Dutch Christian Parties Support Euthanasia for Children
Guest Post by Clive
It came as something of a shock when I first learnt that Holland had a 'Bible belt'
Holland! Liberal, sexually relaxed, secular, progressive Holland. The country you visited for their "coffee shops" and to stare at the prostitute's sitting in the windows, flaunting their wares.
Or so I'm told.
Now I will admit to not being especially knowledgeable about Holland, so in the same way that many outside the UK have a view of this country formed by what they see about London, my view of Holland is heavily weighted by what I know of Amsterdam.
So it's pretty much sex and drugs, with a bit of Anne Frank thrown in.
Saying all that, I wasn't surprised to read that Holland had just announced plans to legalise euthanasia for 1 to 12 year old children. It was after all the first European country to legalise euthanasia for adults. I was surprised when one of the reports I read mentioned that there were two Christian Parties as part of the government coalition.
For any government coalition to achieve a majority in Hollands House of Representatives, they need to secure 76 votes. The coalition formed in 2021 has 78. The two Christian parties between them account for 20 of the votes. Surely enough to threaten the existence of the government if they so wished on key Christian issues?
What about these parties? Why have they remained in the coalition and willing to support this change?
Both the two Christian parties have positions on euthanasia which are opposed to the Government's proposal. They do however have differences between one another. The bigger of the two, the CDA, is opposed to any further relaxation in abortion and euthanasia laws and wants to keep limited. The smaller party, the CU, wants to reverse the current laws. Either way, they should both in theory be opposed to the announced changes.
.jpg)
The CDA founded in 1977 by the amalgamation of the Catholic People's Party, the Anti-revolutionary Party, and the Christian Historical Union Party, focuses more on Christian "values", then does the CU which is more overtly Protestant Christian party and holds to "biblical principles" and has a stricter line on what it would see as God inspired morality.
This difference is reflected in their respective positions on euthanasia.
The proposed changes were subject to an extensive national consultation first announced by the Government in 2020 but COVID, a scandal, and the calling of an election which resulted in months of negotiations before a new government was formed, put this on the back burner.
The likely stresses within the coalition with regards euthanasia was identified and addressed in 2017, when the four parties first formed a government and an agreed understanding was worked out. The following outlined some of the basic principles of the coalition;
"Certainly when it comes to issues relating to life and death, there is sometimes a fundamental difference in opinion in society and politics. In the field of medical ethics there are major differences of opinion between the parties that form the basis of the new government’."
[Note the term euthanasia isn't even mentioned. Indeed, in the written discussions it was referred to under the euphemism as "a completed life."]
"In deciding on these subjects, existing legislation and regulations are the starting point for all parties. When there is a reason to adjust these laws and regulations, the government will do so in a manner that considers the conviction of all parties that the government support and on the basis of the general assessment framework as described below.”
It is an agreed principle in Holland that a new government respects the completed legislation of the previous government. So by agreeing to enter the coalition the parties of government agreed to the status quo. So already compromising both the Christian parties on euthanasia, although easier for the CDA to accept, the position for the CU should have been much more difficult.
For most of the proposed legislation contained in the agreement there was easy agreement, with both the CDU and CU happy to sign up to the progressive agenda. It was the more morality-based issues that caused the tensions in the negotiations.
National consultations can go on for a very long time.
So why has the LD's resurrected the issue now, as it still represents a threat to the coalition?
The Health Minister. Ernst Kuipers, made the following statement:
"This is a very complex subject that deals
with harrowing situations that you would not wish on anyone. I am pleased that
after intensive consultation with all parties involved, we have come to a
solution with which we can help these terminally-ill children, their parents
and also their practitioners."
In short, both of the Christian based parties have agreed to support the announced change. Both have agreed to compromise what are surely their God based understanding on this issue for the benefit of the coalition.
Why?
Well I don't know. I could speculate. They may have been convinced that the alternative would be worse and a majority for it would be easily found within parliament.
So they will agree to the least bad option? Or perhaps being in government, being important, matters to them? Either way, does it not corrode their credibility?
