Homosexuality and Lines in the Sand (Part Two)

In my previous post I began to explore how evangelicals might respond to the General Assembly's decision to continue the path towards ordaining actively homosexual men and women into the ministry.

In this concluding post I want to continue my reflections on how we deal with those with whom we disagree regarding how to interpret the Bible.

There is a tendency in conservative evangelical circles to divide a mixed denomination like the Church of Scotland to divide the Church into "us" who believe in what the Bible says and "them" who don't. But that's rather an oversimplification, isn't it? The truth is rather more complex. Over the issue of homosexuality, those who would permit the ordination of practising homosexual ministers are actually composed of at least two broad groups.

First, there are those liberals who do not have as high a view of Scripture as evangelicals do. For them, the Bible is a testimony to God's people's experience of God down through the centuries. The Bible is therefore a fallible human document that reflects the times it was written in. For this group, the Church is not bound by the Bible's teachings. This group likely regards contemporary attitudes towards homosexuality as more enlightened, more loving and more Christlike than the biblical prohibitions. I suspect that most "revisionist" supporters in the Kirk would broadly fall into this group. We could call this group the "liberal revisionists" for convenience.

But second, there is probably also a group who may have as high a view of Scripture as the Word of God as any other evangelical. This group accepts that what the Bible says is true and should be obeyed by Christians, yet rather than interpreting the biblical prohibitions as applying to all homosexual acts, they regard the Bible passages dealing with homosexual acts as merely condemning homosexual activity in certain specific contexts. For example, this group would see the Bible as condemning homosexuality connected to pagan worship and practices, as condemning homosexual rape, as condemning homosexual promiscuity, etc. Such an interpretation would leave the Bible at least silent on the question of same-sex acts within a committed, loving, consensual and monogamous context. This in turn would leave the possibility open that such relationships would not be against God's revealed will for people with a same-sex orientation. We might call this group the "evangelical revisionists" for convenience.

There is not much to be said about the liberal revisionists. Liberals have been the majority in the Church of Scotland for probably a century or more. It would appear that there is still a liberal majority in the courts of the Kirk - certainly in the General Assembly if the recent votes are anything to go by. Like it or not, we evangelicals are in this kind of denomination and have been all our lives. We have learned to live with this group while not really being in meaningful fellowship with it.

The second group is more interesting. People in this group might believe 99% the same as any other conservative evangelical about the big issues - the authority of the Bible, about God, about Jesus, about the Holy Spirit, about sin and and about salvation. They differ from the majority on one point - they interpret the fairly scant references to homosexuality in the Bible not as general condemnations but as context-specific condemnations.

While I am not convinced by this line of argument, I do recognise that there is at least a possibility that it may have some truth in it. Someone who believes this, in good faith, is not rejecting the Bible's teaching, they merely understand it differently from me. The same could be said for people holding any number of theological or ethical positions I would disagree with while nevertheless accepting them as evangelical brothers and sisters.
 
So how should we deal with people in this second group? Conservative evangelicals differ on a whole range of important issues including such important matters as:

• Spiritual Gifts
• Eschatology
• Baptism
• Communion
• Sabbath observance
• Church Government
• Women's Ordination

The list could go on to be a very long one!

We don't normally consider such matters as primary doctrines - we do not normally break fellowship over them when we disagree with other Christians.

My personal view is that the evangelical revisionist position should be regarded as being on the same level as these other second order disagreements, and on that basis there can be fellowship with people holding these views. Our relationship with liberal revisionists will be different, but not because of the issue of homosexuality. Rather, the differences are over primary level doctrines and any break in fellowship should be over those primary doctrines, like denying Christ is the only way to God or that salvation is by good works.

In fact differences in views over Sabbath observance are directly relevant here. Those who insist on a strict Sabbath observance think the Bible is very clear on the issue - as indeed are the Presbyterian creeds - and for them disobeying the Sabbath commandments is a sin issue. Those who do not believe the Sabbath commandments apply to Christians because the Sabbath is part of the Old Testament administration will do things on a Sunday that the others consider is sinful, yet they will be unrepentant about it and in fact refuse to accept it is a sin at all.

