Our Church Building Isn’t a Cathedral But We Love It Anyway
For the congregation of St Columba’s Church, 2012 will be a year of many things, no doubt, both ups and downs, and then ups again. Were I to attempt to identify these on behalf of the congregation, it would only be pure guesswork. I have received no revelation of events to come; no dreams, no insights, and I have no idea what lies ahead as the year unfolds if the Lord does not return imminently.
But there is one thing I can predict, with confidence and certainty, though with no great excitement or sense of eager expectation, and it is that we, the congregation of St Columba’s, will spend much of the year regularly moving the church sanctuary chairs back and forth, as we do each week of each year, just as we have done ever since the church opened in 1983.
Some of us are veteran chair-moving technicians. We have been moving the chairs around for all of those years, right from the beginning, down from the stage onto the sanctuary floor, and back up onto the stage once again, and then in the midweek, perhaps, if we are fortunate, moving them in fewer numbers, for smaller gatherings and occasions.
It is a feature of our church building and premises that it is a multi-purpose place, flexible in all sorts of ways, permitting it to be used for a variety of purposes, some seemingly more mundane than others. The big effort always is, of course, the arrangement of chairs for Sunday services, morning and evening.
My own OCD is apparent in the tidiness of the rows, the symmetrical layout of rows and columns, at least for the morning service. I can frequently be found walking up and down the rows making slight adjustments here and there, with military precision, aligning and correcting. The evening service is a different matter, with chairs and tables laid out in the current vogue for ‘café style’ worship, which slightly worries me occasionally when I reflect on the worship tightrope upon which we traverse between relaxedness and reverence.
But back to the morning chair layout, if you are still with me by this stage – there is a serious point coming, I promise.
Chair layout is purely functional. It is not always the purpose of ‘church’ that defines the ways in which the chairs are placed, but the size and geography of the building. I know, it’s the wrong way to do things, isn’t it? But that is our reality, in any case. Our ‘worship space’ is a large square with a table and lectern at the south end. We sit looking at the back of the head of the person in front of each of us because that is the best way to fit as many seats into the floor space as we possibly can.
It militates against fellowship. That is true. It reinforces separation. It teaches individualism. It silently speaks about independency when the central message of the church is all about Jesus, who brings us into a body, into connectedness, unity, and mutual love. There’s not much we can do about that, which is why we try, at least in part, to overcome the negative messages of our church building by sitting around tables for Sunday evening worship, facing one another and eating biscuits, drinking tea whilst we sing and discuss.
But I have come to see that our church building has some more positive lessons to teach us, as well, which were never a carefully thought-out design feature, but which are nevertheless valuable and true.
You see, although we are apt to complain that our building is aesthetically unattractive and plain, its very adaptability and ordinariness serve to remind us that true worship is not about meeting in grand and imposing premises, no matter how hard the gong is banged about the importance of ‘sacred space.’ For wherever the Spirit of God is, that is sacred space, and no building, pathway, ruin or island is more sacred than any other place on earth. We have known times of the most exquisite spiritual blessing in our humble building, and I cannot think that those times could ever have been more precious had they take place in a cathedral or an abbey, however ancient.
I think, too, that our pre-fabricated church building, ordinary as it is, though wonderfully decorated each Sunday by our superb flower arranging team, silently tells us that God is to be found in the ordinary places and circumstances of life. Not for Him the grandeur of lofty architecture, though I don’t discount the possibility of having one’s thoughts turned heavenwards by fluted columns and vaunted ceilings. Nevertheless, many of us have met and served God whilst rolling out the indoor bowling mat, or when scraping the playgroup’s playdough off the sanctuary carpet, or in process of struggling to get the temperamental heaters to work at the correct temperature.
What I am saying is this: our church building is not Notre Dame Cathedral, nor is it filled with beautiful woodwork and stained glass. Instead, it is a large and plain room, with a kitchen, classroom and toilet. It is off-the-shelf. But it has taught us many important things. It has taught us that the church is not the building, it is the people. If we had found our spiritual home in a wonderful edifice, we might have found that a difficult lesson to learn. But we have learned to love each other, for the church is a family united around the central character of our beloved Lord, Jesus.
I think, too, that our multi-purpose ‘facility’ has fostered and nurtured those connections and relationships through practical issues. We have had to roll our sleeves up together and work alongside one another to shift chairs, week in and week out, year in and year out. We have laughed as we did so, and moaned a little, too, usually wondering how blessed it would be to have pews! We have shown concern and Christian love for each other by telling one or two of the older saints, keen to pitch in, to have a well-earned rest and to take it easy; their chair-moving days having come to an end.
We have realised that God and His kingdom are in everyday, ordinary people, things and experiences. God is not confined or especially present in so-called special places. We believe that this is a major gospel insight.
