To sneer or not to sneer!

So the sneerers have come out in full force; war on religion! Boring news, indeed! So what? Judging by what one reads about the unthinkable thinking thought-thinkers of ‘Thought for the Day’ the BBC is far more biased than it should be [‘A culture of sniggering contempt towards religion is endemic within the BBC’, so Giles Fraser], but no one is surprised any more, though perhaps a bit bored – if that is not too an offensive an admission to make.

It is well-known, of course, that many so-called Christian speakers do not necessarily believe their own holy book, the Bible. Their Jesus I do not recognise at all! I find such folks the most infuriating of the lot! I have little patience with pious claptrap. I wish the BBC would ban them! Blame my outburst on my Lutheran ancestors! I doubt if the founder of Christianity itself would be allowed on air! He certainly upset a lot of people!

It seems to be that religious adherents need something far more substantial and meaty than can be uttered in such a time, and the thought for the day usually vanishes into thin air, at any rate, which may be just as well! The whole thing reminds me of what happened in ancient Athens: “All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.” (Acts 17:21) With due respect to the Humph and his belligerent his cohort, they are hardly original!

‘Thought for the day’ is chasing after ‘anythingism.’ Speakers are expected to be balanced, inoffensive, tolerant, and nice, which pluralists find so reassuring and enriching! Who wants to be upset first thing in the morning?! And who wants their backbone to be stiffened into active resolve when one might as well wobble along with hoi polloi on religious crutches?

Having listened to ‘Thought For The Day’ from time to time I have invariably found it to be the perfect cure for low blood pressure; it may also help insomniacs, or infuriate the God-hating atheists! It certainly unmasks the cultured despisers of religion! I have just stumbled on a cheap panacea (my own thought for the day) for all the ills of our nation! May be for that reason alone ‘Thought for the Day’ should not be scrapped! And if the program provides a powerful platform that threatens modern civilisation (as the new atheism may have put it) then it ought to be kept!

I guess I have just talked myself out of ever being invited to speak! I can live with that, and the BBC will thank me for it, I hope!

Think after me, or I will be after you!

I note with alarm that “Balliol College Oxford bans Christians from freshers fair”. I am stuck for words – which isn’t like me at all! Fake news? Not if it is in the Guardian! Am I going potty? Why has the C.U. been banned from one of Oxford’s Colleges? I must protest against Pottster's egologicalism! F Potts is a highly intelligent young man, and I can assure my readers that he is a very engaging person, even affable. But intelligence and wisdom are not necessarily synonyms, and I am speaking from experience, just in case anyone may wish to accuse me of taking the moral high ground. 

So Potts wants the Christian Union banned, and he was obviously empowered from on high to implement the edict. It will embolden him, no doubt! But a ban? On what grounds? ‘Gleichschaltung’ in Oxford?! Think after me, or I will be after you! Just as Orwell predicted!
I deplore the oppression of minorities, but I must insist that Christians are commanded to love all men and women (if such language is still permissible!) Can there be a higher ethic? Yet Potts wants such folks to be gagged! I note he makes no mention of Muslims, but let's not go there! 

Does the C.U. encourage neo-colonialism, when lesser mortals could not even explain this vacuous term? I doubt whether this blanket term (a pretext for oppression) has any meaning at all, except what the left want it to mean! Who could write an essay on it, even on a postage stamp? 