No doubt in the more strict parts of the Presbyterian world, a person who took a non-Sabbatarian view of the Lord's day would be barred from leadership, but I doubt that many evangelicals in the Church of Scotland would think this an issue worth leaving over. We simply agree to disagree, and each person is allowed to follow his own conscience in the matter.

I would like to suggest a similar approach may be possible between those who think the Bible condemns all homosexual acts in any context as sinful and those who think that such acts may be morally permissible in some contexts. The question is not whether a person agrees with you or I on every doctrinal or moral question, but whether that person loves God, trusts in Jesus Christ and seeks to follow his teachings as a disciple.

In closing, perhaps we need a timely reminder that our salvation does not rest on getting our doctrines or ethics perfect. God knows that if it did, none of us would be able to inherit the Kingdom. Certainly no one would be fit to be a minister if that was the standard. None of us is correct in all our views.  We do our best to be right and trust in God to forgive us where we have gone astray. And God accepts us and loves us despite our failings. We are saved in Christ alone, by grace alone and by faith alone, not by our views on homosexuality. And so for me, this issue is not a line in the sand or a hill to die on.

So where do we go from here? I think those who are committed to the authority of the Bible on either side of this particular issue need to keep talking to each other. One side needs to make sure it is the Bible and not tradition that is guiding them. The other side needs to make sure it is the Bible and not their feelings that is guiding them.

In the Church of Scotland context, we need to continue to work to guide the Church on the path we believe to be correct. It is not too late to change things. Wasn't it our founding father, John Knox, who said that one man with God is a majority?

There are still many votes to go before anything will actually change. We need to be in those debates and in those votes. And most of all we need to show the love of Christ in this debate especially to those who don't interpret the Bible the same way as us. I suggest that the single most important thing in this whole debate is that whoever wins it in the end makes their first and highest priority looking after and seeking the best for those on the other side.

Homosexuality and Lines in the Sand (Part One)

This post and the next follows in the wake of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland's decision in May to continue on the trajectory of allowing at least some congregations - where the local leadership in the Kirk Session agrees to it - to induct practising gay and lesbian ministers as parish ministers. At the same time, the Kirk is maintaining as its default position the traditional Christian understanding that the covenant bond between a man and a woman in marriage is the only God-ordained sphere for sexual activity and that homosexual acts are contrary to God's will and therefore sinful, exactly in the same way as all heterosexual acts outside marriage are sinful.

Let me begin by re-iterating and assuring readers that I would maintain the "traditional" view briefly summarised above as being the correct interpretation of the Bible's teaching in the area of human sexual activity.

Now, many evangelicals in the Church of Scotland are more than just saddened that the Church seems to be slowly but surely drifting from traditional Christian morality in this area. For them a line in the sand has been crossed here on this issue and it is time either to leave the Kirk now as a few others have done already or at least time to start concrete preparations for leaving in a year or two.

I would continue to question this approach, to begin with on a pragmatic and practical level. The fact is we are still quite a way off the current trajectory, misguided though it may be, from reaching its destination. The proposal that was passed in draft form at this year's assembly still has to be properly drafted and taken back to the Assembly in 2014. It is by no means certain that it will be passed then once people have had a year to reflect on how the proposal completely changes the nature of Presbyterian church polity within the Kirk. If it is passed, it will then spend the rest of the year going through the Presbyteries under the Barrier Act. It is even less likely, I would judge, to be passed by them. Finally, if it passes both these hurdles, it goes again to the 2015 Assembly where again it could be rejected or a new "compromise" proposal deliverance could be passed or a further commission appointed. The church bureaucracy could keep the whole process going for years to come without a resolution of the matter.

In other words, for the traditionalists, the game is not yet lost and there is everything to play for.

But supposing that the proposal does pass all remaining stages and becomes the Kirk's position. What then? What if the Kirk continues to adhere to the historic Christian position but allows individual congregations to depart from it if their conscience will permit it? Should that be an automatic trigger for everyone who disagrees with them to walk out of the Church of Scotland?

There are a couple of thoughts I would suggest we reflect on, in answer to this question, before we jump to any conclusions.