We’re grateful for our church building, and we will value the lessons of the kingdom that it teaches us, and we will try to complain about it just a little bit less.
Soli Deo Gloria
A New Hymn for New Year Services
As ministers, pastors and worship leaders give thought and planning to their church services this coming Sunday, I offer a newly-written hymn suitable for congregational use on the first Sunday of a New Year, or on other dedication occasions:
I will trust in God who loves me
1. I will trust in God who loves me;
Doing good in Jesus’ name.
My delight is just to know him
And the One who took my blame.
He will grant my heart’s desire;
He will make his purpose known.
As I wait, his wisdom triumphs,
Shining like the coming dawn.
2. I will wait when faint or weary;
He has promised me new power.
Days will come when hope shall leave me,
God will lift me in that hour,
When we’ll rise on wings like eagles,
Run and never flag or tire,
Walk and not feel weak or weary,
Filled with grace and zeal and fire.
3. I will hope in God who helps me;
His unfailing love won’t end.
In his mercy he will save for
All sin breaks, his love can mend.
Great his faithfulness and mercy;
He renews them every day.
God is all I need and cherish
“He’s my hope,” my heart will say.
4. I will leave the past behind me;
Now I lay my old life down.
He it is who lives within me.
He is King, and his the crown.
In the Son of God I’m trusting;
He who breathed his final breath,
Crucified for all who love him,
Giving life through his own death.
(Words by Louis Kinsey © Jocky Music 2011).
The verses of this hymn are adapted from Ps 37.3-6, Isaiah 40.31, Lamentations 3.22-24 and Galatians 2.20.
A number of existing and well-known tunes are possible for this hymn. For instance, ‘Abbot’s Leigh’, ‘Austrian Hymn’ or ‘Hyfrydol’ will work. My own favourite is ‘Courage Brother’.
To sing the hymn to that last tune, you will have to repeat the first three syllables of the last line twice, so that last line of the first verse, for instance, would be ‘Shining like, shining like, shining like the coming dawn’, and so on at the end of each verse.
If you do use this hymn, I would be grateful if you included the copyright information which is found at the foot of the lyrics.
A peaceful and blessed New Year to all visitors to this blog.
Soli Deo Gloria
On Her Majesty the Queen’s Christmas Day Speech
Her Majesty the Queen’s Christmas Day Speech to the Commonwealth was a joy to listen to from start to finish.
It was a gloriously courageous testimony of her own, personal, faith in God and belief in the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It was a delight to listen to and, no doubt, a huge inspiration to so very many believers at a difficult time, when the mere fact of being Christian in Britain is to risk opprobrium and public ridicule on a scale bordering on hate speech.
The Head of the Church of England has spoken out bravely, and in doing so will have given much courage and strength to Christians everywhere, not just to those who had the privilege of watching and listening to her address on the television and radio this afternoon, but also to those who will have the chance to read her Speech.
In speaking out with such graciousness, as well as with such personal conviction, Her Majesty succeeded in trumping the Christmas speeches and sermons of most other Christian leaders, important as many of them have been. I can scarcely think of a recent, seasonal sermon by any church leader that was the theological and scriptural equal of Her Majesty’s Speech today.
Her assertion that the marriages of her two grandchildren earlier this year are ‘each in their own way a celebration of the God-given love that binds a family together’ is fully within the stream of Christian and biblical orthodoxy. Marriage as we have always understood it, presently under attack from so many directions, is the fruit of a ‘God-given’ love, and we cannot but be grateful to Her Majesty for her forthrightness and sheer personal courage in saying so.
Her unashamed use of the name of Jesus is in such marked contrast with so much of the contemporary Church and its associated agencies that amazingly manage to airbrush all mention of the Lord’s name from their events and publicity.
Her Majesty also saw very clearly the need to apply the message of the angels, that the shepherds should not fear, to the alarming state of the world at this moment. People are afraid of the present and of the future. Like a seasoned preacher, Her Majesty pastorally applied the word of God to the very real and worrying circumstances that we all face.
It was exceptionally inspiring and heart-warming to hear Her Majesty say, about the birth of Jesus, that ‘God sent into the world a unique person – neither a philosopher nor a general, important though they are, but a Saviour, with the power to forgive.’ Her Majesty understands the Gospel. That is clear. The Gospel is, as Her Majesty told us, a message all about the human need for salvation, and of the divine provision of a Saviour, Jesus.
Forgiveness and reconciliation with God are the world’s most pressing needs. We should all be grateful that we have a monarch who is not afraid to point that out with such clarity and to point us all in the direction of the One who alone has the power and the authority to rectify the problem of sin and unforgiveness.
