
agreed with Calvinisms claims of irresistable grace, he knew that it was
only through the Spirit of God that we would see the stirring of men’s
hearts.

I long to see people saved, but I want more than this – I want to see
revival, and we have been waiting a long time for it. It is only through our
prayers that this will come about. No revival ever followed “apologetic
debates”, and none ever will. Likewise there was never a revival that was
not preceded by the earnest prayers of the elect.

*

This point goes further still. Evangelism through our relationships only
works if we live the lives we profess. No one ever sold a product they did
not believe in, and we will never convince our friends and family of the
urgent need for salvation if we do not live a life comensurate with that
belief. Prayer is at the heart of this, because it is only through prayer
that we have communion with God, be it prayer in public worship or private
devotion. It is a matter of shame on the Church that Christians pray so
little – what does this tell the outside world? Does it tell then we believe
that the God of the Universe listens to us and cares for us?

A quote often (incorrectly) attributed to St Francis goes: “Preach
the gospel at all times, use words if necessary”. The emphasis is right.
Our words are a tiny part of our preaching of the gospel compared to our
actions, and the praying Christian is an example worth many thousand
apologists if they do not pray.

*

Another point that comes to mind is that we can only preach the gospel to
non Christians if we know non Christians. Willow Creek Community Church talk
of “being intentional about your relationships”. Whether we agree with the
systematic methods of that Church or not, they make a very important point:
We must be careful to build friendships outside the Church as well as
within, and we must realise that whenever we are with our non Christian
friends that we are witnessing to them in all we do.

Most Christians, according to surveys carried out by Willow Creek and others, have virtually no non Christian friends, but make
non Christian acquaintances throughout their life. I am fond of Chinese
food, and usually frequent the same resteraunt. I now find myself on talking
terms with the staff there and recently had the opportunity to invite one of
the staff to Church. I must admit I was stunned when he agreed – moreso when
he made it plain that he wanted to come regularly. I wonder how many similar
opportunities such as this I have missed.