The first thing to point out, as I did in my letter to the Herald newspaper on 23 May, is that there is nothing fundamentally new revealed in this decision about the theological spectrum of views in the Kirk. It is misleading for people to talk about lines in the sand here. Evangelicals and liberals have co-existed in the Church of Scotland despite deep differences in their views on both doctrinal and ethical matters for a long, long time. There are liberal ministers and certainly members in the Kirk today (I think I am fairly safe in suggesting) who would deny such fundamental doctrines as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the deity of Christ, the Trinity as traditionally understood, the reality of sin, Satan or hell; there are those who teach salvation by good works and outright universalism (that all are saved), while others teach that all religions lead to God and many deny that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and so on and so on. In effect, there are people in the Church of Scotland right now, in membership, in leadership and in ministry who have views that we evangelicals would spend our lives opposing with our very lifeblood.

Yet, evangelicals have never seen fit to walk away from the Kirk despite such views being tolerated and supported within the Church of Scotland. We have separated ourselves and our congregations from such false teaching, while remaining within the organisation. Why then is the issue of homosexuality considered such a fundamental thing that it should be the line in the sand when outright heresies have been tolerated and more than tolerated within the Kirk for many years?

I have yet to see a satisfying answer to that most basic question. I have to say that if denominational separation from error or heresy is always right, then even if the traditional view of sexual sin had been upheld at the Assembly, no one who takes that line should have been able to remain, in good conscience, within the Kirk anyway. There are ministers who deny even the most basic tenets of the Christian faith according to Paul himself - that Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead. If anyone can remain in a denomination where people can deny that without facing church discipline and removal from office, why then would the fact someone is gay or lesbian in leadership tip the balance towards separation? Compared to denying the resurrection, homosexual acts are small matters in biblical terms. We need to keep things in proportion.

Or perhaps it is merely because this would be an instance of the Church officially taking a position we would disagree with, whereas much of the liberal teaching is "swept under the carpet" of the "liberty of opinion" clause in the ordination vows? Perhaps, but that argument does not really wash. Even the Kirk's official positions on a number of points are biblically questionable, for example the Kirk's official position on the nature of the Bible is hardly a ringing endorsement of evangelical Protestant doctrine! The Church has officially adopted or at least accepted liberal positions on a number of issues.

So we are then left with the impression that it is people's gut reaction to this issue that leads them to see it as such a big deal. If we can tolerate resurrection deniers in leadership but not gays, that tells us something about us and it's not a pretty picture.

All that has really happened is that two groups who disagree over what the Bible is have now found that disagreement surfacing over the question of the morality of same-sex sexual activity. The bigger disagreement was already there and both sides have lived with it for a century or more. Evangelicals believe the Bible is the Word of God written. Liberals, to a greater or lesser extent, believe the Word of God is only somewhere "contained" within the Bible. These two positions on the Bible have now been applied to the morality of homosexual acts within committed homosexual relationships and come to different conclusions.

If we are to walk away over this, we must do so in repentance for our own sin and the sins of our fathers and grandfathers in the faith who stayed within the liberal Kirk all these years and fought their corner, for if it is right to go now, then it was never right to be there in the first place - at least not in the last 100 years or so.

We have to tread very carefully here or it will merely look as if our true motivations are homophobic rather than theological or biblical.

(To be continued)

Inspector Morse

I'm old enough to have watched the Inspector Morse television series the first time round when I was at school and then at university, and stayed a fan until the series ended in the early 2000s.

The series starred the late, great John Thaw as Chief Inspector Morse and Kevin Whately as Sergeant Lewis, as well as a veritable "who's who" of British actors and actresses over the years. The stories always concern murders in and around Oxford, and many of the stories have the University as a backdrop to the action. Morse is no "action hero" type of policeman. He is cerebral. He loves classical music, poetry and drinking real ale (and other beverages like malt scotch). He drives a classic Mark II Jaguar. And he is a rather melancholy character, slightly sad, slightly lonely in his life. Morse himself and his interaction with Lewis are the best things about the series in my view.

Watching the first few series now on DVD, a number of things stand out. It is noticeable that the pace of the storytelling is slower than typical crime series nowadays (about 25 years after the series came out). It's also now a period piece, almost a social history of the 1980s and 1990s, from brick-sized mobile phones to shoulder pads.

