Dawkins and the King James Bible

On Sunday night at Ask. I was asked a question about Richard Dawkins supposedly supporting the distribution of King James Version Bibles to all schools in England.   I hadn’t heard, and so was surprised, but suspected his reasons might have been related to the widespread respect the KJV enjoys – as far as the English language goes, it is a masterpiece.   What should we make of these things?

Firstly, the King James Version is awesome.   That can be said without reference to its literary value.   It was the sole Bible of the English speaking world for the best part of 350 years.   It was the Bible of most post-reformation English speaking preachers; it was the Bible of memory for most of the world’s English speaking Christians.   It has been an outstanding blessing in the life the Church, and in turn a blessing to the world – the means of informing the conscience and understanding of both faith and works the world over.   That it is still able to draw a readership is fantastic – the blessing rolls on and on.

Gove’s Plan

That being said, I’m not sure I entirely follow Michael Gove’s reason for its distribution.   He said, “The King James Bible has had a profound impact on our culture.   Every school pupil should have the opportunity to learn about this book and the impact it has had on our history, language, literature and democracy.”

It’s not that I disagree.   His reasoning is admirable – but it falls short.   As a preacher, I don’t want people to just learn about the Bible.   I’m not fussed about people learning the impact it has had on our culture in the past.   I’m much more in favour of people learning about the Word introduced to us in the Bible.   I’m much more concerned about a new generation being raised up to have as much of an impact on our culture as we saw in generations past.   For these things to happen, the KJV is not the best tool at our disposal.   There are plenty faithful modern translations, which have proved more accessible to people who English vocabulary is not what it was in 400 years ago.

Gove’s initiative reeks of a woolly sentimentality for the past – but it seems for him and the rest of the Con/Dem government, the Bible belongs in the History classroom, not (Religious and) Moral Education classroom, and certainly not the Modern Studies classroom.    I suspect its wrong for the Church to clutch at these straws – we need to stop living in the past.   Exposure to the Bible has to shape today’s people so that they will face today’s issues with the same conviction and boldness of heroes of the past – whether in politics like Wilberforce or Chalmers, or philosophy like Chesterton or Lewis!

Dawkins Motive

So, what about Dawkins’ support for this?   Dawkins has other motives, “People who do not know the Bible well have been gulled into thinking it is a good guide to morality.   Whatever else the Bible might be – and it really is a great work of literature – it is not a moral book and young people need to learn that important fact because they are very frequently told the opposite.”

Will reading the King James Bible tear away the facade of our claims to reading the Bible as a very moral book?

I think the content of the Book is actually secondary to Dawkins’ argument.   Dawkins is a polemical atheist – he’s generally out to convince others that gods don’t exist, and he devotes a lot of his energy to trying to dissuade people of the notion of the Christian God.   So when Dawkins says he hopes people will discover the Bible sets forth an immoral perspective, his real argument is that the God of the Bible is actually immoral, not good, but bad, and contradictory to the good God of Christianity, and hence non-existent.

He’s very quick to suggest the Bible presents a very immoral God – presumably who hates gays, encourages slavery, misogyny, patriarchy, Holy War, and a great many other nasty things.   But the problem for Dawkins is one question, “Immoral by whose standards?”   Dawkins doth protest hard – I wonder is it because the Bible’s God is not a god easy to dismiss?   He’s a God who challenges us.   He refuses to conform to our image, but constantly invites us to conform to his.

The problem isn’t that the Bible presents an immoral God – it just presents a God who calls the morals of early 21^st Century Britain “sin”.   When that verdict is passed over anything we’re doing, we of course don’t like it (Dawkins isn’t wrong there!).   But the odd thing is that sometimes it leads people to repentance, and to make peace with God.   It works out in faith.

