 |
 |
|
 |
 |
After reading Simon Arscott’s article Biblical Intolerance in issue 69, I was moved to comment. I suspect from comments in the article that he was wary of placing his views, which he labels “evangelicalism” and clearly believes to be the only possible “true” way of approaching Christ, in the context of what he seems to believe is a dangerously “liberal” and anti-evangelical magazine. I recognise the boldness that it took Simon to state his views, and want no deconstructive or recriminatory discussion to come from his piece. However, I find much of it a disturbing and unhelpful expression of what I would agree with Simon (I hope!) is Christianity’s central mission and vocation to proclaim Christ's salvation for all from evil and sin, to all, in thought, word and deed. Here are just a few points, not in any way an attempt at a complete refutation of the article.
Perhaps a key problem lies in the concept I would hold to that, if you believe in sin and evil as present in the world, you don’t have to go around proclaiming damnation to all who are not apparently “saved” to be an effective Christian. I strongly agree with the article that a knowledge of evil’s presence in the world and a preparedness to battle it cannot be excluded from the Christian world-view. However, it seems to advocate that the only people who genuinely believe this are “evangelical” Christians, as defined in the article, and further, that this is the very core of the Christian gospel. I would strongly disagree and state that the awareness of evil and sin-ability in itself should not be allowed to supplant the rich, redeeming and life-giving gospel of Christ. It is Good News, not bad. The gospel, as I understand it, is that turning to Christ, searching for forgiveness for our wrongs to both God and other humans, letting him into our lives as he is fully revealed in the complex texts of the Bible — both dying on the cross and ministering and preaching as a man — brings eternal life in Jesus, the life God intends us to have. There is a subtle distinction here that the article seems to miss.
It is an interesting feature of the article, that in arguing against the forces that it is claimed have stripped modern Christianity of its central truths, they are never clearly defined. What we are left with is an argument against what might be called Catholic - liberal - Protestant - biblically - critical - feminist - social - gospel - antinomian - charismatic - relativism! This is possibly a little intellectually unsatisfying. This trend is also shown in the article's treatment of the writings of the apostle Paul, which, it is implied, have been sidelined and marginalised by those who are not “evangelical”. This is in many ways a misrepresentation. It is true that some biblical thinkers have suggested that Paul was engaged in radically shifting “true” Christianity away from its Jewish roots and grafting in concepts of sinfulness and salvation that were not previously there. As I understand it, many (if not most) contemporary thinkers refute most aspects of this argument. To me, Paul is clearly and importantly, with James the brother of Jesus, and Simon Peter, one of the three individuals who were crucial in defining the very early Christian church.
For modern Christians, in a sense descended from Paul’s missions, it is sometimes hard to gain knowledge of Jesus except through the vision and teaching of Paul, yet the article seems to present Paul as a legalistic standard of doctrinal and institutional “purity”, in an anachronistic fashion. To me, Paul is rather the ultimate “bringer-together” of the early church, employing tact and tolerance as well as his much-attested tendency to not suffer fools gladly! His missions can be seen as linking together not just new converts but established Christian churches who all had different ways of doing things, but were prepared to recognise the presence of God in each other’s community, and work together practically. In the same issue of Christis, Sarah Trethewey justly salutes the richness and diversity of Biblical experience and intent. Similarly, I would argue that, inheriting this diversity, Christianity was born in diversity and has always thrived in diversity, where it has not ceased to proclaim Christ as God and Saviour and fallen into division. I think it is a supreme mistake to confuse diversity with heresy, as the article perhaps does.
I respect Simon’s passion and sincerity for his faith in Christ, and would not wish to see this issue excluded from the pages of Christis, though I would be disturbed if it was allowed to completely dominate. I hope that with other ongoing discussions, without hiding or insulting the rich diversity of the salvific Trinitarian Christian faith, can combine to enrich all of us, and hopefully inform bemused non-Christians a little as well.
