do either the barmen declaration or the kairos declaration teach us anything about faith and fellowship in crisis? 

the conversation that Phil, Iconoclast and others are having is fascinating but I think should be on a different thread - so I've carried on my conversation with them on a new thread  'God of Christ and God of wrath'

Clare

Clare,

Thank you for your long and reasoned response to my last posting. I will attempt (inadequately) to respond to the important issues you raise.

I think my motivation to be drawn to God is primarily driven by that of what  C S Lewis described as  sehnsucht  a German word meaning 'longing' . If you go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sehnsucht_(C._S._Lewis)

it explains  more about what I mean. It is 'some other country'  that I  look forward to that is infinitely preferable  to the consequences of remaining in this one and totally separated from God.

On the question of judgement. I think that we both agree that it is a central motif throughout the Bible the question is what does the judgement of God mean and to whom is it directed?

I would like to offer the following based mainly  on the parable of the Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22.  I never  really understood the significance of this parable until someone pointed out to me that in the Ancient World, it was the custom of the hosts to provide a wedding garment. Seems strange to us - imagine being invited to a wedding where the brides parents buy your wedding outfit! .

The individual who turned up in their own  garments were insulting the host by effectively  saying that their own garments were good enough thank you very much, and they would prefer to wear their own. I think you have to be able to appreciate the depth of Jewish custom to realise just  how insulting this action was - Jesus evidently knew that the hearers would understand but this  parable is about self-righteouness and pride.

And here therein,  lies a clue as to what and to whom judgement is directed. The parable  of the wedding feast is showing us God's attitude to someone who is proud and self-righteous. I think it is rather like say, the Government's  attitude to someone who decides  to print their  own money.  They would soon be arrested as their own money would have no value and would soon contaminate the genuine money supply . They would have  to be imprisoned and taken out of circulation.

Jesus's harshest and most judgemental   words were reserved for those who were self-righteous and proud but tender to those who knew humility. They were also reserved for false teachers (see letters to the seven chuches of Asia in Rev - re the Nicolaitians)

Another illustraion of what I mean is found in Luke 23 where of two criminals punished next ot Jesus on the cross, one displays proud arrogance and the other humillity. I  doubt that the humble criminal understood very much of Jesus ' mission and who He was, but his attitude of heart and acknowledgment  of Jesus as Lord 'Remember me when you come into your Kingdom'  - was  sufficient  to enable him to enter paradise.

I often wonder as to how God will judge people. You often come across  individuals  who have done dreadful  things yet they have had dreadful  lives often being abused themselves especially when they were children  So where does the boundary regarding their personal responsibilty lie?

I  think part of the answer to that question is to do with pride and self-righteouness and  that there comes a point in everyone where these  take over and determine our choices  and it is at this stage that God holds us personally accountable.  I have often found that humility is a stumbling block when talking  to people about Christianity. I have heard all too often the number of reason that people give as why God should accept them for the works they have done. One lady insinuatedto me recently that she was a Christian  because she was born into the Church of England- and God is an Englishman.....

God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble The of of Jesus cleanses us from sin (the effect of pride) but to be free of pride we must humble ourselves (James 4 v6). That is hard  for a lot of people.  However we must be careful that we don't get proud of the fact that we are humble!

Speaking as one myself, I think that Evangelicals often make it too difficult for people to get saved. In Acts 10 we read about the conversation that Peter had with Cornelius. What is interesting  here is that  was Cornelius  attitude  of heart that made him acceptable  unto God and I am not convinced here that Cornelius  was a 'christian  believer ' in the sense that we might understand it , but humility he most definitely had.

Near where I live there is one of the largest communities of New Age people  in the UK . many of them are earnestly seeking God and displayfar more humility than many in the Church. In  fact the tragedy is that many have rejected the church because they find it unreal and hypocritical. Having talked to many of them I cannot agree with some  of their doctrines but  but there is no denying  their  fervency in seeking God and I can't help thinking there are a few Cornelius's among them.

