I've just received a very kind invitation to speak at the CU of the local university. It's the first time I've been able to do this, though I've been asked before. And they sent me a copy of the Doctrinal Basis (DB) of the UCCF, the parent body of all university Christian Unions to sign - which happens to all speakers. It's to make sure we will be Biblical, and fair enough. I used to be Vice-President of the OICCU (Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union) back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, and I appreciate the way of these things, even if a part of me wants to ask "You questioning how Biblical I am?" in a sort of Mafia voice.The thing is, just to make sure that when you sign it you are agreeing with it, the good people at the University of Glamorgan CU, or (for all I know) UCCF generally these days have added a line. And I can't sign the line they have added. For a look at the UCCF Doctrinal Basis click here. It's quite a reformed Protestant document, and although the emphasis it places on certain things might not be my emphasis, and although I might then be interpreting things slightly differently to the way the writers would want me to, word for word, I can agree with everything there. Evangelicalism is a big ship; imporatantly the DB recognises this at the top by stating that the Scriptural truths we follow "include" those laid down here. That is, this is not a complete list.
So - if baptism matters a whole lot to you, well, it isn't here. And if predestination is a key doctrine, then I'm sorry but that's not here either. Why? Because within evangelicalism there are different takes on these major theological ideas, and UCCF wants the whole evangelical family to be playing its part in the evangelism of the student world which is its raison d'etre.
For me, there is a bigger, more fundamental idea that is absent from the DB. An idea so huge that it makes me want to say that without it, I fear any staement of Christian belief is at the very least left wanting, certainly sub-Biblical and possibly even a bit less than Christian.
St Paul says "If I...have not love, I am nothing." And this DB has no love. It never mentions it. Never in the sense of God's love - John 3.16, "for God so loved the world..", Romans 5.8 - "God demonstrates his own love for us in this..."; nor in the sense of our worshipful response of loving God and neighbour, the Greatest Command that Jesus gives us in Matthew 22.37-40. Love is absent here, and I find that hard.
But it shouldn't stop me signing, right?
Wrong.
Because that extra line that somebody has added to the UCCF Doctrinal Basis reads as follows: I agree wholeheartedly with the statements above, and consider this an accurate reflection of my own statement of faith.
An accurate reflection of my own statement of faith has to have room for the love of God, and for my love in return. The whole weight of my understanding of Scripture demands it. I come to God no other way than in amazed and grateful love for the one who amazingly, generously, constantly, and seemingly without reason loves me. From the first to the final page of the Bible I read of no other God than this God of love, and his love compels me, draws me, vivifies me; he overwhelms me and embraces me and fills my mind and my heart; his love feeds me, then gives me water to drink which in turn becomes the richest wine and makes me heady, intoxicated with the grandeur and splendour and simplicity and wonder of his love.
So I have written back. And asked for that line to be taken away. So I can sign the rest and go speak to these guys on a marvellous chapter of Mark's Gospel.
I could just cross my fingers and ignore it. But you know me and words. They matter. It's an integrity thing. A small matter. But I cannot sign something which purports to accurately reflect my faith and yet omits the word "love", I simply cannot.
(The next day)
I received a lovely email from the secretary at the CU, generously agreeing with me and apologising for that extra line. She doesn't know how it got there either, and has removed it for me - and for all other speakers who might just have more to their faith than the UCCF Doctrinal Basis allows for.
It's an interesting question: if you were to write a document stating the essentials of Christian faith, what would have to be included? And what, from the UCCF list, would not be there? There are things in the UCCF statement which are not on my essentials list (the hard liners are never happy with my finding a Biblical emphasis on Salvation rather than condemnation, and my not seeing the necessity to mention the two always in the same sentence) but which I am happy to nod along to (in a theologically concerned way, observing that Biblical metaphor expresses Scriptural truth so that when I see the word "condemn" I don't have a concept of pitch forks and flames anywhere near my mind). And clearly from all this something I regard as essential - indeed, foundational to the very character of God and our relationship with him - is omitted from the UCCF list. Anything you want to add?
13 comments:
I miss the "resurrection of the body" bit from the Creed. Also, I think, the big two sacramental ordinances (which is not to comment on any of the rest of them) would rate a mention in my personal statement of faith. As it stands, this UCCF one isn't very church-y (and you're right, it's not very love-y, either).