Some people would maybe say Morse has"dated". That is a little unkind although the earlier episodes from the 1980s are certainly "of their time." But most of the episodes are still eminently watchable and for any crime writers out there, they are an excellent course in how to construct a whodunnit, how to plant false clues, and especially how to hide the true clues that point to the murderer.

Yet the most enjoyable thing for me remains watching John Thaw play his greatest role. In fact "play" is too weak a word. John Thaw incarnates Inspector Morse.

Morse is still worth watching if you can get hold of the DVDs or catch it when repeated on the likes of ITV3 or ITV4. It is classic British television at its best and one the best series ITV ever did.

Letter to the Herald

I have a letter published in the Herald newspaper today. It was only after it went in that my wife pointed out that I don't actually say what my own views are. My purpose isn't really to debate the issue, but to point out that there has been a "mixed economy" on a whole range of issues for a long time. However, as I'm sure most readers here will know, I am a conservative evangelical and would have preferred the Church to accept the biblical, "traditionalist" trajectory without any other options. Anyway, here's the letter (as published):

The Kirk's typical compromise on gay ministers might just work

I expect we will hear a lot about a "mixed economy" in the Church of Scotland over the next few years as it attempts to find a way to allow those who are happy to accept homosexuals into the ministry and those opposed to it to co-exist in one denomination ("Kirk facing backlash after vote to allow gay ministers", The Herald, May 21 & Letters, May 22).

Before anyone gets carried away with the newness of this proposal, let's remember we already have a mixed economy in the Kirk on a range of issues, and it has been that way for at least the past 150 years. To give one example: while most congregations have female elders and many have female ministers, there are some churches that have never ordained any female elders and for whom the idea of a female minister would be impossible to countenance. No one seems to mind a mixed economy in which there are congregations who opt out of the Kirk's position that all offices should be open to men and women.

The real dividing issue that lies behind so many of the other differences of view and practice in the Kirk is the Bible. Though a generalisation, the conservative wing of the church understands it is the Christian's duty to believe and submit to the authority of the Bible as it is the infallible written Word of God. This has a tendency to solidify doctrine and ethics as a fixed body of truth and right actions for all time.

The liberal wing of the church sees the Bible as a record of the experiences of God's people, bound by the times it was written in, and not necessarily infallible in the views it records. This has a tendency to keep doctrine and ethics more fluid, an evolving body of truth and right actions that can be changed over time in line with new insights, spiritual experiences and changes in society.

The acceptance of these broad views is the true mixed economy the Kirk has accepted for more than 100 years. There is nothing new in this, except that the conservative wing is probably larger now than it has been at any time since 1843.

The debate over homosexual ordination is one example of the deeper fissure that divides the conservative and liberal viewpoints. Though there is a great divide between these views, it is one of the miracles of Presbyterianism that the people who hold them can remain together and work together in one body. When viewed in that light, the solution that has been found is a typical Church of Scotland compromise that just might work out.

The General Assembly's Decision on Homosexual Ordination

Anyone familiar with how church politics tend to work in the Church of Scotland shouldn't be too surprised that the General Assembly yesterday decided to go with neither the traditional nor "revisionist" proposals from the Theological Commission that had been looking at the issue for the past two years. Instead, they chose a hastily cobbled together, ill thought through, "compromise" proposal put forward by the ex-moderator, Albert Bogle.

The decision seeks to give everyone enough to keep them in the denomination. To the traditionalists, the decision means that the Church's traditional view of human sexuality and marriage stands unchanged. To the revisionists, it allows any congregation's Kirk Session to decide to depart from acceptance of the official church line and so choose an actively gay minister.

Who knows, the compromise might work in some kind of mixed up way? But it surely spells the end of traditional Scottish Presbyterian polity in the Kirk. We have never seen church government as a "bottom up" model with each local congregation as the sovereign body and the higher courts simply as confederations with devolved power.

Yet this is the unintended consequence of the cobbled together deliverance that passed at the assembly. It would result in a strangely illogical system, whereby the church has a position, but a local congregation is free to depart from that position. Illogical maybe, but not unworkable. Of course this has been the de facto position on other issues for years. There are still congregations, as I know too well, where there are no women elders for example, despite the Church's official line. Here the tables are turned and it is the liberals who will have the same right to depart from the official teaching.