We  read Jesus admonition (Matt 721-23) of those  who claimed to do many mighty works in His name but Jthen esus gives then short shrift. Their  attitude reeks of pride does it not? I think that some who we thought  were sheep and some goats may turn out to be the other way round at the last Trump.

You mention goats becoming sheep. Are you advancing  here the  Roman Catholic concept  of Purgatory ?  It seesm to me that it is difficult  to read the passages in the NT about judgement  without getting the impression that there is a certain  finality about it.

Apologies for this long post but I am sure you will agree these important issues don't have short answers!

If a week was once upon a time a long time in politics, what is a month in the blogosphere?!

Pete Hobson questioned me at the start of this thread about friendships and their fate within the current “crisis” of the AC.  My answer was deliberately loaded, by referring to the civil war in Zimbabwe (even that way of describing it eludes other inferences: I do not for example use the Shona word for “Struggle” though some of friends would very naturally ...).  But how does such an analogy of ambivalent armed struggle colour our picture of the AC’s present plight, one might wonder?  And what of the nature of friendships in such a view?

The blogosphere reaction(s) to Abp Mouneer Anis’s letter re GAFCON are full of talk regarding betrayal of friendships, alliances and such.  And while I myself deplore such lack of basic Christian charity, especially when there is no face-to-face meeting (blogs have this nasty tendency of abstraction and so little immediate accountability ...), it is sadly an indication that the civil war analogy is probably apt.  

Mr Hobson, I’d prefer it to be otherwise, but clearly all we now lack are Cyril of Alexandria’s bands of marauding monks ...  But perhaps, just perhaps, knowing well his own locale (which I guess a good number in cyberspace just do not), that is exactly what the Abp is wanting to try to avoid - amongst other things ...?

Clare

Thanks for your posting of 21 May 2008 11.33 pm.

I think we may be at cross purposes in some respects so I would like to clarify these before finally agreeing to have a conversation on this.

1. I agree that I am ‘rushing (well, perhaps rushing is the wrong word because I try to construct my postings with great care) to show you the error of your ways’. But that does not mean I am not listening to what you say or not really engaging with what you say. I have got to give a frank opinion (as you have given frank opinions about me:

“I said it before and I'll say it again, I really believe your doctrine of biblical authority gets in the way of actually being able to hear the gospel.  ultimately, it's idolatory.”

“Please take what follows as an attempt not to be patronising or point scoring.  Forget debating, let’s talk.  I am not sure you have actually encountered Christ yet.  (Lots of God, but no actual Christ).  I say this respectfully and with fear and trembling and in no way suggesting that my own encounter with Christ is anything other than at the initial stages.”)

and say that I can’t find anything positive in what you have said. That is because our present convictions on who God is, what he is like, the condition of man before him, the heart of Christ’s saving work – are utterly irreconcilable.

2. Yes. I did not mean to imply that you ‘deny that there is any harmony between the Christ event and the God the Old Testament’.  It is already clear from your earlier postings that you recognise some harmony. What I should have said is (changes in italics)

‘But before I spend quite a bit of time doing that I am seeking Clare’s assurance that she will then respond, on the assumption that all that is true, either trying to show that on that assumption the Bible does not paint a consistent picture of God (especially about the wrath of God), or acknowledging, on that assumption, that it does.

3. The point about using what the apostles said, wrote, did as well as what Jesus said and did. From your point of view the ‘Christ event’ stands in judgment (OK these are my words, they might not be your words, but I hope you know what I mean) on – well, there is a spectrum of possibilities:

All the OT. We already know from what you have posted that the OT is judged by the Christ event. Some passes the test, some is discarded or corrected.