Dawkins is wrong on another front too.   He says, “People who do not know the Bible well have been gulled into thinking it is a good guide to morality.”   He’s just wrong.   People who don’t know the Bible well have been duped by the likes of Dawkins to think the Bible is frighteningly evil.   I don’t think Dawkins realises just how post-Christian the United Kingdom has become.   If people come to the Bible with that sort of antagonism, they might just be surprised when they read stories about grace.

Much though I think Gove’s initiative is motivated by a misplaced sentimentality; much though I think the King James Bible is a literary work from a different age; much though I think people will be challenged by what they read; I also think it’s good to read the King James Bible.

If you get a chance, go for it.   If it’s hard going, it won’t hurt to find a more contemporary version.

The Glory of God in the Lord’s Prayer

Listened to an excellent sermon this evening, from Iver Martin, at Stornoway Free Church prayer meeting.   It was just a brief overview of the Lord’s Prayer, touching on each of the petitions.

Iver’s main idea was the orderliness of the prayer – and how the order is a help to Christians not in the specific layout of their prayers, but in the priorities that move them in prayer.

I was incidentally struck by the orderliness of the prayer in terms of the work of the Gospel.

1. The God we pray to has made himself known to us as our Father, but also as the one enthroned in Heaven.   We need to see God in this way, because if we don’t, we cannot clearly continue in this prayer.
2. Our first priority in prayer is to pray for the widespread reception of and respect for his reputation (I take “name” to equate to “reputation”, and “hallowed” to mean “reverently or worshipfully set apart”).
3. When we think about Paul’s understanding of what happens in conversion (2 Cor. 4) it is in relation to how people see the glory of God revealed in Christ.   In the Lord’s Prayer Jesus moves from the Father’s reputation (what we see) to the “coming of the Kingdom” – a reference to, among other things, the bringing in of new worshippers through conversion.
4. It is only after this that the chain of priorities moves on to the Father’s will being done.

With all the pressing moral issues of the day – be it same-sex marriage, or Sunday opening at the Stornoway Golf Course – it’s helpful to remember that the Kingdom isn’t built up be men and women becoming more outwardly righteous.    In fact, outward righteousness is very seriously offensive to God.

The outward “will of the Father” righteousness that we want to see expressed in the land can only really come about if people are brought to see the marvel of the reputation God jealously wants for himself.   If people are brought to respond to Grace with Faith in Christ.

That doesn’t mean the outward righteousness “will of the Father” stuff doesn’t matter.   But it does mean that there is a huge danger the Church will not see the desired return to righteousness if it over-prioritizes the outward doing the Father’s will ahead of the publishing of God’s reputation.   The order matters – and time and time again the Church has lost sight of this, even to the point of possibly no longer being the Church.

A real danger?   Yes, because Christians can, and do, find greater temporal satisfaction in the cut and thrust of winning political victories, than in the dying to self that is involved in winning souls.

Christianity Explored

Christianity Explored is a useful tool in my ministry, giving people a chance to see the real issues in the Gospel.   With my blog seeing completely unprecedented interest the last day or two, I wanted to maybe remind visitors, the Gospel is really great news.

It surprises people to discover Christianity isn’t about reaching the “good” standards seemingly set by the Church.   It might surprise you too to discover that Christians aren’t perfect people, and don’t expect others to be made totally perfect – at least not just yet.   Yes, we might sometimes come across as sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, but that’s because we’re flawed too.

If you want to hear something really controversal, look for nothing more so than the Gospel.

If you are interested, and want to know more, you can find a course here.   (Or come listen to me preach at Crossbost Free Church on Sunday – I’m always happy to take questions after.)

The Wisdom of God – Thomas Watson stylie.

God’s mercy looked at us in our miserable and helpless estate, but how to do it without wronging the justice of God? It is a pity, says Mercy, that such a noble creature as man should be made to be undone; and yet God’s justice must not be a loser. What way then shall be found out? Angels cannot satisfy for the wrong done to God’s justice, nor is it fit that one nature should sin, and another nature suffer. What then? Shall man be for ever lost? Now, while Mercy was thus debating with itself, what to do for the recover of fallen man, the Wisdom of God stepped in; and thus the oracle spake: —Let God become man; let the Second Person in the Trinity be incarnate, and suffer; and so for fitness he shall be man, and for ability he shall be God; thus justice may be satisfied, and man saved. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom of God, thus to make justice and mercy to kiss each other!