I am torn here, because I actually think the primacy of the local church within a presbyterian confederation, which is closer to the Dutch Reformed tradition of church government, is probably preferable to a "top down" model.

Yet I disagree with the substance of the decision.

We now await the decision's journey through the presbyteries under the Barrier Act. I am not convinced it will not be passed by the presbyteries this time, though I will certainly hope otherwise.

In the meantime I feel sorry that the theological commission were so disrespected. Two years' work dumped in favour of something on the back of an envelope. Hardly the best way to consider such an important issue, whatever your view of the merits of the argument either way.

Pentecost

Today the Christian church celebrated Pentecost (also known as Whitsunday). The day celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Christian believers in power as recorded in Acts 2. Jesus promised that when he went away he would then send another "helper" (John 14:16).

The word used by Jesus was "paraclete" which is a rich word, difficult to translate by one English word. It means a helper, a comforter, a counsellor, a guide, an advocate, an encourager, an interceder, an uplifter. The meaning of the Greek word parakletos implies that the one helping and so forth gets right alongside the person being helped or comforted. It implies an intimate, close relationship. In the case of the Holy Spirit's relationship with the Christian believer, he could not be closer to us, for the Holy Spirit dwells inside every Christian (1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Timothy 1:14).

As I sat in church this morning, seeing a wide variety of nationalities present in the service, I couldn't help but imagine the impact of the apostles speaking in foreign languages and being understood by various nations, undoing the events of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) and signalling that God's Spirit and God's Word were now about to go out into all the earth to draw people to the Saviour.

And I gave thanks to God the Holy Spirit for coming like a rushing wind to Scotland over a thousand years ago. May the Holy Spirit come in power upon the Church of Scotland General Assembly this week for what will be a difficult and costly debate no matter what the Assembly decides. We all need his help, guidance and encouragement as much today as ever.

Ascension Day

We never fail to mark Christmas, Good Friday and Easter as Christians, but how many of us forget about the fourth leg of Christ's amazing salvation journey? Today is Ascension Day, when the church marks the fact that 40 days after his resurrection, Christ "ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty" (in the words of the Apostles' Creed). The event is recorded both in Luke's Gospel and in Acts.

The Ascension matters for a number of reasons including

1. It signals the end of his earthly ministry and his physical departure from this world. God the Father had lovingly sent His Son into the world at Bethlehem, and now the Son was returning to the Father.

2. It signified the ultimate success and complete triumph of his earthly work. All that he had come to do, he had accomplished.

3. It marked the return of his heavenly glory. Jesus' glory had been veiled during his sojourn on earth, with one brief exception at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9) but now he is revealed in all his cosmic glory.

4. It symbolises his exaltation by the Father (Ephesians 1:20-23). The Son with whom the Father is well pleased (Matthew 17:5) was received up in honour and given a name above all names (Philippians 2:9).

5. It allowed him to prepare a place for us (John 14:2).

6. It indicates the beginning of a new work as High Priest making intercession for us (Hebrews 4:14-16) and being the Mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 9:15).

7. It allowed him to send the Holy Spirit on his disciples (which happened 10 days later at Pentecost) as he promised. (Acts 2).

So let's celebrate the ascension of the Lord Jesus today.

The Christian Year

Why follow the Christian Year?

Recently I have been thinking on the benefits of following the Christian year in our churches. In the evangelical tradition I am part of the emphasis has traditionally been placed on systematic expository preaching through books (or sections of books) of the Bible, Sunday-by-Sunday, with little emphasis given to the Christian calendar except for Christmas and Easter.

