Christis Letters Page

Dear Christis

In Christis, Issue 70, Dave Shaw wrote that, “Jesus assures us that Truth is both absolute and knowable”, and quotes C.S. Lewis’s rephrasing of the Platonic theory of Forms to prove his point. I would argue that this Platonic conception of the Truth as “absolute and knowable” (and we might add, unified and coherent) is quite foreign to the Truth represented by the Bible, which is of all books the most “postmodern” in composition, being a cacophony of “different voices, languages, ideologies,” cultures, races and times. The Old Testament is replete with “ language games” — untranslatable acrostics, paranomasia and riddles — whilst Jesus founds the Church upon a pun. The Bible can also be seen to cheerfully juxtapose ‘high’ and ‘low’ subject-matter and styles (abolishing the Classical notions of hierarchy) in the bizarre manner characteristic of postmodern texts and film — particularly in the Gospels. It is also the most relativist of texts ideologically — statements about God, Ethics or the Universe are frequently contradicted by passages elsewhere in the Bible. This is not to say that either statement is invalidated by the other; they are both truths, both part of what we hold to be the Word of God — a Word which is protean and multiplicitous, everywhere and nowhere, a pluracy of truths and the meaninglessness which arises from their conflict.

Dave Shaw mentions Hitler’s acts of genocide to prove the existence of a single Truth, a universal ethical code. “Even the most committed postmodernists still feel outrage.” Of course. But a postmodernist would also be aware that in condemning the act itself, irrespective of the motives, (s)he is in the minority. We need know only a little history to see that the majority of peoples have believed that genocide, for the right reason, was justified — some of the earliest recorded instances were, according to the Bible, initiated by that very Truth which Dave Shaw believes has condemned such actions (and he is right — in other passages He has):

“Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (Sam.15:2–3)

And it would be a mistake to believe that the New Testament refuses to endorse such savagery. Despite the command to love your neighbour as yourself, we are told that history is to end with one enormous and unending act of genocide — “this is the Second Death”. (Revelation 20:14)

Does the author of the article believe then that genocide, given the right reasons, is justified? I hope not. Like Job all honest Christians should be forever crucified upon this contradiction, which the Bible (that perfect image of a difficult world) forces us to face; God is good, but his actions seem horrific (“shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” — Amos 6). To accept both of these contradictory Truths is honesty (in doing so Job did not sin); to assert only the Truth of the former is erroneous (the conventional piety of Job’s friends was condemned by God); to grieve for this apparent loss of meaning is Modernist; to exult in this “decentred” universe — in the meaningless “free play” of shifting signifiers — is “postmodern” … and Christian.

For we have not been given a single homogenous vision of Truth — as the Moslems claim to have in the Koran — but the Holy Babel preached by the Apostles at the first Pentecost. The Gospel we preach is the Absence of Truth (and the fullness of Truth within that Absence); the Death of God, Christ upon the Cross, the Empty Tomb — the original of Derrida’s “decentred” universe in fact, for as Jon Dollimore (another literary theorist) has said, postmodernism is merely the latest secularized manifestation of a recurring mode of Christian thought in Western literature. The Death of God — the perpetual (and very postmodern) “Woid” (Joyce, Finnegans Wake ) — is at the heart of the Christian Revelation.

Dave Ashford

Dear Christis

I write in response to the letters provoked by my article Biblical Intolerance (Issue 69). I notice that both correspondents qualify what they say and don’t pretend to be complete refutations. I, too, am constrained by space in developing a full argument and so, doubtless, will not satisfy my critics. Perhaps that suggests these issues need to be aired a bit more thoroughly rather than shelved in a dark corner somewhere. I want to reaffirm that this question — what is Christianity? — is the most pressing thing we can consider. This is a case of major disagreement and not “rich diversity” as Matt Cambell calls it.

