yrieithydd | Entries tagged with christiainity

So back in September I started taking the Statement on Social Justice to pieces and petered out at Part 8. I've just found a section I'd written but not posted.

So ( Heresy )

So in the first post in this series I tackled Scripture from the Statement on Social Justice. Article 2: Imago Dei was the subject of part 2 article 3 was on Justice. Article 4. God's Law.
Article 5 Sin Article 6: (20% of the) gospel. Article 7: Salvation

The Church
WE AFFIRM that the primary role of the church is to worship God through the preaching of his word, teaching sound doctrine, observing baptism and the Lord’s Supper, refuting those who contradict, equipping the saints, and evangelizing the lost. We affirm that when the primacy of the gospel is maintained that this often has a positive effect on the culture in which various societal ills are mollified. We affirm that, under the lordship of Christ, we are to obey the governing authorities established by God and pray for civil leaders.

WE DENY that political or social activism should be viewed as integral components of the gospel or primary to the mission of the church. Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society, we deny that these activities are either evidence of saving faith or constitute a central part of the church’s mission given to her by Jesus Christ, her head. We deny that laws or regulations possess any inherent power to change sinful hearts.

SCRIPTURE: MATTHEW 28:16-20; ROMANS 13:1-7; 1 TIMOTHY 2:1-3; 2 TIMOTHY 4:2; TITUS 1:9; 1 PETER 2:13-17

The first thing which struck me about this was that praying wasn't part of worship while evangelizing the lost is.

This one seems to wander from topic quite quickly - it's mainly about secular government and society rather than the Church.

It has a high view of the governing authorities which I struggle with (despite the prayer for the Queen's majesty in Evensong). Someone tweeted today about Trump being appointed by God so we had to help him which is to me a majorly problematic statement.

The denials are partially rooted in separation of Church and State. It is also rooted in an individualistic approach to Salvation. Once again, the idea of the kingdom is absent - to me praying "your kingdom come" is part of what the church is about.

I'm glad to see a reference to one of the four gospels - the great commission from Matthew's Gospel.

Salvation
WE AFFIRM that salvation is granted by God’s grace alone received through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Every believer is united to Christ, justified before God, and adopted into his family. Thus, in God’s eyes there is no difference in spiritual value or worth among those who are in Christ. Further, all who are united to Christ are also united to one another regardless of age, ethnicity, or sex. All believers are being conformed to the image of Christ. By God’s regenerating and sanctifying grace all believers will be brought to a final glorified, sinless state of perfection in the day of Jesus Christ.

WE DENY that salvation can be received in any other way. We also deny that salvation renders any Christian free from all remaining sin or immune from even grievous sin in this life. We further deny that ethnicity excludes anyone from understanding the gospel, nor does anyone’s ethnic or cultural heritage mitigate or remove the duty to repent and believe.

SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 3:15; ACTS 20:32; ROMANS 3-4; EPHESIANS 2:8-9; GALATIANS 3:28-29; 1 JOHN 2:1-2

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Christe - very much in the Reformed Tradition. The second denial is of the Wesley understanding of Christian Perfection - salvation to the uttermost is only in the day of Christ.

Having had the passage from the epistle of James on Sunday which states that faith alone is dead and a sermon showing how it is possible to understand both that and Romans without dismissing James as an epistle of straw as Luther did, this is a reminder that some people are still very entrenched in the Reformation arguments.

Again the background of slavery and segregation is not made explicit, but we are united regardless of age, ethnicity or sex. Actually I'm intrigued about the inclusion of age here as I'm not sure that's every been a particular point of controversy, except as regards the age at which someone can be baptised, and given this statement comes out of the Southern Baptist Convention, I assume they still hold that my baptism as at 3 weeks isn't valid.

I would like to know more about what they are reacting to in the final denial here. The fact they need to deny these things implies that they thing people are saying (or have said) the opposite, but I'm not familiar with people saying such things, apart from perhaps some justifications for mistreating black people because they were not seen as fully human, but the second part reads as something they think other people have been saying.

