Slavery...

Following on from the article where I showed how Biblical Law was divided into three groups - civil, ceremonial and moral - and how and why only the moral law still stands, I will now look closer at the issue of slavery. We are often told that slavery is the 19th Century equivalent of the modern homosexual debate. With the majority of Church members opposing the minorities views and rights in order to feel superior. We are told the Church wrongly supported the oppression of slaves then and it continues to oppress people today, except instead of slaves the new targets of oppression are homosexuals. But is this true?

The two issues we have to pause and look at here are:
1. What does the Bible say about slavery?
2. What was slavery in the Bible? (How did the people of Biblical times understand the word “slave”, did they understand it like we do?)

Well first of all the Bible NEVER SUPPORTS SLAVERY. There is no command to enslave others, nor any support of enslaving others. There is no moral quality associated with owing slaves or being part of a society that has slavery... though we often hear of how the Bible supports slavery the truth is that there isn’t a single thing in the Bible that says slavery was good, or to be encouraged.

Slavery is NOT OF GOD. What I mean by that is that slavery didn’t exist before the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. When mankind was in the Garden we were in a state of perfection, living out God’s Will but when sin entered the human race many sinful ideas and practices entered human life... adultery, incest, murder, slavery etc. The world before the fall was good and perfect and described by God Himself in Genesis 1:31 as “very good” and it is clear from the book of Genesis that slavery did not exist before the fall – unlike heterosexual marriage- and thus it is not viewed as being the norm or part of God’s original plan for humanity.

The Bible as a whole REJECTS SLAVERY! It is okay to look at individual stories and narratives within the Word of God, but sometimes it helps to take a step back and look at the message delievered throughout the Bible. In other words we need to step back and look at the great river of the Bible’s history as it flows from the Garden of Eden, on to the Cross at Calvary and on to the Acts of the Apostles and then check to see if it flows for or against slavery.

To be blunt it won’t take long to see that the Bible when viewed as a whole opposes slavery. Just think of Israel’s freedom from slavery in Egypt or the overriding story of how Christ freed us from slavery to sin and evil. The Bible is littered with such stories of freedom of slavery and repeatedly tells us that freedom from slavery is good (1 Corinthians 7:21-23 and Philemon 16 being two notable examples of this).

Okay but the Bible does include laws concerning slavery. No one is disputing that. They were of course civil laws but it must be pointed out that there is nothing in these laws that endorses or supports slavery as being right, or good. Instead they strive to regulate and control a practice widespread amongst the nations in their time. They were dealing with the reality of the situation rather than ignoring it, so these rule sought to limit and control an unfair practice in order to make it more fair to slaves. It’s not as simple as picking one or two laws on slavery from the Bible, instead one must read all the laws pertaining to slavery to get a full and complete understanding of what the Bible is really saying. For example, if a slave were to run away, they couldn’t be returned. There was also the right of near-kin redemption and from the Biblical laws we can see that the slavery described is not as we often think of it, or as it was in  America or British Colonies a century or two ago.

So if it’s not the same... what does the Bible mean when it talks about slavery?

Well in some ways the slavery in the Bible is a way of describing the welfare system of the time. If you were out of work and had no food or money you couldn’t get benefits or handouts from the state. Instead you could agree to become someone’s “slave”, which meant not only that you had to work for them but also that they were obligated to care for you and your family.

A modern example might be a student taking a year off from their studies who goes off to another country and stays with a friend’s family. His friend’s family gives him accommodation and food, and in return he works around the house one day a week (he works in a bar the rest of the week). Under the Bible’s definition he would be a “slave” to his friend’s family and just like the Bible requires, he is allowed to leave any time he wishes to which is obviously very different from the horrors of slavery in the Western World.

Truthfully in a lot of the cases in which the Bible refers to slavery we are actually reading about a type of employer (master) and employee (slave) relationship whereby a person worked exclusively for another, and in return they received care and provision, which they could then use to hire “slaves” (that is people who worked for them) of their own.

This isn’t the slavery that we think of. This is not the slavery we know. The slavery of the 17th and 18th Centuries was exploitation, it was wrong and it was not Biblical and isn’t in accordance with Biblical Law.

Those who try to say that the Bible supported slavery – be it in America, or India or China or anywhere else on this earth - are forcing their own desires onto God’s Word instead of teaching the truth. Yes, some in America sought to pretend that the Bible supported their position. They ignored the over-riding message of the Bible in favour of their own prejudiced and racist beliefs and when they had implemented the subjugation and bondage of their fellow man they then chose to ignore the very Biblical laws that they used as a defence of their practices. God’s Word worked to regulate a widespread practice in the hope that all men would one day work together in love, peace and unity as equals... slaves to no man but only to God.

