eChurch Blog

Following on from my post last week on the Swiss suicide clinic Dignitas, in which I drew your attention to a website called TheResistanceCampaign, it would seem that Scotland are seriously examining a bill which would legalise  this death cult assisted suicide:

Clerical Whispers

An assisted suicide advocate has been appointed as the sole adviser to the Holyrood committee responsible for examining a bill that would legalise assisted suicide in Scotland.

The End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill, proposed by Margo MacDonald MSP, would allow the terminally ill and people who are “permanently physically incapacitated” to seek assistance in ending their lives.

Pro-lifers have expressed alarm over Alison Britton’s appointment as adviser to the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill Committee.

Continue Reading

Now check this out from the Baptist Press today, for just one example of the ethical and moral quandary this practice unleashes:

WASHINGTON (BP)–A dangerous precedent was set in Belgium, an ethicist said, when a woman chose assisted suicide and then opted to donate her organs.

Wesley Smith, a bioethics fellow at the Discovery Institute, said agreeing to harvest organs from euthanasia “raises the very realistic prospect that despairing people with terminal illnesses or disabilities (or perhaps, just despair) could latch onto being killed for their organs as a way of bringing meaning to their lives.”

“This very dangerous territory, made all the more treacherous by doctors, spouses and a respected medical journal validating the ideas that dead is better than disabled and that living patients can, essentially, be viewed as a natural resource to be killed and mined,” Smith wrote on the Secondhand Smoke blog at FirstThings.com in May.

The woman in Belgium was not terminally ill, Smith said. She was fully conscious but completely paralyzed, a state he called “locked-in.” She asked for her doctor’s assistance in carrying out her desire to die, and the day before the euthanasia procedure, she decided to allow her organs to be transplanted.

In the presence of her husband, Smith recounted, the woman was killed intravenously and her body was moved to the operating table 10 minutes after cardiac activity had ceased. Her liver and both kidneys were removed, and a year later the three recipients have responded well.

“If this doesn’t set off alarm bells about how the sick and disabled are increasingly being looked upon not only as burdens (to themselves, families, and society), but potential objects for exploitation, what will?” Smith wrote. “A disabled woman was killed, even though people with locked-in states often adjust over time to their disabilities and are happy to be alive.”

The woman’s story appeared in the bioethics journal Transplantation, perhaps authenticating the coupling of the two procedures in the minds of some.

“This case of two separate requests, first euthanasia and second, organ donation after death, demonstrates that organ harvesting after euthanasia may be considered and accepted from ethical, legal and practical viewpoints in countries where euthanasia is legally accepted,” Smith wrote.

“This possibility may increase the number of transplantable organs and may also provide some comfort to the donor and his (her) family, considering that the termination of the patient’s life may somehow help other human beings in need for organ transplantation.

“Taking the organs was the easy decision. Once you’ve pulled medicine into the forbidden zone of active killing, finding self-congratulatory justifications becomes a most desirable quest,” Smith wrote, adding that “once society accepts that the two can be joined, saving others could easily become a frequent motivation for asking to be killed.”

Also in May, articles in the Canadian Medical Association Journal said about one in 25 deaths in Belgium is by euthanasia, and of those, 2 percent take place after a direct request of a doctor; 1.8 percent occur without such a request.

Voluntary euthanasia must be performed by a physician in Belgium, but it is done 12 percent of the time illegally by nurses, the report said. In 2009, Belgium officially had 700 euthanasia deaths, a jump from 500 such cases in 2008, according to a March report by Flanders News. These are officially reported figures, and experts say they represent only 25 percent of the actual totals.

A couple of noteworthy articles this morning on Islam.

Muslims have joined the ranks of the Christians and humanists in publicly advertising their religious wares on London taxis and elsewhere, in a concerted counter extremism campaign called; Inspired by Muhammad.

TimesOnline

London taxis to extol virtues of Islam – Fifty eight per cent of the British public associate Islam with extremism but a new campaign is promoting the religion on London transport

The purple, pink and green sign on the yellow London taxi reads: “The rights of women are sacred.”

This is not some spiritual feminist mantra born of the New Age, but comes out of one of the most traditional religions in the world.

The advertisement marks the launch of a campaign to promote a positive image of Islam, a religion not widely known for its promotion of the rights of women.

The negative view of a faith followed by nearly 1.6 billion people, or one fifth of the world’s population, is the main reason for the launch of the Inspired by Muhammad campaign.

Besides London taxis, the advertisements are to appear on Underground trains and bus stops.

After a new poll showed that 58 per cent of people associate Islam with extremism and 50 per cent with terrorism, the campaign is intended to promote a positive Islamic message about the environment and social justice as well as women.

The campaign was launched by the Exploring Islam Foundation, a new and privately funded group run by young British Muslim professionals.

Continue Reading

Meanwhile, our potential future King and defender of the faith (singular), has been busy extolling the virtues of Islam, and advising us that Islam is the road to global peace and environmental equilibratory Nirvana.

MailOnline

Prince Charles yesterday urged the world to follow Islamic ‘spiritual principles’ in order to protect the environment.

In an hour-long speech, the heir to the throne argued that man’s destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions – but particularly those of Islam.

He said the current ‘division’ between man and nature had been caused not just by industrialisation, but also by our attitude to the environment – which goes against the grain of ‘sacred traditions’.

Continue Reading

So all in all, Islam appears to be having a good day, and I wish for all adherents to enjoy the moment, as in this fickle world, it never lasts.

