I have moved to a new blogsite at www.spiritofunion.org and will not be making any further posts here or approving any comments for publication. Please feel free to join me along with my colleagues at Union Theological College in this new location.
Here’s a good blogpost from David Robertson ahead of this year’s Church of Scotland Assembly which begins this weekend. The key debate on the Theological Commission’s report will be on Monday.
Former savers in the Presbyterian Mutual Society will be interested in this report in today’s Newsletter. It’s a sad and tragic tale that has caused enormous distress to many ordinary people. There is still a considerable number of people who have not had all their savings returned to them, and quite a few congregations who have forfeited access to all of their money in order to help smaller savers in the rescue package. Only after the £175 million loan from the government has been re-paid will they be in line for reimbursement, and in the current economic climate, that seems a long way off. It will be good if steps are taken as a result of this report so that nothing like this happens again.
A STORMONT department failed to properly scrutinise the activities of the ill-fated Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS) before it collapsed in the midst of the financial crisis, a watchdog has found. Northern Ireland Ombudsman Tom Frawley said “maladministration” in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) meant it did not establish that the PMS was engaging in activities that it was not regulated to do. Around 10,000 people with money in the PMS were affected when it went under in 2008 after it emerged that it was not covered by a UK government guarantee for savings deposits.
The controversial issue was finally addressed in 2011 when ministers at Westminster and Stormont agreed a multimillion-pound rescue package which meant shareholders with less than £20,000 in the society got all their money back, while those with more funds invested got the majority back. When it collapsed, the PMS was not subject to regulation by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), yet it was investing in a manner that required the authorisation of the FSA.
If the society had been FSA-regulated, shareholders would have been protected by the statutory Financial Services Compensation Scheme after it was placed into administration. Mr Frawley, acting on a complaint brought on behalf of some of those caught up in the society’s fall, focused on DETI’s legal responsibility to scrutinise the activities of the PMS. He found “maladministration” in DETI’s examination of the PMS’s annual return and said a “very limited administrative check” was “wholly inadequate”.
Mr Frawley said the consequence of this was that the department failed to identify that the PMS was acting outside of its legislated activities and was working in a way that required FSA regulation. He said those failings contributed to the “injustice experienced by members of the PMS preventing them of availing of the compensation scheme”. But the ombudsman stressed that DETI’s actions were not the sole cause of the PMS’s troubles and said society members did not require additional compensation above the package agreed in 2011.
The ombudsman outlined details of the investigation in the latest Case Digest publication from his office. The digest outlines the benchmarked Principles of Good Administration which Mr Frawley tests government departments against.
“Whilst no further financial remedy was appropriate in this case, I recommended that DETI revisit the administration around its registration functions to ensure these meet the Principles of Good Administration, and inform me of all measures introduced to prevent a recurrence of this maladministration,” said Mr Frawley.
“I’m pleased to record that DETI accepted my findings and recommendations and have undertaken to address the areas of concern.”
At a recent meeting of the General Board of our denomination we were discussing how our church should respond to a number of current issues that are being discussed in our society and community. Near the top of the list was the question of gay marriage, the range of current gender issues, as well as abortion and assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Some people wonder if we need to comment at all on these issues. Carl Trueman believes that it can all be a massive waste of time.
“One of the key failures of the currently trendy Christian cultural engagement movement is that it takes the questions which the culture is asking too seriously. We often assume that it is the answers which the world gives which are its means of avoiding the truth. In actual fact, there is no reason to assume that the very questions it asks are not also part of the cover-up. ‘Answer my question about women’s rights or saving the whale’ might simply be another way of saying, ‘I don’t want you to tell me that my neglect of my wife and children is an offence to God.’
Christianity is doomed to be a sect because not only do we refuse to give the answers to life’s questions in terms the world finds comfortable; we also refuse to allow the world to set the terms of the questions. The sooner we grasp that, the better it will be for all of us. Our ministers might then spend more time on theology (perhaps even do a bit of reading ‘within the tradition’ before finding it helpful to ‘read outside the tradition’), more time being different to the leaders in the surrounding culture, and much less time worrying about how the world sees us. Trust me on this: it sees us as a cranky sect. Now keep calm and carry on.”
But before we begin to formulate our position, it might be worthwhile for Irish Presbyterians to think again about the underlying theological questions about the relationship between the church and contemporary culture.
