Stafford Carson : Presbyterian Pastor

Our local radio phone-in programmes often take calls from Christian people who claim that their views have a basis in the teaching of the Bible. When given the opportunity, they sometimes say that certain behaviours are sinful and have been prohibited by the Scriptures.

The common response from the radio presenter is, “So then, Mr Christian, if you believe the Bible forbids certain practices, why do you eat bacon or seafood? Or why do you wear clothes that have been made from more than one type of material? Aren’t those things forbidden by the Bible as well?” It seems like the presenter has played a logical check-mate and exposed the inconsistency of the Christian who claims biblical authority for his views.

Even if the Christian caller to the radio programme had the ability to answer the presenter’s questions, the sound-bite of the talk show does not allow for the development of a reasoned argument. Serious, complex issues like the nature of the Bible are often trivialised. The result is that most listeners are left thinking that Bible-believing Christians have no answers to these questions.

What many people fail to understand is that the Bible is not a flat book. It has contours. There is movement and development within the Bible. Not all of the Bible applies uniformly to the Christian or to our society today. But that does not mean that we jettison or ignore parts of the Bible, especially the difficult parts of the Old Testament. Rather, we read of all of the Bible as Christian Scripture understanding that biblical revelation is progressive, organic and redemptive.

The Bible is a single story with a single Hero. Even though it spans many thousands of years and involves many personalities and participants, the individual stories are all threads woven into the pattern of a single tapestry. For me, coming to an understanding of this holistic way of reading the Bible was like finding hidden treasure.

One of the main reasons why many devout church attenders may be stumped by the clever interviewer’s questions is that they have never been taught how to read and understand the Bible for themselves. It is a constant challenge for those of us who preach regularly to explain how a particular passage or story fits into the overall flow of redemptive history and what it means in our lives today.

Well-known Bible stories are often misinterpreted, even by preachers. The story of David and Goliath is not primarily a story about how we can slay the giants in our lives. Nor is the main application of Jesus calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee simply that He is with us in all the storms of our lives. These stories must be placed within the context of the single, great story of redemption. They have a purpose way beyond the details of our individual lives.

This is one of the main lessons that we have been trying to teach in a course organised by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for suitably-qualified and interested members of the church. It is known as the Accredited Preachers Scheme, and following a pilot scheme earlier this year, a new course of study will commence in the next few weeks. Hopefully this course will provide the denomination with a new human resource in the form of gifted people who can preach from the Bible in an accurate, clear and cogent way.  Participants will be encouraged to think carefully about the nature of the Bible, and especially about the unity of the Old Testament and the New in the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

For those who are interested in pursuing these issues, there is a very helpful bibliography by Dane Ortlund which can be read here. Many pastors and lay preachers will benefit from the insights offered by these books, and will be able to help their listeners understand that there is an intelligent answer to the questions people ask about the Bible.

JSC General

The “Jesus had two dads” placard at this year’s Belfast Gay Pride parade has provoked a strong reaction from some conservative Christians. Some people from the gay community claim that it was simply an attempt to use wit and irony to make a point. Many will say that its immature mischievousness, bad taste and theological inaccuracy has done little to promote an intelligent debate on the issue of the adoption of children by same-sex couples, and has only resulted in many orthodox Christians looking the other way. Gay Christians might be ashamed and embarrassed by the placard, just as some orthodox Christians might not be totally enthusiastic about the fundamentalist protest.

So it raises the question: Is it possible for there to be an intelligent conversation between gay and straight people on the issue of human sexuality and the adoption of children by same-sex couples, other than by displaying mutually-offensive placards and shouting abuse at each other?

The gay lobby faces a difficult (and many would say, impossible) task when it comes to persuading orthodox Christians about the validity of their lifestyle. The Bible clearly sets out God’s will for us in the area of our sexuality, namely, that intimate sexual relations are only legitimate and meaningful within the context of the covenant of heterosexual, monogamous marriage. All other sexual relationships are sinful and wrong. And it goes further in that it specifically prohibits homosexual relationships and describes them as a sign of godlessness within a society. No wonder many Bible-believing Christians stand open-mouthed when they hear of Christian denominations taking steps so that openly gay people are allowed to hold leadership roles in the church.

Those who advocate the ordination of women in the church have had a difficult task in making the Bible’s clear statement “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” to mean the exact opposite of what it says, “I do permit a woman to teach and have authority over a man”. “A” must, by means of some clever exegetical footwork, come to mean “non-A”.

The gay lobby has faced an even more challenging assignment. They must demonstrate that behaviours and patterns of family life which the Bible calls immoral and sinful are actually God-honouring. Black must be called white. Clear biblical statements must not only be excised, but re-written to say the opposite.