And God save us from Prince Charles.

Further Links:

Telegraph – Prince of Wales calls for population control in developing world The Prince of Wales has called for greater population control in the developing world and hailed the success of “family planning services” in some countries.

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf – Prince Charles the environmentalist: “Follow the Islamic way to save the world”

Telegraph – Prince Charles blames world’s ills on ‘soulless consumerism’ and Galileo

Anglican Mainstreams – “Prince Saves World” Joy! (Spoof)

Cristina Odone Telegraph – Royal Mumbo Jumbo alert: The Prince of Wales on population control

P Z Myers – The schmuck who would be king

The FreeThinker – Charles of Arabia’s insane love affair with Islam goes back many years

Excellent cross-post by Clayboy:

Is there still a place for the language of divine judgement?

One of the things I like about Heresy Corner’s scepticism is that the Heresiarch is sceptical about scepticism as well, as in this post on the Cumbrian shootings, which exemplifies many of that blog’s virtues.

Interestingly, in dealing with a delicate topic, the writer found it convenient to begin by taking aim (if you will excuse the metaphor) at the (former) Bishop of Carlisle and his statements about God’s judgement on a sinfully pro-gay Britain.

Now I must confess that savaging the Rt Rev’d Graham Dow’s views on divine judgement, sex and demonology is both easy and fun to do. It is, indeed, a sport many of us have engaged in in the past: if not bad, he has at least sometimes seemed mad and dangerous to know. However, I can’t help but feel that we’ve reached a point where any attempt to frame any aspect of our social, political or individual lives in terms of judgement would attract pretty much the same level of mockery.

Some of that was involved in the disdainful and jokey incomprehension levelled at Tony Blair’s statement that he was ultimately answerable to God for his prime ministerial decisions. One could attribute some to a disdain for the Vicar of Albion’s piety, and a great deal more to the legitimate criticism that whatever his answerability to God, he was certainly also accountable to Parliament and the electorate, and God was not a “get out of gaol free” card that should substitute for a reasoned defence of his decisions and actions. Yet, when all that is acknowledged, it seemed at the time that any sense of God, accountability and judgement was food as much for comedy as for anger.

All that leads to pose the question: “is there any way in which the idea of God’s judgement may be articulated today by those who are not fundamentalist about the Scriptures, who are appreciative of the incredible ordered-ness of the universe, and sceptical about the pettiness of a God who finds parking spaces for rich Westerners while seemingly being unable to prevent impoverished refugee children from treading on land mines?”

I am going to leave aside what one may call the question of individual morality and subsequent judgement which are a staple of the ways in which societies and individuals express their disapprobation. Though now expressed impersonally and scientifically, links between smoking and lung cancer, or obesity and heart disease are remarkably close to earlier ideas that were expressed in terms of immorality and punishment. The rhetoric often has the same general goal in mind: a change in behaviour. Losing the language of divine judgment does not make a society less censorious.

However, it is normally the larger scale of event where the real problems come. Earthquakes and tsunami pose a very particular kind of problem for the language of judgement, yet they have also been commonly seen as the instruments of some or other god’s anger, including the God whose designation we commonly capitalise.

My problems with those who wish to ascribe natural disasters to specific divine action in response to some aspect of human (mis)behaviour come in two ways. The first is that these phenomena are part of how the world works. It does not require a specific intervention for two tectonic plates to rub against each other. That’s what they do, and if they didn’t who knows what sort of world this would be. We know that these events are natural, and that whatever the behaviour of humans they would still happen, and indeed need – physically, geologically – to happen. Unless they impact a populated area, or a populated area where poverty has led to poor construction, overcrowding, bad roads and non-existent emergency services, healthcare and sanitation, these natural phenomena need not even be a disaster.

My second problem is with those who seem to want to play the role of prophet and tell us why such a thing is God’s judgement. They paint us a picture of a God who is very keen to judge voodoo and sex, especially gay sex, while remaining gloriously unconcerned about war and genocide. A God who never sent an earthquake against Hitler for massacring six million Jews, but got seriously pissed with Haitians for sticking pins in dolls (allegedly) is not a God I would particularly care to learn morality from.

And yet I think there is something more to be said. So many natural events could be seen to be acting as reminders both of some of the fragility of our human achievements, and a summons to remember our common humanity with those who suffer. In the latter case, Haiti or the Indian Ocean tsunami were powerful examples of how responses of generosity and compassion were called out of many people. In the former case the recent Icelandic volcano managed to ground European air traffic, and inconvenience if not frustrate our way of life in a way which could (for those with the imagination) have been very much more severe.

There is a scope, a power and an immensity to many of our planet’s geological outbursts which afford us opportunities to be more honest about the limitations and possibilities of what it means to be human, but also to live more generously as a brother or sister of all humanity. If we believe that the universe is God’s creation through wonderful, complex and awesome natural processes, then is the language of judgement not in many ways still appropriate for the ways in which the forceful processes which shaped and still shape this living planet remind us of our fragility and summon us to mutual care and co-operation?

I’ve been trying to write a nifty little intro to this cross-post by Bishop Nick Baines, but can’t, as it’s such a classic, so here it is, enjoy:

Christmas is coming

How predictable! ChurchAds.net comes up with a striking image for the Christmas poster campaign and the responses could have been written before they were given.