But let's get back to the Bible belt for a minute.
There is a third Christian party represented in parliament the Reformed (as in Calvinist) Political Party, which has three representatives, but has never been part of a government, has always been in opposition and, in its current final form, is Holland’s oldest party. Because of this it's known as a 'Testimonial Party' and attracts the majority of its support from the Bible belt. Because it has never been in government it has never had to compromise. But then again, has it ever mattered? Has it ever influenced legislation for the better?
And surely this is the problem for any religious based party. To matter it must compromise. Not compromise and it will not matter. Either way, is their credibility not damaged?
Or so I'm told.
ReplyDeleteHmm...
Good post, Clive. I don't think it is possible to be a 'successful' Christian in politics without compromising your principles, that is, if we define 'successful' as being in a position of power with the ability to make significant changes.
I'm surprised that we don't have euthanasia legislation here (yet), given the culture of death to which the West seems to be in thrall. I think the euthanasia issue is muddied by the fact that we tend to keep people alive medically beyond the point that we should do and, having lost sight of God and the idea that suffering can have any value, we have such a terrible fear of suffering and death in the West that it's seen as a 'mercy' to cut it short. All kinds of life-denying forces can find their way in to those cracks.
It is a problem , do we abandon the political sphere to secularism, with no Christian input, or do we accept the necessary compromises?
DeleteLook what happened to Tim Fallon, or more recently the SNP MSP who stood as leader and got into trouble over same sex marriage.
Such legislation has been presented before parliament as private member bills, but not yet presented by a government.
To scared!
Clarification last paragraph refers to a possible euthenasia bill!
DeleteIt's a difficult question. St. Paul says that it's not the business of Christians to judge those outside the Church (1 Cor. 5:12-13), so is it even incumbent on Christians to enter politics and seek to place 'Christian values' on a secular society in the first place. There are no Christian values without Christ anyway. If society wants to let people get married to their pets or euthanise themselves, is it not a case of 'let the dead bury their own dead'?
DeleteI wonder if Christians aren't better off simply focusing on growing churches and spreading the Gospel. The world is supposed to be against us anyhow, so continually compromising achieves nothing. As for the wider picture, as Jahaziel prophesied: 'Do not be afraid nor dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours, but God’s' (2 Chron. 20:15).
My problem is I'm too bloody minded to simply walk away from the fray like that. I would still want to put my pennies worth in. BUT that's probably a failing on my part.
DeleteI actually agree with you. Why are we wasting energy fighting battles that we are probably going to lose? Are we simply trying to impose our beliefs and if so is this not a mistake.
I've read Christian's complaining that allowing same sex marriage, devalues the institution. I've never held to that. The importance of my vows are independent of what others do. I think as a body we should remember that we are only responsible for our own actions. I haven't sinned because two men get married, I will have only sinned by my own actions.
Besides which, if people do not believe, why should they listen? In that sense, SSM is completely logical.
I have taken to referring to my status as holy matrimony, which is a bit pompous, but for me distinguishes my status form a SSM.
Euthenasia however is more problematic, as the measure as to whether a particular person should be allowed to be killed by the state is harder to define and inevitably changes.
I don't think we necessarily have to walk away, but I think Christian lobby groups advocating for Christians (or even all faith communities in general) would be a more effective use of our time than going into institutional politics. The main drawback of our democratic system, as I see it, is that it encourages chronic short-termism where the object of politics is not to act on principle, but to stay in power. This breeds politicians who simply leap from one bandwagon to the next to appease the people they think will keep them in power (the disproportionately amplified voices of The Guardian and Twitter). As you say, in this battleground, Christians (of integrity) are going to lose.
DeleteI agree with you about SSM. If society believes that marriage is simply mutual support and erotic fulfilment, then SSM is quite logical. Why should we expect non-believers to share the understanding that marriage is a reflection of God and a type of Christ and his Church? If same sex non-believers wish to get married, the best of luck to them. I think you're using holy matrimony is perfectly valid: it's a union hallowed by God, not just a contract.
