“Finding the Right Hills to Die On” (Ortlund, Crossway 2020)

This is a continuation of my reflections on my 7 years in Munster (Ireland) working with IFES. You can find part 1 here. This post is part book-review, part reflection – perhaps a bit of an unusual combination for anyone else but me, who does quite a bit of my reflection through reading, and quite a bit of my work while also selling/giving away hundreds of books.

---

It was the summer before moving to Cork after my Relay internship in Nottingham, and I had a whole 2 months to spend as I wished.  My new employer (Christian Unions Ireland) suggested that I don’t pack my summer madly full of teams and exhaust myself before such a big transition, but I still think I found a few weeks to co-lead a Beach Mission team for the first time in Tramore, County Waterford.  What was one to do with the remainder of time?

Well, an invitation came up from a Cambridge University lecturer to chauffeur a visiting family, prominent in evangelical circles in America.  Having not driven a car since passing my test, many years before, my desire to meet this family, and to live alongside them in a 5 star lifestyle for a week or two, outweighed any common sense that would have said no.  And so there I was.  Many travel stories could be told about those weeks, but as this is a book review, I better get to my point.  At the end of that holiday I was sent a book by the family “A hill on which to die” by a Southern Baptist evangelical man who had stood strongly against liberalism in the church and had fought to swing the denomination back from error, by holding out the Bible as the inspired word of God.

If the account contained in that book was anything near the truth, I could be very thankful for such a stand of truth made in challenging and bitter circumstances, even if I did not always agree on the spirit in which the battles were fought – but who am I to know how I would behave in such heated years of debate and political gameplay?

It made me think a lot about what was worth spending my life on.  There are so many good causes clamouring for our attention that affect millions of people.  There were about to be many things I could spend my time and energy on, in a region which didn’t have much student work and still (despite much growth) only had a young and fledgling church scene.

Some groups that year would try and persuade me that creationism (6 day creation) was worth going to the stake for.  Because if one loses that, they said, one loses the very trustworthiness of the scriptures.

Some individuals that year would try and persuade me that Luther was completely wrong to have a theology of the cross, and that a theology of glory (abundant miracles, over-realised eschatology etc.) could be radically different to that of the cross and still be the perfect way to walk as a Christian.

That was also the year that settling in a Baptist Church also meant I couldn’t become a member and have any voting rights or part in the leadership of the church, as I was a Presbyterian by conviction.  Should I be baptised, just because they wouldn’t have me in?  Or did I have to go to the Presbyterian Church or set one up anywhere I went in life? 

Soon in my time, I was being labelled an egalitarian (in terms of the role of women in church life), simply because I spent time discipling and investing in women and making sure they had opportunity to grow in Bible handling and exercising their gifts in various ways.  Similar assumptions were later made about my (lack of) trust in the Holy Spirit, as I had not been ‘baptised of the Spirit’ in the way a second-blessing charismatic might be happy with, and so I was assumed to be devoid of true spirituality.

Sadly even recently, it was me who jumped very quickly on things that a pastor wrote on social media, not understanding his friends or the context into which he was writing, and instead sensing an opportunity for my heresy heron to find something to publicly challenge.

And for every hard story, there have been encouragements and much grace shown to me.  My Baptist church in Cork who (although denying me membership) let me lead a homegroup at times, preach in the church, shape the evangelism strategy at points and lead services regularly.  And having been invited to lecture at a Pentecostal (Nigerian) Bible College for a few days, it was the organisers who persuaded the students to listen to me, despite me not having been baptised of the spirit at a second point in life (post-conversion) – that was a secondary issue, according to them – I had all I needed for life and Godliness already.  And even those who would try to persuade me that creationism was an essential doctrine, would let my agnosticism (along with firm convictions on God’s word and God having created out of nothing) in to their fold in the end.

And these are just a few of the theological positions that one is encouraged to have strong views on.  I am thankful that I have been nurtured in a gospel church all my life (in Belfast, Nottingham and Cork) that valued Godly character perhaps even more than agreement on secondary beliefs.  I have been raised in a family where listening to diverse opinions on non-central issues was encouraged and demonstrated – where holding various beliefs in tension was not a problem.  The heritage of Christianity that I have been brought up with, and the warm gospel heart of grace it came with, has let me explore theology and drink of the deepest wells and most profound literature.  It has left me able to spend hours, days, weeks, even months exploring some debated topics, and even then not always coming to firm conclusions straight off.  “If I just read this one more book, then I’ll make up my mind…” went my line of thought normally.  One book later, I was often just as perplexed!

Of course when jousting with the world’s experts (or at least watching them joust, thinking I am gallantly riding in with them!) on topics that I am reading about for the first time, it is not a surprise that I was not immediately able to see a clear position to take on some of these issues.  But I have appreciated the chance to wrestle for years with these topics and gradually increase my convictions on where I stand on many things.

But I am a rare case (in many ways, you might say).  Not many have such theological resources at their fingertips (in English and in wealth).  Not many spend years delving into finer points of theological nuance, before they have to make decisions in order to get on with life.

It is into this that Gavin Ortlund writes, and writes fantastically.

What is a primary issue?  What is a secondary issue?  Do secondary issues matter?  What is a tertiary issue?  Do some theological truths change from being one level to another level depending on circumstance?  What churches ought to put aside differences and unite?  What theological truths are important enough to be wiser to stay apart?