Some have argued that there is no biblical justification for following a set pattern of festivals throughout the year marking the significant events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection or significant milestones in the life of the Church. Two things might be said in reply to this. First, there is biblical justification for marking significant events in the story of the people of God by special days and festivals because that is exactly what God commanded Israel to do in the Old Testament and the for the very same reason: so they would not forget their story as a people. There seems to me to be a good case to be made for taking this biblical principle and applying it to the story of God's people in the New Testament, though since the New Testament is not explicit about this, there must be liberty of opinion allowed in this matter. Never again should there be shameful days when one part of the Church would persecute another part of the Church because one part would or would not observe significant days in the Christian calendar. Second though, to those evangelical brothers and sisters who are suspicious of the Christian year and favour systematic expository preaching Sunday by Sunday, the point needs to be made that it is no more commanded in the Bible that we preach through whole books of the Bible or sections of larger books week by week than it is that we follow the Christian seasons in the traditional church calendar. Both are ways of organising the teaching schedule for the church; neither is laid down in Scripture as the right way.

Yet beyond these negative reasons for not prohibiting following the Christian year I think there are also a number of positive reasons why churches might consider following at least the basic pattern of the Christian year. In doing so we are following a rich tradition that has at least the wisdom of many generations of believers behind it. Let's look at a few of the arguments.

First, if we follow the Christian year there is a natural and welcome tendency to focus directly on the life and teachings of Jesus and the key events in the life of Christ's people, the Church. The Christian year is basically marked by reference to the key events in the life of Christ: his birth, his death, his resurrection and his ascension, the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the birth of the community of believers. Following the Christian year keeps Jesus and his life and teachings centre stage in our thinking. This is not always the case when pursuing a long series of expository sermons from the Old Testament or on other themes chosen by an individual minister or pastor.

Second, following the Christian year is a demonstration of the unity we share with Christians from many different churches and theological traditions. The Christian year can be a tool to remind us that we are part of a worldwide family and it fosters a sense of unity to be thinking of similar themes throughout the year with a large number of other believers. It gives us a sense that the whole church is sharing in worship together at particular times of the year. This is especially the case if the church is using a lectionary for readings shared across denominations.

Third, following the Christian year gives a pattern to our worship through the year and from year to year. For many people there is great comfort and spiritual benefit in the cycle of observing the great festivals of Christmas and Easter which focus on the two great truths of Christianity - that God became incarnate and came to earth in the man Jesus of Nazareth and that through his sacrificial death and rising from the dead he is shown to be the Lord and Saviour of the world.

Having grown up in a church which did tend to follow the basic pattern of the traditional year, with the addition of other "set days" like Mothering Sunday, Harvest Thanksgiving, Remembrance Sunday and Christian Aid Week I find it difficult at times to now be in a fellowship where such things are either totally ignored or perhaps briefly mentioned to the children but do not often form the backdrop to the sermon.

Perhaps this just means I am more of a traditionalist than I thought. There is benefit to working systematically through "the whole counsel of God". All Scripture is God-breathed and so all Scripture should be read and preached through in church services. That's agreed. But it should be possible to combine systematic expository preaching with marking the significant days in the Christian year. This is particularly the case if a church has two services on a Sunday, where different patterns could be used for morning and evening worship.


What is the Christian Year?

The Christian year begins in late November or early December with Advent and then runs through to twelve months, ending with Christ the King Sunday just before the beginning of the following advent. The seasons and significant days are shown in the following picture:

Advent

In the Christian year, "New Year's Day" is Advent Sunday, which is always fourth Sunday before Christmas and so it can occur be the last Sunday in November or the first Sunday in December. The season of advent follows, which focuses on waiting for the coming of the Messiah, whether that be his first coming as a baby or his second coming as Lord of glory

Christmas

Advent ends on Christmas Eve and then comes the Christmas season or Christmastide, the twelve days of Christmas, beginning on 25th December with Christmas Day and running through the (secular) new year to the evening of 5th January ("Twelfth Night"). This joyful time marks the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem and the coming of "the Saviour, who is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:11). Christmas Day is, along with Easter, one of the two greatest days of the Christian year. The Christmas period either includes one or two Sundays depending on what day of the week Christmas Day falls.

Epiphany

After Christmastide comes Epiphany on 6th January. The word "epiphany" comes from the Greek and means "manifestation" or "significant appearing". This festival celebrates the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ and particularly the fact that God came to earth for all the nations of the world. This was shown in visit of the Wise Men recorded in Matthew 2 which is usually the focus of Epiphany Bible readings. In some churches epiphany is celebrated on the nearest Sunday to the 6th January instead of on the 6th.

