Dear Christis,

In your last issue Laura Martindale-Sheldon condemned ‘New Age’ methods, as distinct from ends, of worship as “evil”. What is her justification for employing the term “evil” with such certainty, and the claim that Evangelical worship is “pure”, whatever that means?

Could it be the ‘secularity’ of ‘New Age-ism’ that disturbs? If so, given that there is scholarly evidence (cf. R. Bauckham The Bible in Politics) that some of the Book of Proverbs is derived from “common human experience” rather that a “salvation-historical context”, is the Book of Proverbs also “evil”? And are not modern ‘Christian worship’ songs an attempt, to some extent, to express a Christian faith in a way that people living in the modern pop music era may relate to?

Or maybe there is some passage from the Bible that ‘clearly’ condemns all aspects of late 20th Century New Age-ism and gives absolute credence to the worship of evangelicals? But then is this not the same book, written many centuries ago in a significantly different society, that urges women to remain silent in churches (1 Cor 14 v.34)? This is not to devalue Scripture, but does it not suggest a need to be very careful before issuing rash, judgmental, ‘clearly Biblical’ statements?

Is it not in fact the case that Laura is merely invoking strong language with religious connotations in an attempt to add authority to her individual dislike, maybe even the dislike of her ‘strand’ of the broad Christian faith, of what can be for some a fruitful way of approaching our God, creative Mother, caring Brother and Shalom-imparting Sister, in worship?

Yours, a CU member during my time at York,

Craig Myers.

Dear Christis,

I notice with interest that Christis has changed its disclaimer to note that only certain articles are ‘from a Christian viewpoint’. Might I ask whose Christian viewpoint this refers to? My information about the background of this shift (and I stand open to correction) is that certain members of the committee took exception to recent articles by professing Christians (Nic Tall and Joanna Chamberlayne) which were considered to be ‘unorthodox’. Might I suggest that shifting the goal-posts of orthodoxy to fit one’s prejudices is no substitute for informed dialogue?

For the record, I am at a loss to think of anything for which there is a single correct Christian view. Indeed, I would extend this to the issue of worship: contra Laura Martindale-Sheldon, who seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that the Evangelical Alliance has a monopoly on purity in this field. As an ex-member of the EA, I myself can testify that I am unable to put my finger on any ‘purity’ that it possessed. Indeed, retrospectively, the only uniform characteristics of most of the EA-aligned churches which I have attended were a predilection for a lack of imagination in worship, and the ability to trot out the same musical styles each week. Laura may like to consider that the style of worship which she espouses would have been opposed fifty years ago with exactly the same scorn with which she chastises Dave Tomlinson's ideas: ‘absorbing the evil methods of the New Age’.

Since, however, doctrinal purity appears to be the criterion by which articles are to be judged, I wish to draw attention to some serious concerns I have with ‘Dave Skipper’s Theological Column’: a column in which I myself can find almost nothing about Christianity, and its ‘theological content’ seems to me to bear no resemblance to any serious theological thought this century. I pick out several of the more problematic of the author’s assertions to which, given that I have just appealed for informed dialogue rather than dogmatic uniformity, I would be keen to read the author’s replies:

1. Contrary to that which is stated, I do not think that it is possible to say that God wrote the genealogies in the Bible (or any other part of it), but rather it seems to me that the Bible texts were composed by human authors, some of whom claimed for themselves ‘inspiration’. The nature of this inspiration remains unknown (and unknowable): the spectrum of opinion may include the possibility that the writers did receive the texts verbatim from on High, but equally the ‘inspiration’ of the texts may simply denote that the authors, feeling that they had an important insight into the nature of God, felt the urgent need to communicate this in writing and did so by drawing upon their own imaginations and experiences. I certainly favour the latter interpretation.
2. The author writes that “as for history, it is controlled by God and is all about His glory”. As a trained historian, I personally find no evidence to corroborate this assertion. Rather, I find the crucified and risen Christ manifest in countless historical acts of brutality and release. Meanwhile, the statement that “God has even the smallest irritating events [of history] in the palms of his hands” wilts before any serious consideration of the events of the last fifty years. I suggest the author might have difficulty upholding this view to those who lost relatives in Buchanwald, Hiroshima or Dunblane, but perhaps the writer can elaborate upon this. (Indeed, a well thought-out article of this kind would be a asset to Christis, perhaps Dave Skipper could channel his energies into this area?).
3. Concerning the author’s use of genealogies to prove (along with Archbishop Ussher) that the world is but a few thousand years old, I can do nothing other than respond that a visit to the local museum, paying particular attention to the geological and palaeotological sections, might be very informative. Personally, my approach to understanding the Biblical genealogies begins with a consideration that lacking such scientific knowledge a pre-modern writer who wanted to articulate a sense of the importance of the past could not have done so in any other way than through the skilful use of myth, name-lists and numerology, and that once we have realised that we ought not to treat the Bible too literally.
4. Finally, on contradictions in the Bible, which the author has been so kind as to offer his answers to, may I ask the following question regarding material used in the article on genealogy? The author notes the fact that the gentile woman Ruth was an integral part of God’s plan and an ancestor of Christ himself. Would the author please reconcile the apparent contradiction then, that elsewhere according to God’s plan as manifest in the writings of Ezra and the Pentateuch, marrying gentile woman is strictly forbidden, and that children of such illicit unions are to be cut off from Israel? Which plan was correct, or did God change His mind? This and numerous other inconsistencies, it seems to me, suggest that the Bible is not an unproblematic historical text book, but given that it does claim to offer insight into the nature of God it is worth while spending a considerable amount of time thinking about.

To conclude: the author remarks that “it’s tough, but a little background reading and delving really pays great rewards”. I would like to agree: understanding the Bible is tough, and any serious claim to theological awareness begins with the realisation that part of that exploration involves delving into the nitty-gritty of reality and then relating one’s faith to that experience, something that another David, Dave Spence, does admirably well in his own much more theologically aware article.

I look forward to reading future articles by Dave Skipper and admire anyone who seriously attempts to aspire to an understanding of theology, but I would wish that he first consider some of the issues I have raised, and seek to answer them in the light of his experience. Please, less self-appointed theologians counting angels on pin-heads — it is extremely misleading to Christians and non-Christians alike — and more critical grounded honest reflection.

Yours

Mark Smith