Take the theory of evolution as an example. Admittedly, I have little solid understanding of the theory, but I am well aware of the credibility it enjoys among scientists worldwide. To these such experts, and a multitude of others, it is widely held as being almost irrefutable. However, there are plenty of others who disbelieve the theory. Some of those are Christians who wish to take the creation account in Genesis on face value and proclaim that God created the universe and formed earth as well as its inhabitants. Now, if Darwin’s theory (or its subsequent manifestations) are correct, or at least held to be the most ‘reasonable’ theory behind the existence of life and the universe, then at what point to we start denying the overwhelming scientific rationality and look for something else? There seems to come a point where sheer rationality is no longer necessary or useful. It seems to me that for as long as evidence or rationality is useful to support an ideology or belief, then they will be employed. However, as soon as the evidence is not useful the rationality behind it will be discarded.

It is a question of our starting points or what we dearly want to hold on to. A friend was telling me the other day that Chuck Missler had employed the use of experts in the fields of international relations and the like to attempt to see how the state of world affairs was fitting into Biblical prophecy. This appears reasonable enough, but I do wonder at the calibre of such experts, and whether or not they have some sort of vested interest in interpreting world affairs in such a manner that could give a heavy bias to Missler’s foregone conclusion on how the world is going to end. A similar logic is employed in the climate change debate. I have heard the verse in the book of Job “This far you may come, but no farther, And here your proud waves must stop” (Job 38:11) as some sort of evidence that climate change is a hoax. This type of worldview does not bother to refute the evidence that is presented by scientists. Rather, it bypasses reason and goes straight to faith. It is faith that a literal interpretation of the Bible as absolute truth. The problem should appear obvious: at what point do we concede that empirical information is no longer useful and opt out for our foregone conclusion based upon blind faith?

Faith never seems to end. For the Christian, it is easier to just accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, rather than to try and separate the wheat from the chaff. Questions such as ‘Did Paul know that his epistles to the various churches were going to be made into scripture at some point?’ are almost irrelevant to most Christians. It does not matter if Paul did or did not know that his writings would be canonised. His writings are accepted as being the Word of God, and that’s the end of the matter. In other words, it takes faith to accept that Paul’s writings are truly the inspired words of God. Whilst other writers, who may claim to have been inspired by God but whose writings did not make the cut, are thrown out as heretics. I am not saying that I disbelieve the Bible. What I am suggesting is that we ought to have reasons for believing it, and have the freedom to ask questions as to how we interpret it and how it was compiled. Moreover, I am raising the question as to how we come to our beliefs in certain matters. If there happens to be convincing physical evidence that contradicts our preformed beliefs, do we allow our beliefs to be challenged and changed, or do we laugh in the face of good sense?

By the way, I am also not saying that faith is always opposed to reason. Perhaps the kind of ‘faith’ I am criticising is the kind that would suggest that God put ancient dinosaur fossils in the ground to test our faith. To me, that’s not faith, it is idiocy.

In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awsome than all who surround him…The heavens are yours, and yours also is the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it.

Indeed, the tone of the psalm makes one cower at the might of the creator, and also stand straight and tall, in awe and honour at his power and faithfulness. How, then, can we reconcile this sort of rhetoric, which we read throughout the scriptures, with the sometimes trivial goings-on in the church? I, for one, admire the reverence and care with which the Roman Catholics and high Anglicans conduct their services. Some understandably take them to task on these practices, accusing them of rigidity and a lack of sensitivity. There is a heavy focus on ritual and order, but these elements are lacking hugely in many other churches’ services.

The way in which many services are conducted is not dissimilar to a talk-show; music act, host arrives and makes a joke and some announcements, more music, then the main speaker entertains the crowd for around 30 minutes, before the host throws to the band for some more music. This style of service, I feel, lacks. It fails to recognise who we are, in fact, meeting to worship, learn about, repent to, and celebrate. It lacks weight. It neglects to respond to what the members of the congregation need to do; repent, and worship the God to whom they owe so much. The music resembles a mix of Blink 182 and Kelly Clarkson. The lyrics sung to God have more in common with Burt Bacharach than King David of Israel.  