Christians have always at the forefront of social reform in the 19th century, and Oxford university was not exactly founded by atheists! Ask C.S. Lewis! I gather from the Balliol website that ‘it is thanks to the regular support of thousands of alumni that Balliol is a college that is accessible to talented students whatever their background’. Accessible to all, except the Christian Union, that is!
If Pott’s is right – well, he would not say that he is – then why not also ban oversea students from countries that oppress women, or execute homosexuals, or torture Christians? And why not ban any that advocate a male-female anthropology? Metallica, come to my aid: ‘Exit: light’ Enter: night Take my hand We're off to never never land!’
It is always bad for any democracy to attack freedom to speech, whether at Westminster or in Oxford. Someone is running scared of just a handful of Christians, who put their hands down for coffee? What an irony! What madness!
Marxism, now infiltrating and indoctrinating our academic institutions, of course, has failed millions of people all over the world. It doesn’t work! Never has done, and never will! Its epistemological basis is rotten to the core! It is always completely incompatible with human freedom and invariably shows utter contempt for liberty of conscience! If it could, it would have strangled the Christ-child in the cradle, rather than having to wait for another 33 years for the crucifixion!
At the root of this ban one detects a hatred for a God of love whom atheists believe to be non-existent! What crass stupidity! One might as well attack green elephants! God has indeed been killed, I am told! He has been dethroned, edged out of His own universe and put onto a Cross, as Bonhoeffer noted! But that was only the beginning of the end! One can, indeed, be a witless atheist, in Oxford, too, and nasty with it! A brave new world, indeed, where tolerance becomes intolerant!
Christians get a lot of stick these days, but most of them are pretty docile, harmless, too pietistic and don’t bite! I wish it were not so, but ecclesiastical realpolitik is with us to stay, at least for the foreseeable future!
But all is not bleak! Christians, of course, will never resort to violence, verbal or otherwise. Those who do are misguided and have departed from biblical Christianity! Christians must out-think, out-live and out-love their opponents! That is a tall order, but the Christian may stand tall and will always thrive in the face of opposition. Perhaps, unwittingly, the ban will attract students to explore the claims of Jesus, the greatest of all controversialists, the paragon of a persecuted minority, since he is the most hated person in the world! I am sure that Pott’s would have banned Jesus, too!
P.S. I now note that there has been a change of mind (Greek metanoia, viz. repentance!) I have started to breathe again - with apologies to Potts and his cohort! Hope uncle Richard won't be too upset, either! Common sense (which is not common) has prevailed - under duress! But one needs to remain vigilant before the vigilantes take over!

BETTER WET THAN DEAD!

Reading anything by Donald Macleod is bound to raise not just an eyebrow, but also one’s spiritual blood pressure. His recent article on ‘Should Presbyterians Have Dedication Services?' does not disappoint!

I am just not so sure about Macleod’s intention behind his Oy-Yoy-Yoy! Has he been reading Luther too much of late?! Not so long ago Macleod seemed more irenic: “I don't regard this debate between Baptists and Paedobaptists as a debate about fundamentals…The divergence itself is not one between Christians and non-Christians. It is very much an in-house division, dividing for example, men such as C. H. Spurgeon and John Kennedy, who on all fundamentals were agreed” [Donald Macleod - A Faith To Live By] 

David Robertson - as expected - has already robustly responded (see here)! Who says there is no fun in the Free Church?! See how these Christians love each other! The world has already taken note, voting with its feet, a long time ago! Less heat, more light!

Theological blogaholics should, of course (apologies to my socialist friends), be free to speak their mind (not always necessarily identical with Christ’s own mind), but what for? To attract seekers, to persuade outsiders, to promote the Christification of the Church? I would like to think so!

Sadly, both articles remind me of how the Church is made up of 'them', viz. those who are right on baptism, and 'us', that is to say, the wet baddies!!! The 'one' baptism that has caused so much division! At least we may thank Calvin's God for not living in a theocracy - well, 'living' is the wrong term for our Baptist friends!

I recall reading an article by another Free-kirker ‘What does the Bible say about infant baptism?’ The answer: Nothing! The Bible is not even quoted! I have no idea what such men are on about!

As to the razzmatazz on ‘dry baptism’ I sympathise with Robertson. He [like so many of us] is inconsistent, yet accommodating! Wrong in the head - right in the heart! It doesn't make me feel so bad, after all! In passing, it was a paedo-baptist who would have agreed with Robertson: “It can ...be argued that the parents' desire to dedicate their child to God and to pray for its salvation might be better expressed in a service of thanksgiving and prayer (although admittedly this is not clearly attested in Scripture; see, however, Luke 2:22-24), so that the child may experience personally the full significance of baptism when he has come to conscious faith in Jesus.” [I Howard Marshall - A Pocket Guide to New Testament Theology]. God alone is Lord of the conscience! 

