Letters

Dear Christis,

When reading through Adrian Derbyshire’s article “Our Broken Kingdom, His Broken Heart” (issue 7) I was shocked to find that neither of his “Two Kingdoms” included me. Where do I stand, Mr Derbyshire?

I don’t claim to represent a particular group, but I don’t see where all my fellow “Methodists and Anglicans” stand either, from his two initial descriptions.

Was his article about Christian unity? No. It in no way proposed a reduction of “the gap” (which I am presumably in) and seemed to me to be merely an attempt to persuade others to join “his side” rather than move together.

I have heard it said, jokingly perhaps, that people from both camps mentioned regard those from the other as “unconvertable”, but surely we are all one faith (and dare I say it, one kingdom). We all accept Christ as Saviour and Lord, how else could we call ourselves Christians? We all have personal experiences of the love of Christ Jesus and of God to “back up our claims” — whether they be totally conscious experiences or almost subliminal influences. How can we say that one side is “right”, implying the other to be “wrong”? Jesus’ life contains images of both. Mr Derbyshire himself illustrated these in his article, so why did we get the impression from it that, in particular, a “political” lifestyle is not at all desirable. God’s Kingdom embraces all — surely we on earth can accept mildly (in comparison) differing viewpoints.

Do not feel that I am merely “sticking up for the other side”, as I said before I do not “fit” on either side. I am only suggesting that the gap mentioned need not be widened by such one-sided articles as Mr Derbyshire’s.

Beverly Webster

Dear Christis,

I am writing to express my displeasure at the inclusion of “Satan” under the heading “Many Thanks To:” in issue 7. While I realise that Satan may well have been involved — indeed, it is a possibility of which we should all be aware, whatever we do — to thank him (her? it?) for this is surely nothing short of blasphemy. Satan’s influence can only be detrimental, while we should be striving to produce the truest and best that we can.

No doubt I will now be accused of taking everything far too seriously. Those who know me well know that in general I commit exactly the opposite fault, which is one of my reasons for feeling justified in expressing my views on this matter. I am quite prepared to laugh at Satan and at our misrepresentations of him; but the existence of evil in our world is a fact which must be taken seriously.

Of course, it is possible that those responsible for the inclusion do not actually believe in Satan as a personification. In this case the question arises — why bother? Unfortunately the only answer I can think of is that you did it simply to wind people up. Since this is a highly uncharitable action demonstrating a most un-Christlike attitude, I prefer to believe that you were simply being silly. (On the other hand, Christians on campus bicker so much — but that’s another matter entirely.)

Julie Winkless

Dear Christis,

In his letter to your Christmas edition, Wulf Forrester-Barker fails to grasp a fundamental point about homosexuality, as I’m afraid do many people who talk about the subject from an outside point of view.

Being gay is not a matter of choice: it is not something that can be repented. I am gay in just the same way as my skin is white and I am five feet eleven-and-a-half inches tall: I do not suppose that Mr Forrester-Barker would dare (nor I imagine would he want) to censure a black person or anyone under a nominal height of say 5’ 3”. Yet by not understanding the nature of that which he attacks, and by approaching the subject from a moralistic point, which successive years of bigotry and prejudice have reinforced, he is by extension moving towards this highly offensive position.

The discussion of homosexuality in the Bible is very limited. Much of the vitriolic and oft quoted text is to be found in Leviticus where “mankind lay[ing] down with mankind as he does with womankind” is described as an abomination. Yet this is found in the same Testament as the equally oft quoted “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. This as we would all perhaps acknowledge is contrary to Christian principles. In going to the Bible to find answers (the Old Testament in particular) one does indeed have to be careful about being too selective. Paul in his letter to the Romans skirts round the subject rather. Instead of making direct reference he talks about “effeminate” and condemns them as being sinful. If Mr Forrester-Barker agrees with Paul maybe another prerequisite for being a good Christian could include “Thou shalt be butch”. Despite all this, however, Christ himself made no reference to homosexuality. He talked of promiscuity, adultery and other such “dangerous” issues but never this. Maybe it is to Christ’s utterances that people should turn to guidance rather than to subsequent interpreters of those utterances whether they be St. Paul or Mr Forrester-Barker.

The one question which I, as a humanist, have asked many evangelical Christians is this: How can anything with so much love involved be a sin? Mr Forrester-Barker does seem to have an impressive, direct, two-way line to Christ when he tells us that “he loves homosexuals, as he does all Mankind, but detests and is saddened by what they do.” Perhaps he could elicit a response to my question?

