It is very hard for a non-Christian to know what Christians really believe. The problem for anyone outside the Church is to know where to listen. The ones that shout the loudest tend to be from conservative groups. It is there that you may hear anti-gay rhetoric, support for a variety of Right wing causes and sometimes the most extraordinary rejection of many of the achievements of two hundred years of scientific research. There are, in fact, many other Christians who do not think at all like this. Such Christians do not go in for loud protestations. They are probably far more numerous than the conservatives who have the loudest voices but these latter will always appeal to journalists who want quick sound-bites. Because this voice is prominent, the Christian witness to society is thought to be politically and socially far from main-stream.
It is no secret that Surviving Church comes from a Christian stable that is liberal, inclusive and open to the findings of scientific research. The word ‘open’ is important in this context because, unlike conservative Christian opinion, there are many issues on which my opinions are in the process of formation. I also find myself on the side of the ‘situational ethicists’, those who believe that we work from individual situations rather than inflexible principles garnered from a particular reading of Scripture. My understanding of the Bible is also a work in progress. I keep finding new insights as I read it. Even if the Bible has not changed, I, as the reader and the world I live in, most definitely have done. Without all the changes that are going on, my study of Scripture might become, over the decades. rather dull. It is these changes and our attempts to apply the Bible to them that keeps bible study fresh and exciting. If there really was only one way, for example, to explain the death of Christ, might not people have become bored in hearing it explained to them over and over again?
My area of strong disagreement with conservatives is not that they preach and teach a set of ideas that I don’t agree with. The problem for me is that they insist that their ideas are mandatory and exclusive. The preacher is telling his flock in so many words ‘unless you believe this particular formulation of Christian doctrine, you cannot belong to this church or expect to receive salvation when you die’. Liberals, like myself, find the element of threat in this style of preaching quite alarming. It allows absolutely no scope for disagreement or doubt. The doctrines are presented in a take it or leave it way. The liberal approach to doctrine is not to say that this doctrine is what we teach and you must follow it to belong to our tribe. No, we explore the words of Scripture as well as the insights of literature and the imagination as all being tools through which to explore the reality of God. Our formulae and our words will always have the air of provisionality about them. The attempt to find Christian truth is always going to be described as a ‘work in progress’.
The idea that even the words of Scripture do not give us certainties is very threatening to many conservative Christians. They believe that their membership of the Church entitles them to be confident and certain in their formulae of truth. The response to this dilemma can be framed through a question. Does your understanding of being a Christian give scope for growth, change and transformation right through life? Was it, alternatively, something that was handed out complete and final on the day of your conversion? The idea that everything is given to us in terms of ‘salvation truth’ all at once leaves me with a sense of claustrophobia. I am condemned to go through the rest of my life repeating the same formulae connected with my salvation without any ‘deviation or hesitation’. The possibility or expectation that I might have a personal insight to add to the way that Christian truth is articulated, is taken away at a stroke. The only authorities are the precise words of Scripture and a few venerated teachers honoured by the particular tribe that I belong to.
To me, conservative Christianity fails one major test. It does not fail on the grounds that it teaches conservative doctrine, even though in this doctrine there are ideas that that I personally find uncongenial. Doctrine and differing interpretations of Scripture will always be areas for disagreement among Christians. There is no Church that has got everything perfect in this area. The problem for me is that to be a member of a conservative group seems often to close down the possibility for an individual to flourish as a full human being. Common-sense and basic psychology tells me that, as a Christian leader, I should never require that an individual close down in any area of potential growth. Rigorous, inflexible and fear-laden teachings about God can often stymie and blunt people, both in their spirituality and creativity. Creativity involves the ability to take risks and learn from mistakes. Spirituality, as it has been practised by every tradition of Christianity for 2000 years, has plunged deep into the resources of human culture, art and music. When these infinite possibilities for growth and change are in any way fenced off or restricted, something human dies. As a parent and a grand-parent I rejoice to see a child grow in every area of life and in every sense of the word. Sometimes they make wrong turns in the growing process but the child learns through those mistakes. In time they come to find a unique identity that God has prepared for each one.