At the end of a wonderfully evangelistic message, Her Majesty said:
“In the last verse of this beautiful carol, ‘O Little Town Of Bethlehem’, there’s a prayer:
‘O Holy Child of Bethlehem,
Descend to us we pray.
Cast out our sin
And enter in.
Be born in us today.’
It is my prayer that on this Christmas day we might all find room in our lives for the message of the angels and for the love of God through Christ our Lord.”
How uplifting it was to hear Her Majesty speak so confidently about central Christian themes, and to recognise the importance of the prayerful conclusion to that carol, with its plea for the casting out of sin and for the inner residence of the Holy Child in each one of us.
May God, in His great and boundless mercy, see fit to grant Her Majesty’s prayer for us all, that we might find room for Christ in our own lives. In the granting of that most crucial prayer, lies our greatest hope and joy.
Three sincere and grateful cheers for Her Majesty the Queen.
Soli Deo Gloria
Kirk ‘may soften stance’ against gay marriage
A SENIOR figure in the Church of Scotland yesterday said that the Kirk may eventually change its hard-line view against gay marriage when a report into human sexuality is finally published in 2013.
The possibility of the Church coming round to a more liberal stance on the issue was raised at the end of a week that saw it produce a hard-hitting document that condemned same-sex marriage. The Kirk’s response to the SNP Government’s consultation on gay marriage said it believed that same-sex unions could harm the well-being of families, communities and individuals.
Read the Rev Ian Galloway’s reported comments in the online Scotsman here
This year the Church of Scotland is utterly convinced about heterosexual marriage. In 2013/14 it might not be. Words fail.
Soli Deo Gloria
What has the Church of Scotland said?
.jpg)
The Church of Scotland has responded to the Scottish Government’s consultation: ‘Scottish Government consultation on Registration of Civil partnerships same-sex marriage’, and the response can be read in full here
If you don’t have much time, you can read the abbreviated version on the Church of Scotland website here
The Church of Scotland’s response to the Scottish Government’s consultation is a thoughtful, serious and considered response.
The Church of Scotland has received much criticism in recent weeks, and a good bit of friendly fire, because its response has taken longer than those of other Christian groups. The Government’s consultation is the first step towards the introduction of major changes to our national and cultural life. The consultation’s questions have major implications. The Legal Questions Committee of the Church of Scotland has taken the time it has needed. It has had a lot to think about, and the result is a weighty and honest one. It is clear and it is to be welcomed.
We are grateful for the work of the Legal Questions Committee of the Church of Scotland in this regard.
There will be those in the Church of Scotland who will be deeply unhappy with the response, just as many of us were deeply unhappy with the outcome of the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly this past May, in Edinburgh. They will have wanted the Kirk’s response to embrace Alex Salmond’s proposals and aspirations for Scotland.
We all know what disappointment and hurt feels like. There is no room for any to feel a sense of triumphalism. It should be sobering to all Christian evangelicals and conservatives in the Kirk to notice what the Church of Scotland has said in its response. The Church of Scotland has said ‘no’ to same-sex marriage and to the religious registration of civil partnerships in Scotland. That is true, but it has only said so for the present moment.
Let that point be taken on board, because the response hints very loudly that things may change in 2013/14. The Kirk’s position may not always be what it is at this moment in time, though it is providential in terms of the national consultation that the response has had to be conservative and biblical, and could be nothing else as a consequence of the way in which the Church of Scotland makes its decisions and expresses its opinions.
It would be hugely premature to take this as a sign, however, as some seem to be doing, that some sort of change is coming over the Church of Scotland, which has been drifting away from Christian orthodoxy at gathering speed recently, to the great dismay of many.
The Church of Scotland has made its response through its Legal Questions Committee. It begins by affirming the Church of Scotland’s compassion towards all who feel same-sex attraction. It assures of its determination not to discriminate. It says that the Church of Scotland feels a pastoral responsibility to the whole of Scotland and presents its response as a statement of what the Church of Scotland believes the will of God to be at this moment.
For the most part, the response offers a traditional, Christian understanding of marriage. I say for the most part because, in the midst of a detailed, traditional response, the Church of Scotland also said that it did not object to the continuation of civil partnerships, on fiscal grounds amongst others.
Furthermore, in what I think is an untimely jubilation, it seems to have slipped past many that the response says it ‘offers the possibility that the Church will move from its current position’. The response is therefore a ‘freeze frame image’ of the Church of Scotland’s point of view ‘as at December 2011’. It is ‘captured from the Church’s developing (my italics) response to the real, live issues involved’. The Church of Scotland is not then signaling, in its response, a return to Christian orthodoxy with regard to sexual morality. The Church of Scotland has a ‘developing’ response, which could develop in any direction, one assumes.