Oh! And most important! "Only those who prefer traditional church music with organs and choirs will go to heaven." (Whew; almost forgot.)
Seriously, I never liked statements of faith that had to be signed (as you may recall). D'you suppose the OICCU would make Rowan Williams or Michael Green or Kallistos Ware sign one? D'you suppose they would sign? Or would they not all rate a speaking invite to begin with?
The UCCF thing actually (to find myself in the bizarre position of defending it) tries not to be churchy - cos that would alienate some people they are trying to include, and they are supposed NOT to be a church but rather an agency for evangelism (however it works out on the ground). But I get your point, and am delighted by your response - I expected the sacramental stuff, but the resurrection of the body is a good inclusion. Good physical faith, needing a physical resurrection. I like it.
As for asking famous Christians to sign - no exceptions are made. Michael Green was an OICCU President in his time, so he signed; we had Tom (NT) Wright do a series for us, and indeed he was our Senior Member, so he most certainly signed.
The asking is impertinent and officious, even if the reason (to keep the faith pure) has some merit in a context where all sorts of alternative ideas are readily available. But the signing is an act of graciousness and humility, and it is with my eyes still on the example of those men (and yes, it was men for the OICCU in the 1980s)that I readily sign now.
[I]t was men for OICCU in the 1980s
You're not implying that the OICCU invites women speakers nowadays, are you?
I was a member of an InterVarsity group in my undergrad years in the US-- in fact, I was President of the Exec in my final year of college. Memories of that time grow ever more dim, but I believe there was a statement of faith to which leaders had to agree. Possibly we even signed it. And quite probably I also signed an IFES statement of faith before spending the summer of '83 working with its affiliate in Italy, the GBU.
However, I know that at my college, potential speakers weren't required to agree to any such statement before addressing the group. Of course, a lot of our speakers were area IVCF staff workers, but we also had local pastors (including Loren Deckard!) and college professors, most of whom were not of the Reformed persuasion and some of whom were a bit wary of parachurch organizations like IV. Moreover, and our liberality (liberalness? liberalosity?) here both surprises and pleases me in retrospect, if someone contacted us from out of the blue and asked to address the group, we invariably agreed to have him. I guess the idea was that we weren't a church congregation, so speaking to us wasn't the same as filling a pulpit. Students in the group might question or even challenge the speaker after the talk, and there was a lot of give and take.
The fact that our group wasn't huge made this a workable system, but I'm sure it wouldn't have been our policy if IV hadn't allowed it.
Hmmmm.
I have toyed with the idea of forming my own basis of faith, but have not yet had time to come around to pinning it down.
I still have issues with the third point in UCCF's declaration:
"The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour."
For what its worth, I don't have issue with the 'supreme authority... belief and behaviour' bit, but the first half of that strikes me as being both to wooly and too extreme a statement.
Its too wooly in that it adds the clause 'as originally given' which implies that the version of the bible we have here and now is incorrect, flawed, mistranslated or modified in some other way. And I can't see the value of putting that line in if you're then going to insist on infallibility. If the current version is not infallible, what's the point in asserting that there was once an infallible version, but it may not exist today? Bits of it might be infallible? Nah, too wooly.
And how can poetry be infallible? Inspired, yes, infallible, no...
Some time ago, I posted on my blog wondering what the funamentals of Christianity actually were. (Nobody commented, sob.)
There are a few things in the UCCF document that are less than fundamental and, as Marcus points out in this post, possibly the most fundamental thing about God is omitted.
Years ago, as a CU committee member, I signed up to this doctrinal basis. Now I'm not so sure I would. As I see it, statements like this are there to emphasise divisions in the Church. They make people see a line in the sand and choose their side. I know people who are certainly 'true believers' who could not agree to this statement. Given that, it is things like this that identify and increase divisions in the Body of Christ - this cannot be a good thing! This 'DOB' states that there is one true Church, yet excludes large parts of it by its assertations. Where is the value in that?
Aaargh! Sorry, I'm getting ecumenical again.
I looked at your fundamental claims, Ricky (*assumes he'll see this in Marcus' comments*). It's, ummm, a pretty compact set. I think I'd have to at least add "God made everything."
I'd also be interested to hear you expand on "the kingdom of God is near," seeing it was first on your very short list. What does the phrase mean *besides* "Jesus has come and made a way to God for you" (i.e., the sum of your other points)?
(Yes, I'm keeping an eye on the comments...)