I had in this blog wanted to share with my reader details of some fascinating new brain research, drawn to my attention, which explores how conservative Christians (and Trump supporters!) can become hard-wired to accept uncritically whatever teaching or information is shared with them, even when it is implausible. Education is supposed to create a healthy scepticism and questioning. Particular kinds of religious/political conditioning from early childhood -the promotion of ‘facts’ over creativity and mystery – makes a brain to have little resistance to various kinds of indoctrinating processes. It is, it is true, much easier for a majority to believe uncritically whatever is being taught them. Challenging teachers or propaganda is hard work. But without the ability to question and scrutinise, the potential for life as a full human being and as a Christian threatens to be extremely flat and one dimensional. The only people who gain from this situation are the ‘leaders’. They achieve power, status and sometimes wealth from shepherding large numbers of compliant obedient followers.
The question that has to be asked of me as a Christian is not what do you believe? The more important question is this. Does what you believe enrich your life, enable you to flourish as a human being and bring you into touch with a God who gives you hope, love and joy? That is the question and I suspect that the answer is not provided by words but by whether something radiates from one’s expression and demeanour. To use Christian language, is there ‘Christ in you, the hope of a glory to come?’
Oh, sound of cheering! Well said, Stephen. Exactly!
Ideology is claustrophobic in the way that is described. Such ideology may be ideologically conservative, ideologically liberal, ideologically moderate, ideologically maximal-conservative, ideologically culturally-conformist, or anything else.
The opposite of ideology (wishful thinking) is truthfulness and truth seeking. When we research, it is not a binary tribal matter, but a matter of nuance. The Great Knock Lewis’s tutor, as represented by McPhee in That Hideous Strength, scorns the idea that there are 2 sides to every question. There are, on the contrary, thousands of sides until the right answer is found – thereafter there is one. But at no point were there ever two.
So often the level of thinking one finds is:
(1) The liberal point of view is mosgt accurate
(2) because – er, well I don’t do supporting arguments, but how could fuddy duddies ever be right?
(3) ..er…
(4) that’s it.
But reality is different. Honest and truthful research will at different give conclusions at many points along the conservative – radical spectrum. My Bible-scholar friends will testify that the positions I currently hold (some tentatively) lurch between all points on this spectrum including both extreme poles. That is what truth-seeking often looks like.
I so wish that the liberals would pay the slightest attention to scientific research. The science that shows that averagely non-promiscuous male homosexuality does not exist; and that marriage and stability are correlated with greater happiness. Watch how quickly they change the subject when one mentions male homosexual STI rates and early death rates, etc.. When one shows how culturally-dependent and culturally-relative perceptions of transgender are. When one speaks of the quite obvious average physical and emotional differences between men and women. Ideology is in fact anti-science. Yet it is rife among the liberal ascendancy. How does that speak for their honesty? Or their IQs? In fact, the closing off of debate on such issues, and the extreme rush to change the subject whenever they are mentioned, is well documented for future generations on blogs such as this and many others.
The point about ‘congenial’ is an interesting one. I thought the idea was to preach things that are true. But there are absolutely tons of things that are true and not congenial, So will someone explain where ‘congenial’ comes into the equation? Does anyone think that something’s being congenial will make it true?? I see that milky-bar tree growing outside my front window again.
I consider your remark ‘the science … shows that averagely non-promiscuous male homosexuality does not exist’ to be gratuitously offensive, as well as utter nonsense.
The larger studies, such as Bell/Weinberg, Kaslow, Lever, van den Ven et al., CH Mercer et al., ES Rosenberg et al., Centers for Disease Control (USA, ongoing) all show astonishing average numbers of lifetime sexual partners. McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple, put faithfulness over 5 years at 0-1%. Lesbian couples stay together on average only two thirds as long as their male counterparts (Schumm, Marriage and Family Review 2010 etc.), though their sexual relationships are more typically serial not concurrent.
Your answer suggests that you question the idea that male homosexuality is generally or averagely promiscuous. But what data is that based on? I spoke about liberals changing the subject. Often they change the subject as soon as reality or real-world statistical data is mentioned, rather than convenient dogma or fashion.