Gavin comes from an unashamedly reformed position (not that it is obvious throughout the book), though interestingly has found himself outside of normal denominational parameters in the convictions he has reached on various points.  He therefore is a good sparring partner and hopes to get us flexing our theological muscles and our generous spirit, rather than agreeing with him on everything he believes!

He helps us firm our convictions on some major points (he follows Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, amongst other things) but is beautifully experiential in realising that not everyone can state theology or understand theological statements on primary issues, yet may still believe them in their heart (quoting John Owen and others on that topic).  But on other points he aims to persuade us that there are more grounds for diverse views within a faithful church that many of use care to believe or practice on a day to day basis.

His work was a rare gem on a topic I rarely see tackled, that fits perfectly into one of the great strengths of the Christian Union movement in Ireland (and IFES beyond) where the Doctrinal Basis that speakers and committees are asked to sign-up to, is as broad as the gospel allows on primary issues, but as narrow as the gospel demands also.  Figuring out what is primary and what is secondary (or tertiary) is indeed what every young leader spends a lot of time wrestling with.  Some need to stop being heresy hunters in every meeting.  Others need to learn to take a stand against theological error (even at the expense of friendships and other costly things) that will destroy God’s people long-term if it is allowed to persist.

But beyond the CUs this book is one that is hugely needed too.  As the Presbyterian Church in Ireland perceivably go to loggerheads with each other over whether female leadership is a primary or secondary issue, as the Association of Baptists in Ireland recently debated at a leadership gathering whether to let paedobaptists like me into membership, and as the Church of Ireland and Methodist Church in Ireland face battles against liberalism, this topic is a timely one.  Not to mention the need to increase theological conviction in many within the new independent and charismatic churches in Ireland, and the increasing secularism in the north which will mean unless similar church denominations agree collectively on a strategy to shut (and plant) churches, many resources will be wasted and the Church will suffer at the hands of reluctant denominational committees, all holding out on their precious secondary (and tertiary) beliefs, unwilling to budge.

The awkward thing is, that when one starts to realise how much of the gospel is of primary importance, and how much we hold dear is actually just cultural or tertiary beliefs, one starts to realise that one has spent an awful lot of life living ungenerously towards others, choosing to not love them well, by not seeking to better understand them and their position. 

And indeed it can be one of the greatest blessings of travel too.  It opens one’s eyes to the whole world, to vastly different cultures, and to the persecuted church.  And when one sees with new eyes, with the voice of the persecuted church in one ear, and the many Unengaged People Groups in the other ear, it is very hard to start fighting theological battles constantly over minutia of doctrine that don’t appear all that central in scripture.

Open Doors World Watch List maps (free)

But without leaving Munster, I am indebted to several (unofficial) mentors, who demonstrated several principles to me so well and bore with my naïve understanding of this topic with incredible grace:

• Is what you are opposing really what the other person believes?  Is your articulation of their belief the fairest or most generous account you could give of it?
• Is this the hill upon which to die?
• Am I the person who ought to do this?
• Is this the right time?
• Is this the best spirit in which this can be done?

Perhaps two small areas which I felt Gavin (in a marvelous book) could have spent a bit longer on:

1. How God has sovereignly used mistake after mistake, mis-emphasis upon mis-emphasis, to still bring about his good purposes in this world
2. The difference between heresy and mistaken belief (or convictionally being different on a secondary issue)

The first is as much because I feel the weight of it on my own heart – what glorious grace that has brought me to where I am, and what grace I will need to go any further.  The second perhaps because the word “heresy” is chucked around an awful lot, when we actually mean “if he were to continue in that belief and not hold it in tension with other doctrines, one would logically be heading down a path to heresy”.  Such ultra-logical frameworks often over-exaggerate the way someone arrives at convictions in life, but sometimes can be helpful to perceive where something could lead.

But having promised my wife (recently married) that I’ll sell some of my books, and having lost my student audience to loan and sell second-hand books to, I feel bad to say that I think I may buy five copies and give them away.  But I really might.  This one is just so helpful.

Some more questions around Identity

Thanks for all your feedback, phone calls and comments from a wide range of folk about my last blog post here. It appears our setting on this island resonates with many places in the world. I want to quickly respond to a few common questions that many asked, as a means by which to generate further conversation – please do keep chatting! As numerous people replied with these questions, having similar conversations with me, please don’t think I’m speaking about you specifically if you see ‘your’ question(s).

• “Clearly no Christian says they have their full identity in their flag. Can we not have part of our identity in it – in the place God has us born?” (about a dozen people said this)

God has lavishly given us everything in life that we have (including our new identity in Him). The only question we have, is how we respond. Because I have been given everything, I hope to say I have everything to give, and God within me to empower me to do so, even when that’s hard. It is hard to read Philippians chapter 2, and still ask questions of “what can I keep speaking about loudly in my identity?”. We follow a Christ who thinks not of His own needs, but that of others as he lays down His life for His enemies, even to death, death on a cross. The Apostle Paul responds to the Corinthian church to say (1 Cor 9:20-22) that he would give up anything for the sake of the gospel, even across cultural divides. If you are British, how can you use that to God’s glory, and to love your enemy (or your neighbour as yourself)? If you are Irish, what about you? Yes be proudly British or Irish, but let’s realise:

1. every culture is beautiful in some way (Gen 1 – do we celebrate others’ beauty?)
2. every culture is fallen in some way (Gen 3 – do we repent and show humility?)
3. the Kingdoms of this world in most ways are temporary and are NOTHING (stronger language could be used) compared to the glory of knowing Christ Jesus (Phil 3:8 – do we hold loosely to even what we are most precious about?)