(Thomas Watson, Body of Divinity, Baker: 1979 (reprint of 1890 ed.)

Applying the Lessons of Galatians

Occasionally, once a month or so, I’ve been preaching through Galatians on Sunday evenings. At the moment, I’ve reached Galatians 4, and have been struggling to apply it to my congregation directly – there are, after all, no people pitching up and telling them to ignore what I’m preaching on Salvation by faith alone. Or are there?

In Galatians 4 the case Paul contrasts the rule-bound minority of being under the law – the elemental principles – with the wonderful liberty of both the legal and experiential reality of adoption. In Christ, and in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit, believers really are sons of God. And we really do experience son-ship in meaningful ways.

It strikes me that in my context, this is about the path to maturing faith. It seems that returning to slavery of the elemental principles is all about living out discipleship constantly obsessing about rules. “Is it right to wear skirts just this length?” “What about the Sabbath – how do I keep it holy?” There are plenty believers around who will say that ongoing Christian growth depends on working hard make sure we “go and sin no more.”

But Paul sees the path to maturity in other things. The path from minority to maturity seems for him to be all about Christ – the Timing of his coming, his divine Origin, the Manner of the incarnation, the Conditions he lived under (i.e. the Torah), the Purpose for which he came (i.e. to redeem) and the Outcome of his coming (i.e. the reality of our adoption). That makes us sons! And no longer minors!

Not only is the work of Jesus vital to really making us sons, but the work of the Holy Spirit enables us to experience it. He is the one who confirms to us the loving fatherhood of God, so that we can cry with trusting affection, “Abba! Father!”

So, application time – do you learn more of what it means to cry “Abba! Father!” through obsessing about law keeping, or through meditating on what your Father has done, and resting on his provision for your life? I suspect it’s the latter.

And what of these elementary principles? Well, is it possible that Paul is talking about them the same way we talk about elementary math? You don’t obsess (normally) about the detail of what exactly happens when you add things. You just know that if you had two apples, and you buy four more, you have six. The same in the disciple’s life: if you are maturing, you don’t obsess about the rules of a Godly life too much. instead, you live them in the life the Spirit is working in you. Such obsession will reward you with frustration, because your life is in Christ, not in the rules he has taught you.

The Ninth Commandment

This morning I was preaching on the Ninth Commandment – don’t bear false witness.

My theme through the series has been this: these are not simple rules we break, they are a commentary defining the “character” God looks for in us – a character we are totally unable to attain in our own efforts.   This “character” we fall short of is the perfect Image of God which was ruined by the Fall, and original sin.   That means the commandments serve at worst to merely condemn us, but at best can be used by God to show us our need for the gracious salvation offered in Christ Jesus.

Today I suggested a reason why the Ninth Commandment is included.   By bearing false witness we are betraying not a character shaped by the Image of God, but we are betraying a character more akin to that of Satan, the Devil himself, the “Father of Lies”.   Clearly, God would rather we bore the Image of God in Christ Jesus, the “Faithful and True”.

My question – was this too harsh?   Certainly, today some folks in the congregation felt that went a bit too far.   Have we become too comfortable with the commandments, thinking they are merely rules we can follow if we just put in enough effort – and does that mean we are uncomfortable with our character not measuring up to their requirements?

Sex before / outwith marriage

After watching Question Time last night, Jedi Rev was all for heading off to bed, but was enticed by the last in a series of reports from the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly (it’s not on the iPlayer yet – boo hiss!).   This isn’t another blog about their homosexuality debates, but rather a little noticed appendix to the Mission and Discipleship Council’s report – specifically in relation to sex.   You can read the report here, head down to page 93 (section 7.3), to see “A Revisionist Approach” to sex outside of marriage.