You know that my summary is ‘utter nonsense’, so you therefore have better data yourself. What is that data? Quote it, and we will all have a look at it. I have, believe it or not, met people who make statements like ‘utter nonsense’ without knowing the first thing about what studies have been done, nor about what those studies have found and concluded.
Gratuitously? I am trying to be offensive? How is summarising data accurately an example of being gratuitously offensive? Does anyone see the connection?
Offensive? Well, true things often are offensive. There is no guarantee that they would not be. Why would there be such a guarantee.
Offence is to some degree subjective anyway.
Lovers of truth, however, will not be offended by truth. What does that make the people who *are* offended by truth or accurate information?
There is no option not to follow science – Stephen is right. How I wish liberals would do so rather than running away from it when its findings do not fit their ideology. And because those findings are then censored by the mainstream press for being nonpoliticallycorrect, liberals are accessories to censorship too, apart from the ones who are actually doing the censoring.
If one wants to know who is in charge, find out who cannot be criticised.
I know that many who follow this blog find Christopher tiring and verbose but he does frequently reflect Robert Burns in his poem on King George lll’s birthday
“‘Tis very true, my sovereign King,
My skill may weel be doubted;
But facts are chiels that winna ding,
An’ downa be disputed”.
Christopher, you wrote, ‘The science that shows that averagely non-promiscuous male homosexuality does not exist.’
I struggled to understand what ‘averagely non-promiscuous male homosexuality’ is, and to that extent your assertion didn’t make much sense.
I’m not gay myself, but I did find your assertion that such homosexuality ‘does not exist’ offensive. If you were merely citing research you would have said something more nuanced or qualified, and (one would hope) cited particular studies so that we could check them. I know, or know of, several faithful monogamous same-sex relationships, and I’m sure others do too.
In any case SurvivingChurch is not the place for a discussion of homosexuality, as Stephen has said repeatedly. This blog is about abuses of power in the Church.
Oh, I’m not going to get into this as an occasional visitor but Stephen does tend to trail his coat on LGBT issues.
I agree with what Janet has said. I have a good deal more that I could say to enlarge on my comment above and as a further response to Christopher, but it would take the discussion far away from the intent of the original post.
Hi Janet
‘This blog is about abuses of power’ – exactly – but the particular post was about liberals being more scientific and/or evidence-based, and I wonder whether that is true.
You said you struggled to know what the assertion meant. In that case, how can you possibly begin to know whether you agree or disagree with it. Yet you seem fairly sure you disagree with it without first knowing what it means?!
Nor have you mentioned the fact that being offensive is a subjective matter, and the further fact that being offensive is in no way connected to whether something is true or false. So many people can be offended by things that are none the less true. Their offence will not make the thing less true. Please let me know that you understand these 2 points, which are basic.
I imagine what you did not get was my use of ‘averagely’. It meant not that every single male homosexual partnership was more often than not promiscuous, but that in a given population of male homosexual partnerships the promiscuous ones far outnumber the others. No-one has ever found a way of combatting that.
‘I know of several…’ – yes but it is impossible for any one person to know a statistically meaningful sample. Still less to know how typical their personal sample is. This double point has to be repeated so often in debate.
As you see I did already cite studies but did not elaborate here. The elaboration is in my ch 11 of What Are They Teaching The Children? but I can address particular points. The point germane to this discussion is that if liberals were indeed scientific, they would go with the evidence rather than against it; they would encourage debate rather than quelling or censoring it; and they would address counter arguments rather than repeating ad nauseam the assertions that first prompted the counter arguments.
I found your assertion about homosexuals and promiscuity unclear, but it was evident enough that it was offensive. To raise the subject at all here is questionable, but of course you are perfectly free to start your own blog on the mater and the research you mention.
This particular blog is not ‘about liberals being more scientific and/or evidence-based’ than conservatives; it’s about being open to change and development. Personal growth entails openness to scientific evidence and insights from the arts, and to creativity and mystery. That’s what I understand Stephen to be saying. He concludes, ‘The question that has to be asked of me as a Christian is not what do you believe? The more important question is this. Does what you believe enrich your life, enable you to flourish as a human being and bring you into touch with a God who gives you hope, love and joy?’