These questions are discussed by Tim Keller in his recent book, Center Church. He reckons that our concerns can be reduced to two fundamental questions: Firstly, there is the question about our attitude toward cultural change. Should we be pessimistic or optimistic about the possibility for cultural change? The second question addresses our understanding of the nature of culture itself, and asks about its potential for redemption: Is the current culture redeemable and good, or fundamentally fallen?
Keller says that our answers to these two questions will reveal our alignments with biblical emphases as well as our imbalances.
One helpful attempt at answering these questions comes from Don Carson in his book, Christ and Culture Revisited. By considering the great biblical story line or “metanarrative” of the Bible, we can gain the necessary framework for understanding what our response should be to current issues. Biblical theology should “control our thinking simultaneously and at all the time”, says Carson.
The doctrine of creation tells us that the material world is important. This world is a work of art and love by our Creator, and that all who work in “God’s garden” are doing “the Lord’s work”, be they bankers or artists or writers or nurses or clergymen. All human work and cultural activity can represent and advance God’s good intentions for his world.
But the fall into sin has infected and affected every part of life. Francis Schaeffer pointed out all the wounds that were inflicted on our world by Adam’s sin and the resulting curse: spiritual wounds were created as man was separated from God; psychological wounds as humans are separated from themselves; sociological divisions were created between people; and the ecological wound opened up of humans being separated from nature and creation. Schaeffer said that, on the basis of the work of Christ, we should be looking for “substantial healing” of all these wounds.
Traditionally reformed Christians have used the concept of common grace to account for the fact that good things happen in our world through people who are not professing Christians. In Genesis 8 and 9 God promises to bless and sustain creation through a means different from his special or saving grace. Common grace is, according to John Murray, “every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God”.
Understanding that our fallen world is cursed and broken, and yet is sustained by common grace, is crucial to understanding how we relate to our culture. As salt in the world, Christians can expect to have a restraining influence on the world’s evil and corruption, but we have limited expectations. Because of creation and common grace, we can engage purposefully in every aspect of our common life, but because of sin and the fall we have limited expectations about the changes we may see happening.
The advent of Christ inaugurated his kingdom and the beginning of the programme to reverse the effects of the fall into sin. Just as sin has infected and affected every aspect of life, so Christ’s salvation must renew and restore every aspect of life. The wounds opened up by sin must be healed and we should, according to Schaeffer, look for substantial healing of these wounds.
While the work of Christ resolved the spiritual issue of our relationship with God and enables us to be justified and adopted into God’s family, the psychological, social, and ecological effects of sin are still with us. “Already” the kingdom is here, but “not yet” is it here in all its fullness.
What are the practical implications of this understanding? Keller concludes that the church must be missional, and he develops what he believes are the six key marks of a missional church.
The fact is that for centuries in the Western world, the Christian church had a privileged position, but this is no longer true. Christianity has moved to the margins. In a former day, the church could afford to train people solely in prayer, Bible study and evangelism, all the skills they needed to sustain their private spiritual lives. Not much more was needed because they were not facing radically non-Christian values in their public lives.
But the challenge the church now faces is to train and equip its members and send them out into the world to minister. People need to “think Christianly” about everything and to act with Christian distinctiveness wherever they are engaged.
That’s why I think the primary goal of engaging with the current questions and issues must be for the benefit of Christian people in our churches who need to grasp the biblical view of marriage and the sanctity of human life. Only then will they be able to challenge society’s idols and be equipped to speak and live the gospel clearly and skillfully.
Here’s a helpful assessment of John Calvin by Professor Donald McLeod of Free Church College. With characteristic lucidity, he cuts through to the main issues in a way that ordinary punters can understand.
Last week the words, ‘Temple of Evil’ were daubed on the walls of Stornoway Free Church. It would be wrong to read too much into it. It was probably no more than a temporary aberration on the part of one individual, and the Church made light of the incident.
Yet, though they might express it differently, there can be little doubt that this is how many islanders view Presbyterianism and the culture it produced. But the feeling is not confined to islanders. Many Scots, if asked who were the three most scary people in history, would probably reply, ‘Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler and John Calvin.’ Legend portrays him as, ‘The black ghost with the icy countenance’, and Calvinism itself has been described as ‘a psychopathic projection of sublimated cruelty’.
But why? Few of those who hate Calvin have ever read a single page of the fifty-nine thick volumes of elegant Latin and even more elegant French which he bequeathed to posterity; and even those who become apoplectic at the way he governed Geneva have not a clue as to what that government actually was. Yet everyone ‘knows’ him, and the hatred is passed down by some sort of osmosis.