Jedi Rev is astonished that in the CofS assembly, floor time is given to people who people who don’t just use the rules to skip away from Biblical truth, but will make statements like this:

…the prohibition on fornication found in Leviticus belongs to the code of prohibitions regarding cleanliness, which it is not clear to us today are of the essence of our moral responsibilities in following Christ.

Great.    It gets better:

…the era in which Scripture was written knew little of the delay between puberty and marriage which is typical today. Is it realistic, the revisionist asks, to expect young people to refrain from sex for ten to twenty years while they wait for marriage?

Jedi Rev would love to here from any evangelicals who got up and said, “Yes, it’s realistic… God never commands something he doesn’t give the grace to comply with.”   The idea that this is all just immoral stuff that we’d be embarrassed to let our kids hear, and irrelevant to the essence of the Gospel is just bogus.   The moral purity set in the example of Jesus – based on these same Levitical codes – is exactly what God requires in order to declare someone holy!   If we start discounting it as invalid for our modern era, we have to ask what exactly was the Son of God doing living under the uncompromising demands of the Torah?   Was it not something to do with the imputation of righteousness, a la Paul’s exclamation in Philippians 3!

The Gospel is at stake, here, not just conservative attitudes.

James Durham & Scandals of Division

Jedi Rev has been thinking about the Scandal of Division in the Scottish church.  Jedi Rev is wary of self-publicising, but he was deeply challenged by the implications of this under-grad essay.   Large sections have been chopped out.

James Durham and Church Unity

James Durham’s work, A Treatise Concerning Scandal, (published posthumously in 1659) was a product of the near unique day in which he lived.   A day when there was, to our minds, literally one church, not fractured by the denominationalism that marks our own day, as the dominant force in Scottish ecclesiastical life.   James Walker’s comment, in Scottish Theology and Theologians, that to the men of Durham’s day; Rutherford, Gillespie, Henderson, Brown, etc., the very idea of different churches operating side by side was utterly inadmissible is reflective of Durham’s work.

…

Durham opens his argument in part IV of Concerning Scandals by marking out distinctions between Heresy, Schism and Division.   Giving one of the most concise definitions of Heresy ever made in the Scottish Church, Durham writes:

“Heresy, is some error in doctrine, and that especially in fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacy [sic], and endeavour to propagate the same.”

Heresy is a deliberate refusal to cede to the correction of the church courts, coupled with propagation of such false teaching on the fundamentals of the Christian Faith.   (Or to quote D. Macleod, “An error in fundamental doctrine, tenaciously held and vigorously taught.”)   The point here is to ask this question of the modern day Church of Scotland.   Is there a clear case of Heresy within the denomination?   For Durham, union with the Roman Catholic Church was out of the question – the whole church (still a church, making, for example, valid baptisms) was in error.   Separation was valid, indeed necessary.   Is the same now true of the Church of Scotland?   Some brothers there clearly think so.   Does it necessitate separation – that is the $6,000,000 question.

…

The Westminster Assembly fell in favour of a Presbyterian polity for the government of national church, with preaching, not the administration of sacraments, central to worship.   …  Compare the language of the Assembly:

“If you can join with us in occasional acts of worship, you ought to act with us in joint communion, not in separate congregations.   That you should be a distinct Christian organisation, taking members from our Churches, who may have scruples of conscience, is schism undoubted in the body of Christ.”

with Durham:

“Schism implies [as a] consequence: that either the church of Christ on earth is not one, or that one church may be of such heterogeneous or dissimilar parts, as the one of them ought not to have communion with the other; or at least this, that a person ought to seek his own satisfaction and consolation, though to the prejudice and renting [sic, rending?] of the church, and to the general offence and stumbling of others.”