Interestingly here we have got the Galatians 3:28 reference. Again nothing from the Gospels.

Next time the Church

Gospel
WE AFFIRM that the gospel is the divinely-revealed message concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ—especially his virgin birth, righteous life, substitutionary sacrifice, atoning death, and bodily resurrection—revealing who he is and what he has done with the promise that he will save anyone and everyone who turns from sin by trusting him as Lord.

WE DENY that anything else, whether works to be performed or opinions to be held, can be added to the gospel without perverting it into another gospel. This also means that implications and applications of the gospel, such as the obligation to live justly in the world, though legitimate and important in their own right, are not definitional components of the gospel.

SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 3:15; PROVERBS 29:18; ISAIAH 25:7, 60:2, 3; ROMANS 1:16-17, 10:14,15,17; 1 CORINTHIANS 15:1-11; GALATIANS 1:6-9; REVELATION 13:8

We're back to the lack of any theology of the kingdom here and it's mainly because they miss out Jesus' teaching in their especially. Some years ago I developed the acronym ILTPDRaAoOLaSJC because it is the whole of that which matters and not just the Death and Resurrection. One of the criticisms of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds is that they do not touch on this teaching ministry.

Saying one cannot add to the gospel having narrowed the gospel down to the Matthew 1-3, 26-28; Mark 14-16; Luke 1&2, 22-4; John 18-21 is somewhat problematic. That's 6/28 chapters of Matthew, 3/16 of Mark, 5/24 of Luke and 4/21 of John or 18/89 chapters or approximately 1/5 of the Gospels.* I thought these people cared about scripture? Also notice that their scripture references for the Gospel, do not include any references to the Gospels. There is a reason I've been known to call so-called evangelicals "Epistolairians".**

One of the major themes of the other four fifths (80%) of the Gospels is the Kingdom of Heaven/God and Jesus tells many many parables to show us what God's kingdom is like and I would say that they are very much about the obligation to live justly in the world.

For example when "a lawyer stood up to test Jesus." asking ‘Teacher, [] what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus doesn't say believe in me (and my upcoming death and resurrection - although he has already prophesied about that) but asks ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ to which the lawyer answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’ (Luke 10:25-28)

To be fair to the authors of the statement, they have written about the importance of God's law and Jesus' summary of it. But I think they need to hear Jesus' answer to the lawyer's follow up question about who is his neighbour again. Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan. Now this parable is probably our first reference for Samaritan (though we might also think about the woman at the well in John 4 and know that Jews and Samaritans didn't share drinking vessels and had differences of opinion about where they should worship), which means we associate good and Samaritan - especially because the other reference we have for Samaritans is the organise started by Chad Varah to listen to those in need (especially those contemplating suicide). But that's not what Jesus' hearers would hear when thinking about Samaritans - no, they are the despised neighbours, people who don't worship God right, probably don't have the right scriptures. But it's a Samaritan whom Jesus uses to show someone loving their neighbour - it's not even that a Jew shows their love by helping a Samaritan, no, it's the Samaritan who's the one doing the helping.

Earlier this evening (well technically yesterday as I started this entry at midnight and I've been writing it for half an hour or so), @Storygirljo retweeted a link to an old blog of hers about the film Pride and the Parable of the Good Samaritan concluding:

So these two stories dovetail to show us the way of the Kingdom of God – you know, the one we pray to come. How does it come? By us living it. By choosing the way of support over religion, by choosing involvement over self protection, by choosing to see a person instead of an issue, by choosing to see our brothers and sisters instead of an abomination. By getting down and dirty in other people’s crap and issues and selfishness and desperation. By celebrating in other people’s triumphs and joys and Love and identities. By stopping on our way to the Temple and binding each others’ wounds. By coming home from the Temple to join in a celebratory Meal. By saying, although I don’t really ‘get’ you I have your back. By mourning with those who mourn and rejoicing with those who rejoice. By helping our neighbouring circus deal with their monkeys.