• “I am not called to speak Irish, to play GAA or to live in a nationalist area. That does not make sectarian or make me responsible for the problems you write about.” (about 6 people messaged, though many more have similar feelings that I’ve chatted to)

In our individualistic western world, we speak a lot about “callings” and individual responsibility. Some of that is Biblical of course, but a lot of the Bible was written to groups of people. But our trouble is, that as The Church (capital C), we do not enjoy what our groom gives us to enjoy. If we all sit back and say “it’s not my responsibility”, we miss the fact that Christ thinks that for our good and His glory, we could enjoy his heartbeat for all peoples – most of all, His enemies (us all, at one time). We are not all called to “go” to the areas with less Christian presence, but we all should ask ourselves what part we are playing in showing Christ’s love to such places, and consider why we are not willing to go. (There are many gospel reasons to not go.) I’ve written about this a lot here. Ulster has generally shown great vigour in going to the ends of the earth (praise God!), but hasn’t figured yet how to go to Samaria.

GAA – the Gaelic Athletic Association of Ireland, as exampled in this picture of a Gaelic Football (taken from here: all copyright)

• “Sinn Fein/Westminster are blackmailing us. I will never give in, even if thousands of lives are at stake (through abortion). The blood is on their own hands.” (few were brave enough to express what two readers did, to this extent, but several agreed)

Politics is a messy game, for sure. But I would think twice about gambling with thousands of lives. If I was a hypothetical unionist supporter (which I’m not revealing here whether I am or not), and I could save thousands of lives for giving up an Irish Language Act Bill which I resented, then surely even if I felt I was being blackmailed to do it, I would? One is demanded by scripture, the other is not. In Biblical times, they were called to primarily serve God and flowing from that, to honour the King, regardless of who was on the throne, even when their tax money went to corrupt and evil men (c.f 1 Peter, Rom 13). God will be the final judge of who is responsible or not but I personally will do my best to stop them and be vocal about it, even if I’m blackmailed for it. But as I said before, perhaps we lost this one when we voted perpetually for sectarian division, year after year.

• “Playing GAA has too many connotations with political things for me to touch it.”

Let’s go back to Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well. Firstly, as a Jew, He deliberately goes via Samaria (he didn’t have to). Choosing to go to Samaria, when war-like hatred was shown between the people, had its connotations. Secondly, as a male, he chose to sit with a lone, promiscuous woman in the heat of the day at a well (see here for the history of wells). That had its sexual connotations in middle eastern culture. Jesus didn’t seem too concerned with connotations. What He did seem concerned for was mission, flowing from a pure heart. For us, that might mean we choose not to go up to women in nightclubs and offer them a drink as a means to show Christ’s love (perhaps a parallel modern situation). But it will mean we cross borders (metaphorical ones and real ones) for the sake of the good news.

• “You are secretly just promoting your [insert political thought here eg: nationalist, globalist] politics and forget that you yourself are highly political and are only asking those of a certain political view to pipe down.” (three people publicly, many more privately)

I will happily admit that nobody is neutral. I have my politics, and people may assume what they wish. Nationalists in the north think I’m Unionist because of my schooling and sport association. Unionists in the north assume I’m nationalist because I’ve lived in Cork and write blog posts like this.

But my argument does not lie on any political view. I argue neither to downplay national sovereignty, nor to advocate a nationalism of any sorts. Setting aside John 4 that we’ve already considered, let’s turn to Galatians. Paul (in chapter 1) sets our his stall that he has received this good news by revelation, and that He hasn’t spent time anywhere else to learn such an unusual gospel (chapter 2). It demands that righteousness comes freely from outside of human action – circumcision makes no difference! Titus is relieved – he sits in the corner of this debate, wondering whether he’ll need to be circumcised as a new follower of Jesus. The answer resounds clearly – no! Salvation is a free gift, needing no such thing added to it. But turn to Acts 16 and we suddenly see Paul circumcising Timothy! Why? Has Paul changed his mind?! No! It’s because they are going to a Jewish area to reach out.

Was Paul advocating a type of globalism that stuffs Jewish national identity when he dismissed the need to be circumcised? No! Was he advocating a nationalist perspective when he circumcised Timothy? No! He was doing all that he could to reach the people at hand, while sacrificing what was secondary importance. I’m sure Timothy minded – it’s painful! And it’s not even needed as a Greek – so why bother? Hardly as if many people check! But he was willing to lay down his identity to reach others. Nothing to do with politics. But at the same time, utterly political. And I could go onto other passages. Me advocating this has nothing to do with what politics I support. (But it is utterly political in action)

• “By speaking of a mission organisation like that, you are doing something very unhelpful. They are not like that in general. You will put people off going on mission through writing such things.” (4 people)

May I suggest that the only people I’ll put off going on such teams, are the people looking for a perfect mission organisation or experience? But I hate to tell you, they don’t exist. But they don’t exist because the one true mission organisation that God has given the world, is The Church (from which flows these Acts 13-like mission teams). And it’s a bunch of messy (but both sanctified and being sanctified) people, who all make cultural mistakes and place their identity in many false places, all too often.