This is made clear when the response reminds the consultation that the recent General Assembly indicated it may depart from the traditional Christian understanding of same-sex relationships.
The Church of Scotland says in its response it cannot agree that legislation should be changed so that civil partnerships could be registered through religious ceremonies. One of its main concerns is that ministers and religious celebrants are not guaranteed protection in law should they feel unable, in all conscience, to perform same-sex marriage or offer religious registration of civil partnerships. That has been a widespread worry. The Church of Scotland has also said that the religious registration of civil partnerships goes against the original intention of civil partnerships.
The Church of Scotland’s response makes it clear that as things currently stand, the Church cannot agree to the religious registration of civil partnerships. This is, in part, because the General Assembly has debated (2006/7) the matter of ministers offering services of blessing for civil partnerships and has not agreed, in a rather muddled way at the time, that its ministers can take part in such blessings.
The speed with which the Scottish Government is moving on this issue also causes the Church of Scotland some anxiety. The Church of Scotland feels that the matter is being rushed without full and proper consideration having been given to the implications of such an elemental change in national life. The Church of Scotland believes that other faith communities in Scotland are similarly uncomfortable.
The Church of Scotland also makes the point that the law of the Church of Scotland does not make provision for its premises to be used for civil ceremonies, and believes that religious and civil ceremonies should be kept separate so that the two don’t become synonymous and confused with one another.
In a section of its response that deals with freedom of religion in Scotland, the Legal Questions Committee felt the need to remind the Scottish Government of the Church of Scotland Act 1921, and respectfully cautions the Government that state intrusion into the inner life of the Church would be unwarranted and unwanted.
Article 4 of the Articles Declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland in Matters Spiritual recognizes the Church’s ‘right and power subject to no civil authority to legislate, and to adjudicate finally, in all matters of doctrine, worship, government and discipline in the Church.’
The Church of Scotland goes on to welcome the Government’s assurance that no minister will have to do anything against his or her will, but notes that no draft legislation has been seen to that effect.
In answer to the question: ‘Do you agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to allow same-sex marriage?’ the Church of Scotland answered, unequivocally, ‘no’.
In the substantive section that follows in the response, it goes on to say: ‘The Church cannot agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to allow same-sex marriage.’ It argues that the Scottish Government is proposing to make fundamental changes to the way in which marriage is regarded in Scotland, where it is seen to be the relationship of a man and a woman.
It is worth quoting directly the response at this point. The reason for doing so is to show that whilst the response holds up the colours of ecumenical Christian orthodoxy, it only does so pro tem. In then mentioning the Barrier Act procedure of the Church of Scotland in the same section, it signals the possibility of laying those colours down in the not-too-distant future:
‘If the Church were to agree that marriage be redefined to include same-sex marriage this would involve a fundamental change in its understanding of marriage. In common with the historic position of the Christian Church, the Church of Scotland has always viewed marriage as being between one man and one woman. Despite recent discussions on the status of same-sex and other relationships, and of civil partnerships, the General Assembly has at no point been invited to consider any such redefinition of marriage. Indeed, a recent consultation among elders and ministers indicated only limited support for same-sex marriage (Report to General Assembly 2011 of Special Commission on Same Sex Relationships and the Ministry).
The Church has only ever taught that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Scriptural references to marriage, whether literal or metaphorical, all operate under this understanding. Furthermore the point is established within the Reformed tradition of the Church, not least in its subordinate standards. The Church sees itself as part of the catholic or universal Church within which there is agreement, across confessional divides, that marriage is between one man and one woman. Most recent work under the auspices of the General Assembly, in particular the work conducted by the Joint Commission on Doctrine (with the Roman Catholic Church) through the 1980s and 1990s, and the specific report on marriage from the Panel on Doctrine in 1994, have likewise upheld what can only be called the conventional or regular understanding of marriage.
If the Church were to change its position on marriage to include same-sex marriage, such a change would only be enacted into the law of the Church with the agreement of two successive General Assemblies and, in the intervening 12 months, a majority of presbyteries. (See the Church’s Barrier Act 1697.)
The Legal Questions Committee of the Church of Scotland has done as much as it could. It has stated the position of the Church of Scotland, as it is at the present, a traditional and orthodox position, even if the recent General Assembly has shown that the Kirk wants to move away from that position.
The bottom line is that there are grounds for gratitude. A strong affirmation of heterosexual marriage has been offered to the Scottish Government by the Church of Scotland. It has based its argument and its response on scripture, on the Confession of Faith, and on the tradition of the Church ecumenical. But it has also winked at the Scottish Government – is that unfair? – and hinted that the Church of Scotland’s view may not always be thus.