Next up: Salvation

*Ok so chapter lengths vary hugely, but as a rough estimate it'll do. And I'm being generous in including the visit of the Magi and the institution narratives in the chapters they're referencing.

**Mainly when talking about them, so I don't think I've ever tried to spell this word before!

Sin
WE AFFIRM that all people are connected to Adam both naturally and federally. Therefore, because of original sin everyone is born under the curse of God’s law and all break his commandments through sin. There is no difference in the condition of sinners due to age, ethnicity, or sex. All are depraved in all their faculties and all stand condemned before God’s law. All human relationships, systems, and institutions have been affected by sin.

WE DENY that, other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is morally culpable for another person’s sin. Although families, groups, and nations can sin collectively, and cultures can be predisposed to particular sins, subsequent generations share the collective guilt of their ancestors only if they approve and embrace (or attempt to justify) those sins. Before God each person must repent and confess his or her own sins in order to receive forgiveness. We further deny that one’s ethnicity establishes any necessary connection to any particular sin.

SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 2:16, 17, 3:12,13-15; PROVERBS 29:18; ISAIAH 25:7, 60:2-3; JEREMIAH 31:27-34; EZEKIEL 18:1-9, 14-18; MATTHEW 23:29-36; ROMANS 1:16-17, 3:23, 5:12, 10:14-17; 1 CORINTHIANS 15:3-11; 2 CORINTHIANS 11:3; GALATIANS 1:6-9; TITUS 1:12, 13; REVELATION 13:8

I have no idea what they mean by all people being connected to Adam federally.

Note also the Calvinistic language here (depraved in all faculties)

Basically this one boils down to - you can't blame us for slavery!

They reference Jeremiah 31:29-30

In those days they shall no longer say:
‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge.

but they omit Jeremiah 32:18 "You show steadfast love to the thousandth generation, but repay the guilt of parents into the laps of their children after them, O great and mighty God whose name is the Lord of hosts". Whether the sins of the fathers will be visited on their children is an issue where different passages (even within the same book) have different emphases.

I think for me, it comes down to the fact we are only responsible for what we do, but the effects of what we do (or what others have done before us) can continue down the generations. So whilst white people today are not responsible for slavery, we need to recognise the ways in which that the injustices of slavery continue today. A friend on facebook shared a good definition of white privilege the other day - "White privilege doesn't mean your life hasn't been hard; it means that your skin colour isn't one of the things making it harder."

Colonialism and Slavery (which were both justified with reference to the Bible) have caused and continue to cause much suffering (which falls foul of loving one's neighbour as one's self if not of a specific one of the 10 commandments) and calling that out is Biblical. It's what the prophets did.

Next up, the gospel - well about 20% of it"

So in the first post in this series I tackled Scripture from the Statement on Social Justice. Article 2: Imago Dei was the subject of part 2 article 3 was on Justice. Now for article 4.

God’s Law
WE AFFIRM that God’s law, as summarized in the ten commandments, more succinctly summarized in the two great commandments, and manifested in Jesus Christ, is the only standard of unchanging righteousness. Violation of that law is what constitutes sin.

WE DENY that any obligation that does not arise from God’s commandments can be legitimately imposed on Christians as a prescription for righteous living. We further deny the legitimacy of any charge of sin or call to repentance that does not arise from a violation of God’s commandments.

SCRIPTURE: DEUTERONOMY 10:4; ROMANS 6:14, 10:5; GALATIANS 2:16, 3:10, 12; COLOSSIANS 2:14-17; HEBREWS 10:1

My first response to this one was a realisation that the 10 commandments really don't have a high place in my theology. Jesus' 2 commandment summary definitely wins for me.

I also note the use of righteousness/righteous rather than justice/just in this article. Learning Welsh made me sensitive to this distinction, in that Welsh doesn't have it - cyfiawnder/cyfiawn covers both and my understanding is that the same is true of the Greek. Having noticed this distinction, which is rooted in the Anglo-saxon/Norman French & Latin sides of the modern English language, I've come to see the ways in which emphasis on one side of this or other of this English distinction can be at the root of different emphases and understandings within the church. For me, justice is more important or maybe more resonant, than righteousness. Righteousness seems to me to be focussed on me being a good, upright person; justice on the other hand is more about everyone not just me.