Some have found the task of providing a biblical foundation for a homosexual lifestyle so impossible that they have resorted to the argument which we heard at this year’s Church of Scotland General Assembly, “We know better than the Bible”. For such people, the legitimacy for homosexuality, and for gay Christian leadership in the church, must be built on a foundation other than the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. For orthodox, confessional Christians, that is an impossible position for us to take. But maybe we need to explain with greater clarity why we believe that planting our feet on any foundation other than the Bible is a dangerous and perilous place to stand. Our gay neighbours need to listen and feel the weight of our argument.

What is clear is, that whatever our orientation, we all struggle in the area of our sexuality. Sexual sin is not just a problem for those who experience same-sex attractions. In this matter, ‘there is no one righteous, not even one” and “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:10, 23). It is level ground at the foot of the cross of Christ.  It is there that all sinners, whether gay or straight, need to see that they are guilty before God and unable to save themselves, and that there is only One who can be their Saviour. The conversation and discussion between gay people and orthodox Christians needs to begin with that recognition of our common sinfulness and our shared need of a Saviour.

Ironically, maybe it’s here that the offensive placard has a role to play. If the theological background of the placard’s claim that “Jesus had two dads” can be accurately unpacked and become the starting point for our conversation, then we might make some progress in our discussion. After all, God’s Son was born into a human family precisely because we sinners needed a Saviour and Redeemer. It is only through Him that we spiritual orphans can be adopted into God’s family and know Him as our Heavenly Father. Then we can begin to talk together about how we can live so that we please and honour our loving and gracious Father.

JSC General

Savers with the Presbyterian Mutual Society will be watching for the arrival of their post with special interest today since it will contain a cheque from the Administrator returning money to them. After waiting for 2 years and 10 months, those with under £20,000 will get all of their money back, and those with larger savings will receive at least 77% of their savings. It’s a day for thanksgiving and rejoicing.

Special thanks to everyone who has made this return of money possible. I know that there has been a considerable expenditure of energy in recent days on the part of the Administrator, Arthur Boyd, and his team, as well as the officials at DETI, who have had the responsibility for tying up all the loose ends of the deal. But they have made it happen, and we are so grateful.

There are two aspects of the arrangement that are of interest to those who have not received all of their money back. One is the rate of interest that the PMS will have to pay on the £175 million loan from the Government. There are some indications that this could be at a lower rate than that on which many of the calculations were based. Simple arithmetic shows that a 1% reduction in the interest rate would mean that PMS would have to re-pay £1.75m less in the first year of borrowing. Overall that would create more favourable conditions for the PMS, and for those who are eager to get access to the remainder of their funds.

The other area of interest is the actual percentage required from those who opted to make an additional deferment. Individuals and congregations were given the option of leaving an additional 5% or 10% of their funds in the PMS so that smaller savers could get all of their money back. I hear that the response to that appeal has been so good that the actual amounts may be less than half of that which larger savers were prepared to defer. That is a tremendous response and shows that there is a reservoir of generosity and compassion within PCI in spite of the PMS debacle.

It would be good if, on this day of thanksgiving, those who are in receipt of PMS cheques remembered the really needy people in our world and considered sending a thank offering to Tearfund or Christian Aid.

JSC Uncategorized

The eminent theologian, Ken Bailey, has reflected here on the recent decision of the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) to adjust its ordination vows to allow practising homosexuals to hold leadership positions in the church.

He helps us to see how the relationship between the Western churches and other Christians in the world is affected negatively by decisions taken by PCUSA and, we might add, the trajectory currently being followed by the Church of Scotland. By trying to reflect the spirit of the age rather than basing their decisions on God’s will revealed in Scripture, these denominations cut themselves off from other Christians and seriously inhibit the cause of world mission. I’ve included the full text of Professor Bailey’s remarks.

Once a small mouse was playing around the feet of a family of elephants.  The mouse suddenly decided to run down the hill away from the elephants.  The elephants did not follow the mouse.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) in 2011 is just over one half of one percent of the population of America and America is approximately 5% of the population of the world.  We are a very small blip on the radar screen of world Christianity.  Sixty percent of the world’s Christians are now in the Global South which is comprised of South America, Africa, and Asia.  Paul wrote to the churches of his day and affirmed, “You (plural) are the body of Christ.”  He also said, “You (plural) are the holy temple.” In our day the interconnectedness of each part of the larger body of Christ is more profoundly a reality than at any time since the earliest beginnings of the Church in the middle of the first century.  What can be said about Presbyterian world mission and 10-A?