So we see that the common argument that “the Bible’s position on homosexuality is wrong just as its position on Slavery was wrong” is at best a misunderstanding, but at worst a downright twisting of the facts and misrepresentation of the Word of God. The Bible never supported slavery, and no amount of twisting can make it so. The Holy Bible stands vindicated in spite of attacks on its integrity; it remains a moral code untarnished by the lies and half truths of its enemies.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

"Farewell Rob Bell!"

My article on slavery is all ready and rearing to go, and I would have posted it now but alas a bigger story has arisen. Rob Bell, the author of the infamous “Love Wins”, is leaving Mars Hill church, one of America’s best known mega-churches which he and his wife helped found around 12 years ago.

The Church has released a statement on its website which says:

"Feeling the call from God to pursue a growing number of strategic opportunities, our founding pastor Rob Bell, has decided to leave Mars Hill in order to devote his full energy to sharing the message of God’s love with a broader audience."

Though before any of you start panicking (or celebrating), I should point out that Bell isn’t leaving immediately. Rather he will speak before the thousands at Mars Hill, and the thousands watching online this coming Sunday in order "to describe his journey and call to pursue a new venture. For the remainder of this year, he will be teaching our Acts Series several times with his last teaching being in December."

No other details have been released on his sudden decision to depart and there has been a strange silence on his Facebook page, but already rumours are rife that “Love Wins” – Bell’s controversial book – may have actually contributed to his decision to move on.

 Bell’s book – which I must point out I haven’t read – caused a furore earlier this year by challenging the common view of hell. In the book Bell supposedly argued that hell wasn’t eternal and that people could choose to leave it if they wanted to... which makes me wonder why anyone would want to stay in it? Anyway other evangelicals took umbrage with what they felt was heresy and an online argument with Rev. John Piper helped generate interest and launched the book into the “New York Times Best Seller” list which led to the public questioning hell and the beliefs associated with it. It also led to Bell having to defend his views publically on “Good Morning America”, and a now famous interview with Martin Bashir in which many felt Bell squirmed during questioning.

Did this negative publicity lead to Mars Hill making a decision that Bell had to go? Was he pushed, or did he go by his own accord and why now?

I don’t know the answers to those questions... yet, but something tells me that Rob Bell will not simply fade away into obscurity, and while I wait with anticipation for his next move I must for now say the immortal words of Rev Piper:

“Farewell Rob Bell”  

Gay Sex, Slaves and Shellfish

When one talks of the sinfulness of homosexuality one is often confronted with slavery or shellfish, let me explain why. The Bible (we are told) condones slavery and condemns shellfish, yet Christians find slavery morally reprehensible and the eating of shellfish as a non issue – so why do we focus on homosexuality so much when it is described in the same way as Shellfish? Aren’t we just being picking and choosing which bits we want to follow and ignoring the bits that contradict ourselves? Aren’t we just picking on a minority so we can feel morally superior?

Well NO is the simple answer.

The argument presented above is being trotted out almost constantly across the Internet, usually –believe it or not – by atheists, who use it as a way of showing supposed contradictions in Christian faith, or a way of showing the supposed hypocrisy of fundamentalists. By the way I’m not a fundamentalist... so please don’t try and argue with me as though I am (not that any of you would of course). But alas with recent developments in the Church of Ireland we have seen this same tired argument being trotted out in defence of homosexual sex. Yes, even though the Church of Ireland NEVER accepted slavery, we still find ourselves being asked to explain why we no longer support slavery. It is really a last resort, an admittance of the fact that the pro homosexual lobby cannot defend their stance with “Scripture, Tradition and Reason” but instead try and find cracks in the church. Rather than find evidence supporting their belief they instead try and attack the Scriptures by saying the early Jewish people who compiled the law were a “primitive, warlike, ethnically chauvinistic people” or by going down the route of attacking the Church’s understanding of Scripture, or the inerrancy of Scripture. 

Anyway the subject of slavery and homosexuality concerns Biblical law, which needs a little introduction but really in a Christian country such as ours, and especially within the Church itself, no such introduction should be necessary.

In the Old Testament there were three types of laws which governed every aspect of life. There was the civil law (which governed society), the ceremonial law (which governed the Temple and the Priests) and then there was the moral law (which –surprise surprise – governed morality).

 A closer look at the “Civil Law”

When Moses was around the Israelites were a people with no government, they looked to Moses for leadership but had no system for governance. One of the duties of government is to provide and enforce laws that protect people. That could mean enacting health and safety laws, business laws, weapon laws or even financial laws etc.