The question now is: how much of the NT is judged by the Christ event and how much is included in the Christ event which is the judge. Obviously (well, obvious to me, say if you disagree) each part of the NT, however defined, must either be in the Christ event or judged by it. We already know from what you have posted that some of the NT is judged by the Christ event. Clearly at one extreme is the position that all of the NT is judged by the Christ event. For this to be the case the Christ event which is the judge must be constructed, derived (choose a word) from sources (literary, direct from God, Christian community, advancing world consciousness, whatever) outside the NT. I was choosing a position on the spectrum where we agreed to debate as though all that the NT says Jesus said, did, allowed to be done, is true. When I posted

'I [Phil] am not allowed, on Clare’s terms, to use what the apostles and early followers of Christ said, wrote, did as recorded in the New Testament’ I was referring to the teaching and acts of the apostles whether recorded for instance in the Acts or the letters, or Revelation. If we were to include this, alongside the words and acts of Christ, in the Christ event as ‘definitely true, definitely happened’ I would be able for instance, in the conversation/debate to say ‘Paul writes that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against…..’ and ‘So therefore whom he wishes he has mercy, whom he wishes he hardens’ and you would, in the conventions of the debate we agreed, have to accept that God is really like that.

So I would like to ask the question: do you want the Christ event, the ‘definitely true, definitely happened’ to be just the words and acts of Christ as recorded in the NT, or the whole of the NT? Do you want to proceed with the debate on one or the other of these?

Phil Almond

Iconoclast – thank you for the generous and respectful tone of your last post.  I am glad you have reassured me that you believe from motives of love and not fear.  I really do find it hard to square your comment that you are attracted to God because of his beauty with your belief that he does some very unbeautiful things though.

This judgement thing…..I think there is a problem here for both liberals and conservatives.  The problem for conservatives is that it is hard to reconcile a loving God with one who would consign huge numbers of people he created to eternal suffering.  I don’t think it is wet and fluffy to find this utterly immoral.  No one deserves this – not Hitler, not Ian Huntley, not Fred West. Being made to confront the consequences of one’s actions and take responsibility for them – definitely. Punished? Maybe? Maybe really facing the full consequences of what we have done is punishment enough.  Liberals have the opposite problem.  You are right that liberals often downplay our being called to account to an extent that makes God seem indifferent to the abysmal depths of human suffering that we can inflict upon each other.  We need something that embraces the strengths in both positions while rejecting the weaknesses.

And yes, at this point, I am going to bang on about the Girardian perspective again which may be one way of making sense of this.  This acknowledges the dire, deadly consequences of sin. It explicitly believes that the whole of human culture is constructed on sin and that human beings cannot escape this destructive web in which we are caught without God’s intervention and rescue.  So far, so conservative.

 But then it departs from the familiar script.  It analyses what sin is.  If you read the 10 commandments backwards, you get a pretty good idea of the girardian idea of sin.  We start off coveting what our neighbour has (just because they have it and we do not), which leads to us lying and misrepresenting to ourselves and others our virtue and their vice, which can them lead to stealing of other people's goods, reputation, wellbeing (psychological, economic, social and cultural) or significant others.  It certainly leads to murdering people in our hearts through hatred, and too often, to real violence and murder – not only through individual violence but also through this rivalistic acquisitiveness writ large in the collective violence of war, economic exploitation and oppression.  And it can also lead to the breakdown of harmonious intergenerational relationships and to scapegoating – one person or group of people become the convenient bad guys who  need punishing for commiting the very same crimes we all commit, one way or another.

The remaining 4 commandments underline that coveting is ultimately idolatry –and the antidote to this is worship of God which detoxes our disordered and envious desires. It agrees that all these things are bad and cause us to perish at one another’s hands.  This is the perishing that Jesus came to rescue us from. Sin is undeniably scary and frightening in its consequences – but it is the consequences that we meet out on one another that are the real problem. How can we live alongside other people in the Kingdom of God when we are infested with a violent, rivalistic envy? What is worse, we are completely blind to this envy and violence in ourselves but can spot it a mile off in other people, especially our scapegoats who exist solely to prevent us ever having to face up to the truth about ourselves. The message is not ‘we are all victims’ rather ‘we all make one another victims’.

 The cross ‘judges’ this sin by showing up its consequences on an innocent victim.  It is a sacrifice offered to propitiate an angry violent god, the angry violent god that lives in each one of our hearts. Our judgement of one another is judged and found wanting and replaced with this antidote – forgiveness.  Yes, Jesus and the apostles talk about judgement and winnowing and fire and destruction, but then, what actually happens is that the destruction happens not at the hands of God upon sinful humanity, but at the hands of sinful humanity upon an innocent God. And  this ‘judgement’ is met with gentle forgiveness – not retribution.  Jesus in his cross and resurrection turns the language of judgement on its head.  We judge, God is judged.  We convict, God forgives.  We blame, God perishes.  We sin, God faces the consequences.

