Letters

Dear Christis,

I thought Magnus Smyly’s letter in issue 37 made an interesting and telling assertion. This being that he thought that the Toronto Blessing would have been more likely to be of God if it had occured spontaneously throughout the world and as such not relying on fallible man to spread the message. However, was not Pentecost an event which occured in a single place where similarly fallible men were entrusted with the gospel? Would Magnus seek to write off this event for similar reasons? It would be not be difficult, upon reading his other articles and letters in previous editions of Christis, to get the impression that he would.

Perhaps Magnus would be so kind as to enlighten me and my fellow readers as to whether or not I am mistaken in thinking this? If I am correct it would be interesting to hear exactly how Magnus regards the nature of the Christianity and what, if any, should be its gospel.

Yours in Christ,

Charles Bartholomew.

Dear Christis,

I write in response to Martin Emerson’s Comments on the Toronto Blessing of Issue 36. Although I did appreciate this very readable article, which contained many valid points, I still find I disagree with his conclusions.

I completely agree that emotional experiences have nothing like the importance of genuine life change. We must not judge any experience by feelings alone but must look to the fruit of that experience, i.e., has it brought the individual to a more vital relationship with Christ? If not, I agree, it should be discarded. However, if a person’s love for Christ has increased; if they have a new zeal to read the Bible, and if they are determined to strive to stay close to God, should we not welcome such experiences?

Yes, God is with us always, but am I the only one who sometimes wonders where God has gone? I need God to encourage me through his Word, through words of knowledge from other Christians or through personal experiences.

Looking at the Bible, I agree that we should test experiences and prophecies to ascertain whether they are from God. I include the four verses from 1 Thess. 5vv19–22:

Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.

Surely these verses make it clear that although we should test all things, we must be careful to avoid the evil but hold on to the good. Dismissing everything associated with the ‘Toronto Blessing’ may well be, as Adrian Plass put in his book, Cabbages For The King, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The ‘Toronto Blessing’ is, I believe, just that. A blessing or gift from God that we can accept or decline. Few of us would turn down or question a gift from a close friend, but a mysterious, unlabelled package requires closer examination. If, through examining, we discover something harmless and wonderful, or a tag revealing the giver to be someone we trust then we may also choose to take it. If we uncover something harmful or from someone we do not trust, then we are likely to reject it.

Blind acceptance could cause us harm but similarly, blind rejection could cause us to miss out on something really good. The choice is ours, but I believe that once we are sure a particular gift or experience is from God, then we can trust Him completely.

The previous verses in 1 Thes., vv16–18 point out another truth vital to examinations of the ‘Toronto Blessing’. Paul calls us to:

Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.

Although we should expect trials and learn to endure them, the writers of the scriptures regularly mention how we can rejoice. There are more references than I can squeeze in here (find a concordance if you’re interested!). Our steadfast hope in God and the future is every reason to be joyful and give thanks through all circumstances. Can we not fast and pray joyfully? Just out of interest, the passage Martin quoted from Matt. 9 referred to the disciples fasting between Jesus’ death and resurrection, while He, the bridegroom, was not with them. This idea is mentioned in more detail in John 16. Now we believe that since his resurrection Jesus is always with us (cf.Matt 28v20 and others). We can rejoice.

Although He cannot tolerate our sins, God loves us. He wants us to know Him more deeply by seeking knowledge and wisdom, as Martin said. Sometimes though, He simply showers us with blessing we really don’t deserve just because we’re his children and He loves us.

Although often badly handled by the media and church ministers, I believe that God is at the heart of what I prefer to call this current outpouring of His Spirit. I am prepared to look past the dross of human sensationalism to find the loving heart of God. I pray that God will use the new closeness He is establishing with His people, in the deeply cynical nations of the USA and the UK, to bring revival on a larger scale than we may have read about in books. God can do so much through people in touch with Him, who seek His will and are willing to trust Him with their abilities, their experiences and their lives.

Sharon Hall.

