Brian Haymes

Psalm 137, 1 Peter 2.1-16

I am now in the thirty-sixth year following my ordination. During those years there have been many social changes in the UK. For example, when I began there was public respect for the things of God and the name Jesus was used with care. Now both God and Jesus can and are publicly ridiculed, sometimes in a way that would not happen with other religious traditions and leaders. Again, what was considered pornographic in the 1960s is now a feature of most tabloid newspapers. And again, many of the laws of the land which supported the “family” have been so altered that the “traditional” family is only one among a number of options.

I do not think that these changes are all bad, by any means. But they are part of the growing sense that by confessing and attempting to practise the Christian faith I feel myself to be an alien in an increasingly strange land. Such a feeling is not helped as forms of Christianity emerge, strongly influenced by cultural factors such as leadership and corporate growth, from which I find myself alienated, as though I am in exile.

Now, this could all be put down to the fact that I am getting older. I do not rule out that explanation, although, in so far as I can judge myself, I do not think that is the root of my unease. Many of the social supports for the church have gone. There is now no social kudos in being a Christian in the UK as once perhaps there was. People of real commitment are seen as dangerous, closed minded, as if their critics had no such presuppositions! Yet, at the same time, those committed to rational reflection on the faith are pushed to the edge of the church. How do you sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?

I note that early Christians had a sense of being resident aliens, that they didn’t belong. But here we are and it is here we must live out our calling in Christ, our strange calling. Exile was also the experience of Israel. I find that the prophets of the exile speak powerfully today as in a strange un-comfortable context they thought again about God and what it is to have faith. Jeremiah was adamant that there was no quick fix and that those who suggested as much were false. Exile could be a long time.

What I want to suggest is that there were things in the exile experience of Israel worth reflecting upon, three things which came to prominence in those days which helped people keep their identity and integrity. They sound strange to our ears but they were crucial in the struggle for faithfulness.

1.The remembering, gathering and writing of Torah. It was during the exile days that early drafts of Torah were prepared. The old stories, the remembered teachings, all these began to be recalled, treasured and heard in new ways. It was from this story that people recovered their sense of identity and vocation as the people of God.

We need to become again a Bible reading people. I say “again” because for, in spite of much talk of being a biblical people, I noticed when I was a College Principal how little of the Bible the students coming as candidates for ministry actually knew. Sometimes they even resisted the necessary detailed study to find out what was in the Bible preferring more the “practical” modules. Moreover, they often knew nothing but an uncritical approach to the text so that what shaped their life and ministry was half-digested dogma rather than Scripture. It is certainly the case that songs appear to be more significant in many acts of worship than the steady reading of scripture.

I am not making a plea for a new fundament-alism or biblicism but expressing the hope that we might live more seriously with the Bible so that it shapes our life, becomes our story and hence keeps us in the ways of God. Against some conservative claims, I believe we need a new seriousness about the signi-ficance of the Bible for our identity and future. In a strange land, the crucial thing is to keep your sense of belonging, your identity, and for that the Bible is more critical than our present practice suggests

2.The significance of Sabbath keeping. 
Again, this is not a plea for a new sabbat-arianism. It is the recognition that the Sabbath became important in exile because the Babylonians did not live this way. It was another form of keeping identity.

In the UK there has been a series of changes in legislation concerning Sunday. Some Christians ran a movement with the slogan “Keep Sunday special”. I believe it was mistaken. I do think that there should be legislation that defends work and leisure for all, as the fourth commandment implies. But I do not think it appropriate for any religious group to impose social controls on others. The crucial thing is that Christians keep Sunday as part of a whole way of life, an attractive way of life. Why have Christians made the special day such a dull affair? Where is the creativity, the sharing of God’s Sabbath rest and joy? The urgent need is not for restrictive social legislation but for the Church to develop and encourage a lovely way of life and worship, a special day for special people. Others will not live this way. It will be part of Christian identity.

I am told that the early Church did not run evangelistic meetings and mission projects. Indeed they kept much of their worship events closed to all but those who had shown some seriousness about the things of God. Yet the Church grew! It was an attractive community. Resident aliens they might feel themselves to be but they looked as though they were being saved. Does our form of life give that impression?

3. Circumcision. 
Now, I am certainly not commending that! In Israel, circumcision was a mark of identity and ownership. The bearer could not forget to whom he belonged.