The preacher rarely challenges the minds and hearts of the congregation with hard-thinking, hard hitting teaching. Instead of looking to what God has said and applying it to our circumstances, we tend to be fed sermons which look at our lives first, and try to fit in the scriptures with them. This is a mistake though; our lives are filled with sin and deprivation, television and violence, sex-saturated Internet and music. Making scripture fit our lives is like trying to fit a Rolls Royce engine under the hood of a 1974 Datsun. Another danger related to this is that if we look at the scriptures in this way, we find very little in common with what they say and what we experience. The Bible, therefore, gets slowly but surely pushed out of our practices. Congregations end up getting fed what has been termed as “advice-talks with a religious twist.” The church is oblivious to its own practice of gradually squeezing out the bible from its services.

The truths which we know and love, and the God which we worship and fear, should be approached in earnestness. Culture is filled with triviality; everything that the world throws at us is dumbed down. We are consumers, so everything has to be easy for us to consume in order for us to desire more. Sunday mornings (or Saturday nights, or Thursday mornings, whenever you worship) can be, and should be bastions away from this triviality. For, what we meet to do, and whom we meet to worship and seek, is without doubt the most important and weighty factor in our lives. Our practices in church should reflect this. 

[T]o first address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical in the United States and much of the Western world today, and second to clarify where we stand on issues that have caused consternation over Evangelicals in public life.

This being the case, it is an overdue declaration. Evangelicalism has, in mainstream secular quarters, been ridiculed and misconstrued for far too long. Yet, the declaration also admits willingly that many of the problems which Evangelicals face are of their own making. At the same time, the authors of the manifesto make clear that they are unashamed to be Evangelicals.

Importantly, it is made abundantly clear that Evangelicals should be defined by their theology, not by their politics, their social status or their culture. The central theological tenets of Evangelicalism are reaffirmed, therefore reaffirming Evangelical identity. The phrase “followers of Jesus Christ” is one that is used frequently, and this is stated as central to Evangelical theology. This may seem obvious, but I think it does need to be made clear. A deep affiliation with the Protestant Reformation and biblical truth are also stated as vital to the evangelical identity. The declaration boldly declares that;

[W]e are whole-heartedly committed to the universality of the Christian church across centuries, continents and cultures, and therefore to the central axioms of Christian faith expressed in the Trinitarian and Christological consensus of the early church.

Yet it is made clear that Evangelicals hold to the distinctly Evangelical beliefs that are distinct from other traditions. Yet, humbly, it is admitted that “we repeatedly fail to live up to our high calling…we must…be shaped by [the] good news”. Here it is made plain that there it is with shame that actions and words of Evangelicals have not always reflected what our Lord Jesus embodied. This humble tone continues throughout the whole Manifesto, which I think is vital. It will appeal to non-Christian, and non-Evangelical, readers and also force Evangelicals to live up to the fact that we don’t always get it right (perhaps a large understatement).

The second major section of the manifesto discusses Evangelicalism’s place in Public Life. It attests to the widespread confusion surrounding Evangelicals in public life, and attempts to clarify this. The authors are critical of Fundamentalist Christianity, that is “politically disengaged”, and separates Evangelicals from the former. The manifesto firstly repudiates the privatisation of faith, saying “Such dualism falsely divorces the spiritual from the secular and causes faith to lose its integrity.” It also repudiates the politicisation of faith, causing it to “lose its independence.” It repudiates the “partisans of a sacred public square“, who give one particular religion preference in politics. It then repudiates what is termed the partisans of a naked public square, where all religions are kept out of politics. It is critical of “coercive secularism” and “religious extremism”, and affirms the need to keep the church and the state separate. It is clear, though, that religion and politics need not be separate, and should not be so. The most profound statement in the declaration is its promotion of a civil public square , one where all people’s rights are respected;

But we also insist that the principle of the right believe anything does not to the conclusion that anything anyone believes is right. Rather it means that respect for differences based on conscience can also mean a necessary debate over differences conducted with respect.

This is not a final word on Evangelicalism, and it is not intended to be. My hope is that this document will help the Evangelical Church realign its heart and mind towards a more biblical, well rounded and well thought out position theologically as well as politically. The manifesto gives equal weight to issues such as abortion and social justice. It is not clearly a ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’ piece. Neither should it be. Politics is not just about abortion and homosexuality, and neither is following Jesus. I have signed the manifesto. If you are an Evangelical, you should read it, and consider whether or not you should too. It is plain talk; it doesn’t beat around the bush, although it is not judgemental either. It is respectful, without being too politically correct. The manifesto, along with a summary version and other information can be found here:

http://www.evangelicalmanifesto.com/

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): English philosopher. Author of the highly influential book The Leviathan. Hobbes’ theory of justice is attractive in one sense, and awfully stark in another. Hobbes identifies injustice with breaking the law. According to Hobbes, just behaviour is simply conforming to societies laws. He goes on to surmise that law cannot exist without a ’sovereign’. For their to be genuine laws, there needs to be a sufficiently powerful sovereign to punish those who break the laws. So, without a sovereign, there is no law. Without laws, there can be no justice.