 Does everyone get into heaven in the end?  Only when we can forgive those who sin against us and acknowledge our need for forgiveness from those against whom we have sinned.  When we want  a final justice against those who have hurt us, Jesus declares – here – have it – take your desire for retribution out on me – but I’ll not let you take it out on this my child Adolph/Ian/Fred/Clare/Phil/Iconoclast/etc. You can stay outside heaven disgusted at my weak, generous forgiveness and demanding your right to justice for as long as you like, or you can accept that I have paid whatever price it is that you demand these people deserve.  So there may, after all, be sheep and goats, although let’s hope the goats give up and become sheep eventually. And there may well be two gospels –the gospel of those – whatever their theological and ecclesiastical hue – who have really begun to live from this forgiven and forgiving place and the gospel of those who would rather be right.  Those who find themselves justified by their trust (faith) in Christ’s way of forgiveness and those who justify themselves by their doctrinal/political/liberal/personal correctness. 

 Now, you may not go along with this interpretation. You may think it is a complete travesty of the gospel.  But it does take sin seriously.  It is not wishy washy. And it does not make God vicious.

When we listen to each other in generosity and with a little epistemological humility (as you evidently do) let us hope that we are showing our faith in the 'right' gospel.

here's hoping,

Clare

Clare you wrote,

This is how I read this.  Jesus scares you. You fear judgement, hell and eternal damnation.  So you believe in him and will do whatever he says.  You’ll say that you love him. You’ll tell him he is so kind to let you associate with him.  You’ll even believe you deserve his contempt and it is only his amazing generosity that lets him bear being with you.  You’ll try really hard to get other people to say this too- whatever it takes to protect yourself from the anger of this scary, frightening God. But you don’t actually like God, or really freely love him. Because the love you profess is exacted under duress, under threat of damnation –so it isn’t really love at all.

Then you read me completely wrong. I am attracted to God because  of his beauty  (and certainly not because of the Anglican Church!)  - but I also realise that I am a sinner and that if I remain in a sinful state I will not be able to enter into his presence that is why I  need a Redeemer. 

My love for God is not exacted under duress -it is my choice. I am a Christian   because I love Jesus. I am  not frightened into the Kingdom of God. However that choice necessarily  involves consequences in both in my personal life and eternally.

One analogy of salvation that  I have found helpful, is to think of it as God sending  Jesus on a rescue mission - if I agree to be rescued  then I will be saved if I don't - well then I  won't!  There is no duress involved here - one option may seem more attractive than the other  - but in the end it is my choice to be rescued  or not.   Jesus implored people to make the right choice and follow Him but never forced them to but nonetheless warned in no uncertain terms as to what the  consequences would be which are undeniably  scary and frightening.The Apostles did the same.

As to preaching the Gospel , we should be telling people that there is a judgement  to come as well as preaching the love of God. John 3:16 says that God "so loved the world" -- but desires that "no one should perish"   implies that some will perish does it not? Not everybody is going to make it.  Following Jesus is not a lifestyle choice.  At , there will be goats as well as sheep

(BTW, I think  we might be surprised what kind of people will fit into those categories - that is for God to decide).   However, we will all have to give an account of ourselves before God with Jesus as our Judge.

The teaching  of God's judgement does not sit well with modern notions of tolerance, non-discrimination and non-judgmentalism but Jesus and the Apostles preached it. Most liberals I have met  and read would deny any kind of eternal judgment. My impression is that they treat passages  about the judgement of God in a figurative or metaphorical sense with everybody as a victim and that we must all try and become 'better' people.  That God could hold us personally  responsible and may call us to account at is anathema to them.