Yes, euthanasia is more difficult because it raises fundamental questions about the value of life and the role of the state which aren't specifically religious considerations. There is a very thin line between easing the passage of death or withdrawing treatment (and a more honest conversation has to be had about that), and bringing death on prematurely. My concern is that it never seems to stop at helping those who are at, or beyond, the end of their natural lives die more comfortably, but that it gets extended to encompass those with a reduced 'quality of life' - the depressed or the disabled etc.
I'm sure I replied to this. Have you stolen my post, Jack?
DeleteNope ....
Delete雲水 & Prof Clive,
Delete"There are no Christian values without Christ anyway."
OK, but if the God of Christianity exists and He is the source of all morality - which is something that I'm guessing we all agree on here - then surely that morality applies to all humans, and we would theoretically be remiss not to point this out even to our fellows who are outside the faith.
I have tended to take a, err, 'Jordan Peterson-esque' stance on the SSM issue: 'marriage' throughout history and societies has meant a relationship between male and female, and a change to that would not be organic but would require compulsion, which you can only do if you are willing to identify as a totalitarian.
Truth is truth, yes, and it can be valuable to share Christian 'values', but there's no biblical grounding for 'enforcing' (for want of a better word) them on non-Christians. Even the OT law was only applicable to Israel and the foreigners who sojourned among them, it didn't set out universal standards for everyone. Christianity is a call to relationship with the living God, it isn't a set of behavioural standards to be practiced. I think we often get that inverted.
DeleteI think the JP argument is valid, and it's one that can be made without invoking religion - the continuation of society depends on male female relationships bearing children, etc. But society chooses to redefine things. SSM is effectively indistinguishable from civil partnerships, theologically; it lacks components that Christians would say are essential for it to be matrimonial (a word that has motherhood as its root, incidentally).
@Lain, I agree we do need a proper look at end of life care and a clearer understanding of the blurred border between euthenasia and simply withholding treatment or treating someone knowing it will shorten life.
DeleteThanks for this, Clive. It's an intriguing subject, for me personally not generally as obvious as the debate over abortion. But, surely, isn't a child considered not capable of making a decision about ending its life, as it is also not considered capable of marrying or buying booze, or whatever? It's therefore techically speaking infanticide rather than euthanasia, I'd have thought.
ReplyDelete(As a side note, surely any MP in a parliamentary system matters, as one day he or she might hold the balance of power, and then there are presumably always the speeches that could be made... so, long may the Testimonial Party avoid compromise.)
isn't a child considered not capable of making a decision about ending its life
DeleteI presume this is ultimately a parental decision, but remember that we're living in an age pushing for the right to choose to medically sterilise yourself to 'affirm your gender' long before you're old enough to buy cigarettes.
Well exactly. The same parallel had occurred to me too.
DeleteHi GD, It will be a parental decision. The criteria is quite strict. No hope of recovery and in such pain beyond the ability of palliative care to control.
DeleteHowever like all these things I suspect it will slip and become looser in the requirements.
Hi Clive. I suppose it figures that Holland would be the place where something like this could become law. Presumably doctors will deliberate about the hopes of recovery and the levels of suffering - but how much do we want to trust the medical profession now after all the things that were done and said during the pandemic?? I'm not sure I want to think about the possibility of a parent being about to say: "Tidy your room, Dirk, or I'm popping down to the hospital to get this form signed!"
DeleteWell this isn't the post to debate the response to COVID. For what it's worth, I think most of the actors tried their best, in a difficult situation, with the often contradictory I information supplied. My real worry is that no one at the moment seems in a rush to do a proper lessons learnt.
DeleteHi GD, a further point the Dutch government estimates that between 5 and 10 children will be affected by this extension of the rules. So the impact of the change should be measurable.
DeleteClive, indeed, I wasn't suggesting that we discuss things like that here, and one's heart most assuredly goes out to medical staff who valiantly did the very best in difficult times.
DeleteWith regards the Reform party, you can respect their decision not to compromise, however it has to be said, looking at Dutch society in the round, it doesn't seem to have had much impact.
