In defence of Self-Determination & Mandates

At the heart of the current political squabble between Holyrood and Westminster is, as usual, an issue of rights.   Rights are, of course, legally defined – in this case is it legally safe for Holyrood to issue some sort of referendum on Scotland’s future within the Union?   I would suggest there is a more basic level than the 1998 Scotland Act at which this question will be resolved.   There is certainly a right to self-determination, but is that right one you must be given (the Westminster option) or one you may autonomously exercise (the Holyrood option)?

Constitutional experts have already pointed to the examples of ex-Soviet and –Yugoslav states exercising self-determination for independence without the consent of their national government – indeed in the face of considerable opposition, both political and military.   History, it seems, is on the side of exercising, as opposed to granting self-determination.

All that being said, self-determination is, on the face of it, a tricky one for a Christian.   It raises questions about the origin of so-called fundamental human rights – arguably a product of Enlightenment.   Would it be safer to see the Christian’s responsibility in doing God’s will as it is revealed in the Bible?   The Christian can certainly live that way; and live as far as possible at peace with all people – Love God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself.   End of.

But I am sure we can go further – if we are good Calvinists.   Abraham Kuyper, in his Stone Lectures, quotes American historian George Bancroft: “The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty.”   It might not be to everyone’s taste, but Calvinism places God at the top, as the one who invests the civil authorities with power to be exercised for the good of the people.   There is a contract between a people and her government a contract which, incidentally, finds expression in the Declaration of Arbroath and the US Declaration of Independence (to which Bancroft was referring)

“we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King” – Declaration of Arbroath

“Governments are instituted among {NB not “by” but “among”} Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

The state must have a mandate to govern.   Bancroft and Kuyper shaw this in connection to the purposes of God in seeking to alleviate the effects of sin and the Fall.

The Calvinist’s love of liberty is not at odds with the right to self-determination.   In fact, in any other sphere, we would abhor its denial.   Suppose a citizen of North Korea desires to make profession of Christian faith – ought he to have the liberty?   But we also ought to reject its unnecessary limitation.   Suppose a citizen of China desire to make profession of Christian faith – ought he to have the liberty do so out-with the prescribed state-governed church?   Self-determination is a liberty we must contend for – whether we decide it as a fundamental right or not.

As a Calvinist, I must assert that it is not for any government, other than one elected with such a mandate, to set out for the people of Scotland when, where, who and how they exercise their collective right to self-determination.   That is not to deny Westminster’s legitimate governance – Cameron’s coalition was delivered by the will of the people.   But they were not delivered with a mandate to set out the terms of this referendum.   (In fact, to witness the shameful treatment of Nationalist MPs at Westmister shows the contempt in which the desire to exercise this self-determination has thus far been held.)   For the Coalition to dictate  any such terms now is an assault on liberty – they are acting beyond the will of the people who elected them.   Scotland’s self-determination is, according to Westminster, a right we will be given.

But the people of Scotland have already begun to exercise their right to self-determination, in electing – for whatever reasons – a government who committed to run this referendum.  Holyrood’s path is therefore legitmate, and Westminster’srole will be to react to the will of theScottish people post-referendum.

And the courts will agree.

Fractional Church

What Carl is saying here is not just a US phenomenon.   Smaller churches this side of the pond are struggling with the same issue – how can we afford to pay for ministry, and will that mean having a fraction of a minister?

For, like, as long as I’ve been a minister (and then some, sorry a lot more some) my denomination has been looking at what we call non-stipendiary or what Carl’s contacts call bivocational ministries.   That is, Pastors typically have two jobs: they serve their congregations as they can; but their main income comes from their other occupation, whether car mechanic, teacher or whatever.

The bottom line is this – this is coming to a Scottish Church near you soon.   Maybe it has already, and if so, comments would be appreciated.  My gut feeling is that this is a second best option, and doing things that are likely going to lead to it, hasten it, are probably not wise.

The Scottish urban scene is not the same, mega churches of the scale Carl talks about just don’t exist here.   My concern is that in remote, rural areas another factor is driving the move to needing fractions of ministers, and that is fractional church.   Fractional church is when the church needlessly divides up into smaller fractions – all allegedly holding the same doctrine.   There is another name.