As I discovered last December, speak about the reality of the original Christmas events and you invite the piling of ordure on your head. After all, they say, who cares if the Nativity narratives of the Gospels get confused with Cinderella and the pantomime stories? There is something shocking about making the humanity of Jesus too real – sometimes a problem in the Church itself where a spiritualised version of the Messiah is easier to contemplate than one who had to eat, went to the loo, endured the real temptations of young men and got his hands and feet dirty in real muck.

So, this image compels the viewer to consider the reality of the Incarnation in a mode familiar to anyone connected in any way with anyone pregnant. When my daughter-in-law had her scans she texted them over to family and friends. That’s how it’s done and the good news is shared around these days. When we had scans twenty or thirty years ago they were indecipherable to amateurs like me: I couldn’t tell the head from the rear end.

So, what were the predictable responses? Look at the Times article which reported them:

John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, said: “This advertisement sends a powerful message to everyone in Britain where 570 babies are killed every day in the womb, 365 days a year, under the Abortion Act. Whenever we kill an unborn child in an abortion, we are killing Jesus.”

Er… this isn’t an advert for SPUC or the anti-abortion lobby (although they might wish they had thought of it first). And the last sentence is simplistically contentious (although the need for a serious moral debate about mass abortion in the UK is long overdue).

Then we get the ubiquitous Terry Anderson of the miniscule National Secular Society (why is he asked about everything – because he can be guaranteed to miss the point, get irrationally cross and draw the wrong conclusions… which is great for the media):

Terry Sanderson, of the National Secular Society, criticised the image. “At first glance it looks like a poster for a horror film — perhaps The Omen VI: He’s Coming to Get You,” he said.“But it is also the kind of image widely used by anti-abortion campaigners and I hope that the Church of England isn’t trying to use its Christmas poster campaign to make a political point. If that’s the intention, we may have questions to ask at the Charity Commission… If, on the other hand, it’s supposed to make a Christian Christmas more appealing to our secular nation, I think it is likely to have the opposite effect.”

Terry! Calm down! This isn’t a Church of England poster campaign. And it isn’t remotely political. So, don’t waste the postage on your letter to the Charity Commission. (But your reaction does reveal again your lazy assumptions and prejudices – clearly not the sole preserve of religious people…) And it is not about abortion – that’s just another lazy connection based on prejudice. As for Terry’s final (subjective) judgement, well, he would, wouldn’t he?

Full marks to Ruth Gledhill for kicking off a good story, but fewer marks for resorting to the usual suspects  for critical comment. It will be interesting to see which Christians stick the boot into the campaign – and on which grounds. But, as in the past, if some people hate it, it’s a sure sign the campaign got it right.

This poster is designed to arrest the attention of the usually disinterested. It is aimed at awakening the imagination, teasing the curiosity and provoking fresh consideration of the heart of Christianity – precisely what Jesus did with parables, images and stories. No, it doesn’t cover all the bases and deal comprehensively with every theological nuance; but it gives a huge kick start to thinking about what Christmas is all about.

And that is needed as much in the Church as outside.

Ah, another small[ish] hurdle to jump, in order to forge ahead toward the tantalising goal of Holy Alliance with full communion, between the largest Church bodies on Earth, namely, the Orthodox and Catholic Church.

Imagine that for the first time in quite a few years.

But it’s not all rosy in the ecumenical garden just yet:

RiaNovosti

The heads of the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches will meet only after there is agreement on the inter-confessional situation in western Ukraine, a senior Russian Orthodox cleric said on Wednesday.

“It is too early to speak about such a meeting. There are certain problems, stemming from the recent past. First of all, the inter-religious situation in western Ukraine,” Metropolitan Hilarion said at a meeting with Russian Foreign Ministry officials.

Ties between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Vatican have long been strained over accusations the Catholic Church has sought to spread its influence and convert believers in traditionally Orthodox former Soviet states. Tensions between Catholic and Russian Orthodox believers in western Ukraine are also quite acute.

Hopes for a meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia have recently grown, but the Russian Orthodox Church’s head of external church relations said although a meeting may be possible in the future, it was still difficult to discuss details.

“We are interested in a result. When the parties are ready to come to a conclusion that would mean a significant breakthrough in our relations, then as soon as such an understanding is reached, such a meeting will be held,” Hilarion said.

As a result of the Great Schism of 1054, Christianity split into the eastern and western branches. They have a number of theological and political differences and the heads of the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Church have never met.

I’ll keep reporting on the ongoing Orthodox / Catholic relations and dialogue, but please bear in mind, nothing happens quickly in this particular world.

Whilst on the subject of the Russian Orthodox Church, they have managed to get under the skin of certain folks because……

…….Russia will celebrate a new holiday next month under a decision backed by the Kremlin and Russian Orthodox Church that is stirring up decidedly unholy feelings among non-Orthodox Russians.

Christianization of Rus Day on July 28 won’t be counted as a day off work, but it will be recognized on calendars as the country’s ninth so-called “memorial holiday,” which also includes Cosmonauts Day on April 12 and Constitution Day on Dec. 12.

The new holiday commemorates the baptism in 988 of Vladimir the Great, who accepted Christianity together with his family and the people of his state, Kievan Rus, the predecessor to the Russian Empire and whose capital was Kiev.

Now Protestant Christians and Muslims want their own holidays, too.