I lead teams year after year for that mission organisation and would flag-wave endlessly for them (not that kind of fleg). They have taught me so much of what I know about evangelism. And as I said in my first blog post, I LOVE that these mistakes are being made (if we learn from them). Like my colleague Izzy says, we must not be paralysed by thinking we must be perfect. And I am the first to have made, and still make MANY mistakes in my own culture, never mind in others. And I pray that my team members and others will forgive me my mistakes, will point them out to me, and help me change to have more of God’s heart too, as they have done even in this (I hope).

Finally, let me tell you about one of my friends.

She is my age, was brought up in a protestant, unionist home, and continues to live round the corner from me, under the shadow of Windsor Park, where the kerb-stones are painted red, white and blue and my car arriving with a Cork-registration plate gets the neighbours out to their windows. She works a normal job. She has never learnt a word of Irish, couldn’t tell you who is playing in the GAA All-Ireland final this Sunday, and attends a protestant church in the heart of east Belfast.

But she does this, whilst enjoying Jesus, dying to herself, and living for Him. She is still thoroughly British, but her friends (non-Christian) when asked about her all say “she is the only person who loved us when we moved house here”; “she loves different cultures like I’ve never seen before”; “she is one of us”.

Because every morning she wakes (when she remembers), she asks Jesus, in light of what He’s done, to help her lay her life down to love some of the most unreached people in the world on her doorstep. She abandons some of her clothing choices, to fit in with them. She eats differently, so that she can share meals with them. She changes hobbies, to enjoy what they like to do. When asked about Israel and Palestine, she side-steps questions or asks good questions back again, even though she has views of exactly what’s right and wrong. She finds they don’t find her sense of humour funny the same way her close friends growing up did – she suffers it. She finds a church community, who will welcome outsiders, or learn how to do so with her help. She even learns their language and takes all her annual leave visiting their country, to do so. Yes, I’m not talking about nationalists. I’m talking about Arab neighbours.

Arabs in Belfast welcomed, as reported by the Irish Times (here). Photo credit IT.

Somehow that makes sense for her. But if it makes sense for her, why doesn’t it make sense for us, even in our normal jobs and normal lives to support and have such a heartbeat, even when we can’t be the ones “going”?

Sadly my non-Christian friends (the ones who I’ve been close enough to give them opportunity to speak into my life) have seen all too clearly where my identity has seemed to lie, at times:

• You’re so busy rushing around doing Christian things, we never see you. (My identity was perhaps in missional activity rather than Jesus)
• You never come on nights out with us. (In first year of uni, my identity was so busy trying to be holy by abstaining, I forgot to love people well, perhaps by staying up to help them when they came home drunk, or in other ways)
• You get far more passionate about [insert topic] when we talk, than anything else – is that what you value? (Caveat: let’s remember some cultures are more direct than others – let’s not try to “out-Jesus” each other in our speech)

But ultimately it’s God’s Word, applied to God’s World well, that will expose our hearts and convince us that finding our identity and worth in who Christ is, and what He has done, will be ultimately satisfying. Though sometimes God even uses our non-Christian friends to do that through His common grace!

A little booklet written to counter the common claims of “For God and for [insert political identity here]….”

So my prayer for both you and I today, in light of this whole discussion about British identity and culture, is that God will help us travel this earth, in tandem with His heart. And that it will radically alter how we live here on this island. None of us can pretend we’re not enculturated (/bathed in a culture). There are no people who see everything and act neutrally. But there are those who pray that the Spirit would illumine and show them what is their culture and what is the gospel, and seek to live in light of that distinction, deliberately amongst many who are “not like us”.

---

I merely echo words of many who have more succinctly and beautifully said things before me on this topic. The work of ECONI summarised by a QUB researcher and respected cultural analyst, comes to mind, even if ECONI broadened its views later. I will happily send anyone a copy of “For God and His Glory Alone” who wishes, in the post.

Missionaries are just adventurers?

“I’m not going to the Missions Conference” said my friend in church. Having just given everything to help organise the conference that hundreds of people came to every year, I was deflated to hear these words from a core member of the Christian community. Why?

“Missionaries at conferences are just a bunch of extroverted adventurers who tell cool stories about their adventures following God elsewhere in the world. I’m not supporting their adventures under the name of Jesus.”

And to some extent, I could see where they were coming from. So many missionaries to gain support, tell story after story of impressive things, in scary situations, or radical moves of God. The story often revolves round them, their work, or their experience, and that’s somewhat natural.

And so many mission teams and people, end up doing things abroad that they would never dream of doing at home, or never think was wise or sustainable to do. Spending your time painting orphanages may seem wonderful, until you rob the local painter of a job. Blitzing the city of [insert name] that is predominantly [insert other religion] with gospel literature before leaving may seem brave and fearless, until you realise the negative impact it has on sustainable work of local Christians.

If those were the missionaries we were having on stage, I might go to be entertained, but equally I might decide to stay at home.

Thankfully, they’re not. For at least three reasons:

1. Every Christian is a missionary

God is on mission – the Mission Dei. And He calls us along to partake in His vision, which we glimpse as we see His heart in the scriptures, and see His hand at work across the nations. It’s not an optional calling. It’s not a thing for adventurers or extroverts. It’s for everyone, both at home and abroad. And I hope our conferences reflect that – this year, we’d a diverse range of people speaking, from a teacher, to a student, to a golf green-keeper, a church worker, a stay-at-home parent and many more. Forget the scary terminology, or questioning whether missionaries are good for the world. They are. Because we’re all on mission. And His mission is His church, which is the best thing to happen to the world.