"God made everything" is a claim made by almost every religion, it is hardly unique to Christianity. Indeed, if you look at the heretical final paragraph of my post, you will see that I question whether this belief is even necessary to be a follower of Christ.
But anyway, as far as I can tell, the central message of Jesus' ministry was "The Kingdom of God is near" - God is not far off and distant, but is easily accessible; you don't need a priest or another intermediary, you can access Him yourself.
Sometimes I think that the Church today places too much emphasis on the 'Good News' about Jesus and forgets the Good News of Jesus - what His message actually was.
Contemporary evangelicals devote almost all of their efforts into getting people into the Kingdom, but as far as I can see Jesus was more about how you live once you're there, the emphasis was not on becoming a Christian, but on being one.
What a pleasure it is to host the conversation between you two! I scarcely want to interrupt...
But I will, for a moment, if that's OK.
Ricky, I do see your point about the Bible being "infallible as originally given" being both woolly and harsh all at once. Actually, I quite like it.
For a start, we normally deal with translations, and we have to face the fact that translations change the meaning of the original in a million ways: Jeremiah's first prophecy is a pun, or (at least)a word play. Most English translations just don't get that. God leads the prophet of woe by making him smile. How does that change our understanding of his journey of faith? For it is not just the words, but the relationship that the words reveal, the way that God deals with people again and again: the Book of Jeremiah is pretty hard going, lots of judgement and doom and gloom, and yet on page one there is whimsy and joy and playfulness and a God who deals personally and humanly with a young man who will listen to him. So - "as originally given", there is rather more to the Scripture than there is in the translation we deal with. Nothing has been lost or altered in terms of meaning or text, just the ordinary ways in which one language fails to grasp the nuances of another. Something given in the original (the "infallible" intent) fails to make it to the NIV or RSV or EV or AV or most any other V you might care to mention. But it was there - remains there - and can still be studied and found.
And I know you don't like poetry being infallible, but I've commented on your blog about this too! And when a scientist can beat Shakespeare or (goodness) even Auden on love, I'll grant your point. But till then, I think poetry does pretty well here in putting into finite words infinite thoughts. I'll allow infallible for the capturing of a soul's anguish and joy before its Creator, and for the understanding of how a person might in the midst of this world seek a greater Kingdom. And we'll just have to agree to differ, for I am not talking detail and technicalities, but in terms of depth of understanding.
Karen - I think "the Kingdom of God is near" is rightly one of the key New Testament statements, and is a reversal of the Fall/fulfillment of the Exodus/repeal of the Exile/abolition of the human line of kingship in Israel/renewal of Eden all rolled into one. God is King, says Jesus, and the time when he takes his place in your midst as King is just a hand's breadth away! His rule is so close! You lost his Kingship in so many ways, step by step, you gave it away, you didn't want it (and this he says to Israel - though it applies to us too - but you have to hear these words as Jesus says them: it's one of those Gentile/Jew theology moments again, where if we have a theolgy Jesus couldn't have had, chances are we need to work a bit )- though he sought you and wanted to give you his peace and his care, his protection and his favour: but he's here now, at hand, ready to make everything right! Good News! I do like Ricky's line that it is an invitation to live in the Kingdom, not just to come into the Kingdom, though clearly it is that as well. I think my Gospel message does not have enough of this line, and much as I valued your physical Resurrection addition, this too gets my vote as an essential line in my statement of faith!
Now. Sorry for the interruption. Please carry on...
"God made everything" is a claim made by almost every religion, it is hardly unique to Christianity.
It doesn't follow from its non-uniqueness that the claim is non-essential to Christianity. After all, "God exists" is essential, and is assumed in your list, but we're hardly to only religion to claim it.
Indeed, if you look at the heretical final paragraph of my post, you will see that I question whether this belief is even necessary to be a follower of Christ.
Now, that's a different contention, and, while I disagree with you about the importance of "God made everything" to Christianity, I don't deny that a "heretic" on this issue can follow Jesus. :-)
Ah, but if you look back to my original 'fundamental claims of Christianity' post, I was trying to establish what the things were which (if shown to be untrue) would utterly destroy Christian faith.
If you were to prove to me that God didn't make the world, it wouldn't necessarily destroy my faith. If you could prove to me that Christ did not exist or that he didn't rise from the death or that there is no life after death, then my faith would be destroyed. As Paul said "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. ... If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Cor 15:17-19)
On that basis, I will concede that 'God exists' is one of those fundamental things.