One of the major problems with contemporary “conciliatory” Christian doctrine is the insistence of its proponents of separating the fact of being gay with the act of being gay. “Homosexual genital contact” does not meet the “ideal” according to the current dogma, but sex is as much a part of a loving gay relationship as it is of a loving straight relationship. To separate the few is to deny a fundamental part of human nature. I would therefore entreat anyone who wishes to discuss the subject, whatever their opinions, not to say that it’s “acceptable” to be gay just so long as there is no physical contact. Sitting on the fence on this issue just will not do.

The fact is that if you believe that God made us he also made one tenth of us gay. Accepting, as I would hope Mr Forrester-Barker does from one who is in this position (and very happy about it too), that there is nothing that can be done to alter it, does this mean that there is a predestination for at least ten percent of the world’s population of Hell? A question which I imagine most evangelical Christians would refute.

I agree that pointless strife should be avoided and that caring principles should be spread, but bigotry of this nature does not help. Surely we, as Christians or humanists, should accept what is good and try to change what is bad and unjust. Mr Forrester-Barker should perhaps concentrate on that rather than trying to change such a fundamental part of my make up. I can assure him that he would have as much success trying to make me shrink to 5’ 3”.

On Thursday of week 6 (Feb 21st) there will be a debate on the issues arising from the apparent conflict between homosexuality and religion to include not only the Christian point of view but also those of other denominations. I would urge anyone who is interested in this question (particularly Mr Forrester-Barker) to attend what promises to be a very lively discussion.

Hugh Sorrill (BLAG Officer)

Dear Christis,

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Rebecca Jones’ article “The only way?” (issue 7).

The Christian claim of knowing the only way to God (that being through recognition of the full deity of Christ Jesus the incarnate Son of God, and the forgiveness of sins only through his sacrificial death) is quite a startling one admittedly but the Biblical evidence supporting this claim is rather more extensive than Rebecca seems to suggest.

In this letter I would like to encourage your readers to investigate this important area for themselves by pointing them to several helpful passages.

A good place to start is with Jesus’ words which Rebecca quotes in her article. In John 14:6 Jesus says, “I am the way the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me.”

Rather than immediately suggesting that this passage does not endorse an acceptance of Jesus as the Christ as being necessary, it is far more useful to study its content and cross-references.

1. “I am the way” — It has been widely accepted by Biblical scholars that Jesus was specifically referring to the way to God by this statement. This view is supported by Acts 4:12 and Hebrews 10:19–20, the latter of which speaks of “a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body” which has obvious connections with the symbolic tearing of the curtain at Jesus’ death (Mark 15:38) to open the way into the divine presence.

   In Paul’s first letter to Timothy he confirms that “there is one God and one meditator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5) i.e. Christ is the only way to communicate with the Father.

2. “(I am) the truth” — See John 1:14. John uses the word “truth” 25 times in his gospel and links it very closely with Jesus in most cases.

3. “(I am) the life” — See John 1:4. John uses the word “life” 36 times in his gospel. Life is Christ’s gift to mankind (see John 10:28 and John 10:10)

With these points in mind it is quite possible that Jesus was saying in John 14:6, “I am the way (to the Father) because I am the truth and the life.” (see note in NIV study Bible.)

I do not wish to drag this out to unbearable lengths but I would like to draw your readers attention to a few more Biblical quotes. If your readers wish to look into this matter I would encourage them to look up 1 John 5:5, 2 John 9 and 1 John 2:22–23 and read them in context with the surrounding passage. The language is quite clear: “No-one who denies the Son has the Father; Whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:23).

John even goes as far as to calling the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ the antichrist (1 John 2:22).

Whilst I agree with Rebecca that “all faiths are an attempt to make sense of, and in some way relate to, God” (issue 7, page 10) I would have to make the point that other faiths do not recognise the deity of Christ Jesus and his purpose in life, death and resurrection. Merely acknowledging Jesus as a prophet or a teacher is not enough to establish a right and proper relationship with God the Father.

The Biblical quotes I have mentioned in connection to this area of doctrine are in no way exhaustive and I encourage your readers to look further into what the Bible says about salvation and establishing a right relationship with God.

I would like to finish this rather lengthy letter by quoting some more words of Jesus Christ which can be found in yet another useful and relevant passage, John 5:19–27.

“Moreover, the Father judges no-one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, that all might honour the son as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.”

John 5:22–23

Malcolm Chamberlain