BTW, I do not think you have been point scoring between Liberals and Consevatives and I don't think Phil Almond does either. I respect your point of view, but the nature of this discussion  does I think,  provide yet another illustration  of  the gulf that exists between liberal and orthodox theologies  which led the Bishop of Rochester to talk about "two different gospels" in the Church of England. It is very difficult to see how this can be resolved, although one would hope that exchanges on the forum may be conducted in a spirit of generosity and courtesy that in the main, has been a hallmark of the Cof E.

Peace.

Phil and my last posting obviously crossed in the ether.  Yes Phil, I'll have that conversation with you if.....

• you also listen to me. this isn't just about you setting the terms of reference and me trying to refute them and then you trying to prove how wrong I am. you need to try and find what is positive in what I say. it often feels you are rushing to show me the error of my ways without really engaging with what I say.  other wise really all we are saying to each other is 'but I'm a conservative' or 'but I'm a liberal'.

• we do this on a new thread - maybe 'Phil, Clare and friends discuss God' or, less self referentially - conservatives and liberals trying to listen to each other. that way - people who are completely bored by us can avoid us and can use this thread for its real purpose. I'll leave it to you to choose a new name.

just to clarify a couple of things,  you say that I  deny that there is any harmony between the Christ event and the God the Old Testament.  No - that is not the case at all.  I argue that there are harmonies and disharmonies throughout the Bible. Within the Old Testament itself there are conflicting images of what God is like. Some of these are in harmony with the Christ event and some are not. The same could be said to a lesser extent of the New Testament.

You also say, 'I [Phil] am not allowed, on Clare’s terms, to use what the apostles and early followers of Christ said, wrote, did as recorded in the New Testament. Er, where did you get that idea?  That's what the NT is, a record of what the apostles and early followers of Christ believed that Christ did/said/meant/means.  Of course you can use it. Of course I can use it.  I am just saying that just because John- for example - says that Jesus says something, does not necessarily mean that Jesus actually did say it (or didn't say it) - rather it tells us that that was what John thought he said or meant. And John may well be right.

Clare

Phil, Iconoclast, I am sorry if I’ve contributed to this thread degenerating into  liberal versus conservative point scoring – I am genuinely bewildered and perplexed and want to understand why you believe as you do and to be challenged as to why I believe as I do – and I want to convert you of course !  But I really don’t get it.

Iconclast writes: There are many things that Jesus said that were downright scary and frightening  regarding the judgment to come and the winding up of history that I wish were  not there.  If someone could convince me that there was not a final judgement, that all this hell and eternal damnation talk was the product of primitive ideas ………..then I would embrace it.

 This is how I read this.  Jesus scares you. You fear judgement, hell and eternal damnation.  So you believe in him and will do whatever he says.  You’ll say that you love him. You’ll tell him he is so kind to let you associate with him.  You’ll even believe you deserve his contempt and it is only his amazing generosity that lets him bear being with you.  You’ll try really hard to get other people to say this too- whatever it takes to protect yourself from the anger of this scary, frightening God. But you don’t actually like God, or really freely love him. Because the love you profess is exacted under duress, under threat of damnation –so it isn’t really love at all. 

 It’s like those bully boys in the playground who surround themselves with scared followers who do his every bidding and feel proud to be his friend –because the consequences of being his enemy are just too dreadful to contemplate. And what the scared boys really want is for someone to come and show the bully up for what he is, and help them not to be scared of him anymore so then can walk away and be friends with everyone and just get along with some good, creative playing.

 That’s what I believe Jesus was about. No an avuncular uncle or cuddly Zebedee (caricatures too, incidentally) but someone who came and showed up the bully for what he was, and was destroyed by him, but who rose again, and wholehearted and warm spiritedly forgave the bully and his flunkies and understood them without hating them and liked them and wanted them to enjoy the playground in the same warm spirited, generous way. 

The bully in all this is not and never has been God. It has been our projections of our own bullying and violence onto the heavens as a means of self justification. That’s what Jesus came to show us. But to believe in this does mean you have to read the bible in a different way – one that seeks to discern through the Holy Spirit where God-the-risen-victim-of-the-bully is speaking over and against where god-the-idol-construct-of-our-own-violence is speaking.  The bible, unlike all other texts before it, is NOT a  purely  human construct.  It is a partly human construct.  It is the revelation of God exactly because it points to, uncovers and demythologises the parts constructed through human violence and reveals what God is really like.  It detoxes our theologies of a retributive god.  In this it is unique.  All other texts – save those who have had their hearts broken by this message - hide our complicity in violence.

