Author Archives: Mark Porthouse

Reasons for Political Radicalisation of Christians

Posted on by
3

Reading “Faith and Politics After Christendom” by Jonathan Bartley I’m fascinated by the section where he gives different examples of the action of politically radicalised Christians. It seems common that, as our society ‘descends’ (?) into Post-Christendom and loses many of the laws and cultural norms brought about by Christianity’s involvement in government, Christians decide to take action and do something about it in the political sphere.

Bartley broadly categorises this into positive and negative responses:

  • Where Christians are shocked at moral loosening and wish to reintroduce stricter morals by regulation.
  • Where Christians see injustice and wish to encourage government to ‘do something about it’.

Now, I can see that these two categories do exist (and bear in mind that Barley points out that many people involved in these things will have a broad mix of motive that may include both categories), but I’m not sure that they are as different as they first appear.

Surely they both break down into these aspects:
People are being wronged (maybe they know they are [obvious injustice] or maybe they don’t know that they are [moral damage]) and some Christians, who are politically motivated, want to impose a solution on society (whether it is prohibitive law or ‘positive’ action by the state).

We must surely note that even the more ‘positive’ of these two categories does include the taking or diminishing of resources from some people (perhaps taxation) and applying those resources to people as the radicalised group sees fit. A bit of spin and the opportunity to tell people how wonderful this piece of justice is (justice that we as Christians are called to practice in our lives) can promote the action in a positive light, but we also must remember that it is reliant on the backbone of the law, reliant on the ability to control people with the ultimate resort to violence.

Now, if you don’t believe my last point then note this example: A man chooses not to pay his taxes. By law the people (the state) dictate that people pay their taxes. Does this man get to keep his freedom? No, he is put in prison. What stops him continuing to exercise his freedom? The fact that if he were to try to do so people would stop him. Ultimately society is able to restrain, and if necessary be violent against that person in order to force that person to either cooperate or to accept punishment.

So, in my mind, both these categories of radicalised action fall into the trap of trying to control others, rather than trying to be an example to others and trying to love others (without at the same time trying to control others). I don’t yet know what Bartley’s tack on this is, but I look forward to reading on!!!

Denominational Differences

Posted on by
2

Today I was having my irregular chat with a Jehovah’s Witness (who visits me) and we got onto the topic (unsurprisingly perhaps) of denominational differences and how Churches can oppose each other in some respects (in fact, I note today that Jonathan Bartley observes that Christians even sometimes kill other Christians!).

Naturally JWs come out of this as shining examples of unity – so I was pondering as to why this was and whether the reasons mattered.

Now, JWs claim to be the one true church and so claim complete unity across the one true church. What are the reasons for this unity (the following are my speculation, not to be taken as perfect science!):

  1. The Boundary – the JW church has a boundary, you are either in or out.
  2. The Institution – the JW church is a strictly controlled institution which cannot be duplicated. It wouldn’t be possible to start another JW church that is separate to the original.
  3. The Sect – because it is a sect that is on the edge of the Judaism family tree, if another sect were to form from it, they would recast themselves significantly.
  4. Modes of Dis-integration – if JWs leave they do not leave to form close derivative churches, they either leave the (broad) concept of Christian belief entirely or just go into an existing church.
  5. The Theology – essential to JWs is the expectancy that one should accept the whole JW Theology. There is little room for disagreement.

These are the major points of difference with the rest of the Christian Church, although many churches will have varying degrees of the above properties.

Examining the above points, what is the problem with the wider church?

It is my impression that differences appear between Christians because they meet in an institutionalised manner rather than in the manner of close friends – i.e. we Christians think it is important to tackle differences of opinion with people we barely know, simply because they are in the same institution and, because we barely know them, it is easy to fall out with them.