2. Every personality type is used in the body

There was a generation who delighted in Myers Briggs personality tests. “I’m in introvert” and “I’m INFP” were things you often heard. Those were very useful (and still are) but often were labels that people hid behind and used as excuses. “I can’t tell people about Jesus like that, because I’m not that kind of person.”

But while respecting the diversity of Christ’s creation, we can’t simply hide behind personality types as a reason why we’re not living and speaking for Jesus wherever we are. Yes, we must cherish the different parts of the body of Christ, value our unity in diversity, and not try and force everyone into the same mold, but we must also always push ourselves out of our comfort zones a little, so that we grow in areas we are not comfortable in. Perhaps that’s what might challenge even the current “Strengthfinder” generation, who like to build on people’s strengths primarily.

It’s why some of the people who’ve left Cork to go on mission to some of the more extreme places in the world, are actually introverts and humanly speaking far from being the stereotypical “adventurer”. And it’s beautiful when God does that – so changing people’s hearts and convictions as to who He is, that they can’t help but radically be re-orientated to His call. It’s who they were made to be, even if that doesn’t seem obvious to them years ago.

3. We must tell God’s story, rather than our own

This is something I struggle with. When does telling an incredible story about God working, actually point to me? Does every story I tell, necessarily have to be about me failing or being weak, but God still using it? I look at some of this in chapter 2 of my book.

And what do we expect of our cross-cultural missionaries….do we ask them to be normal church leaders in a local context, plus have the ability to speak other languages, learn other cultures, thrive amongst other worldviews and perhaps have a normal job on the side too? It’s very hard to say the sentence “God primarily uses ordinary followers of Jesus” when you’ve just said the sentence before it. That doesn’t appear like a normal person to me. That appears like an extremely gifted person (humanly speaking) in certain things, which we could not expect everyone to be. There’s a joke in some circles that love to emphasize how God uses “ordinary” people, that it’s a bunch of extra-ordinary personalities trying to persuade us that we can all be ordinary.

Regardless, every time we organise a conference, we try and excite people, not primarily with big personalities or intrepid story-tellers, but with God’s Word, His work and His story.

The Christian hostel community that I stayed with in Scotland the other night.

Regardless, every time we organise a conference, we try and excite people, not primarily with big personalities or intrepid story-tellers, but with God’s Word, His work and His story.

But it brings me back to thinking….

Perhaps if God uses all personality types and gifts, we should play to the strengths of those who are adventurers at heart? Shouldn’t it be a natural recruiting pool for people who could go to the hardest-to-reach spots in the world where there are still Unengaged People Groups? Sure, we must be careful that this is not the prime reason we pick them – Godly character, a love for God, and for His Church should still ooze from them. But to not tap into the adventurous spirit of many – to overlook travel – is to overlook some of the people most humanly fitted to going.

What if, instead of ranting about travelling people being always on the road, we were to empower them to do what they do well, to the glory of God, and for His mission? What if the way they learnt to love the local church, was to see that their adventurous spirit can be a key part of local church community, without making them feel like they are tied to a chair and strait-jacketed by Christianity?

By loving them, in their diverse gifts and passions, we give them an example of loving people of radically different gifts and passions, and serving and honouring them. And we trust that they’d start to do the same – to value to 9-5 office worker and the stay at home parent. To show love to the disabled kid, or the person who would rather sit at home playing computer games. To intentionally demonstrate that God’s community includes all sorts.

It’s why I wasn’t surprised that out of all those I talked to at a recent Christian hostel, many (even new believers, who’d come to faith in another hostel, and were now plugged in to local church) were considering overseas mission in hard places where Jesus isn’t known.

Perhaps, we should stop looking down on travel as a subsidiary luxury of the western church?

***********

PS: A question for another day is what church looks like in those hard-to-reach warzones, nomadic tribes or other places, when a bunch of extroverted adventurers turn up together on the doorstep. What does diversity look like then? Answers on a postcard please (or in the comments below).

Travelling “In Search of Ancient Roots” (Book Review, Stewart, Apollos Press)

On my annual leave this year I travelled to some of the ancient Christian sites of the Bible (in Athens) and of the early church (in Egypt and North Africa).  Experiencing such reminders of history, of the global Church and of ancient roots, was a powerful thing that got me thinking.  Is what I believe now, what they believed then?

Reading this on Areopagus Hill, looking up at the Greek Acropolis.

Living in a fast changing, post-(Roman)-Catholic Ireland has its challenges.  I could imagine that when any culture comes out of a period living under a particular way of life, that it takes a while for people to stand on their own two feet and consider where they are going next.  All the energy was poured into divesting ourselves of the old way, without much thought to where we’ll go now.  And much as we like to think we’re rational creatures, always logically assessing what to believe and how to act, I think we’d be hard-pressed to paint that picture.

Some are very perceptive in that way.  One student who met me last year said

“I’m on my way to becoming an atheist.  That’s where I want to be, because of what I’ve experienced of the [Catholic] church, but I haven’t honestly done enough thinking to defend my position.”