 So repentance of our own bullying and our hiding from the truth about our bullying is at the heart of the bible.  And the god of  punishment and condemnation that Jesus sets us free from is not ‘primitive’ or ‘quaint’ but ever so contemporary, always present in every subculture (religious and secular) until Christ the liberator sets it free.

a lot more nuanced a position in other words than the caricature of 'liberals making it up because it feels good'.

Taking Clare’s postings of 7 and 8 April 2008 on the thread “Surprised by Hope – not surprised by ‘The Rapture’” as a statement of her position, I will try to critique that position, though it involves some repetition of what I have already said. I take it that Clare is saying that what she calls ‘the Christ event’ must become what I would call the controlling principle. That is, the Christ event corrects misapprehensions and half truths in both the Old and New Testaments. I assume that the Christ event includes what Jesus said, what he did, and what he allowed to be done to him. So in order to challenge Clare’s position in its own terms I have got to show that on the sole basis of what Jesus said, did, allowed to be done to him, there is harmony between the Christ event and the God the Old Testament gives us. I am not allowed, on Clare’s terms, to use what the apostles and early followers of Christ said, wrote, did as recorded in the New Testament. OK.

That brings us to the issue of ‘Did Jesus say and do all that the New Testament says he said and did?’ Clare’s 7 April posting gives her view. I said at the time that her view does not provide enough common ground with my view for a debate. But perhaps we could try it this way.

I am ready to try to spell out in detail the evidence, from what Christ is recorded in the New Testament as having said, done and allowed to be done to him, on the assumption that all that is true, that the Christ event is in harmony with the God the Old Testament gives us. But before I spend quite a bit of time doing that I am seeking Clare’s assurance that she will then respond, on the assumption that all that is true, either trying to show that on that assumption the God of the OT and the Christ event are not in harmony, or acknowledging, on that assumption, that they are. I stress I am not asking Clare to agree that Christ said and did all that the NT says he said and did; only to respond on the assumption that he did.

Clare – are you agreeable to proceed on that basis?

Phil Almond

Could the answer rest not in the extremes, but in a middle way, that seems to be standard evangelical teaching - God's wrath in the Bible refers not to a nasty, out of control, vindictive anger as we know it in ourselves and in other but as his just and right response to sin, at the systemic and the personal levels. Looked at from this angle, God's wrath is a product of his love. A loving God looks on a world out of joint with a desire to destroy all that destroys and mars his good world. Surely love desires to rescue the object of love from damaging and corrupting forces and influences.

This is where the love of God is expressed in God in Christ bearing the consequences of sin (wrath) and evil on himself.. and of course what happens on the cross is wonderfully multifaceted and can be described via all of the atonement models in scripture such as penal substitution,christus victor, christus exemplar, recapitualtion theory.. etc etc.

Why drive a wedge between God's love and God's wrath when there seems no need to separate these two vital aspects of his character?

Phil, of course it was a caricature - I talking talking tongue in cheek!

But seriously, you admit that the implications of taking every word of the bible literally are terrible.  I would agree.  Believing in a God like that would be immoral.  What I don't understand is why you believe that just because something is ascribed in the bible as being commanded by God, that makes it good and morally right - even though were anyone else to do it (genocide, burning people alive, ordering stoning, drowning people, ordering people to murder their children, condoning rape for example) they would convicted of either crimes against humanity or declared mad.  honestly, if God were really like that I hope I would have the courage to refuse to have any thing to do with him.  however, were I to not be quite brave enough for that in the face of a brutal monster, my submission would be one based on pure fear. that sounds pretty much like hell to me.

I said it before and I'll say it again, I really believe your doctrine of biblical authority gets in the way of actually being able to hear the gospel.  ultimately, it's idolatory.