Another point is that we often make out that our opinion is our faith. Both myself and Reg (the JW) agreed that there is only one truth, so, for there to be clashes in people’s belief of what that one truth is, must mean that one or both of those people are believing something which isn’t true – i.e. the casting of an opinion as a matter of faith. A bit more humility about what we believe would be helpful, but haven’t we all been taught that we mustn’t doubt our faith? Well if we doubt our opinion, we aren’t doubting our faith! So I wouldn’t worry too much about that!

The wider Christian Church places less emphasis on scripture than the JWs and more emphasis on the personal revelation of the Holy Spirit (often of Scripture). JWs place an emphasis on specific interpretations of scripture and no emphasis on personal revelation. In some ways the JW approach is safer – it certainly appeals to the rules based security that our culture likes so much. On the other side of the fence you could say that the wider church is much more anarchic and dangerous!

My Dad told me the other day that ‘Uncle’ Sid Purse (who founded the the church that I grew up in at South Chard) said:

“The Church is an organism, not an organisation”

which I thought an excellent comment which works in many ways including the understanding of the church as being the body of Christ.

Anyway, I feel that the opportunity to chat with Reg (JW) is a great way to gain a deeper understanding of church – so I would be most appreciative of your comments, but I don’t want this to become a ‘why the JWs are wrong’ thread! That really isn’t the point of this post. Thanks.

The Power of Exclusion

Posted on by
1

Another thing that Bartley mentions (in passing) near the beginning of the book (mentioned here) is the way the church could exclude people, and through exclusion exercise power and control.

This is a very limited form of control, by exclusion one is not actively controlling the life of the excluded, one is simply controlling one’s own life (or a group are simply controlling their own lives) and choosing not to spend much/any time with that particular person.

However, to exclude someone, a tough judgement has to take place: Is this person so bad/far gone that it isn’t wise to spend time with them? That isn’t a nice and easy question to answer, it has hard repercussions. It is also a fairly public judgement that can have a negative effect on oneself (alongside the positive effect of not being adversely influenced by that person).

It’s a tough thing to do, but I do feel that it is a choice that we must continually make. Yes, it is part of the concept of exclusive church (hopefully alongside inclusive mission) and also we can’t expect exclusion to be perfectly exercised – there will always be the ‘weeds’ amongst the ‘wheat’.

I expect that Bartley will cover this more in the rest of the book – so maybe there will be more comment to come on this.

Are Non-Christians Better at Government

Posted on by
8

I’ve just started reading the third book in the “Church after Christendom” series:
Faith and Politics After Christendom – The Church as a Movement for Anarchy
by Jonathan Bartley
Without doubt it will inspire me to a few posts over the next week or so, as I read it.

Anyway, to kick off, how about the suggestion that Christians don’t make good governors in this world…

We read in the Bible that God appoints all governments (Rom 13:1). Now to my mind there isn’t a government that doesn’t indulge in a little violence and control (after all, a govt that didn’t wouldn’t be a govt for long!). Bear in mind, this is at the request of the people – after all, if ‘we’ pay taxes, then we’re sure going to make sure that everyone else does too!

At this stage in my reading of the book we see the view (common in the early church) that we are not here to exercise control over people and see to it that criminals are punished.

I tend to agree with that broad perspective – which implies that non-Christians, with less concerns in this area, are very likely to make better governments in secular society.

You may have noticed this tendency in my thinking before…

Infallibility of the Bible – Non-sensical Myth?

Posted on by
6

I was meeting with some friends about a month or so ago and one of them commented that he didn’t believe in the infallibility of the Bible. Then just the other day I met a chap who complained that he’d met a minister that believed in evolution.

These two statements made me think about what is implied by a belief in the infallibility of the Bible.

The big problem, it seems to me is that everyone will inevitably have a different interpretation of the Bible and that everyone’s interpretation of the Bible (and I’m using interpretation to also mean perception of what it means) must have errors – let’s face it, we are only human!

So what does it mean to say that the Bible is the infallible word of God? Is a statement that cannot make be of any use? I’m going to assume that the Bible is infallible (in fact I tend to believe that it is), however, we now have a huge problem in that nobody has an infallible interpretation of the Bible. So therefore is it meaningless to say that the Bible is the infallible word of God?