Dear Christis,

I am writing this letter in a vain attempt to put forward some of the arguments against prayer to the saints, in order to state the evangelical position which Andrew Filby, unfortunately, did not consider to any great extent. My views may be considered strong but are at no point intended to offend, for I, like Andrew Filby, consider Catholics to be my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

The evangelical argument that there is no explicit (or even implicit) mention of it in scripture is a very serious argument against prayer to the saints, which cannot be discussed by glib references to genetic engineering and radio. Clearly the Bible cannot refer to these things which are very specific aspects of twentieth century life. Prayer, however, is fundamental to our relationship with God and our spiritual lives, a fact which Andrew Filby recognised in his next to last paragraph. His attempts however to justify the absence from Scripture is weak in the extreme and in any case ignores the fact that the Old Testament is as much part of God’s word as the New Testament and that the saints pre-date Peter and Paul by several thousand years. Andrew’s interpretaion of Rev 18:20, a verse which, in my opinion, he ripped out of context, is clearly very different to mine.

There is no instance anywhere in the Bible of a living saint praying to or worshipping a departed saint. Moses didn’t tell Joshua to pray to him, nor did Elijah tell Elisha. Indeed all attempts to contact the dead are severely condemned by the Bible (Ex. 22:18; Lev. 20:6; Deut. 18:9–12; Isa. 8:19,20). The scriptures also repudiate any attempts at saint worship for there are examples of Peter, Paul and even an angel rejecting such worship (Acts 10:25,26; Acts 14:14,15; Rev. 22:8,9), indeed Matthew 4:10 makes it quite clear that our worship should be directed at God alone.

It may occur to anyone reading this letter that saint worship and prayer to the saints are two separate issues, but in my opinion they are inextricably linked and anyway one only needs to look at some of the practices of the Catholic Church, and especially the exalted position given to Mary, to see that prayer to the saints and saint worship are two sides of the same coin.

The Bible does not indicate that any departed human being has any further contact with affairs on this earth, let alone that he has the power to hear even a single prayer. How then can any human being have the power to hear millions of prayers in hundreds of different languages all offered at the same time? It is impossible, and even absurd, to expect a saint to do things which God alone can do, since no departed saint is omnipresent or omniscient. Such prayers and worship are nothing less than idolatry — that’s giving of divine honours to a creature.

Another objection is that prayer to the saints inevitably raises some Christians, in the Catholic tradition especially Mary, to a special and exalted position with a privileged relationship with God, clearly against the Bible’s teaching that all Christians are equal. Anyway, what is the evidence for believing that angels or dead Christians are involved in intercessory prayer?

Attempts to justify prayer to the saints on Biblical grounds are impossible, as Andrew’s article showed though because of this all attempts to justify it on logical grounds are futile and pointless. Prayer to the saints is at best a waste of time and at worst idolatry, “a direct product of the use of unscriptural doctrines and practices” (Roman Catholicism, L Boettner)

Yours in the name of the one true God,

Matthew Stallabrass.

This letter has been removed at the request of the author (June 2005).

Dear Christis,

I am writing this letter with three main points in mind.

Firstly, following the article in issue 35 and the letter in issue 36, everyone and especially Rachel Backhurst and Jonathan Hassell might like to know that it has become custom for the Apostle’s creed to be said by the congregation and not sung by the choir at Evensong at York Minster. Since this was one of their comments in their article, perhaps it is a reminder to us all that God moves in mysterious ways and is ever ready to respond to our needs.

Secondly I am writing to commend Craig Myers’ article in the last issue, 37, which was a fine piece of writing. (I wonder whether Tony Blair might employ him for speech writing in the run up to the next election?) The only criticism is that is falls against itself from the first sentence; “ … the 1990’s confusing subculture of jargon which is increasingly being thrust at us.” I, when rereading this, thought that this would be a hint that this article would not suffer from this plight of modern times: alas no. Luckily I was not eating for fear that I may have choked when I read “intra-national non-governmental bodies.” Then there are the “individualistic ‘neo-liberalism’,” and “mutual tertiary and voluntary sectors of the economy” which I find frustratingly intriguing through lack of economic preparation before reading this article. However, the cream of it all must be “ … central proposition of neo-liberalist capitalism … ”, which I do feel is comparable to Gordon Brown’s infamous ‘neo-classical endogenous growth theory’, (hope I got that right). While no one can doubt that Craig has a firm grasp on this subject material, it would be helpful if he could have provided a little more clarification for those who are NOT economists or politicians in the making.