The dream of a united church in Britain came to nothing.   But it was not the ideal of unity, set out by James Durham, par excellence, in Concerning Scandal that failed.   The failure of the Westminster Assembly lay in part with the Parliamentary support for the Erastian party, and Cromwellian support for the Independents.   The point here is to ask, What will stand in the way of a like minded drive for unity today?   Will it be the political expediency of some “evangelicals” not wanting to enter a narrow church with a strict Confessional Subscription?   If the lessons of the 19th century teach us anything, it is that there remains a clear need for some form of unity in doctrine.   The higher that standard is placed, the better.

Is separation ever valid?

Reading Durham’s work, it seems not.   Durham goes to great lengths to support the notion of Church Unity.   He lays down six rules to govern the approach one should take to the matter.  Durham’s language is hard to follow on some of these points; the following is as good an interpretation as possible:  (Jedi Rev was going to make contemprary comment on these points, but realised that was far too easy…)

Firstly, Durham states that if a cause of current division is not such as would create new schism in the church, the parties must come together in unity.   There are plenty gross miscarriages and defects, such as do not lead to schism that have caused such, these should be overlooked.

Secondly, such defects as do not cause continuing communion with the church and her fellowship to become a sin are no cause for division or schism.   Such causes of inconvenience are not causes to break the unity of the church.

Thirdly, a man may have a burden to two courses of action within the church.   One of these may well lead to division, and so is not an acceptable course.   Unity is the higher purpose.   A minister, for example, must follow the duties of his calling.

Fourthly, some courses of action may lead to greater edification of the individual, but lesser unity of the church.   The unity of the body of Christ is to be maintained, such that in time greater edification might be achieved.

Fifthly, in a case were two courses of action will present inconveniences either way, the greater good of, or least hurt to the united church must be sought.   This course of action is to be discerned by examining which course has the most dangerous and potentially destructive inconveniences; which inconveniences seem most inevitable; and which side or course has the most pressing call to duty, to the commands of scripture.

Finally, given that no church polity is free of defect, individuals are advised to act for unity foremost, especially when there is no danger of personal guilt, or accession to the guilt of others.   However, no one can be made to act against his or her own conscience, or against there own duty.

Given these rules, it is difficult to see what grounds, if any, there might be for legitimate division.   But, it should be remembered, Durham was at this point writing on scandalous division; divisions that had no grounds in heresy.   Under these differing doctrinal circumstances, separation would prove a valid course of action.   That is clearly the situation in the modern day – Heresy demands separation, but with other denominations already in existence, is there legitmate grounds for not uniting with them?

Conclusion

The sub title to Durham’s work, “The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland”, gives some insight into why it was written.   Durham was nearing the end of his days, and was acutely aware of the problems facing the church.   There was fast approaching a day when the Doctrine of the Visible Church would not be at the forefront of discussions on Christian Unity (i.e. today, when the Doctrine of the visible Church is used to support silly notions like baptising the infants of people with no faith in Christ); the Westminster Assembly had failed to craft a nationwide Presbyterian church; and the Church of Scotland looked fraught with futile divisions that would benefit no one.

Jedi Rev is left wondering about our day.   The futility of Reformed Churches, operating side by side, but refusing to cooperate at a higher level is a scandal indeed.   The Church of Scotland is now clearly rife with Heresy – as defined by Durham, not the nasty insults of a Python-esque Spanish Inquisition.   Will anyone answer the call of James Durham or, in a more contemporary setting, John Ross?

Dumbed down Church

I’ve now got a real bee in my bonnet about this – dumbed down church doesn’t make any sense, for so many reasons.