It’s rather odd that Macleod does not see himself as a Baptist. A most able paedo-baptist expositor of the Westminster Confession complains more logically in regard to his opponents, “They now assume the name of Baptists; but this designation we cannot concede to them, if it be intended to insinuate that others do not baptise, and are not baptised, agreeably to the principles of the gospel.” [Robert Shaw - An Exposition Of The Westminster Confession Of Faith]. The Free Church has a biblical mandate to baptise believers and may even do so by immersion (the biblical  mode according to Calvin) - with a good conscience! I am not so sure about her right or wisdom to exclude Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones from the ministry! But that’s perhaps for another day!

Back to Macleod. Worse still, and most disturbing, his own baptism seems to do little to assure him of his personal standing before God, as can be seen from his last sentence! Can one not be a paedo-baptist will full assurance? I doubt it!

What good is it Macleod saying that 'at the moment I would much prefer to be reflecting on the mediatorial work of Christ' (sic)?! Of what good is a de-gospelised theology that leaves one in despair over one's eternal destiny? 

I have had to remind myself that baptism is a Gospel (good news) ordinance, but its abuse (Southern Baptists, too, take note!) has brought Christ and the Church into disrepute! 

Take, for example, the two established Churches - with their post-apostolic roots - of the UK! These venerable institutions both nourish and tolerate, if not promote, heretics within their bosom, but woe to those who might refuse a parishioner 'to have their child done!' Such – and perhaps such only – will be disciplined and lose their livelihood for coming out! Okay, that could have been phrased better! 

At any rate, the Kirk (and the Church of England, too, I note) is to – indeed, must by law - help with ‘hatching / yells, matching / bells, and dispatching / knells’ its parishioners! It is always nice to feel to be wanted! No need to ask with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, ‘are we still of any use?’! The world has already answered that question! Plenty to keep us all occupied with less important matters! For good measure Karl Barth – the greatest 20^th century theologian - may be consulted here.

The Free Church of Scotland (generally speaking, though with notable exceptions!) has played along nicely, too, by practising indiscriminate baptism for years, quite contrary to the explicit teaching of the Westminster Confession, but it would be unkind to say more!  
A recent article caught my attention: ‘What does the Bible say about infant baptism?’ The answer: Nothing! Well, that was my impression as the author does not quote Scripture at all! No wonder that those of us blessed with a smaller mind have been fermisht!

I, too, like Macleod and Robertson admire Spurgeon, albeit to a lesser extent. He can have his say, “If you see infant baptism in the Word, do not neglect it; if it be not there, do not regard it”. (Sermon on Ephesians 4:30) 

Well might we be asking, of what use is to cry over spilled water when the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater?

Karl Barth and Infant Baptism - Source: Learning Jesus Christ through the Heidelberg Catechism

"The real reason for the persistent adherence to infant baptism is quite simply the fact that without it the church would suddenly be in a remarkably embarrassing position. Every individual would then have to decide whether he wanted to be a Christian. But how many Christians would there be in that case? The whole concept of a national church (or national religion) would be shaken. That must not happen; and so one proposes argument upon argument for infant baptism and yet cannot speak convincingly because fundamentally he has a bad conscience. The introduction of adult baptism in itself would of course not reform the church which needs reforming. The adherence to infant baptism is only one - a very important one - of many symptoms that the church is not alive and bold, that it is afraid to walk on the water like Peter to meet the Lord, that it therefore does not seek a sure foundation but only deceptive props.

The consequence of this adherence to infant baptism is the devaluation of baptism by so-called confirmation, in which baptism is supposed to be confirmed by faith, in which therefore the confession and desire which ought to precede baptism are supposed to be made up for later. Fifteen years later one is supposed to confirm his faith. This procedure is impossible. But it cannot be avoided so long as we hold to infant baptism, which is indeed incomplete without this subsequent confirmation.

Another consequence is necessarily the formation of a mass church, the Christian character of which is never examined at all, a church which therefore cannot realize the comfort that comes from having been baptised. Under these circumstances, one need not be surprised at the stream of indifference and secularism which flows through our church.“