It is a difficult response to read, having, as it does, a curious sense of make-believe about it. Whilst written in convincingly orthodox terms, we all know that the General Assemblies of 2013/14 could overthrow the whole of it and toss it out, in favour of revisionist ambitions. I hope that the Kirk’s response lends weight to those opposing the Scottish Government’s proposals.
For those of us in the Church of Scotland, this response, welcome as it is, is just one station in the wilderness on the way to the Promised Land. The journey is far from over, and many disappointments and travails are probably ahead.
Sorry I can’t be more chipper.
Soli Deo Gloria
What should a Moderator do?
British first as Moderator, Rabbi and
Imam join for worship
In what is believed to be a first for Britain, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will share worship with leaders of the Jewish and Muslim communities at a mosque.
On Friday (25 November) the Right Reverend David Arnott and Rabbi David Rose of the Edinburgh Hebrew Congregation will join Muslims at Annandale Mosque in Edinburgh for prayers.
It is part of a unique three-day programme in the capital of talks between the three main Abrahamic traditions.
Mr Arnott said: “Interfaith dialogue is about showing respect for the traditions of each other’s faith. There is no better way to do that than by sharing openly in worship together.
Read the rest here
The need to show respect for others is at the heart of the Christian faith. In fact, the true Christian vocation goes far beyond the mere according of respect. It is a calling to love the unlovable, even the very enemy, and the parable of the Good Samaritan was the Lord’s ingenious way of revealing how subtle and camouflaged prejudice and disregard can be, lurking as they do in the depths of the human heart.
It is good that signs and displays of mutual respect between faiths and religions are important in Scotland. This is a country in which sectarianism and hatred in the name of religion have purchase in many places and in many minds. We can only pray that religious tolerance and mutual regard grows and flourishes everywhere, most notably in some Islamic countries in which Christians as well as many of other faiths suffer greatly under persecution and oppression of the cruelest sort.
The Moderator of the Church of Scotland, David Arnott, is to join Rabbi David Rose and members of the Muslim community in shared worship this weekend. It is reported that they will stand alongside one another as each faith service takes place.
I applaud the instinct to deepen friendship between communities, especially religious communities. I can do nothing but congratulate the desire to understand one another with greater clarity and sharpness. I also welcome the sight of leaders, particularly religious leaders, standing side by side in a way that says that those who disagree and differ do not and should not have to shout at each other from behind barricades.
I do have a slight feeling of discomfort, though. Perhaps David Arnott has thought this through,and no doubt he has, but there is a fine line to tread when it comes to inter-faith issues, as far as I can tell. Muslims, for all their sincerity and devotion, reject the notion of a God who exists as a Trinity, as does the Synagogue. For them, Jesus is not the Son of God, for God has no son or offspring. Calvary, the cross, then, is not the atoning death of the divine Son of God, offering his life in a once-for-all sacrifice that deals with the universal problem of human sin, as Christians hold dear.
When the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, David Arnott, stands alongside the Rabbi and, presumably, the Imam, it will be because he does not regard the rejection of these Christian truths as major obstacles to shared worship. I recall that at the General Assembly in May 2011, David Arnott said, whilst inviting Rabbi Julia Neuberger to address the Assembly, that the things which unite Jews and Christians are more than the things which divide, which was a significant and provocative thing to say about two religions disagreed about the incarnation and the atoning death of Jesus.
So is it a help or a hindrance for Christian leaders to stand alongside whilst non-Christian worship proceeds? Does it offer clarity or confusion concerning the Christian message? Given that friendship and mutual support, essential as they are, can be shown in a variety of ways, ought the representative of a major Christian Church to be present whilst worship that denies the incarnation and the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ goes ahead?
I know it’s a hard one. I know that we want to be gracious and friendly. I know that we are called to show risk-taking love, but what are the rules? Where are the lines? Are there any at all? What serves heaven best? At what point does the instinct to show friendship only result in obscuring and even denying the one friendship that truly matters?
Soli Deo Gloria
Should Christians ever come out on strike?
I’ve never had to give thought to the question of whether or not to go on strike. I am a church minister now, and we don’t strike – perhaps we might in future, but that’s another thought altogether – but when I was a soldier, it was always understood that the armed forces never took industrial action. We were there to defend the nation and to serve its interests, in war and peace. We worked 24/7.
Strike action was just not on the cards for us. Others could go on strike and withdraw their labour, but we could not. The emergency services seemed to be able to strike, if the need was felt to arise, but this was never anything that soldiers did or could ever understand. My view was that of every other soldier, to my knowledge, which was that strike action might be a legitimate course of action for some, or even most, but it was not for us.
But it is, from time to time, a real issue for many workers, and I want to share just a few thoughts on that subject because on Sunday night I was asked to do so, after the evening service had come to a close.