Read All

This is a cross-post by Calvin L Smith (Principal of King’s Evangelical Divinity School):

Several months ago I attended a lecture during which a Christian tutor of theology strongly affirmed liberation theology. I don’t know which surprised me more: that she was an Evangelical based at a thoroughly Evangelical college and seminary, that she received a standing ovation from her predominantly Evangelical peers, or that afterwards she was eulogised publicly in thoroughly Evangelical language by another Evangelical who pronounced her a prophet.

Within the Evangelical periphery there is increasing sympathy towards for liberation theology, particularly among some Pentecostals within the academy (conversely, it should be noted, other Pentecostals/Charismatics are diametrically opposed to liberation theology). Why might this be? The noted Pentecostal Studies pioneer Walter Hollenweger, formerly Professor of Missiology at the University of Birmingham, helpfully differentiates between Pentecostal pneumapraxis (experience of the Spirit) and pneumatology (theology of the Spirit), arguing that many Pentecostals’ experience of the outworking of the Spirit is strong, but their theological reflection of that outworking is somewhat less developed. This prioritising of praxis above theology has permitted some Pentecostals to become involved in radical ecumenical dialogue (including interfaith dialogue), to develop a radical political theology and, getting back to where we started, embrace liberation theology enthusiastically. This is because, for the Pentecostal academics in question, a shared pneumapraxis with one’s dialogical partners is far more important than theological reflection and a carefully-boundaried set of propositional truths (which tends to define the broader Evangelical movement). Or put another way, a body of doctrine and tests of orthodoxy become subservient to what is perceived as a shared experience of the Spirit, which is why, say, some Pentecostals and Charismatic Catholics get on so well despite being poles apart theologically. In such cases, a shared pneumapraxis becomes an important (indeed final) authority on issues of faith and practice, while theology takes a back seat. Thus from time to time one encounters Pentecostal academics dabbling in theology of questionable orthodoxy which might raise eyebrows among peers.

Lest anyone think I’m having a go at Pentecostals here, let me reiterate again that very many Pentecostal scholars do not embrace liberation theology, while for many pneumapraxis is firmly relegated to a subsidiary role (after all, the Pentecostal academy is far from theologically or politically homogenous). Rather, my reasons for raising Pentecostalism just now within the context of liberation theology and orthodoxy are threefold: a) the lecturer referred to above is strongly Pentecostal, b) there now exist expressions of Pentecostal liberation theology in Latin America and elsewhere, and c) I am increasingly of the view that Evangelicalism (within which Pentecostalism is broadly located) and fully-fledged liberation theology are theologically incompatible – oil and water – and I suggest embracing wholly and uncritically liberation theology marks an important trajectory away from Evangelical orthodoxy. The purpose of this brief post is to explain why I believe liberation theology and Evangelicalism are incompatible, how one cannot embrace both simultaneously and coequally without substantially redefining one or other.

Before proceeding, however, I should make clear I’m not speaking here about a social outworking of the Gospel or the Christian life and experience. In this post I’m referring to liberation theology (and its various expressions) in its truest and purest form, which I suggest is heterodox from an Evangelical perspective.

The first issue for Evangelicals to consider is liberation theology’s use of Scripture, which is considerably at odds with a traditional Evangelical approach to the Bible and its interpretation. It is true liberation theology seeks to draw on the Bible to create a theological argument and praxis (compared with some traditions drawing on, for example, reason, conscience, personal piety, experience, and so on). Yet its approach to interpretation is purely synchronic, tending to focus on only several key texts, notably the Exodus narrative and Jubilees. Otherwise, liberation theology is selective and does not embrace the whole of the biblical witness. There is certainly no place for diachronic interpretation, that is, a biblical theology metanarrative focusing upon the Bible’s central core – Heilsgeschichte (salvation, or redemption, history) – which is central to orthodox Christianity’s thought and practice. Instead a particular understanding of the Exodus narrative focusing narrowly upon political liberation becomes of primary importance. What liberation theology does is to take this and several other Scriptures, which are then decontextualised and recontextualised according to the needs of the marginalised reading community in order to emphasise a particular kind of political liberation. The result of this type of hermeneutic is that one can, of course, make the Bible say whatever you want it to say, and in short this represents the very essence of a postmodern, reader-response orientated hermeneutic. Thus, liberation theology’s treatment of Scripture is selective, subjective and presumptive, relying on proof-texts, decontextualisation, eschewing authorial intent and dismissing passages which challenge the core of its ideology. The Bible is regarded as nothing more than a resource to be selectively mined for prooftexts and only insofar as this achieves the stated aim. Sounds awfully like the kind of hermeneutic liberation theology accuses fundamentalists of practicing, doesn’t it?

Second, liberation theology is thoroughly materialist in outlook and purpose, concerned with the temporal here and now. It dismisses spiritual liberation from sin (which is, after all, what the whole Passover narrative is archetypal of, see 1 Cor. 5:6-7) in favour of economic and social liberation. Significantly, liberation theology also draws upon Marxist analyses of society (perhaps less upon Marxist solutions, though arguably the lines are becoming increasingly blurred for a later generation of liberation theologians). Of course, Marxism holds a thoroughly materialist worldview, notably expressed through its central ideology of dialectical materialism. Marx did not bemoan religion as the opiate of the masses for nothing, and the spiritual realm is seen as thoroughly antithetical to the material world and its wholly economic outworking. Consequently, Marxist analysts of Latin America, where liberation theology was born in the late 1960s, were initially deeply suspicious of the movement because as a religious movement it was seen as thoroughly incompatible with materialist atheism. This changed, however, in the 1980s when liberation theology began to be perceived as materialist in its focus and outworking, even eulogising liberation theology as a worthy strategic ally in structurally revolutionising societies along materialist lines.