Ordinary Time
 
The Sunday after Epiphany is usually used to mark the Baptism of Jesus and the beginning of his public ministry. This jump from his birth to his baptism is in line with the same jump found in the Gospel narratives. The period after this is the first period of so-called "Ordinary Time" in the Christian year. "Ordinary" in this sense has the same root as "ordinal" and means "counted" period. This period of Ordinary time lasts until Shrove Tuesday and can include anywhere from three to eight Sundays depending on when Easter falls in a given year. In terms of the secular calendar, this period occurs from January to either February or March. The teaching during this period usually focuses on Christ's earthly ministry and his teachings in parables.The last day of Ordinary Time is Shrove Tuesday.

Lent

Lent is a period of forty days between Ash Wednesday and the Saturday before Easter (although there are actually 46 days between Ash Wednesday and Easter, the six Sundays are not part of Lent). Lent is a period of re-dedication to God and solemn preparation for Easter through prayer, repentance, self-denial and giving to the poor and needy. The teaching focus during Lent is on Christ's life of dedication to his Father's will and his sacrificial giving of himself on the cross. The forty day period is reminiscent of Israel's 40 year wandering in the wilderness and Christ's 40 days of fasting and temptation in the desert. Many Christians will give up certain luxuries as a token of self-denial and reliance on God (often giving the money that would have been spent to charities working with the poor).

Passiontide and Holy Week

The last two weeks of the Lent period is known as Passiontide and Passion Sunday (the fifth Sunday of Lent) traditionally focuses on the atonement made by Christ on the cross. Passion here refers to Christ's sufferings on behalf of believers.

The final week of Lent is usually known as Holy Week. Beginning on Palm Sunday when Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the beginning of his last week on earth is commemorated. The following days of Holy Week tie in with the events recorded in the Gospels during this week. The week comes to a climax on Maundy Thursday, the day that Christ celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples and then Good Friday itself which commemorates Christ's crucifixion. Holy Week ends with the Saturday during which Christ was dead and buried in the tomb.
 
Easter

Easter Day is the most important day of the Christian year. It is the Sunday when the whole church celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The dates of most Christian days and seasons are determined in relation to Easter which is a "movable feast" meaning its date varies from year to year. The date of Easter itself is determined by a very complicated method relating to the full moon near the vernal equinox, but it can be any date from 22 March through to 25 April. This means that in the Northern Hemisphere, Easter comes during the spring season when the land changes from the death of winter and new life comes to the world, which makes a striking backdrop to the new life that comes through Christ.

Easter Day marks the beginning of the Eastertide period or "Great Fifty Days" that run from Easter Day through to Pentecost or Whitsunday. Eastertide is a fifty day celebration of the resurrection. The period corresponds to the fifty days in the Gospels and Acts between Christ's resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It includes Ascension Day which is always on a Thursday, exactly 40 days after Easter.

The teaching themes in this period typically focus on Christ's resurrection and ascension and the implication of these great truths for the people of God.

Pentecost

Pentecost (which means "Fiftieth Day" in Greek as it occurs fifty days or seven weeks after Easter). Pentecost is also known as Whitsunday. It is the day when the church celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost always occurs in May or June.

Ordinary Time and Kingdomtide

The second period of Ordinary Time begins the day after Pentecost in May or June and runs right through to the day before Advent Sunday in late November or early December.

The first Sunday of this period, a week after Pentecost, is called Trinity Sunday and the church's teaching focuses on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, that the one true God exists as three persons. Other significant dates within this period include All Saints' Day on 1st November, which, in Protestant terms, marks the unity between all Christians (who are all "saints") and the bond between the church militant on earth and the church triumphant in heaven, and Christ the King Sunday which is the last Sunday of the Christian year and focuses on Christ's lordship over his church and the world.

In some parts of the church, the second half of the Ordinary Time period, from the Sunday nearest 31st August through to Christ the King Sunday is known as Kingdomtide and focuses on the concept of the Kingdom of God and the reign of Christ on earth and heaven with all that is implied by that for the world in spiritual, missional and political terms including the need for social justice in the world. Although Kingdomtide is not commonly observed now as a distinct period, I think there is good reason for reviving this season in the church calendar.