Marcus,
The clause 'as originally given' implies more than merely things lost in translation to me. Do adherents to this position claim the absolute 100% infalibility of the Hebrew & Greek documents that we have today?
I know you've mentioned the poetry thing before. I still don't see how poetry - which here is often expressing the unexpressable in metaphor and by analogy - can be infallible. Poetry relies on our interpretation of the text. The inspiration 'originally given' was inexpressible and so we now have only a glimpse or a partial revelation of the whole.
Yes, I have been guilty of equivocation in this discussion. I have been thinking of essentials as being like geometry postulates. They are the core of central truths, not derivable from each other but from which the other important truths are derived. On this analogy, if you reject one of the essentials, the thing you believe in is not true, historic, orthodox (pick favorite adj.) Christianity. But just as there are non-Euclidean geometries (assuming for this analogy that Euclid's is the One True Geometry), there are heterodox Christianities and Christian-esque systems (e.g., Mormonism, maybe?). There are people (bishops!) far more radical than you, who claim that Christian faith would not be destroyed even if we found evidence (in the form of remains) that Jesus never rose. Now, their core of essentials is surely too small to count as any kind of a capital-C Christianity. I reckon yours is not.
Ricky - you said:
I still don't see how poetry - which here is often expressing the unexpressable in metaphor and by analogy - can be infallible. Poetry relies on our interpretation of the text.
All I'd say is that a stupid reader doesn't deny an infallible poet. Because the logic of your argument can be extrapolated to the whole of the Scriptures, or certainly at least to the teachings of Jesus. Anything that has to be applied has to be interpreted. Any parable comes into this category, but so does Jesus' use of hyperbole or reference (rather than quotation of the Old Testament) or inference or humour.
You've heard enough preachers to know that we get so many different points out of the same texts that the interpretation question cannot be raised when dealing with original inspiration - because everything gets interpreted! If we disallow anything that gets interpreted from being infallibly inspired, nothing is inspired. That may suit some, but it seems a strange argument to me. Inspiration and interpretation are different issues.
Good issues, valid issues, but different issues. They don't need to cancel each other out, they can work together or be quite seperate. But they are not the same thing. It's not just poetry - it's everything that relies on our interpretation of the text!
So - the question of original infallibility when put next to any Scripture may not be the technical question you want it to be. There is very little room for "interpretation free" Scripture. Even the historical stuff, the stuff like Numbers and dull bits of Chronicles gets allegorised by the Church at certain times. And who is to say that that's not the right reading?
Don't go dismissing those who allegorise everything!
Why? Because you are a scientist? What gives you the right to be right? Isn't the Bible literature? Written in a pre-scientific world? By people whose thought patterns were different to yours? Isn't it still meant to be read by people with souls?
The wonder of it all is that whether you are a 21st century scientist or a second century mystic, God speaks through the Scriptures to you - if you let him. The Church, in meeting to work out what should be in, and what should not, had a simple tag: what was recognised by everyone everywhere as the real deal. Infallibility meant not a technical "correct spelling of every syllable from the lips of the Almighty" but a genuine receiving from God and passing on from him of his truth and love and glory and his heart for humanity. I think the Councils that worked on the canons of Scripture would not have recognised our modern definition of "infallible". I fear it raises the place of Scripture to a semi-divine level in its own right. I live under Scripture - it is God's chief means of guiding us today, and it has authority over me, not the other way around: but it is not God!
And yet, in another way, by infallible I do understand the gift of Scripture to be perfect as given by God. Because he wouldn't give a crummy gift. And if I have to work to understand how good the gift is, it is like I have to work to learn to play the trumpet. A beginner gets given a bad instrument - because they are easier to play. But the better you get, the better an instrument you need, you deserve. You have to practice and work, and develop your skills so that you are worthy of a really great trumpet before spending thousands on one: if you started with a top-flight model, you'd never get a note out of it. Yet God gives us the top-flight model and bids us learn how to play better, promising us the wind of the Spirit to breath music into its pages from the first day - though, for sure, the music gets clearer with time.
But there I go again, metaphors blazing. How fallible of me. I can only hope you interpret my intentions well...
Marcus, I think I might dismiss someone who allegorized everything...
OK, OK! Allow a preacher the gift of hyperbole every now and then...
Post a Comment