Thus, liberation theology’s focus on the materialist here and now over against an otherworldly, spiritual and/or eschatological Kingdom of God is hugely problematic for a traditional Evangelical interpretation of Scripture. Christianity’s focus on the spiritual realm is precisely why Marxism is so deeply antithetical towards a Christianity which emphasises the spiritual over the material and embraces a hermeneutic that emphasises crucientrism (centrality of the Cross) and a Heilsgeschichte metanarrative over the material realm. However, liberation theology’s aims and worldview relegate the spiritual core of orthodox Christianity to a considerably subservient role.

Now it is true some Evangelicals engaging strongly with a social agenda genuinely seek to emphasise both the spiritual and material equally, holding both in tension (though Jesus’ observation that a person cannot serve God and mammon suggests at the very least one must take precedence over the other). But the fact is a liberation theology worldview expressly rejects holding both in tension, with the materialist/liberationist element promoted and indeed representing the movement’s whole raison d’etre. This is precisely what liberation theology is all about, the primacy of material liberation, reinterpreting the Gospel for precisely this goal. The Heilsgeschichte narrative takes a wholly subservient role, while the eschatological realisation of God’s work at Calvary is ditched in favour of a Kingdom of God here and now. Now it is true that as a Church we must take care not to focus solely on an eschatological Kingdom of God, yet conversely concentrating only upon a realised Kingdom is just as theologically problematic. Thus Evangelicals speak of an inaugurated Kingdom of God. But liberation theology rejects such a position, unconcerned with the salvific and eschatological outworking of the Gospel so emphasised by Evangelicals, demonstrating again why the movement is, from an Evangelical perspective, heterodox.

The twin foci of a decontextualised and purpose-driven hermeneutic and materialism which downplays the Heilsgeschichte narrative all contribute to the third – and perhaps gravest (from an Evangelical perspective) – problem with liberation theology: a weak, indeed in some cases nonexistent, Christology. The focus on the Exodus narrative as the zenith of the Bible story directly contributes to the relegation of Christ’s passion and resurrection as central features of the Bible’s central salvific metanarrative running throughout the entire body of Scripture. Indeed, liberation theology expressly is quite up front about the climax of biblical revelation, which is certainly not the Cross. Spend some time researching the various expressions of liberation theology and it quickly becomes evident just how weak their Christology is. Any theology relegating Christology should immediately sound alarm bells for Evangelicals, and it is troubling that some Evangelicals dabbling in such theologies seem unaware of the challenges they represent to orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, liberation theology’s single-minded focus on the marginalised community is such that by its very nature liberation theology is anthropocentric (Man-centred) rather than Christocentric (Christ-centred). This anthropocentric obsession flies in the face of Jesus’ instruction that we turn the other cheek. Indeed, in the Sermon on the Mount one sees the radical outworking of the marginalised receiving the Kingdom of God. By not standing up for their rights and obeying God by turning the other cheek, marginalised Christians stand to inherit the far greater portion of the Kingdom than those bent on standing up and fighting for their rights. Such blessings are God’s to give, not ours to take. This is why, despite being hugely angered by a current British societal anti-Christian and secular agenda, British Christians ought to remain calm and not rant ad infinitum, because serving Christ by its very nature means opposition, limited freedom, repression, even persecution. Whether it was the early Christians thrown to the lions, Christians in the Soviet Union, or living in today’s aggressive secular agenda, Christians are destined to suffer for the Lord’s sake, and in doing so turn the other cheek. It is incredibly difficult to square this expectation with a church fighting for liberation. Rather, ours is a message of hope leading to reconciliation with and liberation in God through Jesus Christ.

Again, I reiterate my focus in this essay is upon the incompatibility of liberation theology within orthodox Christianity, rather than a more general Evangelical engagement with the social realm. My point is once liberation takes precedence over Evangelicalism’s central foci of Christ and the Cross, one surely ceases to become truly Evangelical. Liberation theology’s championing of materialist liberation over crucicentrism surely demonstrates that is the case. Neither will reinterpreting the Cross to fit in with the liberationist agenda do. The person and work of Christ as Son of God, Redeemer and Saviour cannot be redefined to Christ as Revolutionary and Liberator without ditching Evangelical orthodoxy, and attempts to claim this is possible is nothing short of hermeneutical and theological gymnastics.