Thirdly and lastly I comment upon one aspect of Andrew Filby’s article in issue 37,which I found most offensive. The offending part is encapsulated by the following quotation: “As such there are two ways that a Christian can deal with an issue like this. Firstly, he can reject” … “unless he is prepared” … “he is being inconsistant” … “he can take the set of values by which he lives his life that he believes.” Whether Andrew has only come across male Evangelicals, to whom this article is addressing, (although this part really addresses all Christians,) it is disgraceful to only consider the male half. It might be possible to address God as “He” due to historical reflections, but Christians as only men is a naive position which turns all that has happened positively for years, centuries, backwards. All that was needed is to convert “he” into “they” and “his” into “theirs”. This is 1995/6, we expect not see this blatant type of sexism appear, especially in Christis. It is this type of everyday discrimination that needs to be stamped out: it is no longer acceptable nor desirable. I can only hope that an apology will be appearing in the near future to the half of the readership that you seem to feel have no rights to deal with any issue as a Christian, if your article is to be taken literally.

Hope that these three points are constructive,

God bless,

Magnus Smyly.

Dear Christis,

In the last few issues of Christis the topic, which I (as a believer in God but a non-Christian) have found the most interesting and stimulating, has been, fairly unsurprisingly, “Creation or Evolution”. The angle I would like to take on this subject has been chiefly inspired by some of the points Matthew Moxon made in his letter in issue 36. It is true that I do not agree in the least with his original standpoint, as laid out in this letter (I confess that I did not read his original article), and I realise that some may feel I am open to the charge that, as a non-Christian , this is not a debate to which I can fully contribute. However, my concern in this article is with the nature of God, which, to a Christian, who believes in the Holy Trinity, is part and parcel of the nature of Christ.

My chief problem with Mr. Moxon’s Letter is his fundementalist, dogmatic attitude to the Bible. Or rather, I feel that the reasons by which he tries to justify his belief in the Bible’s infallibilty are naïve and he is seemingly blind to their deficiencies. For instance, Mr. Moxon says Genisis 1–11 is not allegorical because “it is clearly presented as a history” and “contains 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, 48 generic names and at least 21 identifiable cultural items”. When I mentioned this to a friend of mine, he wondered whether Mr. Moxon, had ever read Tolkien. I do not mean to suggest that the way to salvation lies in Bilbo Baggins, but being “presented as a history” is no way to establish the authority of a book.

Furthermore, I find it outragously inconsistent to maintain that a God one believes to be capable of creating the Universe in six days, could be completely defined, and consequently limited, by what is written in a mere book. A book; any book, even the Bible is a human thing. God is bigger than anything written about Him, no matter how profound the message may be. To accept the Bible as an eternal truth means that one presumes that God cannot come up with a new angle; that God cannot surprise us. To presume anything of God, strikes me as a little rude.

For a rather more eloquent discussion of the ineffability of God, I willingly conceed the floor to other writers. In Terry Pratchett and Niel Gaiman’s book Good Omens, Armegeddon is seriously on the Agenda. This is rather distressing for the angel Aziraphale and the Demon Crowley, both of whom, having been on the earth literally from day one, have grown rather attached to the place. The Antichrist, an eleven year old boy called Adam Young, has grown up on Earth and is facing down both Beelzebub and the Metatron (Pratchet and Gaiman’s ‘voice of God’/pseudo-Archangel), feeling much the same way. The representatives of heaven and hell are both, in contrast, keen for the show to get on the road. It looks as if Adam will be swayed to follow his dark ‘destiny’ then Aziraphale stands up:

“Excuse me,” said the angel.

The trio looked at him.

“This Great Plan,” he said, “This would be the Ineffable Plan would it?”

There was a moments silence.

“It’s the Great Plan,” said the Metatron flatly. “You are well aware. There shall be a world lasting six thousand years and it willl conclude with —”

“Yes, yes, that’s the Great Plan all right,” said Aziraphale. He spoke politely and respectfully, but with the air of one who has just asked an unwelcome question at a political meeting and won’t go away until he gets an answer. “I was just asking if it’s ineffable as well. I just wanted to be clear on this point.”

“It doesn’t matter!” snapped the Metatron. “It’s the same thing surely!”

Surely? thought Crowley. They don’t actually know. He started to grin like an Idiot.

“It’s not given to us to understand the Ineffable Plan,” said the Metatron, “but of course the Great Plan … ”

“But the Great Plan can only be a tiny part of the total ineffability,” said Crowley. “You can’t be certain that what’s happening right now isn’t exactly right, from an ineffable point of view.”

“It izz written!” bellowed Beelzebub.

“But it might be written differently somewhere else,” said Crowley. “Where you can’t read it.”

“In bigger letters,” said Aziraphale.

“Underlined,” Crowley added.