The question I was asked was what should Christians do when others in their work place decide to go on strike? It’s a good question. Should Christians ever strike? Is that a proper course of action for Christians to take, and ought they to observe the inviolability of a picket line, or cross it if conscience tells them to?
As with every area of life, Christians look to the Bible to see if there is any obvious advice to be found there, and if not, is it possible to find any helpful principles there which might be applied to a difficult or confusing moral and practical issue. The Bible does not offer explicit guidance about strike action and the Christian’s conscience. Unsurprisingly.
But a number of passages in which slaves are given workplace advice offer us some principles to apply to our own circumstances.
When he wrote to the Colossian Christians, Paul the Apostle instructed slaves to ‘obey your earthly masters in everything’, and to do their work ‘as working for the Lord, not for men’ (Colossians 3.22-24). Paul’s advice to them was that they should be extraordinarily faithful in working for their masters, and to regard their work as a form of service to Lord himself.
But Paul would never have meant that Christian slaves were to obey their masters when their masters gave them an instruction or a command to do something fundamentally at odds with their loyalty to Jesus Christ and to his ways.
When faced with a clash of loyalties, Christians are meant to put Christ first and to face the consequences, whatever they might be.
Peter, writing in 1 Peter 2.13-18 agrees but pushes things a bit further. He, too, urges Christian slaves to be submissive to their masters, but he went on to say that their obedience should be a very patient and long-suffering one. They are to submit not only to those ‘who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.’
Both Paul and Peter advised Christians to be respectful and submissive to their masters, in good times and in bad. Neither would have counseled Christian slaves to obey their masters when given an instruction that conflicted with loyalty to God. But both would urge Christian slaves to show patience in the place of work, even when the employer or master was harsh.
Paul also gave advice to the Roman Christians. In Romans 13.1-7 Paul wrote about the respect and obedience that Christians ought to show those in authority and in positions of power and influence. Authorities, wrote Paul, are established by God, and have a God-given purpose to bring order and to maintain the law.
He wrote: ‘Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.’ Christian employees are supposed to give their employers respect and honour, and everything that an employer has a right to expect. But God must be given what is owed to God, as well.
So, should a Christian ever come out on strike? In my view, a Christian should take strike action only ever as a last possible resort. All other courses of action and avenues of reconciliation must have come to naught and proven themselves fruitless. In the end, strike action is a form of confrontation and conflict. It is an expression of disagreement and disunity.
It is industrial aggression, and followers of the Prince of Peace cannot be part of it without having seen every other peaceful possibility exhausted.
What I would say, then, is that strike action is a last resort for Christian workers. But I do think that it is a possible resort, and in some cases it may be an inevitable resort. The Bible shows in innumerable places that God is deeply interested in seeing that people are treated with justice and fairness.
Workers are precious to God. The wellbeing of their families is a paramount concern of his. Employers ignore this to their peril. Christian workers may find themselves facing an unresolved industrial injustice that is of such a size and nature that no other course of action is left open but that of strike action. In cases like this, Christians will have to consider the biblical instruction to respect masters and authorities on the one hand, and to consider the demands of a loving and just God and Father on the other.
There is no clash of conscience. We must always place obedience to God before duty to others, especially when others, in this case employers, are behaving in an ungodly and unloving way.
But before ever getting to that uncomfortable and difficult place, there are a number of things that Christians can and probably ought to do. There is nothing to prevent Christians from getting involved in union affairs and matters, and trying to be voices of peacemaking and common sense. Union representatives often have to make tough decisions and grapple with conflicting demands and complex issues.
Christian workers can play an important role in supporting union representatives. We can pray for them, and encourage them, as well as employers and decision-makers. Christians can play a positive part in matters by urging union and management representatives to stay at the table, negotiating and talking.
We can be involved in whatever steps are being taken to encourage mediation and discussion.
There are just a couple of additional thoughts for Christians to bear in mind when faced with the possibility of taking strike action. An important question to ask is about what the effects of strike action might be on innocent and uninvolved third parties.
How might strike action affect small businesses, those whose work and livelihoods depend upon the business in which I am employed and involved? How might children, the elderly, the vulnerable, for instance, be affected if strike action goes ahead?
Having thought it through, Christians might feel that the issue is clear-cut. But conscience and obedience to Christ might mean that Christians stay working whilst others go ahead and strike. That would be a desperately uncomfortable position to be in, but it may be the authentic Christian way of taking up the cross and following Christ.
There may be a price to be paid, but there is also a God and Father of unlimited grace and goodness who can be trusted with all of our concerns in difficult circumstances.
One final thought, Jesus himself went into the Temple and turned the moneychangers’ tables upside down. He brought commerce and ‘banking’ to a grinding halt on that day. As aggressive as his action was, he felt that it was a justifiable response to the greed and shameless avarice of the moneychangers. His wish to defend the honour of God’s house and the needs of the poor who came to pray there trumped any other considerations.