I do not believe the Church’s task is to correct the world’s structural justices, and certainly not at the expense of our primary task, which is the proclamation of the Gospel. After all, as long as human nature pervades, there will always be exploitation and injustice. Only the most utopian postmillennial theonomist would argue it is possible to fully transform the world in preparation for Christ’s return (which inevitable raises the question, if it is indeed possible why even proclaim His return anyway?). Taking a similar line that somehow the Church can transform society, there are other politically-driven Christians who, on the basis of Paul’s discussion in 2 Corinthians 5, similarly argue that the Church’s task is to bring about reconciliation between peoples and nations. Actually, the exegetical evidence indicates the apostle was referring to reconciliation between God and Man, rather than the Church acting as the instrument or catalyst for the transformation of the world. Indeed, everything we read in the Bible indicates the transformation of the world and sinful society can only be brought about eschatologically through the return of the Conquering King. In short, the Bible is not a manual for the transformation of society; that is Christ’s task. Rather, the New Testament is much more concerned with our relationships within a congregational setting. Even on issues such as helping the poor, I am not convinced the Bible represents a manual for the eradication of world poverty (after all, Jesus stated we will always have the poor). Consider how, while the Bible has a great deal to say about helping the poor, it nearly always seems to do so within a congregational setting, whether helping fellow Israelites within the congregation of Israel in the Old Testament, or the Christian poor within the New Testament Church. Moreover, on the issue of slavery, that most potent symbol of the need for liberation, Paul does not use his writings as a manual for the wholesale abolition of the slave trade across society. Rather, he is concerned with how the issue is viewed and dealt with within a congregational setting. Hence, he instructs Christian slaves on their relationship with their masters for the sake of the Gospel, while when it comes to Christian slave owners he instructs Philemon to take back his runaway slave Onesimus, now a Christian believer and thus an equal. I believe, then, the Bible’s ethical instruction concerns transformation, liberation and harmonious relations within a congregational rather than a cosmic setting. In short, the Bible is concerned with relationships between Christians, whereby salvific transformation of humanity through Christ’s redemptive work at Calvary paves the way for and makes harmonious relationships possible in and through Christ. That is where the locus of Christian liberation lies, not the world in general. How can the Bible and Christian theology transform an unbelieving world enslaved to human sinful nature? Only Christ can do that when He returns. Thus, the whole premise of liberation theology is, I suggest, from an Evangelical perspective, thorough flawed. It is quite one thing to argue that Christians can and should engage in challenging injustice, but quite another to suggest the Church is the primary agent by which all injustice will cease. Rather, the Sermon on the Mount presents another picture – that of the Church as salt and light – an entity which serves as a prophetic reminder of the world’s failures and injustice. That is why it is so essential for us to secure harmonious relationships within a congregational setting (i.e get our own house in order), otherwise the world simply sneers at our hypocrisy.

Finally, like the biblical criticism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, liberation theology represents a fad, a theological fashion, which is sweeping the academy (including the Christian academy), and as such will eventually disappear to be replaced by whatever other currents and trends become the favour of the month and project the pervading Zeitgeist of the day. But Evangelicals who eschew postmodernism’s relativism should not be captive to the ideological and cultural whims of the day and the Christian academy ought to know better.

The lecture I attended highlighted just how much liberation theology has the potential to sow seeds of conflict. Liberation theology is driven by confrontation and class conflict, pitting and setting about the liberation of a marginalised group against what is perceived as a structural enemy which must be overcome and defeated. Central to liberation theology, then, is a focus on conflict along lines of class, race, gender, and so on. When I arrived for the lecture detailed at the beginning of this post (the topic of which I was unaware of beforehand), I went into the lecture theatre with a strong sense of Christian unity towards my fellow Evangelicals, who came from various countries, races and class backgrounds. Fellowship beforehand had been harmonious and stimulating. Yet curiously I left that lecture hall with a sense of being a middle-class, middle-aged, Western white male who had somehow contributed to half of the suffering in the world and for enslaving the other half. Indeed, the language of conflict I heard was a far cry from New Testament exhortations for Christian unity and care for the vulnerable, and looking around, it was clear others felt the same way as I. Suddenly, issues of race, gender and class seemed so much more important to some of my peers, too. Thus, aside from its heterodoxy, the language of liberation theology seemed to have had a bearing on the very sense of Christian unity that existed just an hour earlier.

Evangelicalims and liberation theology: oil and water.

Guest post by Marc Cawood.

Are you saved? Because if you aren’t God will judge you one day and, finding any trace of sin, condemn you to hell. So we are told by fundamentalists who sincerely desire that all people “get saved” and escape the coming wrath. But is this what the New Testament means by “salvation”?

The word has, like most important words, a spectrum of meaning including rescue, heal, make whole, preserve and protect all stemming from the root “safe”.

One of the most basic meanings is rescue in a worldly sense. The disciples say to Jesus “save us Lord” as their boat is sinking in a storm. Passers-by taunt Jesus while he is being crucified to “save” himself i.e. come down from the deadly cross.

But “save” can also mean healing or making whole as in “lay thy hands on her, that she may be saved” (Mark 5:23) or the “saving” of the demoniac (Luke 8:36). When Peter and Paul meet a cripple Paul sees that the man “had faith to be saved” (Acts 14:9) and they heal him. Again, Jesus on the cross is challenged to save himself as he saved others. All these occurrences are rightly translated “healed”.

Of course the Bible is not as simple as that. So, when Zecharius speaks of salvation, we can get confused:

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us … that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our ancestor Abraham, to grant us that we, being rescued from the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear (Luke 1:68-74)

Zecharius is talking about rescue from Israel’s worldly enemies, in particular Rome. He is certainly not talking about the avoidance of some future judgement nor specifically about the forgiveness of sins. The mercy is not forgiveness of sin per se but the mercy by which God defends Israel by defeating her foes as a sign that forgiveness has come. Forgiveness for Israel was the key to undoing the curse whereby God had abandoned her. If the enemy was defeated this meant God had returned and forgiven his people their sins.

Of course God did not defeat Rome and vindicate Israel as she stood but did something seemingly contradictory: he allowed the Temple to be destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD! Josephus interpreted this as God abandoning Israel and getting behind the Romans. From this cataclysmic event and the final defeat in 135 AD sprung the Judaism we know today and the sad, sad sense that God had forsaken his people. But this was only one branch of Judaism, the other part, a small shoot (Isaiah 11) became what we call Christianity.