ReplyDeleteIn a pluralist, liberal- democracies with several ideological streams seeking power it's difficult for one party to obtain more than 50% of the votes that don't poses a challenge to religious parties that base themselves on ‘universal’ God given values. They have the choice to stay in an oppositional role in Parliament and continue giving voice to their opinions, or to seek alliances with parties to to form a government. This applies to individual politicians in predominantly two-party systems in 'first-past-the post' voting. The latter approach implies that they must be prepared to reach compromises with other parties (or within their party) that renounces the ‘eternal’ values faith based parties (or individuals) claim to represent.
ReplyDeleteSqueezed between political realities and Christian values, politicians have decisions to make. Of course, for some this becomes easier as particular churches abandon traditional values and beliefs.
In Westminster there is a "Christians in Parliament", an All-Party Parliamentary Group, which exists to support all MPs and staff in the Houses of Parliament.
What I couldn't find information on was why the government didn't simply let the vote be one of conscience as we would have done in the UK? Why feel the need to have a common government position in the first place?
DeleteSurely it would have satisfied all parties and would have resulted in the government winning anyway?
What's all this we're hearing about Charles wanting to have a mixed Muslim-Christian coronation service? I've just had an email from Anton. He says:
ReplyDeleteYou might be unaware of and interested in a serious standoff behind the scenes here at present.
The order of service for the coronation was meant to have been published before Easter. Less than 2 weeks before the coronation, it still hasn’t been. The word - leaked publicly but not in the major media - is that Charles wants imams not only as guests but involved religiously, and Welby and the Dean of Westminster are insisting on the right of the CoE uniquely to crown the sovereign.
I think Welby can’t lose this one. Personally I have mixed feelings as I do not believe in Establishment (what would happen if a king said truthfully to the Archbishop “I don’t believe in God”?) but I don’t want imams anywhere near the constitution.
Can I ask, how would Anton know? I have read newspaper rumours on this, which have always been denied?
DeleteWhy would he want imams and not leaders of other religions also? Given Charles' worldview that might make some sense... with Welby allowed to be first among equals?
DeletePlease give Anton my regards if you talk to him - I miss reading his input.
@ Ray - Let Anton know he's welcome to forward a 'quest post' on this for publication.
DeleteThere's something going on! The Catholic Herald published this article by Gavin Ashenden a few weeks ago.
Lord Harries, the retired bishop of Oxford, made waves in 2014 when he publicly urged that the Koran should be read at the next coronation, in order to make Muslims feel they were included. This caused waves at the time, and it was pointed out that it would be difficult to know quite where to stop.
Why only the Muslims? One could hardly exclude the Bhagavad Gita and overlook Hindus, or the Sikh’s Guru Granth Sahib. And what should be read to represent the dramatic rise of the New Atheists led by Dawkins and Fry? Perhaps a few choice ironic phrases from “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” in memory of the wonderful Douglas Adams who did so much to put religion in its place? For Charles will be reigning as King in these islands for all faiths, and indeed for none.
Personally, HJ favours an established church - but not an heretical one.
an established church - but not an heretical one
DeleteIn keeping with the topic, is such a thing possible in the modern age?
The question is, who is empowered to give a ruling on which churches are heretical and which aren't? And the answer to that question, as I see it, can only be this: In a state where there is an established church, that church is the one empowered to rule on the matter. Any other answer, surely, would be at odds with the objectively verifiable state of affairs.
Delete@Ray - but does that not rather place the doctrine of the Church at the disposal of the state (as is the case with the CofE)?
DeleteProperly speaking, a heresy can only be defined by the institution from within which the heresy comes - thus the Orthodox Church would consider many CofE teachings heretical if they were advanced by Orthodox clergy, but simply as heterodox teachings when they come from the CofE since Anglicans aren't part of the Orthodox Church (despite the best attempts of 'branch theory'). I acknowledge that 'heretical' is chucked around much more broadly than this in common usage.
It seems to me that no church could be established (exceptions for such cases as the Vatican City State, of course) without being forced to compromise its teachings - committing heresy - at some point.