Christians will need to work this one out for themselves on each occasion. Strike action ought always to be a last resort, but it is not an impermissible one, when obedience to God allows us no other way to respond to perceived injustices.
Soli Deo Gloria
The Church of Scotland is braced for mass resignations over moves to allow the ordination of gay ministers, with up to 150 conservative and evangelical ministers threatening to quit, the Guardian can reveal.
The rebellion began after the Church of Scotland became the first major presbyterian church in the world to allow openly gay and lesbian ministers to take up parishes at its general assembly in May, despite evidence that 20% of its elders and office-bearers could leave in protest.
The assembly also opened the way for the full ordination of gay ministers in the 450-year-old church within two years.
But senior sources estimate as many as 150 serving ministers are considering resignation, in the largest schism in the church since 474 ministers quit in 1843 to form the Free Church of Scotland.
Read the whole Guardian article here
Whither the Kirk’s National Stewardship Programme?
Tonight I will be attending Aberdeen Presbytery’s conference about the National Stewardship Programme. This has come about because of a decision taken at the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly earlier this year.
The General Assembly which met in Edinburgh in May 2011 ‘welcomed the proposals for a national stewardship programme and agreed that the programme include a letter from the Moderator to every member of the Church.’ It also ‘agreed that there be national publicity for the programme; and instructed Presbyteries to instruct their congregations to participate in this programme.’
For tonight’s meeting, run by the Presbytery of Aberdeen, each congregation in the Presbytery has been told to send 4 representatives along. I have to say, it has been the very dickens of a job to find four people willing to give up their time to attend tonight’s meeting, and it is not hard to understand why. People are just not excited about it. They do not recognize it as the most pressing issue before them at this precise moment in time.
More worrying for them, there is, we know, a mood of worldwide economic uncertainty. People are worried about their jobs and mortgages, not to mention gas and heating bills. Pensions are being slashed or have already been lost completely. The cost of living is going up all of the time. There is financial gloom in abundance.
At the same time, there is deep unhappiness in our denomination. Many people simply feel overlooked and disregarded. They are angered and disturbed by the direction of the Church of Scotland and are not at all sure that they want to finance it any longer with their hard earned money. Many are thinking about giving less, not more, and some have stopped giving to the Church of Scotland altogether. They are just not sure if they love the Church of Scotland any longer.
Should they be asked to dig deeper into their pockets to support a denomination that seems to them not to listen to their views? Who can blame them for being jaundiced about being asked to give yet more money to a church that more and more has a different understanding of the Gospel and the Christian life that flows from it?
At the same time, the very people who are pessimistic about the national Stewardship Programme are interested and excited about the prospect of outreach and evangelism. They have not lost their passion for that, though it is far from easy to worship and witness in the Church of Scotland under the clouds of uncertainty and unhappiness that overshadow us at the present. Nevertheless, the wish to see other people become believers is still there.
But here’s the most interesting thing of all. I can never recall a time in the Church of Scotland when a General Assembly gave an instruction to every congregation about mission and evangelism. I don’t know when last, if ever, we were all told to run Alpha or Christianity Explored Courses, or to conduct a parish visitation, or to do something about our meagre professions of faith statistics. But we have been told to run stewardship programmes.
It’s all about the money. A stewardship programme is about money. An evangelistic strategy is about souls. Every congregation has been told that it has to do something about the former but we have not been told to do anything about the latter.
Well, we should all be doing something about both, of course. But an instruction to implement a stewardship programme whilst no similar instruction exists about evangelism sounds as though panic has set in. Money talks, and so does the absence of it.
The truth is, a church that evangelizes will produce new believers, one would hope and pray. Those new believers would, in course of time, produce the greater income that the Church of Scotland seeks. In fact, our membership numbers are down, but the pips are going to be squeezed yet further, and both members and adherents will be asked to give even more. I’m not sure it will fly very far.
Now, I think that those same members and adherents would quite like to see as much fat as possible trimmed from the Church Offices in George Street, Edinburgh, first of all. Next, let’s look at the amounts of money expended on Committee and Council meetings, to which significant numbers of ministers and elders attend through the year, travelling from all over Scotland as well as from much further afield.
I’ve been at these meetings. Most ministers and elders come along and say little or nothing. Their opinions are not heard. They hand their expenses forms in and travel home.
Now, I know that’s a bit harsh, but the general point is that before the members and adherents of the Kirk are asked to give yet more, what sign is there that all unnecessary expense is being cut back at the centre of things, at the Church Offices in Edinburgh?
I’m not expecting very much tonight. I might be surprised. I hope so. I may have misjudged matters. It just feels to me to this is all about a stewardship programme aimed at maintaining the institution of the Church instead of financing mission and evangelism.