I might add, does what you believe enable you to live your life in a way that enriches those around you? Does it help you be empathic and extend practical help to those who need it? Does it give you compassion and a thirst for justice? Because that is what I see in Jesus, and Jesus shows us the heart of God.
Hear, hear!
I find the liberal/conservative thing (thr topic of this post) fascinating, but would run a mile from being associated with these 2 ideologies or any other ideology. It is obvious – the world is full of trillions of issues. How can one (unless one is tribal and therefore not worth listening to) be liberal/conservative/etc on all of those trillions of issues? How can the evidence point the same way on all things? Never listen to liberals or conservatives – they are advocates. Listen to evidence based, nuanced people and truth seekers. Beware of framing things in a binary manner.
On Janet’s offensiveness point – t’s just like with images of discarded young humans that are sometimes shown outside clinics. We agree on the extreme offensiveness involved; but I logically point out that if something is offensive (and, more importantly, bad) don’t do it. Whereas the liberal point of view is that they regard the offensive thing as something that should continue happening (or: the reality is liberating but the picture of it is offensive – a theory that does not even begin to make sense). Offensive is however rather an emotion-centred word, and being emotion-centred rather than more rational is a sign of less maturity. (Cf. when liberals say ‘so you don’t like XYZ’ when what you have been saying is that you have arguments against XYZ.)
‘a God’ – how many Gods (as opposed to theories of God or projected Gods) are there? The only God one can be brought in touch with is (by definition) one who exists. And to be God is not to be subject to human specifications or being made in humans’ image.
Being a truth seeker is the most enriching thing imaginable, because it is the only way for one’s thought not to be claustrophobically closed off. When one begins on a research topic, it is a wonderful adventure not to have a clue what one will conclude. I highlighted in the aforesaid chapter the example of Vicky Beeching who said she knew the basic nature of her conclusion *before* beginning her research. If so, those who do that miss out on the entire adventure.
‘The question that has to be asked of me as a Christian is’ – this would mandate that only one question can be asked. Why can’t lots of different questions be asked, including both of the 2 mentioned? We should take pride in being able to address any question. To say that certain questions can be asked and others cannot is to be selective, something that academics leap on and call the cherry picking fallacy. To be selective is to have something to hide, a lack of transparency.
What we believe has first to be true and accurate. We live in the most astounding universe, so it would take many lifetimes to discover the things that are really true. Forget, therefore, any attention to things that are not true and things that we would only *like* to be true. I said at the outset about evasion and changing the subject, not addressing questions. What I said has yet again been borne out: good…
McWhirter and Mattison seems to be a help guide to understanding gay relationships with a view to staying together.
Correct. But my point is on the stats they unearthed, which are astonishing though not to anyone who understands that male instincts left to themselves are out of control – they have to be tempered by the carrot of winning their mate by character and a modicum of selfcontrol. The have-your-cake-and-eat-it approach was always a nonstarter, and some always knew that. But did anyone listen?
Anyone’s instincts are going to be a potential problem if out of control.
Exactly. But, as I have found to be the way with liberals, you assume that all groups of people will ‘score’ roughly equal in this. At times, in the real world, the discrepancies are astronomical. I have often characterised the liberal way of looking at things as ‘Those who have not only done no research but cannot name any research papers, let along what they conclude, should hold sway over and silence those who have done that research: a simultaneous exalting of the ignorant and debasing of the informed.’. Why would everything be perfectly equal in the real world? That would be a very large coincidence. One would expect discrepancies between groups, sometimes large ones. http://www.peter-ould.net/2013/09/16/some-staggering-statistics does not originate (of course) the stats in question, but does quite correctly point out that the Centers of Disease Control data (and you will not get larger scale USA data than that) shows men who have sex with men to have a one thousand plus *times* greater chance than those who don’t of contracting HIV. This is just one example. Equality is just an idea, and people love to flee reality into the worlds of hypothesis. Over some years these kinds of weakness in liberal thought have reared their heads repeatedly. Any system of thought that is geared towards producing a ‘utopian’ ideal scenario may run the danger of eschewing joined up thinking. Nick Clegg on a famous occasion wanted to expand cannabis legality and mental health care simultaneously. Might not one lead to the other? Joined up thinking?