This is why most of the Old Testament Laws are “civil laws” because they set out guidelines and standards to protect the Israelite people. We are no longer under the leadership of Moses, or Joshua, nor the monarchy of Saul or David. We aren’t even under the Rule of Pontius Pilate but instead have our own respective civil governments which provide civil laws appropriate for our situations and time which overrule the Old Testament civil laws, and the civil laws of other nations past and present. Ireland may at one time have been ruled by Druids and Chieftains but I live in the UK and so abide by the UK’s civil law. A person in the Republic of Ireland or America will not abide by British law just because in the past the UK ruled them, read Romans 13 to learn more about how we act towards civil law.

Old Testament civil laws also cover most health issues (food laws, cleanliness etc.) and even quality checks and liability (like dealing with false scales, or garments made with different threads) and also deals with property and theft.

What about “Ceremonial Law”?

Well the ceremonial law governs the Temple and how people approach God. The reason these laws existed is because we were separated from God by our sin, it was our own disobedience which caused us to move away from Him and these laws allowed people to start to move closer again by creating laws which concerned sacrifices, the priesthood, ceremonial cleanliness and the worship in the Temple.

But why don’t we still follow these rules? Well since it was sin that separated us from God as long as that barrier stood then we had to follow these laws. But when our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave His spotless life on the Cross, so that we could be forgiven for all our transgressions and sins, that barrier was lifted. Our sin was forgiven and we were allowed to come to God on our own. The image that is most often used to show this message is when Christ died we are told that the think and heavy curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the people was ripped apart (read about it in Luke 23:45). Through Christ we have direct access to God and thus the ceremonial law – like the civil law of the OT -has become redundant.

These two categories are where most of the examples cited by atheists and others seeking to attack Christian teaching draw their sources. Whether it be "shellfish is an abomination” or “different threads in a garment is sinful” you can almost always be sure that they are trying to equate civil or ceremonial law with the moral law.

But what is the “Moral Law”?

Well the moral laws have been given, for our benefit (they are not arbitrary laws), so that we can live the life and way that God had designed us and had intended for us all to live. The moral laws reflect God's unchanging nature and character and are therefore true for all time.

They still apply today.

The big example at the moment is obviously, the prohibition against engaging in homosexual acts - which is a moral law and not a civil or ceremonial one.

Yeah but how can you tell what is a Civil Law, and what is a Ceremonial Law, and what is a Moral Law?

Good question, because of course it would be easy to put whatever we don’t want to keep into the civil and ceremonial pile and what we want to enforce into the moral pile... so how do we decide what laws are in which category?

Well you could spend years studying the Bible and learning about Biblical and Christian history; study Greek and Hebrew and read thousands of commentaries on every verse in the Bible but if you haven’t got the time for all that then luckily there is an easier option.

Any law that is reiterated in the New Testament is a Moral Law. Done and dusted! It's really that easy!

This is true because all of the New Testament was written after Jesus was crucified. The New Testament was written after the gulf of sin that separated us from God had been bridged by Christ’s death. The death of Jesus was what did away with the ceremonial law. We have our own civil laws, as they did in New Testament times. So after the crucifixion the only things left are the moral laws.

The prohibition against engaging in homosexual acts is reiterated in the New Testament and thus it is a moral law that is to be followed today.

Okay but in a post about slavery and homosexuality you haven’t actually dealt that much with Slavery or homosexuality!

True but all good things come to those who wait, and now that I have laid the groundwork on Biblical law (a simplified groundwork might I add) I will deal directly with the issues of slavery and homosexuality in my follow up post... so watch this space!

Taking the Middle Road...

Rev. Robert Miller has written a brilliant article over on his blog “Robblogging” which manages to discuss the current situation within our church, from the point of view of what I would presume to be the majority of the Northern Ireland’s Anglican Clergy. There is gentleness and a delicacy in Rob’s writing on the matter – which is a world away from my Ian Paisley like post a couple of days ago, but well if you are going to read blogs from N.Ireland you need at least one “shouty” type don’t you?

I remain 100% opposed to practising homosexuals in the Clergy, but I have been re-evaluating my theology over the past few days.

I am a lover of doctrine, dogma and creed. I admire the logic behind them, the history behind them and the rock solid defence of my Christian belief they provide – I suppose they are a crutch to my faith, a barrier between the world and myself.

When someone questions me on my faith I usually rebut their arguments with doctrine – usually Calvinist. The amazing thing is most of the attacks on my faith come from Baptists and Pentecostals rather than Atheists, but now with the whole homosexual debate raging within the Church at present I am encountering a new foe... those within the same church as myself.

