17 August 2014

Some Comments on: Dispatches (In God's Name)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gqhlRdOxJg

This episode of Dispatches is worth watching. It's one of those documentaries where you find yourself not really agreeing with anyone but it's informative and helps to make you aware of what's happening.
It's quite biased but I suppose that must be expected. As I watch this I sometimes wonder why these Christians are consenting to this. Do they not recall the teaching of the Scripture? The world will think we are fools. To put it on display (in this sense) is not helping the cause. We're sideshow freaks to them.
Watching the Christians pray at the mosque building site I'm struck by the fact that they seemingly wouldn't recognize all the buildings and monuments related to the British Empire as evil. Yes, the mosque is evil but so is the culture and Empire which they seem to celebrate.
It's all the more striking when one considers that if you went back to say 1850, when the British Empire was in its full glory and splendour, the Nonconformists were hardly the people celebrating it.
Their present angst over the state of society is blinding them to greater truths and realities. Rather than look back we need to think differently.
There's not a verse in the New Testament that supports what they're doing and precious little in the way of Early Church witness. These folks are all thoroughly adherents of the theology which finds its genesis in the Constantinian Age.
The Old Testament certainly can be appealed to but I will continue to insist the New Testament teaches us how to rightly read and understand the Old Testament. The Christocentric reading of the Old Testament nullifies the Israel analogy. Neither Britain nor America nor any other nation is analogous to Israel. That was true in the Old Testament period (as is verified by the prophets) and is even more verifiable in this New Covenant era.
As far as the solicitor that is one of the primary subjects in the film, it is sad to me that while she seems to be lacking a great deal in terms of Biblical knowledge she believes she is serving God through politicking and social action.
Remember in the Constantinian/Dominionist paradigm the Church is being faithful only when it's acquiring and wielding power.  If that's your criterion than indeed, it must be a depressing time. I will admit that if you ask her, she would deny that's what she is. She's not even aware of her ideological foundations. This type of theology has simply become the orthodoxy of our day. To these folks there is no label. They think it's simply Biblical Christianity.
We would all like to see abortion stopped but scheming with parliamentarians to get a few weeks shaved off of the legally allowable period isn't accomplishing anything.
And look at what's lost...
Notice how the solicitor is desperate to try and give a perception. She thinks that by seeming more credible and being politically savvy in her choice of words she'll be respected by the media and reach a wider audience. She doesn't want to be one of the raving nutters.
But look, she has to dance around her words and is constantly tripped up because she can't be honest. She can't walk with integrity.
At the end of the video the documentary maker was trying to score some points by showing the solicitor and the MP being rather chummy and then attempted to trap them on camera. He was trying to get the Christian solicitor to sound 'extreme' which would have put the MP on the spot. The MP should have just said that the solicitor's views on Islam or Creation had nothing to do with abortion legislation. It was a manipulative gimmick on the part of the documentary maker but I was even less impressed with how the solicitor stumbled. At that moment she wasn't that concerned with truth. She was thinking politics, public perception and loyalty to a politician, and that was guiding her response or lack thereof.
Watching the school portion I was once again struck by the branch of Christian apologetics (which I'll grant is fairly dominant) that is still trying to approach the veracity of Scripture in empirical terms. They are still thinking of Scriptural foundations in terms of scientific evidence. The nature of the discussion needs to be changed. The empiricist assumptions of science in the mainstream of culture need to be challenged and demonstrated as fallacious. They too have preconceived notions when they approach empirical data. They too rest upon unjustifiable metaphysical assumptions which are not falsifiable and thus not 'facts' according to their own criteria. If we're left with a certain amount of epistemological scepticism on all sides then I think we can actually begin to have a discussion and can offer a more credible proclamation and explanation of our faith. It will not satisfy their empiricist criteria but that's not really our concern.
I say this as one who does indeed believe in Six Day Creation, one who believes the Earth isn't more than about 10,000 years old and who certainly believes in the historicity of Adam, the Flood and all the miracles of Scripture. The Scriptures themselves are a miracle.
But at the same time I am less than impressed with apologetic efforts of people like William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler and Ken Ham. All of them are trying to approach issues of faith in terms of scientific evidence. The whole nature of the discussion needs to be changed and we should work toward forcing secularists to acknowledge that reality is something larger than the material universe. Some will acknowledge this but still refuse to accept the idea of revelation. In the end all we can do is demonstrate they have no answers and proclaim Christ.
But a huge stumbling block is the relationship between Biblical doctrine and how it has been used historically by the Christian Church. These well meaning folks are trying to defend what I would consider gross and heretical abuses and distortions of Christian doctrine. I have no desire to defend Christendom or its deeds.
When you stand by Scripture and yet argue against Constantinianism (and thus the Christian Right), believe me, you get people's attention. They will listen. You're something quite different and while offensive, less threatening.
Lastly, I had to chuckle when saw the solicitor was working with Jeffrey Ventrella. I didn't know he was now with Alliance Defense Fund. And yes, American money is backing a lot of these legal projects in Europe and elsewhere.
I remember Ventrella from almost 20 years ago when he was (and maybe still is) affiliated with Greg Bahnsen's SCCCS. It's interesting how Calvinistic Theonomists will morph into different forms when it comes to fighting the culture war. Suddenly they will become best friends with Pentecostals even though if they were ever to take over society, the Pentecostals would be heretics in their sights as well. Like the Jesuits of old they operate in many circles and the ends always justify the means.
The real issue with the folks is once again... power.
Sadly our Bibles make a division between what we call Romans 12 and 13. Just as Paul finishes teaching that the Church is to eschew vengeance he takes up the sword-bearing avenger called the state. He explains its necessity but is contrasting it with the Church. The state needs to be but it has nothing to do with us. We sure can't build the Kingdom through the auspices of the state.
Law only has meaning when it is backed up by the threat of violence. It doesn't always come to that point in our society, but ultimately if a court rules against you and you refuse to comply then at some point down the bureaucratic checklist, men with guns and badges will show up at your door. That's what the law is... a threat of violence and retaliation. That's why we pull over when the flashing lights come on. That's why we pay our property taxes. It may take a few years but if we don't pay, eventually men with badges and guns will show up and force us to comply even if that means handing over our property to the state or a creditor.
We're not to have anything to do with that. We're not part of it, nor do we utilize it. I'm not saying that we can't have anything to do with the government. That's impossible, and far from necessary. But we need to think about courts and police and how we view these institutions. We need to think about violence and how we seek to use (or not use) the state.
These folks are very busy but they're perishing for lack of knowledge. The one fellow that I respected was the young man who was planning to get married and operates a driving school. While I think his zeal is often not according to knowledge, his devotion is compelling.
Altogether I found this video to be an exercise in frustration and in many ways it was depressing. But I'm glad I watched it. It's interesting to see what forces are at work in the Church and also how Nonconformity in England is being shaped by the outside. I encountered this while in England many years ago. Watching this video my wife even noticed the one group was using a Twila Paris song during her worship and was surprised to hear American music (she was a CCM teenager of the 80s) being employed in Churches across the pond. The outside influences are interesting to observe. They're not all good or bad. I'm not making a comment about Twila Paris. I just find it all rather interesting.
The British church is changing in order to survive but I fear they've imbibed a lot of ideas that in the end will prove harmful.