My main feeling when I read the correspondence was that neither author had addressed the main point of my article. I proposed that the majority of Christianity today was not true Christianity and wanted to show that from Paul’s letter to the Galatians. A word limit prevented me from going into the epistle in any depth but I encouraged — and still encourage — a serious reading of that New Testament book. The teaching of Paul there is in complete conflict with the “Christian” message coming from a lot of the church today. The message Paul defends clearly revolves around the question of how man, as a sinner, enters a relationship with a God, who is holy. That question, Paul shows, can’t be dodged because it is essential to (and essentially) the Christian message. Now, I ask all my critics: do you believe that every single person on the face of this earth is a sinner and that the law of God curses them? (And in connection with sin I mean it in the sense that Paul meant it, as deliberate rebellion against God, because it’s easy to evacuate a word like sin of all its meaning, until it becomes something more palatable). If not, why not? That’s what Paul clearly teaches here.

Furthermore, I ask: Do you believe that the only way such sinners can be righteous in God’s sight is by faith alone in Christ alone? Do you believe that a person’s works and religious life make no contribution whatsoever to being forgiven by God? Because, again, that is clearly what Paul teaches here. “A man is not justified [declared righteous in God’s sight] by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ” ( Gal.2:16 NKJV).

A lot of contemporary Christianity does not agree (far less preach) that we need to be saved from God’s anger. Neither does it agree that our only hope of escaping that anger is by depending entirely on God’s free and gracious gift of Jesus Christ, who “was delivered over to death for our sins, and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom.4:25 NIV). It pays lip-service to the idea of redemption and will use biblical terminology at times, but its essential message is qualitatively different to the above. It is — as far as I can see — a “different gospel” (Gal.1:6 NKJV).

The thought behind my article’s title — “Biblical Intolerance” — was to echo the intolerance Paul displays in Galatians 1. He curses anyone who preaches a different gospel. I wanted to suggest that my intolerance, and (since PJ Breen brings it up) that of the “evangelical group on campus”, is actually a sign of faithfulness to the Bible and the Christian gospel. As I said in my article, a more serious act of intolerance is that displayed by people who deliberately (if unconsciously) distort the Bible’s teaching so that it becomes acceptable to twenty-first century man.

So there is my case restated. The “gospel” being spread by parts of the church today is worlds apart from the gospel explained in the Bible. As an evangelical, I don’t feel I have “contributions” to make to the “diverse” Christian scene. I object to the idea of an evangelical “approach” to Christianity, as my article was misleadingly subtitled. I’m not claiming perfect understanding; I’m not claiming that every Christian must insist with me on every detail (I want to be as broad as the Bible makes possible). I’m saying that the message of Jesus Christ is about God’s overwhelming love to deeply sinful men and women. It’s about Jesus Christ, who died bearing the brunt of God’s wrath for sinners, who rose from the dead, and now, in all his glory, invites us to trust in him alone for peace with God and a safe eternity. To reject that gracious offer is the ultimate form of intolerance.

Yours,

Simon Arscott

Dear Christis,

Recently, we happened to pick up a copy of Christis (which we read with great caution and cynicism) and were extremely impressed with your article, Falling Among Weeds (Issue 70). We’ve had a few experiences between us of trying to explain that cannabis use is not immoral, and indeed can be used in personal meditation to bring one closer to God. Scientific tests have shown that certain altered states such as the marijuana high can produce brain activity identical to that of deep meditation. It has long been our contention that altered states and spirituality are not worlds apart.

It would appear that many parts of the bible agree with us on this. We thought you might find the following interesting …

http://www.hialoha.com/konagold/church/index.html

(Quote number 63.) Cannabis use in the Old Testament was again looked at in 1936, by Sula Benet. “ … Benet stated that the original Hebrew versions of the old testament and the Aramaic translations contained references to cannabis by name; In the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament there are references to hemp, both as incense, which was an integral part of religious celebration, and as an intoxicant.”. The name cannabis is generally thought to be of Scythian origin, but Benet argues that it has a much earlier origin in Semitic languages like Hebrew, occurring several times in the Old Testament:

Exodus 30:23, Isaiah 43:24, Ezekiel 27:19, Song of Songs 4:14

“And thou shalt sanctify them, that they may be most Holy: whatsoever toucheth them shall be Holy. And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priests office. And thou shalt speak to the children of Israel saying, This shall be an Holy anointing oil unto me throughout your generations.” (Ex.30:29–31)

Working towards an enlightened future,

Loc Soc