I’m new to Anglicanism as you all know, and this is the most mind blowing thing about my conversion – I have learned that we don’t know everything, and yet strangely I feel okay about that, I have learned to embrace doubt as a wonderful acceptance of the mystery that is God. In Reformed Presbyterian theology almost everything is defined, yes there are exceptions (like why does God chose to save the people he does etc.) but overall everything is explained in a codified format – drama is sinful, instruments in worship is sinful, hymns are sinful, etc etc.

 Yet within Anglicanism there is a certain freedom to learn on your own initiative and a freedom to believe what you wish to believe (within reason). As a new Anglican who has received no information on the church from my own church I have had to learn on my own, which as regular readers will realise has led me on a strange journey through the lowest of the Low Church movement to the dizzying highs of Anglo Catholicism (any higher and I would have taken a nosebleed) before settling on the middle road that runs between the two.

All of which has resulted in a peppered theology; with a high church understanding and view of the Eucharist, a low church view of the morning and evening prayer, a respect and certain admiration of the Oxford Movement and yet a respect and admiration also of the Puritans. High Church by the standards of my fellow countrymen, low church by the standards of my Christian Brethren and Sisters across the water, I occupy the house on the middle ground (built on the foundations of both reformers and Saints) which isn’t really too bad a place to be.

Anyway this whole debate on homosexuality has made me realise something.

Vote Calvin!

I like many other Anglicans (and indeed many Christians from other denominations) am too legalistic in my approach to sin.  I am not legalistic because of a spirit of "Holier than Thou", but rather because I want to worship God in ways which he has revealed in Scripture and I want the same for the Church. I want to see everyone come to Christ. I want everyone to realise their sin and ask for forgiveness so they can enjoy a loving relationship with God grounded in His mercy. It’s a safeguard, a mode of defence, a way of passing off my views as the views of others (“I believe *** because *** believed/said it”). Truth is, the God I and many of us have created (idolatry I know) is really a "Cosmic Calvin" sitting in a big heavenly study, constantly checking the rulebooks to see what he can and cannot do lest he break some doctrine or dogmatic understanding.

Others are on the opposite end of the scale, promoting a license to sin, saying that because Christ has already died for our Sin then any sins we commit are meaningless. They seek to explain away any and all sin as being blotted out by an all loving God that lacks any sort of justice. They too are guilty of creating a false God. They have created a God that is akin to a softly spoken English Vicar, who wears a big jumper and wants to give us all a hug and will probably offer us a cup of tea (made just as we like it) at the Last judgement – which will really be more like a meeting between friends than a court setting.

Yet both views are wrong. God is ultimately unknowable (except what he has revealed in Scripture). He as our infinite God, is to our finite minds unexplainable and even contradictory (to our feeble understanding). He is infinitely merciful, yet condemns some to hell. He loves all yet hates some, He is beyond comprehension. The God that is revealed in Scripture is somewhere between the two extremes I spoke of... He is neither “Mr. Legality”, nor is He “Mr. Look The Other Way”. He is somewhere in-between. 

He is God.

I don’t know where that leaves us, but I do know that most of us have to pack up our things, leave our own views and some of our “baggage” behind and move closer to God.  

I’ll keep you updated on how it goes. 

Gay Clergy: The Final Frontier?

Well I’ve been busy these past few days and haven’t had a chance to write as much as I would have liked, but I’m back now. I’d love to say that I’ve had a great time over the past couple of days but truth is my mind has been racked with questions.

You see the Church of Ireland has (as the Belfast Newsletter put it) been “rocked by gay clergy storm” after the Very Rev. Tom Gordon, Dean of Leighlin Cathedral entered a Civil Partnership.

Over the past twenty centuries, pretty much every single brand and branch of Christianity has had a prohibition concerning homosexuals in the clergy, heck homosexuals were kept out of lay offices never mind the clergy! Even now in 21^st Century the vast majority of churches still have rules in place against homosexuals in Church office. But as I highlighted a couple of months back the increasingly organised and vocal demands by homosexuals to be treated like everyone else pose a real challenge to the Church. On the one hand we as Christians do recognise that all of us are the same – we are all human beings created in God’s image, we are all sinners, we all need Christ as our Saviour etc. – yet the Church also recognises that there are differences between us – the saved and unsaved, the elect and the reprobate, those dead in their sin and those alive in Christ etc.

Yes we are inclined to recognise the brotherhood of man and we should strive to show forgiveness, but at the same time we also have a duty to defend the standards of conduct found in God’s Word.