I have read a number of times Simon Arscott’s article in Christis 69 on Biblical Intolerance: An evangelical approach to Christianity and have to say that while I was annoyed and vexed, I was also quite saddened by what I read in it. No doubt the author gave a lot of time and energy to what he wrote but I fear that it is loaded with problems and inaccuracies. While there is not space in Christis to deal with all the issues I would like to look at a few.
In the opening paragraph the question is asked, “What is Christianity?” The article goes on a few lines later to say that “People are working with different definitions of the word ‘Christian’”.Yet the article does not give a clear definition of what is meant by the word ‘Christian.’ True, there are many definitions of the term but who is to say which is the absolute truth and which the correct one? All Christians accept the Bible which is what the article appears to be implying is the definition of being a Christian and yet it goes on to speak of “other real Christians” but again without saying what that really is. Perhaps this could be explained more clearly.
“I add a plea for some honesty in interpretation.” Unfortunately the text chosen is not an honest interpretation. I am referring here to the use of Matthew 7 for the author only gives us part of Verse 21 to prove the argument that faith alone saves. The full text from Matthew reads: “It is not anyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven.” (Matt 7:21) The text further goes on to say, “Therefore, everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a sensible man who built his house on rock.” (Matt 7:24) In these two quotations, which are the words of Christ himself, the important words “does” and “acts” are central. In these passages, and in the narrative in which they appear, Christ is speaking of those who pay him lip service but in reality do not live a life worthy of him. To quote from St James on this topic, “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” (James 2:14-17) It is not enough simply to have faith but one must also put that faith into practice every day, to live that faith, and living that faith means acting and working in a particular way. The article goes on to say, “Perhaps you’re baptised and have gone to church all your life, but these things, says Paul, cannot atone for your sin.” Where does St Paul says this and what is the full context in which he says it? None of this is to say that works are greater or of more importance than faith.
The closing paragraph of the article says the following: “As evangelicals critique contemporary Christianity they are often charged with intolerance. In all honesty I think that it is non-evangelicals who are displaying intolerance”. I have two points to make with regard to this. First, who gives the evangelical Christians the authority to critique contemporary Christianity? If the answer is the Bible then please be aware that other groups can also claim that as a source for their critiques and actions, in which case one then has to ask “which is the correct one?” Secondly, I would like to point out that since this academic year began back in October several Christians of other groups on campus have offered to speak with members of the evangelical group on campus. These offers were made so that people could come to a better understanding of each other’s beliefs and their basis for them. Sadly, these offers have not been acknowledged or accepted. If it is an intolerance to make such an offer then, yes, the non-evangelicals are guilty of attempting to encourage dialogue, understanding and mutual respect. If, however, it is an intolerance to refuse such an olive branch then I feel that it is the evangelicals represented in this article who are most guilty of intolerance.
As a non-Christian, I can see remarkable parallels between the biblical account of creation and scientific accounts:
First there is an explosion of energy, then a separation of elements to form waters and an atmosphere, then land emerging from the water (volcanic eruptions and plate movements), then vegetation forming — photosynthesis being the first necessary stage in the food chain. Genesis says that the water produced life first, followed by the land — this is a view shared by evolution.
This is the important part:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food.”
This is the sixth day — before Adam is created — and yet there are men and women on the earth. Note that God does not give the animals for food (perhaps a plea for vegetarianism).
In Genesis 2, it is no longer ‘God’, but the ‘ LORD God’ who is mentioned. We can assume this to be a different entity. This ‘LORD God’ creates Adam and watches over his descendants. This is the Jewish God — the Jealous and Wrathful god — not the Supreme Being.
The absurdity of the Messiah, is that he was supposed to be salvation for the Jews and not the whole world — Judaism, being a religion of persecuted peoples, was full of messianic cults. Jesus was rejected by mainstream Judaism as the messiah and strangely adopted by non-Jews as their saviour instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Last modified: 25th November 2005
Contents 