For me, the counterpart is baptism. In baptism we belong to a new community, one that is not marked by the distinctions that appear to be so im-portant in the rest of society. In baptism we name a different Lord and become part of a family where water is thicker than blood. “Remember whose you are”, called my mother as she saw me cycle off to school after my baptism.

Because we name a different Lord there are things that we do and don’t do. Together we are the Church, potentially in its alternative life together the best proclamation of the good news there is. In the UK, baptism has all too readily become a private affair, my individual act of witness to my personal Lord and saviour. That is part of baptism for sure, but so are the political and social implications of naming Christ as Lord, the one whose fullness fills all things. If the Church is to be in exile then let us be serious about the form of life we share in Christ, challenging those ideologies of racism, sexism, ageism, and any others that rob people of life. Let us live out our baptism.

In exile, Israel discovered the significance of these basic features of their life; Torah, Sabbath and circumcision. I have argued that they have modern counterparts for us, to help us keep our identity and live in God’s purposes.
But if I am to press this metaphor of exile, then I must recall that Israel went into exile as a matter of judgement. Her weakness and ineffectiveness was not the fault of others but her own. The prophets had spoken their warnings but the people had little time for theology trusting instead to an easy fatalism, not least about Jerusalem. Could it be that the exile some of us experience for the Church is also judge-ment? Have we been so unfaithful to our prophetic calling? If there is a possibility of this then no attempts at self-justification, nor blaming others, will do. No more will any easy talk about tides turning help. Better to face the truth about ourselves, in hope of God.

There are two further things to add. First, it was in exile, in Babylon, that Israel came to learn new things about God. They discovered that God was with them even in this strange and frightening land. God was not to be confined within the Temples of our making. Where could they fly from God’s Spirit? And more than that, it seemed God suffered humiliation with the people. God went into exile in the eyes of the nations. All of this was “new” theo-logy and later Christians were to find it helpful in understanding the story of the Incarnation and the cross. In exile, Israel found the necessity to do some brave theological reflection. After all, some ways of thinking of God were no longer credible and they gave way to new insights into the ways of God.

And second, through it all there remained the claim that God is Lord of history. God’s purposes will be fulfilled. Some of the people stayed in Babylon, making their home with other gods. Others kept their identity, found new understandings and were brought by God to new beginnings. That God remains sovereign of history is a great affirmation of faith. Making it, however, does remind us, in the face of those who would seek to bureaucratize, manage and lead us out of our difficulties, that the issues really are theological. In the end, we have to do with God

Brian Haymes is Minister of Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church, London, UK, and a former Tutor and principal at Northern Baptist College, and Bristol Baptist College. He has written much on Christian Ethics, Preaching, and the Church Year

Ray Hobbs

As many of you who attended the symposium of ‘The Bible and Homosexuality’ at Woodbine Heights Baptist Church in June last know, I am very interested in the subject of the use of the Bible in developing a Christian ethic. What follows is a series of brief notices of some of the important books that have appeared over the last few years. The list does not claim to be exhaustive. The list contains quite general studies which raise important questions of interpretation. Others may wish to add titles to the list.

Many studies in Biblical Ethics until a few decades ago tended to be prescriptive, or historical. The prescriptive studies looked at selected passages in the Old and New Testament, and sought to make them normative for Christian behaviour, Historical studies were more comprehensive in their approach, but tended to be noncommittal after they had sketched the wide range of options found in the Bible. In more recent years, studies have tried to be more creative, adopting either a thematic approach (Birch), or developing a critical interpretive approach (Janzen). Still others have been (Hays) have attempted to set out axioms which take into account the historical and varied nature of the Biblical material.

W. Janzen, Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1994) ISBN 0-664-25410-1. Janzen is a Canadian Mennonite Old Testament scholar. His stated aim is ‘to provide Christians with a model for grasping the Old Testament’s ethical message in a comprehensive way, thereby avoiding a reductionist concentration on any one genre...or selection of texts.’ (p. 1). In the book he sketches several ‘paradigms’ of ethical action - the priestly/wisdom, the royal/ prophetic, and roams through matters of law. But, he suggests that the fundamental paradigm for all ethical decisions in regard to Old Testament material is the family. He states ‘...the familial paradigm, with its key facets of life, land and hospitality, is more than a collection of ancient Near Eastern customs and popular ideals. It is the expression of an ethic evoked by, and in keeping with, Israel’s ethical story’ (p. 45). In Janzen’s exposition the ‘familial’ paradigm is seen as originating with God, and being a dynamic element in Israel’s history, controlling other models of behaviour.