So I see intrinsic weaknesses in liberal ways of thinking.
I think you’re jumping to conclusions as to my conclusions! I have a science degree, and have done research. I certainly don’t think all human groups are identical. It was you who singled out men’s unbridled instincts, as if they were different from women’s. And also the suggestion that men’s mating instincts need more control than others, and using a particular method. I have never studied men’s mating instincts. I don’t know how different they may be from women’s. Reference please?
I think conservatives (whether of the born-conservative or conviction-conservative variety) have an easier time explaining things because they assume (or rather see from the evidence) that the unarguable average and endemic physical differences between men and women will be thoroughly and in a complex manner interrelated with nonphysical aspects. Liberals have a dogma that men and women are much the same, but in 20 years of debating them it is rare for them to provide chapter and verse. They need to be called out on this. Their effortless cultural superiority is just inferiority by another name.
The answer is staring everyone in the face. Men having to wait for marriage produced a partnership that was hard-won and outstanding or unique – and therefore lasting. As soon as they did not have to wait, nor was it lasting – with devastating human and familial cost. How unnecessary is that? Norms and values determine outcomes, so avoid bad norms and values, as the strongest cultures already do.
Yes, not all groups are identical, but of course ‘men’ are a group as are ‘women’. It would be a coincidence if their rates were identical. Likewise (most notoriously) men who have sex with men as compared to men who don’t. This is a much studied topic, and can be googled. I collect data specifically on men who have sex with men (where the greatest horror stories, or rather horror patterns, reside) in What Are They Teaching The Children? 310-11 plus notes. The largest studies, those I list above, agree on (a) the extreme average (even typical) promiscuity of MSM, (b) its extreme and clear cut difference from ‘heterosexual’ averages, (c) the extreme difference between MSM and others in terms of longterm monogamous patterns. All of which is 180 degrees different from anything that has ever been endorsed by Christianity. Until now, of course. Incoherent non-joined-up thinking eventually ends up (as it were) strangling itself.
Divorces per year were 1.9 per 1000 married people in 1958 – I.e. slightly less than one couple. (So you see that the discrepancy with the present in outcomes is colossal – but then the discrepancy in relevant norms and lifestyles is too, which explains it.) 1957 (as Sunday supplements recently celebrated) was the happiest UK year on record. Which is exactly as one would expect, given that marriage/stability is the key indicator of happiness and also of health (together with religion in the former instance).
I am afraid I cannot forbear from further comment on this. I consider that these ‘scientific’ contributions prove nothing whatever. Heterosexual marriage has received cultural approval, as well as social and legal support, from time immemorial. On the other hand, during all of this time, until 2005 when civil partnerships were introduced, homosexual practice has been subject to social and legal censure, with interludes of severe persecution. And yet somehow homosexuals are expected to immediately settle into lifelong commitments. Is this really fair or just?
Christopher, I don’t understand why you persist in bringing the subject back to homosexuality time after time, whatever the topic of the blog you’re purportedly commenting on. It doesn’t indicate the balance, nuance, and openness to new ideas which you claim to have, and accuse us of not having.
If you’re trying to make a point about conservatives being superior to liberals (which you seem to be attempting), perhaps you could choose another illustration? Dogmas about creation vs. evolution, perhaps?
No references about men’s mating instincts then? What about the differences between men and women? Primary sexual characteristics, gonads, obviously, also the secondary, boobs and beards. But anything particularly important? What defines me as human is above my neck, and much the same as yours, I guess. You’re convinced it’s obvious. Not to me, but if it’s that obvious, it should be easy to explain.
John-
Contrary to what you say, Christians have not expected homosexuals to settle into unions, because homosexual acts have been considered sinful in the first place. There is no special significance of the number 2 for people involved in homosexual behaviour. The only special significance of 2 above other numbers is for childbirth/parenting, i.e. for male/female contexts.