If the Bible is the infallible word of God then it doesn’t it make absolutely no difference to anyone because we all make mistakes in interpreting it. What is more important is that ‘the faith we have is infallible’ – which must be true be because faith is from God. What we believe to be faith can only be fallible if it isn’t faith at all.

We know God through faith, through his Spirit communicating to us. This is through all sorts of things, not simply the Bible. It is surely more important to know God than to know what the Bible says about God? (and no, I’m not saying that it isn’t important to know what the Bible says about God!)

Slope and Control

Posted on by
3

With regards to Richard’s piece on ‘slope‘ and the comments about it:

I was thinking about the time I spend with the youth of our local church. Am I:
1. Running a group with the agenda of communicating Christ to them
OR
2. Running a group with the sole agenda of enabling them to be a group and have their own agenda’s, and just being Christ to them.

Certainly the pressure is on me (from tradition) to do (1) and sure I hope that I do communicate Christ to them, but is that my agenda?

Hmmm, is there a condition that I attach to attendance that they must allow me to control a certain amount of the time we spend together? If so, do they come in spite of that? If so, is that a positive thing?

Would it be better to relinquish any attempt to control and just to be there on their terms?

Whilst I’m tending toward the idea of a lack of control I’m not sure that this is a lack of slope. Surely if I practise ‘being Christ to people’ then I am always a slope, always a way in?

But this is slope without hidden agenda, without control, without events – just me being the new me.

Hmmm…

Ethics (or ‘how to know right and wrong’)

Posted on by
Reply

Richard was telling me yesterday that he is covering ethics with his students at college. What a great subject! Not because you learn how to ‘do ethics’ but because you learn (hopefully) that ethics don’t really do what they say on the tin!

As I see it, the problem with ethics is that it relies on our intellects. We know about 0.000001% (or perhaps a little less) about stuff, about the world we live in, about the people we live around, about ourselves, about the effects of our actions. On the other hand God knows 100% about stuff. So, who would you rather trust?

That kind of leads us onto ‘how to know God’s mind’… and that’s an entirely different subject, certainly not ethics! Let’s face it, I don’t have a ‘system’ for knowing my best mates.

Would there be any truth in saying that in the Law of the Old Testament is an ethical system? I don’t know, maybe you know? Any answers?

Rules Rule?

Posted on by
12

Structures, traditions and institutions are all examples of rules. Most of the church today appear to be very happy with rules, they appear to create a certain level of health in the church. You can even measure the results of programmes and see how well these structures perform – just the same as a well run business.

However, Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was, in some way or another, an emergence of a new era of life in which the opportunity to have a renewed spirit that could drive a holy life. This was a step change away from the law, which could not bring life, but only death.

This was a move away from the inflexible law to flexible love, as demonstrated by Christ on, probably, many a Sabbath.

Laws, rules, routines, traditions and structures cannot provide the most optimised lives. A great example is the speed limit: Within a 30mph limit there are places where it would be unbelievable lunacy to travel through a give way junction, corner or a roundabout at 30mph, in other places, where there are no risks of the presence of unexpected other road users it seems to be an unnecessary task to do 30mph (please bear in mind that I am in no way promoting the breaking of the speed limit – we should obey the laws of the land unless God specifically calls us otherwise!). Similarly how can meeting on a Sunday at 10:30am week in, week out be an optimal solution? Why should a hymn sandwich reliably provide an intimate experience of God’s love? (or whatever it is supposed to provide)

What is great about rules is that they can embody hundreds or thousands of years of wisdom – that’s a whole lot more wisdom than your average Joe Bloggs. Because of this, society seems to flourish in the presence of a well developed system of law and social etiquette. To prove this general truth we note that in societies where law and order have broken down you tend to see a lot of injustice, poverty, violence etc.

Now, what scares the church about the idea of life without rules? Well, the same things as society really: injustice, exploitation, abuse, hurt, etc. You just have to see the evidence of antinomianism to ‘prove’ that laws and rules are an absolute necessity for the church.