What I cannot understand is, considering we now already have a practicing homosexual who is in a civil partnership, is it now acceptable in the Church of Ireland that one can be a practicing homosexual (in opposition to the Word of God) and remain a minister? If it is acceptable then my next question is who made the decision? I don’t remember the General Synod saying anything and I don’t remember hearing about it at church... so what’s going on? 

I would love to say that those questions have created a firestorm of debate, with thousands of Irish Anglicans heading to study their Bibles, study Church tradition and reading theological journals on the subject so that a fair and reasoned debate can be had but alas this is Ireland – where most people will just look the other way in the hope it all blows over. To be precise this is the Church of Ireland... where there are parishes that I am quite sure I could put on some horns, dress up in a big red costume with a long red tail and with my pitchfork in hand still be accepted at communion. It sounds silly but the church has become so scared to get into an argument, or for that matter risk any sort of negative press coverage that they are prepared to accept almost anything, and do almost anything to try and please the secular world – even if that means alienating their own congregations.

SO what do I think? Well can a homosexual be a valid minister? Ummm... yes, definitely. I mean are we honestly trying to say that in the 2000 years of the church not a single clergyman was a homosexual?

But...

Homosexuality is a sin, there is no way around that. Biblically it is a sin and traditionally it is a sin, and there is no getting around that. True we are all sinners, but just as I feel an adulterer should not become a minister without recognition of their sin and then repentance, just as I feel a robber should not be allowed to become a minister without recognition of their sin and then repentance so too do I feel that a homosexual should not be allowed into ministry without the recognition of their sin and a repentance of it. I confess my sin every night, I also thank God I’m not Roman Catholic or too “high up the candle” because I dread to think the number of Hail Mary’s I would have to undertake as penance! If I have to recognise my sin, confess it and ask for mercy for my transgressions against God then why on earth should my minister be exempt if he’s homosexual?

Why should God’s standards only apply to some and not all?

Look at it like this:

A man has sexual relations with his girlfriend... he wears a condom... is it okay?

Well first off they aren’t married, so no.

Secondly, they aren’t having sex to procreate but pleasure, so no.

Now think about this scenario: A man has sex with another man... is it okay?

Well they aren't married... so that’s obviously oppression from the church

Secondly, they aren’t having sex to procreate... but society says it’s okay, therefore it must be okay.

How is sin okay for some yet not for others. Why should I try and abstain from sin when my ministers can’t even be bothered doing so?

Certainly I believe that we should work to include homosexuals in society, we should oppose their discrimination in the workplace, oppose those who seek to oppress their rights and support their freedoms... but they must accept that the church is not a man made institution. The Clergy is not a job but a vocation. It is a calling, an appointment by God, not a business decision made by managers and middle men. One should not be able to become a minister because there is nothing else on the job market, nor because it’s a ticket to a free house and respect, but because they genuinely feel called to God’s Service.

Of course many homosexuals will feel called to preach and teach, but the Word of God is clear in Leviticus 18:22 (and 20:13) and also in St. Paul’s teaching in  Romans 1:18-32 that practicing homosexuality is practicing sin. Some may lean on their own interpretation, rather than the plain teaching of the Word of God, citing the time and views of society in which the texts were written as though the teachings mentioned are not revelation from God but the uninspired views of men who were “conditioned by time and place” – which of course makes them teaching that we can ignore or contradict with impunity. The idea is that if a homosexual evidences Christian virtues, or is an all round good person then God must have chosen them for redemption and sanctification even in their homosexual state, ergo God doesn’t really mind homosexuality.

I on the other hand utterly reject this idea because I cannot understand how anyone can hold the idea that God contradicts Himself, by endorsing things in our lives and experiences that He so clearly damns in the Scripture. I cannot accept that though we are all sinners the church must yet accept some sins lest the sinner be offended, I cannot accept the idea that the church could accept something so clearly condemned in the Bible. I know what will happen though, it’s not going to go well, my guess is that the church will do nothing for a while and then come out and accept practicing homosexual clergy and their ordination even though I believe that would set the Church in contradiction and opposition to the Will of Christ.

But really this about much more than homosexual behaviour... it’s about the Church’s witness. Since the Bible is so explicit, I wonder if the church will have any biblical basis for imposing any restrictions on human behaviour if it gives a moral acceptance of active homosexuality. At present I do not see how it can and to be honest I am beginning to wonder how long a house divided against itself can remain standing.

I think it’s time we shook of the bondage of secular society, put on the whole armour of God and got ready for the battle for Orthodoxy...

But what do you think?