Second, if unpopularity leads to promiscuity, then Jehovah’s Witnesses must be very promiscuous. The fact that they are not suggests that promiscuity has other roots, namely rootlessness and insecurity in being loved, together with the expectation (which actually has ever diminishing results) of pleasure. I am sure that this theory of mine will be greeted with ‘no ****, Sherlock’ as it deserves. Pleasure centredness is also associated with adolescence and immaturity.
Janet-
As you know, the topic that I am speaking of is, centrally, liberals’ wholesale avoidance of discussing certain topics that do not suit their agenda, their changing the subject and censoring even when they know far less than their interlocutor, their idea that the uninformed have the right to quash the quotation of research findings, etc.. Homosexuality is merely the topic where they perform this cover-up in the most egregious manner. Were that topic the import of bean sprouts, it would be that of which I would be talking.
Athena-
Users of both male and female prostitutes are almost all male. But if we take prostitutes to be the most promiscuous people of all then it follows that we are talking of a lot of couplings initiated by males and scarcely any by females. Why? Sounds like the males cannot resist and the females can do so better.
Similarly the well known study that involved a no-strings offer on campus led to most men salivating and most women saying a definite and surprised no. The discrepancy was very stark indeed.
What does this show? It shows that men’s animal sexual instinct is more basic and instinctive and animal than is women’s. Dr D G Amen 7.8.2017 Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease goes into how women’s prefrontal cortex is more active (more blood flow) leading to their being more careful and doing more planning than men.
I recommend the summary of the findings of the larger studies on sex differences by SB Kaufman 12.12.19 (Scientific American Blog Network). Whereas at the broad level there is not much difference between men and women in levels of extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, there is far more difference when one considers individual facets/traits of these.
As you say, the physical differences are manifest and loom large – and interconnectedness is an astonishing facet of the human body (how many millions of brain connections?) meaning that all physical facets will impact in some way on everything else. But there are plenty of psychological differences too, as Kaufman lists – partly for this very reason.
Stephen – I hear what you don’t believe but could you tell us what you do believe, e.g. about God, Jesus, the Spirit. I don’t mean this in an accusatory way (honestly) it’s just that in attacking mode liberals always tend to end up defining themselves in negation.
As a post-evangelical, I’ve developed a new straightforward test when looking at a church’s website, to see whether I might be welcome and might get in with its people. It’s very simple.
Many churches of that persuasion present a list of propositions to describe what they “believe”. Frequently the word “love” does not appear on that page. Avoid those people! For many more, the word is used only incidentally – and the same advice applies.
On the other hand, some Churches put love – and joy, and peace, and so on – central to how they describe themselves. I’d certainly give them a second look.
It’s no guarantee, but seems to be a strong indicator.
Christopher, the reason we keep changing the subject is that Stephen has repeatedly said he does not want this blog to be about homosexuality. If you want to start your own blog on that subject, there is plenty more we can say.
I am not going to get sidetracked into debate on sexuality, but there are a couple of points I cannot ignore.
“being emotion-centred rather than more rational is a sign of less maturity” This is definitely not a research-based position! For example, and relevant to this blog, studies have shown that bullies have low emotional intelligence – Wikipedia is actually quite good for an overview of research on EI, including critique, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
Neuroscience has helped us to understand that our rational brain and our emotional brain are equally important in understanding and decision-making (including deciding what is true) “Our rational minds give us information about people and things, yet preferences and why we have them are based on the limbic brain’s storage of emotions. Without access to that information, we are unable to make even the simplest of decisions because all choices are equal. Emotions are always present in our lives, whether we recognize them or not.” from http://www.hrdpress.com/site/html/includes/items/SBEI.html
There is a growing recognition now in research that lived experience is equally important to scientific understanding and the idea of objective reality is discredited, here is just one of many papers on the subject of the kind of phenomenological research I am doing on my MSC https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2
Finally your assertion that we were happier when divorce was lower ignores decades of research and feminist analysis about women (mainly) trapped in abusive relationships. This article in Time shows why the dominant culture of the time affected reporting of the abuse https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/3426225/domestic-violence-therapy/%3famp=true
The discussion on sexuality issues is now closed. Please refrain from taking the discussion to places that the original article does not justify. For the time being I am limiting contributions to three in each discussion per contributor. Endless tooing and froing does not edify. I don’t want to go down the path of moderating all comments as I am not always here to do it.