…But hang on a minute, why does a lack of rules mean that we are going to descend into anarchic mayhem? What kind of tragic Christians descend into the pit of iniquity just because they lack a rule book? Aren’t Christians supposed to have love? Isn’t love supposed to be stronger than law? Aren’t we supposed to be able to resist the temptations that we are faced with? What kind of Christian believes that God inside isn’t enough to be a better person? Isn’t the community of the church going to moderate our beliefs and behaviours by mechanisms of accountability, discipling resulting from Holy Spirit lead lives?

Or am I missing something?…

Communicating with/within the Church

Posted on by
2

We, the church, are the Bride of Christ. What I must remember is that the church is not my ‘bride’, it is not an extension of me.

When I interact with the church, I can interact with it in two ways:

  1. as individuals to whom I am accountable and am in relationship with.
  2. as an entity.

I suspect that I can only treat it as an entity when I bring prophecy to the church. Whilst I can bring my own ‘chat’ to individuals with whom I am in relationship, if I bring comments to the church surely there is much more of an onus on me to bring God’s word, to bring prophecy?

Most of our communication is within our tightly knit groups. Only some is ‘broadcast’. When we ‘broadcast’, both the purpose and responsibility is different. When we broadcast we are not seeking one to one discipleship, encouragement or accountability, we are surely bringing an edifying message of God to the church?

Anthropomorphising The Church

Posted on by
17

Whilst the Bible illustrates the church as the Bride of Christ, we must recognise the metaphor and not put too many ‘person’ characteristics on the church. The church is not a person, we are not hive!

I keep hearing about:

  • The will of God for a local church.
  • The specific mission of a local church.
  • The purpose of a local church.
  • etc.

Whilst I cannot knock these things absolutely, I do wonder if they illustrate our institutionalisation of the church. Hand in hand with institutionalisation come many characteristics that would normally only be applied to a person – the institute begins to have a character, a vision, a purpose, not enough time, not enough resources…

My concern is that we aren’t individualistic enough!!! OK – cringe in horror BUT:

  • We have to ‘work out our own salvation’.
  • Each of us has the Holy Spirit.
  • We are each a priest.
  • We each have to take our own responsibility to be obedient to God.
  • etc.

If we institutionalise the church and treat it as an autonomous entity then:

  • It is easy to ignore our personal responsibility.
  • We end up putting expectations on the church – which actually means putting the individuals under pressure, and because ultimately we don’t treat the entity that is church with the same loving care and attention that we would give an individual – we are insensitive to the entity that is church and therefore insensitive to the people in it.
  • We form structures to pass the ‘will of the church’ down through to the people who we expect to do the work. These structures enable distance to open up and can negate the need for intimate relationships.
  • etc.

So, let’s assume that there is a need to de-anthropomorphise the church, to deconstruct it’s structs and to de-metaphor our over literalism!

Isn’t individualism a crime?!

Sure, individualism that is self seeking is – sure it is. But what about taking our individual responsibilities seriously, not putting too much pressure on others, not making the excuse that something is ‘their’ responsibility.

We see throughout the New Testament plenty of teaching. This teaching is aimed at the individual, it is talking about our responsibility as individuals, our relationship as individuals with a God who loves each of us, as individuals. New Testament teaching isn’t full of stuff about how to control others, it’s about how to control oneself… and submit to others.

The individualism that we see envisioned in the Bible is a personal love. A love that we gain as individuals from God’s action on our individual hearts. Out of that love we sacrifice ourselves, as individuals, on the cross of love. Love for others. We are united as church, not by control, but by love, love for God and love for others.

Let’s stop palming off our individual responsibilities on the church, let’s stop trying to control each other through the structure that church has become. Let’s look to the fundamental property of church, that it is a network of individuals, concerned for each other and having varying depths of relationship with each other, ranging from the intimate to an awareness of our brothers and sisters around the globe, whom we have never met.