The Christians saw the destruction of Jerusalem not as the defeat of Israel but the revelation of the true Israel: the Messiah-believing Jews who escaped the destruction. These Jews were the ones who heard Jesus’ warnings, believed them and got out of Judea when the signs of the end came. For this reason Jesus says:

When you see [the sign] let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Matthew 24:15-16; Luke 21:20-21)

Jesus is not talking metaphorically when he says plainly: run away when the Romans come! Pregnant women can’t run fast enough to escape (v19)! In winter the wilderness and hills are a cold place for refugees (v20a) and flight on a Sabbath (v20b) was contrary to traditional laws. Jesus does indeed speak metaphorically during this speech and we need to tread carefully. The moon and stars will not literally fall to earth: this is a symbol of powers being shaken and thrown down. We must also not take “the end” as the literal end of the world but as the “end of the world” for Israel. It is the end of the present age as her holy Temple falls to the ground with earth-shattering significance. Truly and literally “not one stone is left upon another” and the result is real “weeping and gnashing of teeth”. All this because Israel did not recognise the visitation of their Adonai, their Lord, their God.

And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

The salvation Jesus offered Israel was not simply escape from all this and it certainly wasn’t a “ticket to heaven” as many Platonists would have wished. It was a different way, a difficult way of peace, of loving their enemy (Rome), turning the other cheek (pacifism) and going the second mile with soldiers who commandeered one on the road. Jesus really was offering salvation from literal, worldly destruction by teaching a way of peace.

But Israel rejected his way and stuck to their staunch nationalism. It was this commitment to violent rebellion which was their downfall. It was this broad (i.e. popular) path which led to destruction over against the narrow, difficult way of peace. It was his followers which were vindicated by being physically rescued from the destruction and many a zealous Jew who did not escape but experienced the destruction might well have remembered Jesus’ warning and given his claims deeper consideration. Perhaps even have decided, among the ruins, that Jesus of Nazareth really was the Messiah.

This different way, the New Way, is the Kingdom of God. It is a new reality, near but not yet grasped, accepted, entered by all. Many weird people, Galilean fishermen, unclean Samaritans, slutty prostitutes and traitor tax collectors got it, turned and followed Jesus. They got it, they entered the Kingdom then and there.

The Herodians may have gotten it but they didn’t want it because it meant loss of their idols: money and power.

The Chief Priests in charge of the Temple didn’t want it either because it subverted their Temple, power and money again.

The Zealots were wedded to military might, power and violence as the only way, the way their hero David had defeated his enemies and made Israel a great nation.

The Pharisees were wedded to tradition and had forgotten the purpose of God to bless the world through Abraham. These guys had forgotten the heart of the law: Justice for the oppressed, mercy for one’s debtor and enemy and loving obedience, faithfulness to God (Mt 23:23). They had “let go of God’s commandments and clung to traditions”, their heart being “far from God” (Mk 7:6-9). They were concerned with Jewish boundary markers, the “works of law” which separated them from the sinner Gentiles and lesser Jews.

Israel, the bride, was not ready when the bridegroom came. What a tragedy of epic proportions!

So, if God did not defeat Rome, did the Christians retreat into a spiritualised version of what was once an earthly hope? Many New Testament scholars have argues this way. Were the Jewish Rabbis wrong to expect worldly rescue? Many Christians still say so. I don’t think so but a major shift did occur. The hope remained earthly but it was rooted and sourced in heaven, God’s space. It was also redefined in terms of mode. The small shoot which became the Church retained the vision of God’s Kingdom being established, it just looked differently.

The Kingdom was being established here and now as we see in Acts but it just wasn’t military victory. Jesus did not answer “No” in Acts 1 to the question: “Lord, will you now restore the Kingdom”. His cryptic answer was: wait and see.

They saw indeed! The Spirit came upon them and the Kingdom was here: people living under God’s Reign, loving one another in every way, sharing all goods, healing and cleansing those who needed it. They were experiencing the power of God and telling everyone who would listen of the great redemption and forgiveness offered by God to all people. Paul developed this universal aspect by serious reflection on the Abrahamic promise which he says was never revoked. As God promised Abraham a worldwide family bringing blessing to the nations Paul says this is happening in Jesus:

through him [Messiah] God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. (Col 1:20)

he [God] has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Eph 1:9-10)

God’s Kingdom did come, is coming and will come because it is a reality into which people step when they pledge allegiance to Jesus. This believing obedience, this loving loyalty, this faithfulness to the Messiah had a name: pistis – FAITH.

But PISTIS is not only belief. The early Church did not grow from a few hundred to a few hundred thousand in a 50 years by having nice beliefs which caught on. They got there by obeying Jesus. This faithfulness unleashed God’s power as it did in Jesus. The early Christians saw themselves as Christ’s own body (Rom 12; 1 Cor 12; Eph 1;3;4;5; Col 1), sent to the world as Jesus was sent to Israel (John 20:21). The early Christians saw their hope in emulating Christ by the power of the same Spirit which rested on Jesus. Their hope was not in what gone before (cross and resurrection) but these things were the foundation of their future hope if they partook in what Jesus had done. Jesus died and they would die. Jesus rejected sin and they died to sin in Baptism. They obeyed Jesus, and hence God, in the hope, not certainty of resurrection. Even Paul strove on towards the hope he knew he had not yet achieved as he eloquently puts it:

I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. (Phil 3:10-14)

So ultimate salvation is future where believers hope to be judged faithful. Worldly salvation for many Jews lay in the past as they escaped Roman swords and falling masonry. But spiritual salvation had come in a sense: they knew the way which led to Life!