From 1955 to 1995 it was my privilege to serve as a missionary academic, teaching New Testament in Egypt, Lebanon, Jerusalem, and Cyprus.  For the last sixteen years I have continued in full-time ministry teaching New Testament in this country, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.  I lecture primarily for Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, the Armenian Protestants, and the Armenian Orthodox.  For the last 13 years I have been honored to serve (as a Presbyterian) as the Canon theologian of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.  The air I breathe is that of the larger body of Christ which is the world Church.  It is out of this background that I offer these brief remarks. Read more…

JSC General

I see that this year’s Gay Pride celebrations in Belfast includes a service in All Souls’ Church, Elmwood Avenue, where the preacher, Andrew McFarland will look at “compelling reasons” to believe that David and Jonathan were in a same-sex relationship. The spurious arguments used to arrive at this conclusion are well-known and have been answered convincingly by scholars like Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburg Theological Seminary.

In an article published a few years ago, Gagnon successfully answers the various attempts to make the Bible say the opposite of what the plain reading of Scripture teaches with regard to homosexual practices. The whole article is worth a read, but here is the section on the relationship between David and Jonathan.

Homosexualist interpretations of David and Jonathan mistake non-erotic covenant/kinship language for erotic intimacy. For example:

The statement that “the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:1) can be compared to the non-erotic kinship language in Genesis 44:31 (“[Jacob’s] soul is bound up with [his son Benjamin’s] soul”) and Leviticus 19:18 (“You shall love your neighbor as yourself”). It can also be compared to formulaic treaty language in the ancient Near East, such as the address of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal to his vassals (“You must love [me] as yourselves”) and the reference in 1 Kings 5:1 to King Hiram of Tyre as David’s “lover.”

Similarly, the remark in 1 Samuel 19:1 that Jonathan “delighted very much” in David can be compared to the non-erotic references in 1 Samuel 18:22 (“The king [Saul] is delighted with you [David], and all his servants love you; now then, become the king’s son-in-law”) and 2 Samuel 20:11 (“Whoever delights in Joab, and whoever is for David, [let him follow] after Joab”).

When David had to flee from Saul, David and Jonathan had a farewell meeting, in which David “bowed three times [to Jonathan], and they kissed each other, and wept with each other” (1 Sam 20:41-42). The bowing suggests political, rather than sexual, overtones. As for the kissing, only three out of twenty-seven occurrences of the Hebrew verb “to kiss” have an erotic dimension; most refer to kissing between father and son or between brothers.

In 1 Samuel 20:30-34, Saul screams at Jonathan: “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse [David] to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?” Here Saul is not accusing his son of playing the passive-receptive role in man-male intercourse with David (cf. 2 Sam 19:5-6). Rather, he charges Jonathan with bringing shame on the mother who bore him by acquiescing to David’s claim on Saul’s throne.

When David learns of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan he states of Jonathan “you were very dear to me; your love to me was more wonderful to me than the love of women” (2 Sam 1:26). The Hebrew verb for “were very dear to” is used in a sexual sense in the Old Testament only two out of twenty-six occurrences and a related form is used just three verses earlier when David refers to Saul as “lovely,” obviously in a non-erotic sense. Jonathan’s giving up his place as royal heir and risking his life for David surpassed anything David had known from a committed erotic relationship with a woman; but there was nothing sexual in the act. As Proverbs 18:24 notes (in a non-sexual context): “There is a lover/friend who sticks closer than a brother.”

The narrator’s (narrators’) willingness to speak of David’s vigorous heterosexual life (compare the relationship with Bathsheba) puts in stark relief his (their) complete silence about any sexual activity between David and Jonathan. Put simply, homosexualist interpretations of the relationship between David and Jonathan misunderstand the political overtones of the Succession Narrative in 1 Samuel 16:14 – 2 Samuel 5:10. Jonathan’s handing over his robe, armor, sword, bow, and belt were acts of political investiture, transferring the office of heir apparent to David (1 Samuel 18:4). The point of emphasizing the close relationship between David and Jonathan was to stress the view that David was not a rogue usurper to Saul’s throne. Rather, he was adopted by Jonathan into his father’s “house” (family, dynasty) as though he were Jonathan’s older brother. Neither the narrator(s) of the Succession Narrative nor the author(s) of the Deuteronomistic History show any concern about homosexual scandal, because, in the context of ancient Near Eastern conventions, nothing in the narrative raised suspicions about a homosexual relationship. (For further discussion, see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 146-54; Markus Zehnder,“Observations on the Relationship between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality,” Westminster Theological Journal 69.1 [2007]: 127-74).

JSC Theological