B. Birch, Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics and the Christian Life (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991) ISBN 0-664-24026-7. This is an exposition of the notion of ‘Story as a Moral Resource’, and is a creative journey through the Old Testament to discover ‘the moral address in the Old Testament narrative.’ Very useful.

C.J.H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), ISBN 0-8028-0321-0. From a conservative perspective, but a valuable study of the major themes of the title.

W. Countryman, Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and their Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) ISBN 0-8006-2476-9. This is a refreshingly different approach to the subject. It looks at the New Testament in its cultural context and examines notions of purity in the traditional Mediterranean World. It provides a helpful way of understanding the text.

R. B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996). One of the most satisfying books I have read on the topic. It is exhaustive in its scope, and helpful in its pastoral focus. Of great value is Part Three (Chapters 11-13) on the use of the New Testament in modern ethical decisions and action. This one comes highly recom-mended.

Bert Radford

I did not expect to see, in a Canadian newspaper, the image of children being torn from their parents’ arms and carried screaming from their family home. The account of seventy-four children and their parents fleeing this country like refugees in fear of their families being torn apart by a similar seizure left me checking my address. Am I really living in Canada? We Canadians have prided our-selves in our liberal refugee laws and have received many people fleeing repression. Now, to see refugees fleeing our police and our authorities is difficult to understand and very difficult to accept.

In Alymer Ontario on August fourth, seven children were taken by force from their parents by police and the Children’s Aid Society because the parents would not promise not to spank the children with sticks. They belong to the Church of God which teaches that it is a parent’s duty to correct children by hitting them with a rod. They won’t use their hands to hit their children for they feel that hands are for showing love. The Children’s Aid Society believes it is wrong to strike a child at any time but even more wrong to strike with an implement or weapon.

Subsequently a number of families of the congregation fled to the United States in fear of similar intrusions into their homes. The rather academic question of the correct balance between religious rights and children’s rights becomes a crucial issue.

The Bible does teach that parents have a duty to use corporal punishment on their children. “Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them.” (Prov. 13: 24) The Bible also prohibits charging interest from your own people and stipulates a mandatory sentence of death for those who do. Adultery and swearing receive the same treatment. The Bible is a very old book and is comprised of widely varying forms of literature. Using it as a simple rulebook and applying it literally can yield strange ideas. The minister of the church appeared on television explaining that if his people did not obey the commandments of the Bible they would go to hell so they had no choice but to beat their children. He may have been exaggerating for emphasis on television; if he really believes that eternal damnation awaits parents who use other methods of discipline it seems to me that he has missed the point of the gospel on several levels. But this is apparently what the good families of Alymer believe and they have watched their children dragged away because of their beliefs.

The social workers have their own doctrine. They believe it is always wrong to hit a child because the child’s development will be stunted or twisted by corporal punishment. Confronted daily by sad cases of terrible abuse they have come to loath physical violence directed at children and find it better to draw the line at none than split hairs about what is abuse and what is discipline. When two orthodox beliefs collide inevitably there will be refugees.

My libertarian self wants to go to the barricades. Let us defend the principle of religious liberty and if some children pay for it with red bottoms that is a moderate enough martyrdom for such an important principle. My humanitarian self says, “Stay the rod, person of God; God does not demand this beating of children any more than he does the stoning of adulterers. These laws were written thousands of years ago. We must allow for cultural differences! Anyway, Jesus reduced all the laws to two; love God and love your neighbour.

My practical self looks for a compromise. Suppose the Pastor stopped all this talk of hell fire and lead his people toward a reasonable solution. Suppose the social workers allowed spanking with a soft implement which would sting but not inflict damage, and the Christians promised to always use it and to have a witness to ensure the child is not injured. Kids could go home, principles would be honoured and Canada would be restored as a haven of justice. If only it were so easy!

Bert Radford is a former School Principal, and currently Minister at Burlington Baptist Church, Ontario.

ISSN 1499-111X
©The Gathering of Baptists

Editor: Ray Hobbs
Editorial Committee: 
Barbara Bishop, 
Daphne Hunt, 
Bert Radford

Gathering Web Page: http://Jubal9.tripod.com/home.html

Feedback can be directed to:  The Gathering Newsletter c/o Ray Hobbs e-mail ray.hobbs@sympatico.ca

or to

Ray Hobbs
35 Dromore Crescent
Hamilton, ON L8S 4A8
Canada