As well as these traditional church days and seasons, many churches also observe a number of other annual events and festivals. Among these would typically be in the UK a focus on international aid during Christian Aid Week in May, Harvest Thanksgiving in September or October, Remembrance Sunday in November. Some Protestant churches also have Bible Sunday on the last Sunday in October or perhaps they may mark the beginning of the Protestant Reformation on 31st October.

Ethics in a Permissive Society

Ethics in a Permissive Society
William Barclay
Collins, Fontana Books 1971

I first read William Barclay's little book on Christian ethics when I was a student in the early 1990s. I found a copy in the University library and remember reading it one rainy afternoon. The book was about 20 years old at that point and despite the dated title (the "permissive society" was a term used in the 1960s as shorthand for the huge changes in social, political and moral norms that were taking place in the UK at that time) it still read as an interesting book on Christian ethics. Now the book is over 40 years old and it still reads well as a vision of practical Christian ethics and paints a picture of the good society built on the Christian ethic of loving your neighbour that many of us would like to see.

The book originated in a series of public lectures (the Baird Lectures) that were televised on BBC. That in itself is a sign of how old the book is. Can you imagine a professor of divinity's lectures on Christian ethics being televised on BBC these days? Unfortunately I could find no trace of the broadcasts online but if anyone knows where these can be found, please put a link on a comment!

Barclay was a popular Christian figure during his lifetime. His books and commentaries are still widely read today. Barclay was a liberal Christian and there would be parts of his teachings (denial of miracles etc.) that I would strongly disagree with, but this book on ethics sticks quite closely to lines of biblical thought. Barclay's writing style is easy to read and marked by a welcome clarity and wisdom.

The first three chapters of the book sketch out some of the main ethical teachings of the Old Testament, Jesus and Paul respectively. Then Barclay explains and critiques the then popular ethical notion of "situation ethics" where there are no absolute rights and wrongs, it depends on the situation. From this platform, Barclay then explores a Christian view of work, pleasure, money and community in subsequent chapters and ends the book with a chapter on "Person to Person Ethics".

I found the chapters on the ethics of work and of pleasure the most useful. You don't often see "pleasure" being discussed in Christian ethics books but Barclay's practical approach is very wise and useful. Barclay sums up the view he defends like this:

In life there must be pleasure, and the ideal pleasure is that which is harmless to the person who indulges in it and to all other people, which brings help to him who practices it and happiness to others.

I don't think many Christians would disagree with that.

I also found it interesting that on ethical matters at least, a man who was a prominent liberal in the Church of Scotland 40 years ago would now likely be regarded as holding to very conservative evangelical ethical views. Whatever his other views, I think Barclay is to be commended for his honesty and integrity here. As the Church of Scotland prepares to debate the issue of homosexuality once again at this year's General Assembly in a few weeks, perhaps some might reflect on the words of Barclay's ethical views. Though discussing heterosexual sex outside marriage (I think Barclay would have taken it for granted that homosexual activity is wrong and it would certainly be included in the "sex outside of marriage" that he criticises), his words have a relevance for the forthcoming debate that is hard to miss:

If we support sexual intercourse before marriage or outside marriage, then I do not see how we can continue to call ourselves Christian, for a man cannot be a Christian and flatly contradict the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is one thing honestly to say that we will abandon the demands of Christian morality; it is quite another thing to abandon them and to deceive ourselves into thinking that we are still keeping them.

The book is long out of print but you may be able to find a second hand copy, often at a very low price. It would be a worthwhile purchase even for the chapters on work and pleasure alone, but there is much else here in a short book worth reflecting on.

William Barclay on the Importance of Games and Sport to Church Life

"In the new world, in which the time after work matters so much, the church must become the centre of the community. Of course, a church is a place where men praise and pray, but a church should be far more than that; the church should be the place to which men turn to find the satisfaction of every honest need in life. It is one of the great truths that the better we know a person the more deeply and truly we can worship with him. We can pray best with the man with whom we have played best. The man beside us in church should not be a holy stranger but a living friend."

– William Barclay, Ethics in a Permissive Society (1970)