And equally that’s what we find when we come to churches as well.  Thousands have decided that Catholicism is not for them but that they still find Jesus attractive and true, and want to worship Him.  And so how do they do that?  Well they start their own church.  And start it with everything that Catholicism was perceived not to be.

Was it perceived that Catholicism had too much structure?  Start a church that claims to have no structure and is just led by the Spirit!

Was it perceived that Catholicism didn’t allow room for questioning?  Start something where you can question everything.

Was it perceived that Catholicism had such a majestic view of God that you could never know Him?  Start something where Jesus is very personal and the intimacy of the Holy Spirit is emphasized in all the services.

Was it perceived that Catholic doctrines of infant baptism, the Mass and liturgy were too much like institutionalised religion?  Get back to the “early church” and have baptism upon belief, breaking of bread round meals and informal worship in houses.

And so that’s what we’ve had.  Tens of new churches popping up in this city, all who look to correct the ways of old.  Perhaps before moving on to say how this book is very helpful at speaking into that situation, we’d do well to note one final cultural thing that plays a great weight in this setting.

Exploring what the ancient pillars of the Church were, and how to stay in line with them.

As individuals decide to start new churches (many claiming Divine mandates), many of them will refuse to look outside themselves to do it.  Traditional denominations like Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian and others are perceived as foreign (and in some cases, are culturally foreign, given most of their leaders are trained abroad in a very different culture and some struggle to differentiate between culture and gospel).  And so much of the resources in the English speaking world, do come from British culture (and America).  But partly because these cultures are different, and partly because we, as Irish people, have our hearts set against learning from those who ruled over us (whether perceived Catholicism or British rule), we struggle to do anything but experiment with our churches.  We would rather do this, and see what works in Ireland (pragmatism) than learn from others.

Now there are some advantages of this.  But also, we’ve hit some pretty major problems.

In our experimenting with claiming its the Holy Spirit who leads us (outside of human means), we’ve let church leaders get away with poor leadership, abuse and have seen churches where the priest-like-figure has just become another personality or extremely gifted individual.  Church discipline is no-where to be seen.

In our reacting to a system that struggled to allow room for questions, we threw the door open to everything and start to question everything without limit.  You’ll find some leaders who don’t think God is sovereign over the future, some who expect Heaven to be realised now on earth, some who claim to be above Doctrinal statements, some who think they have found the keys to reforming the church that no others have found before and others who think they can emphasize that God speaks to them in so many ways outside of scripture, that scripture takes a back seat.  Heresy is rife, and largely under the radar of most of us, who all see the great heart of those making such statements.

In our wanting to escape a picture of God as a grey haired old man in the sky, who had little to do with everyday life, we’ve sought to make God entirely comprehensible and relevant, bringing him down to our own image, worshipping Him as if He was our best mate sitting beside us at the GAA and shunning anything that seemed too grand or majestic.  That was the old way of life.  We’ve got a new covenant personal Jesus now.  The creator-creature distinction in our theology, that emphasized how “other” God is, how mysterious some of His being still is to us, and how above our way of thinking His purposes are, is now lost.  Every service, we have lost a sense of His majesty and our finite nature.  We are on the same plane, in a way we never ought to be.

Finally, in our desire to run from institutionalised sacraments, we have bolted to the only other extreme we thought there was.  Instead of saying baptism has some influence on our salvation (as Catholicism does), we declare it to just be an outward symbol for one service where we invite all our non-Christian mates in to hear our story.  Instead of receiving grace (for salvation) through the Mass (as Catholicism teaches), we abandon any relevance of the Lord’s Supper, pretend they are only symbols and even mull over whether they need to be bread and wine at all (why not baked beans and banana, in a meal together at home?).

Given we’ve come to this “reactionary Christianity”, it’s no surprise to me that many who seemingly came to faith are falling away from it, and that so many who abandoned the Roman Catholic Church actually come back to seeing its extreme advantages compared to the experimental fellowships they’ve encountered since.

To those who’ve encountered any element of this shallow “evangelicalism” (which I would argue is no evangelicalism at all), I can recommend reading Kenneth Stewart’s book “In Search of Ancient Roots”.

Kenneth starts out by outlining the perceived beauty of a system (like Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) that purports to believe the same thing throughout all ages, across all nations.

His main points in the book to me, were that:

• such systems aren’t really as united as they appear at all, across all parts
• such systems aren’t really united across history in what they have believed
• there is great historicity in evangelical doctrine all the way from the early church

Now given how complex a topic this is, I’ll not delve into how well I fell Stewart makes his case here.  You can grab a coffee with me for that.  But it’s well worth the read, particularly for those of us in our Irish setting.  It does however, come with the warning that it’s not for the faint hearted.  It’s a meaty book with many a juicy morsel that will kickstart an interest for you in reading church history, if you haven’t ever had one before!  But don’t be put off.  Why not let it challenge you, let it raise questions for you, and let it provoke you to worship a God who has always been faithful throughout history, even (and especially) through a messy Church.  Why not grab a friend and read it together?

Afro-Irish contextualisation

I met up with one of our graduates the other day to talk about this key topic for the Irish church.  Travel has both caused the “problem” and may also help us solve the “problem”.

We cover:

• whether racism is an issue in the church?
• why the church in Ireland is largely split racially
• what can be done to help this issue?

