Messiness and main things

It can be very easy to fall out with people, something all human beings seem to have a talent for. Sometimes religious people in general, and Christians in particular (particularly those at the Protestant/Evangelical end of the spectrum) get singled out for being key exemplars of this propensity. Given that, it is worth pointing out that the Monty Python joke about “splitters” has much more to do with politics than religion, suggesting that this really is a human, not specifically Christian, frailty.

Unity is of course important. In philosophy it has been a matter of debate from Plato and Aristotle forward. In politics, it is valued because of the perception that people don’t vote for divided and disunited political parties (a rule most recently restated by Nadhim Zahawi, Boris’ final chancellor). More importantly for me, it is enjoined by the Psalmist  (Ps 133:1 – “how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity”) and prayed for by Jesus (John 17:21 – “..that they may all be one..”). But unity is one of those odd things that while important, is not really of value in an of itself. Just as faith can only ever be as strong as its object, so unity is only of value where there is something (or someone) to unite around. This brings us back to splitting.

One of the accusations constantly thrown at the Reformers in the sixteenth century was essentially that they were “splitters”. They were introducing division into the church that had no business being there. The point was often made that it would not end well; once a splitter, always a splitter (partly the Python’s point). It was predicted that once the split had occurred from Rome there would be other splits, until the whole reforming project ran into the sand. Where previously there had been glorious unity under Rome, there would be all these fissiparous protestants, both defacing the beauty of the church, and generally causing lots of trouble. And it did rather look like this for a while. Except for a couple of things.

The unity of Rome was both around the wrong object and was in part illusory. The human institution of the church, with its accretion of prelates and both extrabiblical and unbiblical ritual, with its devotion to international politics and political rather than spiritual leadership, had moved so far from the church as instituted at Pentecost as to be unrecognizable. It had become a barrier to the saving truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not its doorway. Even so, even Luther recognized a high threshold for secession, and his original intent was reform rather than schism. That door, if ever open, was swiftly closed against him. In any case, Luther faced a situation in which no-one was entirely sure what the truth really was that everyone was supposed to unite around. He was active during a period of theological pluralism, when even for key ideas (including some that would become hotly contested like justification) the right line was often ill-defined. The production of Erasmus’ new translation of Scripture, a great improvement on the Vulgate, had the effect of showing up that in certain areas what had become accepted truth was far from it. The institution, when challenged, reacted with hostility. A split became both inevitable and unbridgeable where truth was defined by God in His Word, as opposed to a human institution.

And while it still looks to some that chaos was the result, chaos that is still with us, this is surprisingly deceptive. That central role of Scripture as defining truth has another important aspect to it. Some things are both true and necessary – get them wrong and the consequences can be eternally disastrous. Deny them, and the outcome is likely to be as unpleasant. It is clear that Jesus is not just a great teacher or prophet, but God and man. As hard as this is to get our heads around, undermine, redefine or deny the truth of who Jesus is, relegate the truth of His life, death and resurrection to opinion, and the Gospel is emptied of its transforming relevance and power. This hypothesis has, as it happens, been tested in contemporary Europe (including the UK) and North America, and the results may be clearly observed. However, it is less clear whether it is necessary for Christians to meet at 10.30am every Sunday morning, sit in wooden pews and sing songs written prior to the nineteenth century only accompanied by a pipe organ. In the New Testament there is teaching about some of things we should do as Christians, and in some cases the way in which we should do them. But there is surprisingly little practical detail, leaving ample scope for a legitimate spectrum of practice. This has not prevented some Christians from falling out over details that Scripture simply does not supply.

John Newton, former trafficker in human slaves, writer of “Amazing Grace” and latterly Church of England vicar and rector wrote “If a man is born again, hates sin, and depends upon the Saviour for life and grace, I care not whether he is an Arminian or a Calvinist.” I think Newton puts it rather well. Essentially he was saying that we should keep the main things the main things, and not fall out over the other stuff. And this was the genius of the eighteen century revival and awakening. Even though there were fallings out, and the big one was the Calvinist/Arminian division between John Wesley and George Whitefield (the one referred to by Newton, and one that still exists today), there was an underlying unity in the Gospel. Even the division between Wesley and Whitefield should not be overstated; they found a way to work if not together then at least with a degree of harmony. Wesley famously preached Whitefield’s memorial sermon in 1770.

Of course there will always be a legitimate debate about what the main things actually are, and where the border really is between main and secondary issues. I think Newton summarises them well. There are primary issues, those necessary for salvation, and then there are secondary issues. We can debate these, and perhaps we should, but we should not be falling out about them. Because some have fallen out about them in the past, we find a range of different groups, and it can all look a bit messy. And yet I have always found so much in common with fellow believers in, and followers of Jesus, that there has always been a degree of unity for all to enjoy. This unity, based on God’s Word, is the sort of thing experienced at places like Keswick.

Keep the main things the main things and it turns out things are not as messy as they first appear.

Frankly Franklin……

There is a (largely) unspoken rule that insists there are two topics of conversation that are inappropriate for polite after-dinner conversation – politics and religion. This is a rule I struggle with although it is not a big problem for me because I don’t get invited to many polite English dinner parties. The problem with this rule is that politics and religion are two of the more interesting topics worth having a conversation about. They are more interesting than those other staples – the weather and association football (or soccer as it is occasionally called). I suppose the rule developed because discussing religion and politics can be tricky. At the moment in the UK most political discussion begins and ends with Brexit, which shows no signs of being resolved any time soon. Its resolution certainly hasn’t been brought any closer by the election that should never have been. And there are lots of aspects of religion that are not worth discussing around a dinner table or anywhere else. But this weekend politics and religion have intersected in a way that has me bamboozled.

Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, has called a day of prayer for tomorrow (Sunday 2^nd June) in support of that other president, Donald J. Trump (President of the United States). One hand this is perfectly understandable. As he (Franklin that is) fairly points out, praying for those in authority is something that Scripture encourages every Christian to do. So I believe that I should be praying for political leaders, both in the UK (how they need it!), and others including President Trump. What’s got me confused is what Franklin is encouraging us to pray for.

On the BGEA web page with this “call”, the invitation is to pray “that God would protect, strengthen, embolden, and direct” President Trump. Protect I get. The US president is a target regardless of who he is and what his policies are. Strengthen I get – he’s an old guy and it’s a tough job. And he certainly needs direction. But embolden? This suggests that Franklin thinks Trump is doing a fine job and going in the right direction. He needs encouragement to press on with the good work he’s started. This I don’t get. Trump’s campaign back in 2016 was marked from the outset by insults and deception. It was devoid of almost any kind of virtue, let alone Christian virtue. It was fairly clear that here was going to be a President who had, at best, a distant relationship with truth, and no understanding of (or apparent need for) humility. The “Access Holywood” tape and the abuse of John McCain should, along with other things, have made him all but unelectable. And what was hinted at in the campaign has been writ large during his presidency. None of which has anything to do with me. But here’s what I really don’t understand.

US evangelicals (an admittedly elastic term) were among Trump’s staunchest supporters and it is claimed they have largely stuck by him. US evangelical leaders (or at least a prominent proportion of them) have given him public and vocal support. For someone whose lifestyle, ambitions and pronouncements are so starkly different to what Scripture teaches they should be, this support is baffling. I know that elections are about choices and the alternative was unpalatable to many evangelicals. Among other things Hillary was also perceived to have a problem with truth.  There were Congressional hearings and FBI investigations, and accusations flying thick and fast. But just on the narrow ground of telling the truth, did Hillary really have as big a problem as Trump? In any case, if they were both so equally appalling, that’s an argument for spoiling your ballot.

I understand too that a major motivation for US evangelicals was a desire to see someone in the White House who would, in time, deliver a more conservative Supreme Court. This, so the argument goes, would provide a longer term means for preventing the slide away from supposed Biblical values. To an extent this has paid off. Trump has delivered for them, wiping out the “liberal” majority on the Court (although it remains to be seen whether this will really deliver the longer term, longed for “benefits”). My problem with this is that the US Supreme Court and the US culture wars just don’t feature in Scripture. Pride, adultery, lying all do. Being aligned with the latter to achieve the former doesn’t square with any kind of Biblically-based reasoning. Even if you thought Donald was worth taking a punt on back in 2016, how can the chaos, the dissembling, the continuing ad-hominem attacks, the coarsening of debate, the sheer incompetence, not prompt a rethink?

But Franklin does not appear to be concerned by any of this. He is not suggesting that his constituency prays for Donald’s repentance or his humbling. Neither is he asking for prayer that the political process as a whole might function better to deliver real benefits to the people. Instead, he talks about Trump’s enemies trying to destroy him. Now if by destroy we’re talking about violent or disorderly activity to overturn a lawfully elected government, going about its lawful business (although this is being argued about in multiple US courts), then this should be prayed against and resisted. Fair enough.  But presumably the enemies Franklin has in mind are Trumps political opponents. And all they seem to be doing at the moment is trying, by constitutional and lawful means, to get to the bottom of who Trump really is and what he’s been up to. Of course politics can be a dirty business. Ironically Trump was elected in part to “drain the swamp”. How has that turned out? Michael “lock her up” Flynn a convicted felon, 34 indictments or guilty pleas emerging from the now-complete Muller investigation (so much for it being a hoax), multiple administration members caught out in financial and ethics violations. Despite the desire to lock up Hillary, after investigations, reported referrals and Fox News wishful thinking, there’s been little in the way of indictments let alone convictions.

Perhaps the enemies Franklin has in mind are those who lurk in the US media who refuse to give the President a fair shake. This too is difficult to understand given the way Trump and his associates have sought to systematically malign and undermine all but the most supportive media. And the White House media operation, headed a press secretary who should know better, has consistently demonstrated the same problems with truth as their boss, as most recently highlighted in the Muller report. So what about praying for honest reporting (on all sides) and rigorous fact checking so there might be something akin informed debate based on reasonably well established and agreed facts (if such a thing is possible)?

Frankly, Franklin, you’re calling on Christians to do something most us are doing anyway (and more fervently than we have for a while given the state of politics on both sides of the Atlantic). It’s the terms of your “call” that has me confused. You seem to be taking a partisan position. I’m not arguing that Christians should not be involved in politics, although as Tim Farron’s experience recently demonstrated it’s difficult. There are lots of issues where there is plenty of scope for Christians to take different positions, many of which are political. On this side of the pond you’ll find Christians (in the Biblical as opposed to cultural sense) in different political parties arguing for mutually contradictory policies. But there’s something about Trump that is beyond politics. Given the monumental deceit, lies, attacks, misogyny, racism and dangerous incompetence at home (“healthcare – who knew it was so hard?”) and abroad (“I have a great relationship with Chairman Kim”) it’s not Donald Trump enemies that are the problem. We should pray for the man. But frankly, Franklin, you need to rethink what it is exactly we should be praying.