On an international, present day scale, it is very hard to conceive how a Hobbesian theory of justice could ever be applied. There is no global sovereign, and it is unlikely that there will be one in the foreseeable future. The United Nations is the closest thing we have to a global sovereign. It is next to impotent when it comes to enforcing laws, though.

John Rawls(1921-2002): American philosopher. Rawls is much less bare in his ideas of justice. Rawls’ theory is based on the idea that humans are reasonable creatures (although thisis obviously not always true) and will, when being reasonable, co-operate with each other when trying to come an agreement about whatever it is they are considering. His theory assumes a number of things, which he summarises as ‘The Original Position’; that participants in the negotiations are free and equal, that participants will be reasonable, that they may accept fair terms, and that they are rationally seeking to better their own position.

Also central to Rawls’ conception is what he has titled the “Veil of Ignorance”. This veil is one which doesn’t allow participants to know anything about any advantages or disadvantages they may have in relation to other participants. For example; I negotiate to play a game of tennis with Anna Kournikova. For it to be a fair agreement between myself and Anna, she has to be unaware that she is a far superior tennis player to me, and that she is also extremely attractive and, due to this, would probably gain much more support from any people watching the match. Her not knowing these things removes any bargaining power she might have when she is negotiating the agreement with me.

In Rawls own words:

“If we are reasonable, it is one our considered convictions that the fact that we occupy a particular social position, say, is not a good reason for us to accept, or to expect others to accept, a conception of justice that favours those in that position.” (Fundamental Ideas)  

Rawls’ model is supposed to be understood as a device for reaching justice; for reaching agreements that will result in just outcomes for all parties concerned.

‘ Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

So the people asked him, saying, “What shall we do then?” He answered and said to them, “He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.”

Then tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than what is appointed for you.”

Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?”
So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.” ‘ – Luke 3: 7-14 (NKJV)

To me, this is a short description of what this new Kingdom was all about – a confrontation to particular socially destructive practices/ omissions. The neglect in caring for the poor and hungry, financial usury, and the abuse of power in general. It strikes me as significant that John warns them of these practices rather than saying you need to get your theology right or just ‘believe’ by professing the name of Jesus. He grounds repentance in a change of behavior particularly towards the most vulnerable members of society.

Thoughts?

*Thank God that John only said ‘tunic’ and not anything else!

It’s so refreshing to read a well-considered and balanced article from a group of evangelicals. I was expecting to read a bible-bashing self-righteous stab at the world about how we’re all going to hell, but I was pleasantly surprised. It is a good read. I mean, when someone can quote Nietzche or Kierkegaard whilst representing a large body of believers and not feel they are going to be struck down by the Lord for heresy, seems to me to suggest that they have their head screwed on.

The 20 page article goes through step by step what Evangelicals believe theologically. The belief in the historical person of Jesus and his death and resurrection. They recognise their affinity with the Protestant movement during the Reformation, but go further than that and define themselves as followers of Jesus himself – not a later historical movement. One such statement of belief discusses that they are defined not only by their words but also their actions:

“What we are about is captured not only in books or declarations, but in our care for the poor, the homeless, and the orphaned; our outreach to those in prison; our compassion for the hungry and the victims of disaster; and our fight for justice for those oppressed by such evils as slavery and human trafficking.”

As I said at the start, it’s refreshing to see that there are Christians who care about the plethora of human suffering and sin rather than just sex. It also spends some time warning of the extremes of both ‘liberal revisionism’ and ‘conservative fundamentalism’, articulating the tension of ‘in the world, but not of the world’. It goes on to recognise the recent failings of evangelicals in many facets of life.

Along these lines of balancing between the pulls of blind faith and blind intellectualism the manifesto states: “We therefore regard reason and faith as allies rather than enemies, and find no contradiction between head and heart, between being fully faithful on the one hand, and fully intellectually critical and contemporary on the other.” I love it.