And much more.  It’s a very basic start to a complex topic.  Check it out here:

Worshipping with African Christians

I’ve been thinking a lot about what we can learn from African Christians recently and how we can unite. This is just one of those ways. Christian travellers: take note!  I look forward to studying under this man (whose blog I reblog now) in a couple of years:

These things are written

Andrew Walls describes his experience of participating in Christian worship with African Christians:

It is one of the most extraordinary things–you don’t know the language, and yet you know you are in a Christian congregation, and gradually you find your place in this form of worship. And gradually you learn to pray and sing. You are reading the Scriptures together, as human beings together, looking to one Christ for salvation…. I don’t think anyone brought up in the thin-blooded North can go to Africa and attend African churches without something happening to give them new insights into Christian worship–that expression of joy, that enormous vitality that comes through the African setting, with all the poverty, all the distress that people have…. When people pray with you, you realize why the New Testament talks about praying with the bowels! I would hope other Christians would be similarly enriched. We are one…

View original post 50 more words

How can we live together in a pluralistic society?

Two top thinkers in the world discuss this in NYU.  This is a treat.

Why Jesus enables unity in the world more than any other.

Elsewhere, for another blog, I was writing on how unity can be brought about from great diversity, and what motivates me to put my life to this cause.  I wanted to respect exactly that: the diversity of ways this might be achieved, and so I didn’t explicitly state how I think the [evangelical] Christian worldview best equips people to do just that.  But for those who are interested, here are some quick thoughts:

1. Only the Christian worldview has its foundation as a perfectly diverse community (Father, Son, Spirit), united as One (a Triune God). If this is the core of how a worldview works, you could expect this to be mirrored in society by Christians.
2. Only the Christian worldview has a founder (Jesus) who lays down His life and His rights for a disunited people (his enemies), and says He’ll give them a power within themselves (individually and as a community) to live in light of that, seeking the needs of others first, as He did.
3. Only the Christian worldview gives an identity in life (in Christ) that has no link to any earthly kingdom, but still gives great reason that we ought to attempt in His strength to transform communities until a new Heaven and earth appear
4. Only the Christian worldview explains our longing for something better. Why ought the world be better?  Why ought we aim to cause good and not evil?  The Christian account of how the world came to be (regardless of how that looks scientifically, which I’m happy to discuss) has the world as a beautiful ruin.  Beautifully made, but ruined to its core.  And so we should expect to see both of those present in everything: beauty and ruin.  Or as Pascal said, glory and garbage.

If any other worldview does any of those things, I’ll be happy to stand corrected!  Sadly, this is not to say that all 4 of these have been lived out by local Christians.

We see Christians forgetting that we are all unique and different, and trying to force a theocracy on everyone.  Ultimately the “god” they force on everyone tends to look a little like themselves, and thinks that way too!

We see Christians wanting to fight for their rights first, even when that comes at the expense of others.  Perhaps some who take their privileged status in the west, and never seek to constantly be looking to bless others from it.

We see Christian DUP fanatics claiming that their identity is primarily in Christ, when all they speak of is politics and vilifying the “other” side.  Equally I see evangelical Sinn Fein supporters in Cork who would advocate taking up arms still against the British.

We see Christians who refuse to see good in other worldviews and political opinions.  Who make straw men arguments and vilify others.  They see everything as black and white, so their cause is easier to defend.  They forget we’re all beautiful humans with some good and some bad.  They forget we’re all ruined with some ruin in our own views/thinking.

What might this look like?

Well it looks diverse.  It could mean being a left-wing councillor of Sinn Fein in west Cork (who I’ve sat next to in church), being a right wing conservative (David Quin of the Iona Institute), or being a middle of the road, centre-ground person.  But whatever it looks like, it’ll mean first of all having our identity in something not of this world, but in someone who will come and re-create all things.

2 Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, ² then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. ³ Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, ⁴ not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

⁵ In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

⁶ who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
⁷ rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
⁸ And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death –
        even death on a cross!

⁹ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,
¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
¹¹ and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.

Another remnant of British days in Ireland, visited this weekend.

A united DUP and Sinn Féin?! Thoughts on unity, diversity and elections, from Cork.

The thick arm slowly contracted around my neck, squeezing just a bit too much for my liking.  The hearty laugh of the large figure who was keeping me captive once again boomed out over the countryside of west Cork “you British planting parasite, I’ll kill you one day when I come with my army!”  I didn’t care to lift my Irish passport, nor scold him in Irish for his banter.  My crime?  Suspicion that my schooling in east Belfast, my sporting associations (playing hockey), and my mixed family backgrounds made me one of the “other” side.

That was Seamus*, my good friend, and my teacher of Irish history from a different perspective. Driving home from the heart of west Cork to my home in Cork city, I’m in a contemplative mood.  Putting Seamus’ jokes aside, there are still many deep divisions on this island.  We don’t need to point fingers at Trump’s sweeping generalisations about certain demographics of the world population, to see fingers pointing back to us, asking us what we’re doing about the division we’re part of.  The division that remains far longer that it should, because we consider our only political action is voting.  And then we sit in despair for four years and wait.  We mock those “other”s who we voted into power and pretend they’re very different to us.  Horrible people, those politicians out there!

But it doesn’t need to be politicians, or for that matter the paramilitaries who bombed my Dad’s shop twice, or the lads who held me up at knife point at the local pitches when asking me what Scottish team I supported (Aberdeen FC, for the record).  We’re quick to cause division regardless of the topic.