Its been a while since I last posted on the issue of faith in Prison (Buddhist growth & Georgia scheme), however, as the British Humanist Association (BHA) have  just released a statement, in response to a report by the HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, on Muslim inmates, I thought I’d keep you up to date.

The full report can be seen here in PDF

I’m shamed to admit that I have yet to find time to read the report and so can only leave you with a few links, however, please do leave your comments, thoughts and input should you happen across anything noteworthy.

British Humanist Association – Prisons should focus on secular programmes, not on religious interventions

Big News Netwrok – A peculiar trend has been observed among UK prison inmates who are increasingly embracing Islam to entitle themselves to the protection of the fearsome Muslim gangs, apart from other benefits available only to Muslim prisoners as per prison regulations.

Independent – Prisons could fuel extremism among Muslim inmates unless staff worked harder to integrate them, a report warns today.

BBC – Muslim prison inmates could be driven to extremism by a “blanket, security-led” approach that treats them all as potential terrorists, warns a report.

Express – MUSLIM prisoners are cashing in on their religion to claim hundreds of thousands of pounds in additional benefits, a report revealed yesterday.

British Religion in Numbers (BRIN) – Muslims in Prison

This is a cross-post by Bishop Nick Baines which contrasts nicely with my rather dour blog post yesterday, detailing the Ofsted report which stated that schools are failing to teach pupils about Christian beliefs in religious education lessons.

Sharing our ignorance – Bishop Nick Baines

It would be hard not to draw attention to the unsurprising but embarrassing outcome of the YouGov poll commissioned by the Exploring Islam Foundation. Apparently, 58% of respondents linked Islam with extremism while 69% believed it encouraged the repression of women. 40% disagreed that Muslims had a positive impact on British society.

Not really suprising, though. Islam is represented negatively in the media and with an ignorance that would be deemed embarrasing in any other discipline. See Bishop Alan Wilson’s blog today for just one example – and it doesn’t even come from the nightmare Daily Mail. Alan remind sus of the ninth Commandment:

You will not bear false witness against (lie about/misrepresent) your neighbour…

However, this is simply a symptom of a wider religious illiteracy in our society… and perpetuated in the media (with some exceptions). Perhaps it isn’t coincidental that yesterday saw a further report of the ineffectiveness of some Religious Education teaching in British schools. According to this research, the problem lies with teachers who don’t understand Christianity in particular and can (for example) tell the Nativity story, but can’t say what it means.

The response in some quarters was predictable. For them the problem lies with the requirement to teach anything religious in the first place. But, that misses the point completely. This is not about believing or defending the content of any particular faith (which would demand commitment of some sort), but, at the very least, understanding it.

This harks back to a long discussion last year about the (then) Poet Laureate Andrew Motion’s argument that people need to understand the Bible if they are to stand any chance of understanding art, literature or music. He was not saying that people have to believe it or live by it, but simply to be familiar with it and understand something of it.

The same goes for religion in general. Whether the secularists or so-called New Atheists (they are hardly new…) like it or not, religion is a phenomenon without which politics, economics and culture cannot be understood.

If, as they attest, religion is purely dangerous fantasy, then it needs to be understood if only to be countered.

If, as they attest, religion is a loaded worldview whose followers sit somewhere up the loony scale (away from their assumed ‘neutral’ space), then it is all the more vital that it be explored in order to be rubbished intelligently.

It is shocking to encounter some of the popular ignorance in the media and government. All religious groups are lumped into a single misleading category called ‘faith’ and seen as a minority interest for inadequates. Ignorance of finance, business economics, etc on such a scale would not be tolerated and would be a source of some shame. But, when it comes to religion in general – and Christianity in particular – the usual informed, intelligent and curious mind turns to incomprehending blancmange.

I don’t believe for one moment that Hindus have got it right, but I do need to understand Hinduism if I am to understand the politics, culture and societal shapes of countries where Hinduism shapes not only what a large number of people believe, but also how they live, vote, fight, etc.

Islam needs to be taught with integrity (as seen through the eyes of a good Muslim). Christianity needs to be taught with integrity (as seen through the eyes of a good Christian). And the truth claims of these faiths need to be taught – not as commanding inevitable allegiance, of course, but in order that people know (a) what they are dealing with and (b) how such believers are to be understood.

This is an appeal for intelligent and informed understanding – prior to any thought of commitment. The appeal to commitment is the job of the church – those Christians who can do no other than commend and defend their faith. The church has to be evangelistic; schools should be informative. And the media should pay attention to reporting religion accurately and intelligently – unlike the examples given by Alan Wilson and a myriad of others across recent years.

During an interview last Saturday one of the candidates quoted someone as saying

People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.

Unfortunately, we should care (deeply) how much we all know – shoddy understanding, reporting or commentary simply means we don’t care a toss about those with whom we are trying to communicate.

Which is also why I keep urging my clergy and churches to renew their commitment to learning, understanding and growing in confidence in the content of the Bible and Christian faith… which we don’t usually learn by means of (what I like to call) liturgical osmosis.

Cranmer’s Curate has also posted on this issue:

Cranmer’s Curate – THE DANGER OF ‘RETRO’ CHRISTIANITY