Monday 6 December 2010

What do we have leaders for?

Last night, during our evening service, which was'thinking theologically', we found ourselves facing some very interesting questions. We're currently discussing the issue of 'theodicy' and the issue of God, suffering and evil. We've been looking at the logic of evil and we've moved on to discus evil and 'original sin'.

One of the questions was particularly challenging:

"Why don't those people who are the leaders of our denomination keep to God's Word and why don't they help (and protect) us ordinary people from having a line that just keeps on moving! Surely," they said, "What we believe must be constant and so those in leadership should be helping us maintain our consistency, not keep changing that which we believe to accomodate others or make us acceptable to others!"

And you know something? This is a very good question.

How can we expect new converts to understand how that which has been taught as being wrong for so many years (like, for ever?) can suddenly become right? When the line that has been drawn for so many years is suddenly turned into a wavy line to permit some to act as they please and see themselves as no longer at odds with the Church or God's Word is it any wonder that those new believers question whether or not the Church of England might just not be a little bit wrong?

When the line is moved, wholesale, to accomodate practices and endorse behaviour that Christianity has never endorsed, can we really be surprised that those who are new to the faith start to question whether this Christianity is true. After all, surely truth is an absolute not something that can be changed to suit the desires of some to be popular, acceptable and do so by looking like the world (and endorsing what the world does on the way!).

This young Christian was confused, for after all "either truth is true or it is not and if so much of what has been taught is now untrue, how can we believe that the remainder is true anymore?"

Indeed Why don't they?

8 comments:

Undergroundpewster said...

Sometimes you have to wonder why religious leaders put millstones around the necks of the young Christian by seeming so unanchored in their faith and by raising more questions than by providing concise, simple, statements of truth as found in the scriptures. Not even all of the Lord's disciples believed or fully understood until they had actually seen the risen Lord. Their witness should be enough. Maybe some of our leaders are still waiting for more proof.

Revsimmy said...

You mean truths like Christian males being circumcised (practised until the mid first century, and later in some cases apparently), Christians keeping kosher (likewise), not serving in the military (forbidden to Christians for the first 3 centuries), not charging interest on loans (forbidden until the 16th century), slavery being OK (until the early 19th century)? jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth - seems we sometimes take a little while to see where he is leading.

Vic the Vicar said...

With regard to circumcision, the Jewish believers practiced circumcision and encouraged this practice amongst the Gentile believers. It was not (as I understand it) a widespread practice despite the attempts of the Judaizers) and was I understand it, dealt with (i.e. 'not a requirement) at the first council in Jerusalem.

The ''serving in the army' piece refers to the fact that serving went hand-in-hand with pagan worship. This ceased to be the case some time between 313 and 330 (AD) when Rome became Christian (thanks to Constantine).

The person asking the questions has been a believer for a few years now and comes from a middle of the road church which is very central in terms of just about everything!

Pa

Vic the Vicar said...

The kosher food issue was likewise Jewish believers and Judaizers issue which again was addressed by council (and Paul).

For me, the issue is in the perception that there is no consistency in what is believed and that this wavering reflects upon all the things we believe in that nothing appears to be constant any more.

Change always begets discomfort and this coupled with misplaced or uncertain change, undermines, and this is what this person felt.

Thanks both.

Revsimmy said...

For a rather provocative take on whether the scriptures really do provide simple statements, see one of Steve Tilley's recent posts here.

In fact, much of the Bible does not provide "concise, simple statements of truth" as such. Rather, it uses narrative which has to be worked at to uncover truth and which may be quite ambiguous, especially when we do subject them to rigorous scrutiny. Even the teaching of Jesus is rarely as simple as we would sometimes wish to make it.

Church Cat said...

Ignoring the concepts of Yoke and Binding & Loosing as applied to minor issues (Greet each other with a kiss etc)and concentrating on major changes:

Revsimmy makes a good point in that there is a need to interpret teaching and that this is not always easy. (See the later point about Church history)

However where there is a clear statement within the Bible that something is wrong or sinful we are called to uphold that. We must remember that the 'Good News' at the time was quite counter-cultural and went against the world view of quite a few people.

Christians aren't called to look at themselves and decide "How can I adapt my faith to fit in with the world so that I can remain true to Christ" But rather "How can I keep strong in my faith and show the world where it needs to adapt".

There is a danger - especially now - that we are so afraid of offending anyone or being labled fanatics that we are prepared to accept the twin dangers of Relativism and Permissiveness - Where we look at society and adapt our core beliefs to fit with theirs.

Arguments about the reformation nonwithstanding certain things have been held to be true for around about 1800-2000 years during which the church has had some very talented theologans and saints who have all looked at these things and said (in general) "Yep - still sinful".

I think with any major change you need to look and say "What has happened in the last 20 years to make the decisions of the last 1000 years invalid" and if the answer includes anything along the lines of "Well society has changed and that isn't regarded as wrong anymore" then you need to re-think the question.

*ahem* Rant over

Undergroundpewster said...

Let us get back to the mind of the puzzled young Christian. Puzzled by the seemingly endless interpretations over various verses in the scriptures.

I do think that the youth needs to grasp the big picture with the help of a teacher who can draw them back from getting mired in minutia, and who can see to it that they can learn to see the truth of salvation that is to be found in the scriptures. No, the scriptures may not always be simple or concise, but that is the job of the teacher: to convey the message so as not to add to confusion.

UKViewer said...

I can see an interesting debate developing here. Having been brought up as RC in the fifties, I saw the changes wrought by Vatican II, and was not impressed. Although, I admit that Mass in the Vernacular stopped me having to learn Latin - a bonus for an idle boy.

Having rejected all forms of religion as an adult, who could think for himself (sad individual that I was) I eventually joined the CofE just under 3 years ago. I immediately embarked on a sharp learning curve to find out what I could about the Church, I went to obscure places such as the 39 Articles, the Canons and history etc - what I was looking for was a Catechism such as I had been brought with in the RC Church to help me along, I found one in the BCP, which seemed quite out of date and out of touch, but I understand is the only one in use.

I later found more up to date in the Confirmation Preparation documents, which while written in accessible language, did not seem to vary much from the BCP Catechism.

I have come to see that the church struggles from day to day and from age to age to interpret scripture and truth in a way which is usable and can be grasped by new generations while struggling to maintain the balance of continuity of what they understand and believe.

My question extending the original one might be, how do we maintain Orthodoxy of doctrine and belief in the face and pace of such rapid change in the last 150 years.