I hope I’m wrong.
Soli Deo Gloria
Broken Britain
Only the armed forces can fix broken Britain says General Dannatt
By Chris Marshall
Published on Wednesday 9 November 2011 00:36
THE former head of the army has warned of a moral decline among Britain’s young people that is forcing the military to set an example for society as a whole.
General Lord Dannatt, a committed Christian, said the armed forces could no longer presume that families and wider society would school the young in moral values, forcing the military to educate new recruits in ethical behaviour.
He said the armed forces could fulfil a vital role by setting an example to wider society through the education of recruits in the importance of moral and ethical standards.
Read the rest of this online Scotsman article here
General Lord Dannatt is entitled to have his opinion and to express it. That is the first thing that should be said. He is saying what some others in the armed forces believe they have seen and observed, which is that moral standards in society have changed, and that these changes are reflected in the values and standards displayed by military recruits.
There are those in those in the armed forces, and clearly General Lord Dannatt was one such, who are of the view that the high values and standards needed in today’s armed forces have to be taught to recruits during initial training and re-emphasised at regular intervals thereafter because it cannot be assumed that servicemen and women enter military service having imbibed these values and standards with mother’s milk.
General Lord Dannatt acknowledges past moral failures on the part of the armed forces. No institution, no matter how high its values and standards, is perfect, particularly when it has to apply those standards under great stress and risk. The fact remains that the vast majority of the armed forces apply the highest ethical standards and do have something positive and exemplary to offer back to the society out of which servicemen and women come. It is hubris to think otherwise.
Servicemen and women enter the armed forces and are taught the values and standards expected of them in peace and war. It is to the good of society that they leave military service, in the fullness of time, taking strong moral and ethical values with them. This is good for all of us.
The reported comments of Anne Houston, Chief Executive of Children 1st, that the General’s remarks are a generalisation that ‘demonise’ young people, are themselves an unnecessary generalisation. It is doubtful that the General was making sweeping statements about all young people, but he does seem to have been trying to highlight what he regards as an observable pattern.
In a society in which individualism and celebrity, consumerism and ease are often unchallenged, and the values of a ‘me-first’ culture flourish, the values prized by the armed forces – courage, loyalty, selfless commitment – are going to have to be taught simply because they cannot be regarded as a societal given any longer.
This is not to demonise anyone. It is just saying that the General, and probably others, see a trend that ought to make us all stop and think deeply. I’m sure, furthermore, that the General would not disagree with the need to focus attention and resources on those young people who are showing ‘problematic behaviour’.
But he is speaking about something more subtle and wide-ranging than that. He seems to be suggesting that across the board, it cannot be taken for granted that the moral values expected of professional servicemen and women are naturally and latently to be found in the general population, and that it is the job of the armed forces to inculcate these, and that this is a major contribution that the military world can offer back to civil society.
Asked to comment, the Reverend Ian Galloway, convener of the Church of Scotland’s Church and Society Council, is reported as having said that it is not “up to the army to be a moral arbiter”, and “clearly, the values that we hope our service personnel will exercise need to be representative of society as a whole. It should not, however, be for the army to assume the leading role in providing a moral and ethical framework for society.”
Mr Galloway has missed the point. It would seem that the thrust of General Lord Danatt’s comments is precisely that the values and standards of the armed forces should not and cannot, any longer, be regarded as a simple mirror image of the values and standards of our society, which seem to be founded on the shifting sands of moral relativism.
This is not at all the soil in which we would want the armed forces to plant their ethical colours. In the absence of clear and unambiguous moral guidance from society, General Lord Dannatt argues that the armed forces have no option but to fix their own standards high and apply them unrelentingly, in peace and war.
We expect leadership from the military, and we should not complain or whine when the armed forces offer that leadership when it is lacking elsewhere.
The biggest irony of all is that in saying that it should not “be for the army to assume the leading role in providing a moral and ethical framework for society”, Mr Galloway’s reported comments beg the question about who should assume that leading role? The answer, of course, is that it should be the Church of Jesus Christ. In Scotland, many believe that it should be the Church of Scotland that assumes that particular leading role for the whole people of Scotland.
On the question of same-sex marriage, on the matter of human sexuality and relationships, on the question of divorce and remarriage, the family, all of which deal with the very basic building blocks of human nature and the good of society, a great many would feel that the Church of Scotland has not assumed, as it ought to have done, “the leading role in providing a moral and ethical framework for society.” That role is now being assumed by the Roman Catholic Church, and many there are who applaud that Church and praise it for doing so.
General Lord Dannatt, as a distinguished former soldier, is saying something that needs to be heard and discussed, not caricatured and rejected.
Soli Deo Gloria