So how can we get on together as a society?

Some of it I suggest comes in understanding each other.  Perhaps sitting side by side in education and seeing each other as normal human beings might be a start.  But more than shared experiences, Jonathan Haidt, a democrat and social psychologist in the US, has written a book that has address this very topic.  In his book he makes the case that we first understand we’re not as rational as we’d like to think.  We often make gut instinct decisions and then rationalise them afterwards.  Like a tiny rider (our reason) on a lumbering elephant (our emotions) walking along a tricky path (circumstances of life), we often struggle to end up bringing about the change we desire and get where we want to go.

He also suggests that as those on the left and right of the political spectrum we have different values that mean we talk past each other a lot of the time, as if the “other side” are just stupid and morally deficient.  It’s easier to throw metaphorical (or in our case physical) bricks at the opposite side, than it is to sit beside them, put our arms around each other as humans, and help each other move towards a shared future of unity amidst diversity.

Grasp these two things, and a lot of what will be “successful” in election campaigning will make sense to you, and you’ll be better equipped to sit down and work out what would be persuasive to those of diverse opinions.

I help to lead a team of people, running various community spaces in universities and cities across Munster.  Each week, hundreds of people from various countries, counties, social backgrounds, races, political views and worldviews all pile in to events.  And when I say events, I mean more communities.  Communities that aim to break down walls and integrate everyone into a society that will help everyone stay in a learning posture.

My one problem is that it’s hard.  Loving people who are different to me is difficult.  I’d rather find people of like mind, and enjoy a whale of a night out with them.  To find ourselves in a place where we’re naturally rubbing shoulders with every type of person regularly is a rare opportunity that I’ve been blessed with, that is not realistically achievable for everyone.

Why do I have this desire, and what ought to motivate us to get on and do this?

I’m sure there are various answers to this, and so I won’t bore you with mine (you can find it here, if you are interested).  But I’d challenge you to ask yourself whether your worldview that you hold to, will give you the motivation to spend an other-person-centred life, serving the needs of society in its full diversity (and not just forcing a uniformity of thought on them all)?  As the university I work in says:

Unity, post-election.

There’s nothing like making a few Donald Trump jokes.  That was the mood my house were in this morning.  A friend, staying over last night was quick to google search “Trump jokes” probably to lighten a fairly gloomy mood on a rainy, cold, winter’s morning in Ireland, when you’ve just learnt the news of the US elections.  But sadly googling that is exactly why I think most of us Europeans are no better than the mud-pie slinging Americans who are sitting in their polemical political camps, throwing things at each other from a distance.

This is a book review of “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt (Penguin books) which has been one of my top-reads in the last year (and for those of you who know how avidly I read, that says something!).  Jonathan is an academic social psychologist, but also an American Democrat.  But if that would put you off, please don’t let it – he writes purposely to describe how he thinks we can sit down side by side and talk constructively in the political and religious realm, instead of just talking past each other, and mis-understanding the “other” as just something from our nightmares.

He follows on from other recent works in social psychology (and perhaps goes back to agreeing with Aristotle and many before) to persuade us that we’re not so rational as humans as we’d like to think.  As an intuitionist about moral values, Haidt thinks that “the emotional dog wags the rational tail”.  His thoughts have been previously well drawn on in other works such as “Switch” (another must-read in my opinion, for those wanting to learn to bring about change in this world), but makes a convincing case, even if you haven’t read them.  (A video here to explain.)

Once he has convinced us of this, he then spends some time trying to look beyond our blind spots to see how conservative and liberal minds think morally.  Summed up in these two diagrams, this powerful analysis would help people at opposite ends of the political spectrum to not just throw mud-pies at each other, but to understand that there may be strong rationale why  people vote certain ways on certain issues, and how we can appeal to other voters and talk in terms that are meaningful to them.

Once we understand these frameworks (for which he gives evidence in the book), and seem (intuitively!!) to me to be correct, we can start to talk.

Thirdly, Haidt goes on to argue for evolutionary group selection.  Given how much common populace reading (think Dawkins’ Selfish Gene and others) has derailed such concepts, it was eye-opening to me to see him advocating for such and suggesting that others will/do.  Perhaps I’m just behind on the academic thinking at the moment.  Through this, he tries to argue that anything that binds us together in social groupings could be for the advancement of society.  This would help an atheist to see the good of religion, as well as democrats to see and start to understand why having republican groupings might be good (and vice versa for both).

Finally he applies it concretely to life.  There are not those who are “good” and those who are “evil” as we so often like to pretend (we, or anyone who agrees with us, of course, are the good).  There is good and evil in everyone, and we must sit together and learn from each other.  Admittedly he says, it will be hard.  And if this election is anything to go by, the elephant has chosen the easy path, which is sitting in our camps yelling loudly.

Perhaps it’s the one fault of this book.  By it’s own theory (part 1), it will be virtually impossible to enact.  We are too emotionally driven to see its sense.  But for those who wish to see unity, I suggest this book is remarkable and well worth the read, particularly if you are a leader wanting to bring about change, or someone so frustrated with an “other” side of a political or religious grouping that you can’t fathom the attraction of it or how to bring about change.

(NB: for those concerned or persuaded that his group evolutionary thought may mean Christianity is a mere social construct, I can point you elsewhere.)