• Scotland’s people are the best educated they ever have been – yet the church is at it’s least literate since before the WWII.
• Most radical secular atheists are repulsed by a dumbed down Christianity that puts subjective feelings over reason – particularly a faith that is happy to profess it has no basis, e.g. those who call themselves Christians, but don’t even accept the Bible to be the Word of God.
• Post moderns, hard to generalise they may be, are astonished with the true depth and – dare I use the word – complexity of the Christian faith. Complexity is perhaps wrong, intricacy is perhaps better. Post Modern Spirituality, new gnosticism, call it what you will, can only be answered by a faith that makes sense in how it addresses real problems. A clearly understood, well kept Christian spirituality fills the very void po-mo’s are looking to fill. Sadly, shallow, poorly grasped faith just adds to the smorgasbord of confused and jumbled ideas making up a fairly typical pm worldview.
• This is further exacerbated by Christians who have no theology themselves – who think theology is a professional business best left to ministers. Their faith is not a reasonable one, and the best answer they can give is a Christianity reduced to something like, “Jesus died for my sins, it’s amazing being a Christian.” You’re left wondering is this why we have an alarming number of young Christians abandoning the faith – if the faith they are taught gives them no rationale for what happens when God’s providence is difficult to bear, and actually sells them an empty chalice of sugar coated dreams?
• Historically, times of blessing have followed not a “simple faith” in terms of knowledge, but a “simple faith” in terms of it’s awed respect and godly fear in light of the massive things we’ve come to know. The Reformation – a rediscovery of Justification. The great awakening – a rediscovery of justification. Today – blank looks when you mention justification, because justification is a theological term disputed by professionals.
• Historically again, after the Westminster Assembly, kids knew the “shorter catechism”. Today, this is the benchmark for the theological understanding of our ministers (candidates nearing the end of their selection process are examined on their knowledge of the WSC) – and we, the Free Church, are probably the most demanding Scottish body of Christians in this regard. We are facing decline.
• We are consistently, in most churches, running children’s Sunday School at the same time as church services, depriving both the kids, but more importantly the teachers of half their regular bible teaching. I’m not disparaging the work of Sunday School teachers, or even the material they are using – but I do wonder about the nett effect of less teaching overall. I’m worried about preaching too, if we are inadvertantly presenting it as something older people listen to, but kids can afford to ignore.
• Most older Christians I know rely heavily on what they learned as youths – many don’t read, and going on the discussions I have and questions I’m asked, I’m not sure a culture of learning is prevalent in our church. Sermons are measured by how much superficial encouragement they give, not the equipping they provide.

I just don’t like dumbed down church.

Did Jesus spend Saturday in Hell?

Ok, this one was bothering me this week – and this is a bizzar first post to my new blog! But who will read this?

What do we mean when we talk about Jesus descending into hell, as in the Apostle’s Creed – “[He] was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead.”

Today I was preaching on Acts 2:31ff, where Peter asserts that David prophesied that Jesus would not be abandoned to Sheol (quoting Ps. 16). The KJV translates this as “Hell”, reinforcing in the minds of many that Jesus, before his resurrection, went into hell, possibly “to preach to the spirits in prison” or possibly to experience the fullness of the Father’s wrath.   This wasn’t the theme of the sermon, by any means, it was a total aside, which might have been best left out.

My argument (that this is a wrong conclusion) is twofold:
Psalm 16 suggests the exaltation of Jesus begins at the moment of his death, meaning he couldn’t be humiliated more, by his soul subsequently entering hell.
Jesus himself, moments before his death, cried out, “It is finished.” Therefore it would be unwise of us to see further vicarious suffering beyond that point.

This is not in any way seeking to undermine the extent of Jesus’ suffering on the cross – I subscribe unreservedly to the Reformed doctrine of penal substitution, that Christ suffered in our place sufficient to satisfy divine justice! But I do find it difficult to accept that his soul at death went anywhere other than to be with the Father.

My main point here was this: This is surely the first fruits of the experience of all believers at death! I was thinking that the resurrection and assention of Jesus are pretty much squashed together in Reformed thought, both are part of his exaltation, which believers share in. So Jesus experience at death must be a guide for what happens to us – he goes to be with the Father, we go to be with him and the Father – entering what Boston calls the intermediate state.

What bothered me with this is that Psalm 16 suggests Jesus’ body didn’t decay – but ours do.

Anyway, I was happy to read wiser than me making the same point.