“Twice,” suggested Aziraphale.

“Perhaps this isn’t just a test of the world,” said Crowley. “It might just be a test of you people, too. Hmm?”

“God does not play games with his loyal servants,” said the Metatron, but in a worried tone of voice.

“Whooo-eee,” said Crowley. “where have you been?”

Everyone found their eyes turning towards Adam. He seemed to be thinking very carefully. Then he said: “I don’t see why it matters what is written. Not when it’s about people. It can always be crossed out.”

Once Armageddon has been averted, Crowley and Aziraphale find time to reflect …

“Are you saying,” said Crowley, “that he planned it this way all along? From the very beginning?”

Aziraphale conscientiously wiped the top of the bottle and passed it back.

“Could have,” he said. “Could have. One could always ask him, I suppose.”

“From what I remember,” replied Crowley, thoughtfully, “ — and we were never actually on what you might call speaking terms — he wasn’t exactly one for a straight answer. In fact he’d never answer at all. He’d just smile, as if He knew something that you didn’t.”

“And of course that’s true,” said the angel. “Otherwise, what’d be the point?”

One of my chief reasons for not being very receptive to Christianity is that it often comes across as a miserable and whinging the religion in its attitude towards its members i.e. human beings. I would like to offer this final excerpt as a counter to Mr. Moxon’s; to anybody’s view (including that of Paul) that sin entered the world through human beings. If you believe that God created everything, you have to realise that He created evil. It is, for me, a false argument to say that God in His omnipotent glory took a chance and gave humans free will. The free will of Adam and Eve would have counted for nothing if there had been no choice to make between Eden and the wilderness beyond. God created that choice, so God created ‘evil’. This is far from being a terrible thing, if you are still buoyed up on the idea that God is infallible. As God is infallible, so even the greatest of evils serve a pupose, usually by their mere existence as examples not to be followed (and therefore possibly ‘evil’ does not even exist?). I cheerfully acknowledge that my train of thought is probably looking in serious danger of getting derailed at any point, but here is why that doesn’t really matter:

“Well,” said Crowley, who’d been thinking about this until his head ached, “haven’t you ever wondered about it all? You know — your people and my people, Heaven and Hell, good and evil, all that sort of thing? I mean why?”

“As I recall,“ said the angel, stiffly, “there was the rebellion and —”

“Ah, yes. And why did it happen, eh? I mean it didn’t have to, did it?” said Crowley, a manic look in his eye. “Anyone who could build a Universe six days isn’t going to let a little thing like that happen. Unless they want it to, of course.”

“Oh, come on. Be sensible,” said Aziraphale, doubtfully.

“That’s not good advice,” said Crowley. “that’s not good advice at all. If you sit down and think about it sensibly, you come up with some very funny ideas like: why make people inquisitive, and then put some forbidden fruit where they can see it with a big neon finger flashing on and off saying ‘THIS IS IT!’?”

“I don’t remember any neon.”

“Metaphorically, I mean. I mean, why do that if you don’t really want them to eat it, eh? I mean maybe it’s all part of a great big ineffable plan. All of it. You, me, him, everything. Some great big test to see if what you’ve built works properly, eh? You start thinking: it can’t be a great cosmic game of chess, it has to be just very complicated Solitaire. And don’t bother to answer. If we could understand we wouldn’t be us.”

That final sentence is, for me, what it’s always about. You can read the Bible. You can learn from it. If you want to be a Christian it’s as good a place to start as any, I suppose. You can ask: was it Creation or Evolution? The Bible certainly doesn’t manage to prove it either way. But that doesn’t matter, if you realise that the important thing is that there’s a universe at all. And although the universe is so big it’s almost unbelievable, and it’s tempting to believe in a book which isn’t quite so cosmic in scale, I find it’s a greater faith to forego books, maybe even forego the search for complete understanding, accept God’s knowing smile, and just feel pretty darned pleased to be here; because if I’m here at all, that’s all the justification my existence needs, whether or not I do ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

I personally believe that the Universe is subject to evolution, but I find it very unlikely that it was God who sparked off the Big Bang. Faith has to start somewhere after all, and I need faith to stop myself being overwhelmed by the enormity of mine and every humans’s unavoidable ignorance, and I know that my faith comes from having the Bible to push against. But, I still think that it’s a stronger faith when that somewhere moves away fron being an old book, to something one can’t even express in words. The nature of God cannot be so simple that one can write it down.

Steve Gardam.