As to the denial, there's nothing in the words with which I disagree. However, there is an underlying assumption which needs to be tackled. That is, that calls for social justice; talk of intersectionality; calls for repentance of homophobia are not about calling out things which are in violation of God's commandments.

This may be because I put Jesus' summary first over the 10 commandments, but I would say that the way the church has treated (and is treating) LGBTQIA+ people falls short of "loving our neighbour as ourselves". If you want to talk about the 10, I think there's quite a lot of false witness about LGBTQIA+ people out there in the discourse.

Next up: Sin

So in the first post in this series I tackled Scripture from the Statement on Social Justice. Article 2: Imago Dei was the subject of part 2 Now for article 3

Justice
WE AFFIRM that since he is holy, righteous, and just, God requires those who bear his image to live justly in the world. This includes showing appropriate respect to every person and giving to each one what he or she is due. We affirm that societies must establish laws to correct injustices that have been imposed through cultural prejudice.

WE DENY that true justice can be culturally defined or that standards of justice that are merely socially constructed can be imposed with the same authority as those that are derived from Scripture. We further deny that Christians can live justly in the world under any principles other than the biblical standard of righteousness. Relativism, socially-constructed standards of truth or morality, and notions of virtue and vice that are constantly in flux cannot result in authentic justice.

SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 18:19; ISAIAH 61:8; MICAH 6:8; MATTHEW 5:17-19; ROMANS 3:31

This is the first article where I note the lack of reference to God's kingdom within this statement.

They acknowledge that injustices have arisen from cultural prejudices but do not tackle the question of the way in which those cultural prejudices were justified by use of scripture. I agree that true justice is not culturally defined, however I deny that we fallible humans can claim to have a full handle on what this is, and acknowledge that being creatures immersed in culture our understandings of justice are affected by that culture. They reference Micah 6:8, and for me acknowledging our fallibility in this is part of the third part of that quote, walking humbly with our God.

Next up: God's Law

So in the first post in this series I tackled Scripture from the Statement on Social Justice. Now it's time for Article 2: Imago Dei

Imago Dei
WE AFFIRM that God created every person equally in his own image. As divine image-bearers, all people have inestimable value and dignity before God and deserve honor, respect and protection. Everyone has been created by God and for God.

WE DENY that God-given roles, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, sex or physical condition or any other property of a person either negates or contributes to that individual’s worth as an image-bearer of God.

SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 1:26-30; 2:18-22; 9:6; 2 CORINTHIANS 5:17; COLOSSIANS 1:21-22

Actually, other than a male pronoun for God and an American spelling of honour, this one is pretty uncontroversial. I'm intrigued as to why "God-given roles" is included & put first and note the choice of sex rather than gender and the absence of sexuality as specific properties. I also note the absence of Galatians 3:28 from the scriptures listed.

Next up: Justice

So a bunch of SBC men have got together to post a statement on Social Justice which manages to repudiate racism but entrenches complimentarianism and opposition to equal marriage in a series of 14 statements of affirmation and denial.

At one level it is vaguely useful in setting out some of the assumptions behind the disagreements, although I think there are many still unpicked, but at another it really isn't because it's another statement whereby they claim to be the only ones who are right.

I had assorted thoughts when reading it and would like to unpick them in more detail so I think tackling each in turn is the way to do this.

So affirmation/Denial 1:

Scripture
WE AFFIRM that the Bible is God’s Word, breathed out by him. It is inerrant, infallible, and the final authority for determining what is true (what we must believe) and what is right (how we must live). All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God’s final Word, which is Scripture alone.

WE DENY that Christian belief, character, or conduct can be dictated by any other authority, and we deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching. We further deny that competency to teach on any biblical issue comes from any qualification for spiritual people other than clear understanding and simple communication of what is revealed in Scripture.

SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 2:18-25; PSALM 19:7-10; 1 CORINTHIANS 2:14-15; EPHESIANS 5:22-33; 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-4:5; HEBREWS 4:12; 13:4; 1 PETER 1:25; 2 PETER 1:19-21

Breathed out struck me first - probably because inspired is breathing in. The verse behind this (2 Tim 3:16) has God-breathed theopnustos, with no preposition if I recall correctly.

Second - I now react strongly to male pronouns for God - there's probably a separate blog post to be written about the illogic I've seen about male pronouns embracing the female when talking about humans (so I have to put up with generic he to include me) but then having to put up with male pronouns for God because that is "what he uses about himself in the Bible".

Third - we start not with the Trinity but with the Bible. Writing this I'm struck by the lack of the term "revelation". To me, the Bible is the record of God's revelation of Godself to humanity and our complete inability to grasp what that means and to mess up and turn away. Whilst I'm happy to proclaim after a reading from Scripture "This is the word of the Lord" (even if some passages make me wonder), to me the primary meaning of the Word of God is Jesus (John 1). So to me, the final sentence of the affirmation majorly problematic. Ethical and truth claims come back to what Jesus does, which is revealed in scripture, but he is beyond scripture.

Fourth - the denial sets up a false dichotomy between clear understanding based on scripture and post-modern ideologies. Grappling with scripture is complex - it was written in Hebrew and Greek, over a long period of time and has been transmitted and translated through an even longer period. One of my issues with talking about infallibility and/or inerrancy is that even if scripture (rather than God) is infallible or inerrant, it is always read by fallible errant humans and like those in ancient Israel we mess up in our reading of it. Recongising this is not downplaying scriptural authority, but is proper humility before the text. Using techniques and understandings from our culture can be part of how we understand the text better.

Fifthly, my feminism and intersectionality is based in my reading of scripture not contrary to it. Texts such as Galations 3:28 (In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female), stories such as that of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch and the question of circumcision (through Acts and in Galations) form my understand of God's inclusivity and recognition of the way in which we fallible humans have sinned in excluding people from God's plan and exploiting and oppressing them. The party of the circumcision had scripture on their side, but Paul and Peter counter it by pointing to what the Holy Spirit is doing in Gentile believers. Hearing the voices of those we have oppressed is important.

Next up: Imago Dei

Last week the Christian Feminist Network tweeted an article from a complementarian on why he supports some aspects of feminism . It's a good article if you make it past the second paragraph where he lists the sorts of feminisms he doesn't support. This is a mixture of strawmen and assertion which made me hit the roof and nearly stop reading.

( my response to straw women )

I am a Christian. There are a lot of reasons for this, but one of them is to do with the view of human nature. Recently, I was involved in a conversation on twiitter during which my interlocutor said Í don't need a deity to tell me to be nice or explain existence'. I responded 'Not sure I'd say I need one, but I believe God exists. And I'm not good at doing nice in my own strength'. Looking at myself and the world around me, St Paul's statement about not doing the good he wills, but doing the evil he does not will resonates. Human beings mess up, both deliberately and accidentally and hurt one another. There are many different sources of advice on how 'to be nice' but we've spectacularly failed. Even the Church, as assorted child abuse scandals (both sexual and physical punishments) and things like the Magdalene laundries show. The institution becomes more important than the message. But Christianity knows that this is how it. We can't be nice all the time in our own strength. But, you see, God doesn't just tell me to be nice (and punishes me when I fail), but she saw the mess we'd made of her world and sent her Son to sort it out. We didn't like this person challenging our institutions and power (and he was pretty rude to the religous people of his day), but he didn't respond with violence but allowed himself to arrested and executed unjustly. He told his followers to offer the other cheek if they were struck and he lived this, to the point of death. But his story doesn't end there, 3 days later he was back, having defeated death and broken the cycle of sin. We still fail and don't live out his message, but I've pledged myself to following this man who was God, confessing when I get it wrong and being strengthened by his self-giving in the Eucharist.