Stupid remote/rural denominationalism 

This last week finally saw the birth of a “new church” in my neck of the woods.   The chaps behind it are (understandably) narked at the Church of Scotland’s trajectory away from Scripture.   But, rather than humbly join up with one of the other faithful, but struggling, denominations – with whom they would seem to theologically agree – a new fellowship was spawned.

This hits a whole number of issues dear to my heart.

It’s anti local church.   The reason the new thing shouldn’t directly affect us is that it’s a 40 mile round trip from my door, and further than a half dozen other fellowships, all meeting in sparsely populated rural areas.   Fractional church means many Christians will now drive out of thier local community, where they know their neighbours; where family circles are tight; etc. to join another fellowship that’s more to their “taste” (used deliberately, because there is no doctrinal distinction between these fellowships).   Thanks, but just explain how this helps rural evangelism, where the truth has long been this: you have the most impact where you live?

It’s anti unity in the Gospel.   To be fair, I can see why leaving the Church of Scotland was desirable, but most of the people leaving that denomination locally in these parts joined it within the last 5-10 years.   Has it deteriorated since then, really?   And did the Free Church guys not offer some flexibility in traditional form of worship for the sake of local unity?   Thanks, but just explain how setting up new churches helps unity?   Even if we take unity at its loosest extent, we’re talking unity in the work of the Gospel.   I fail to see how fractional church is even serving that goal, when those abandoning their local churches are often abandoning the Gospel work these churches are doing.

It’s anti fellowship.   I love it when people break away from a fellowship, and pretend that it’s a small thing to not be able to overcome differences.   If we follow Paul’s teaching in Philippians, fellowship is, among other things, a sharing in suffering.   In these remote rural areas Christians are suffering.   The depopulation alone means younger Christians are rare – so stripping them out of fellowships to gather in one place seems not to have true fellowship at its heart.   There is a lot of sadness in these days where growth is small, where Gospel witness and light seems to be flickering.   Fractional church does nothing to help this and it hurts those who don’t share the same “taste”.

It’s anti Christian education.   Satan loves to undermine what we’re doing when it serves God’s purposes.   Just imagine these rural communities being blessed with their churches running  a Sunday School jointly – remember, there’s no practical doctrinal difference to speak of.   That might just help overcome generations of denominational hostility and misunderstanding in the Scottish Highlands.   But now, it’s threatened because some of the staff feel they couldn’t try to overcome the pull towards factional church, and have to drive away to another area.   Thanks, but just explain how this is going to help future generations of kids understand Christian doctrine, e.g. the unity o the church?

Count the Cost

My point is that spawning new factional churches in remote rural areas, rather than working out differences, is actually bad for the Gospel.   Urban strategy might be different – the numbers are hugely different for one thing.   But rural work is not helped by this.
It means more Christians in smaller churches, who will not be able to afford to pay a pastoral ministry to do all the distinctly pastor-led ministry that rural work demands.
It means more Christians in smaller churches able to organise less effective servant ministry to the needy in the same community.
It means more Christian denominations to confuse an already confused, superstitious and mocking population.
It means Christians, who actually have an awful lot in common, holding on to denominational suspicions for longer.
It means more Christians having to fall back on untrained teachers, as supply preachers, and so on – some of it might good, but hardly a recipe embraced by the Church, who have for hundreds of years recognised that theological education was necessary for the good of the Church.
It means more older Christians marginalised, as they get left behind, holding onto perhaps a misplaced but real sense of connection to buildings and places of worship they loved and had put serious effort into maintaining.

Yeah, fractional church is nothing to do with the Gospel, and will just mean less ministry, by more divided groups, served by distracted ministers, and with limited cohesion, sorry, unity.

(And note, this post doesn’t even address the macro-denominational issues Fractionalism like this will pose for the Scottish church scene – new denomination ahoy!)

Happy New Year

As it says.

In line with my political overlords in Edinburgh, and Westminister, there is a New Year message from the Council Chamber:

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.
(Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 ESV)

This is a time for everything.   But there is not time for everything.   Use it well.

Bliadhna Mhath Ur