Cristopher, I would give up. No-one’s listening. I came to this blog first through an interest in the subject of abuse in Church and there have been useful contributions on that subject but an LGBT agenda has been constantly inserted with little acceptance that there is an alternative view. Minds are well fixed by this time.
I departed before only curiosity drew me to look again but I should have known better. A New Year’s resolution may help me to stick to that.
I have been following this blog for five years and the posts are still consistently about abuse in the church. It is the comments underneath that keep swaying it towards Lgbt subjects, not the author.
If people were to read the posts and respond to what is actually being written , rather than using this space as a platform for their own agendas, we might return to a healthy and more friendly balance of discussion .
Happy New Year, hare! Nice to see you again.
Stephen, thank you for your helpful statement in the blog that what is difficult for you is that “they insist that their ideas are mandatory and exclusive”. I’ve been reflecting on this.
Some notions are mandatory for followers of Jesus, it seems to me, such as the exclusivity of Jesus. “No-one comes to the father but by me” (John 14:6, compare Psalm 96:5 and Paul in 1 Cor.10:20). I hold this view arising from my decision that the Bible is the word of God, which I took way back.
Other teachings are more up to the individual to decide.
Where I think some of us fall down is in allowing preachers to do our work for us. Paul clearly states than when one person is prophesying, and that is what a preacher attempts to do in bringing the word of God to the people, the rest should assess it (1 Cor. 14:29). Uncritical acceptance is not on. It is not a good thing when teachers expect this from their hearers.
When I used to preach regularly, I received a complaint of being mandatory and exclusive in my demands from one person, but another person made gentle fun of me by summing up my approach as “My name is David Pennant but I am open to being wrong.” Perhaps I had the balance about right? I hope so.
That sounds right to me! Obviously, we think we’re right! None of us would hold any opinion we thought was wrong! But we have to accept we can be mistaken.
Open to being wrong is a vital place to be, to avoid a culture of uncritical acceptance or obedience, that allows abuse to develop.
And I think even ‘mandatory’ teachings are open to interpretation and development. For example a feminist/universalist theology might have a different idea about the exclusivity of Jesus.
Really agree about preacher as teacher. Good teaching is not filling learners heads with indisputable facts. It’s about developing skills of dialogue, debate, research and critical enquiry. Like this blog!
Another angle on all this.
Why do we have so much teaching in churches? Jesus established the Christian teaching programme himself, and it is very simple. He told the twelve to “teach them to observe what I have commanded you (Matt 28:20).” So it is possible to deal with that fully here and now. Are you ready? Here goes…
“Do what Jesus commanded the twelve.”
Now that you have read those words, you won’t need any more teaching for the rest of your life.
Two insights arise from this. One is that in my private survey of 180 sermons I heard, only 2 were on the commands of Jesus. Dismal. I myself have preached through new testament epistles week by week in the past, and explained the deep secrets of Daniel and Revelation to my hearers. I regret all that now.
Secondly, I have long appreciated a verse in 1 John, in J.B Phillips translation : “my children, love should not be a matter of words or talk. It must be genuine and show itself in action.”
Splendid stuff!
You’re supposed to show God and his kingdom I think. These days, a fair amount of explanation is required! But why would the disciples have followed him for three years if they’d learned it all in a few days? I’m with the Westminster confession, I think. Learning to understand God is the whole duty of humanity. I paraphrase! Surely it’s a life’s vocation?
English Athena, thanks. Here’s a thought – I think the being with Jesus for three years was itself the teaching and learning experience for the twelve. We have reduced teaching to a person giving a talk on a Sunday morning. How much better to be out and about with the leader learning how to share the good news, healing and delivering people etc.
I was once under a pastor who believed strongly in tithing. I suggested that in every tenth week, instead of having the Sunday morning service, we might all go out on the streets to reach out. I was greeted with silence. He didn’t even bother to rubbish the idea!
Sermonising is a poor teaching method. My mind generally wanders, to be frank.