The last half of the article pertains to the re-positioning of evangelicalism in politics. It calls for a redefinition of evangelicalism that is never fully aligned or synonymous with a particular political party or economic system. It wishes to participate in the public square of political debate – not to either align themselves entirely with party politics or totally disengage from politics altogether – but form a balanced approach of the separation of Church and State. It wills the freedom of opinion and concern of everyone regardless of their respective faith or non-faith based worldviews. The freedom of belief is made paramount. In assuming its own freedom it wills the freedom of all others.

“…our choice is for a civil public square, and a working respect for the rights of all, even those with whom we disagree.”

I also have to respect its social justice aspect, which I consider a very central theme to the gospel.

“We urge those who share our dedication to the poor, the suffering, and the oppressed to join with us in working to bring care, peace, justice, and freedom to those millions of our fellow-humans who are now ignored, oppressed, enslaved, or treated as human waste and wasted humans by the established orders in the global world.”

It’s a worthwhile read. Have a read yourself and see what you think.

http://anevangelicalmanifesto.com/

As a side note about this site, we’re in the process of making it aesthetically pleasing to the eye. At the moment its looking a little too grey.

Christian Universalism “draws its power from the fact that it liberates all human beings from the constraints of skin colour, ethnic origin, gender, age, nationality and social class, and addresses them as equals before God in the…community of Christian believers.” The universalism here is in difference; it is between ‘Christians and heathens’. Saved and unsaved, baptised and un-baptised. Beck then goes on to describe how this universalism also stigmatizes “the blackness of blacks, the Jewishness of Jews, and the womanhood of women” as morally inferior ‘particularisms’. Rejecting sameness paradoxically excludes difference in the universalism of difference. Yet this universalism of difference, between Christian and heathen, is then described as suppressing the individual. It begins to look like a universalism of sameness. Confused? I am. I do not think, however, that Christian universalism is one of difference or sameness, in particular. Allow me to delve deeper.

On the surface, it would appear Christianity is suppressing the individual. Christians are instructed to ‘become like Christ’. We are, essentially, told to conform to this incredible standard. In instructing us to ‘become like Christ’, it looks like the individual is being told to leave himself behind, and become like everyone else who is Christian; that is, like Christ. Indeed, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says that “Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.”(Luke 17:33) If we want to keep ourselves, Christ says we are making a mistake. In fact, we are told we need to abandon ourselves to continue living. So, here in Luke, the universalism appears to be one of sameness. Conformity and suppression are words which could come to mind. In fact, in The Reason for God, one of the objections that Tim Keller deals with is that ‘Christianity is a Straightjacket’. This ‘straightjacket’, though, is a massive misconception. Christian Universalism is, I believe, one which embraces both elements of sameness and difference.

In the book of Colossians, Paul says that all things were created through Christ, and for Christ. Nothing exists without Christ. Nothing comes, or came, into existence without Christ. Chapter 1:17 says that “in him all things hold together.” Hebrews 1 says a similar thing; that he upholds and sustains all things. Christ in intricately involved in everything. Christ created everyone and everything. Nothing exists without him, and nothing happens that doesn’t happen through him. The implication, here, is that we exist through him. We have been created by him, and are who we are through him. Yet, as the Christian creation story makes abundantly clear, we have fallen short of what God created us to be. We are not whole. We are, to put it another way, incomplete. Only Christ can complete us, as he is the one who created us.

Now, each one of us is unique. We are all different, are we not? I don’t think I need to go into this point any further. We are all individual. It follows that God created us this way. He created us as individual and unique beings, and he loves us as individual and unique beings. This is clear, because nothing has come into existence without Christ. Our uniqueness could not have been without Christ I believe that this individual uniqueness will only be extenuated by Christ when we ‘lose our life’. When we ‘lose our life’, as Jesus instructs us, we ‘gain it’. We gain our true selves; we gain our uniqueness. We are all incomplete when we pursue our own interests without Christ. When we submit ourselves to Christ we, paradoxically, regain our freedom to be ourselves!

That is remarkable. We do have to conform to Christ; but in doing so he will retain and extenuate our uniqueness and individuality. Through sameness, we gain difference. Christian Universalism is one of both sameness and difference. Christ created us as individuals, and as individuals we must submit and conform to Christ. In that submission and conformity, we become like Christ. However, as Christ created us as individuals, we retain and regain the beautiful uniqueness that we were created to exhibit.