Better to remain faithful to orthodox teaching and become disestablished, than to advance heresy and become disestablished anyway. The problem inbuild into 'Protestantism' is that there is no leading authority to establish dogma and doctrine that is universally accepted. This was effectively built into the DNA of Anglicanism at its birth.
DeleteI think that the Reformation's rejection of authority and the assertion that 'I am the captain of my soul' planted the seeds of postmodernism and today's culture of rewriting reality in one's own image.
DeleteAnglicanism is a contradiction in itself; founded by a king who wanted to preserve the form of catholicity while bending the institution to his own will. I always find it interesting how many theologians refer to the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Protestants and the Anglicans.
It brought with it Luther's acceptance of William of Ockham's nominalism - the theory that universal abstract ideas such as truth and goodness do not exist because they are not founded upon objective reality. A philosophical system claiming that everything outside the mind is completely individual: Reality cannot be comprehended through the use of universal and abstract concepts but only through the empirical study of specific, individual objects. It led to a shift from objectivity towards subjectivity and to the radical individualism of Presentism and later secular post-modernism.
DeleteThis article lays it all out.
I think we will never tire of these issues :-)
DeleteFirstly, I don't claim to be an expert on the Reformation of Luther et al (or Anglicanism), being more a follower of the Anabaptist tradition.
But 'The Reformation' surely did not reject 'authority' when it cited the books of the Bible (in whatever slightly varied forms they are presented in a canon) as the authority. All Christians and Christian denominations then interpret them as best as they see fit. I'm more than happy to consider tradtion - as early as possible, please - but interpretation is still interpretation, unless one considers one's interpreters to be as spirit-guided as St Paul, etc, which presumably is an option.
Any Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant Christian (except for Calvinists and any other theological determinists) might usefully say that "I am the captain of my soul" (and "the master of my fate") if we believe that freely accepting Christ or not determines our life and our afterlife.
Yours in prayer.
@ GD
DeleteThe Reformation rejected the authority of the Church in determining doctrine and matters of Christian living. In doing so, the Reformers were forced to replace it with something else, and so concocted the novel idea that the individual believer could, as you say, interpret the Bible as they see fit. This relies on the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture (which itself appears nowhere in Scripture, which is always exhorted to be 'taught'), which states that the Bible is, as Anton once described it, 'self interpreting'.
The immediate disagreement between the prominent Reformers over significant issues of salvation - such as the reality (or not) of the Eucharist - should have been a warning sign that this position was a nonstarter. It's also historically clear that the Church pre-dates the Bible and so the idea of 'the Bible' (which one?) as the sole source of authority for Christians is anachronistic, unless one engages in some special pleading for the early Church, or claims only some of the Bible is necessary for salvation (how much?). Even the NT give equal authority to teachings of the Church received outside of the written word (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:12; Titus 1:9 etc.), or what we would call Holy Tradition.
The history of biblical interpretation that followed the Reformation is demonstrative: modern Christians are now engaged in arguing about things that were decided centuries or millennia ago in the Apostolic Churches, each genuinely believing that they are 'in accordance with Scripture', but in reality simply in agreement with their own interpretations.
As for being master of one's soul; no - to be a Christian is to be, in St. Paul's favourite phrase, 'a slave of Christ' - to be 'dead to ourselves', but on Christ's terms and not ours. Few of us fully manage this, but the Apostolic Churches show us what it looks like. On the other hand, if one interprets the faith as one sees fit, then one submits to Christ only so much as one has decided that one should: one need only find a denomination that agrees that it's fine to be married to a person of the same sex, or to be greedy, or whatever one's peccadillo is.
Pray for me, a sinner!
Ok it's your fault, but I'm going to have to go the full hypocrite and put my tuppence in.
DeleteAnton's position was nonsensical. Even if we accept his basic argument that the NT was written in a form of Greek that was meant to be easy for those listening to and reading scripture to understand, his point fails to address that whilst this maybe true, it was true for 1st Century Christian's and not 21st Century Christian's who mainly read it as an interpretation and will be unaware of the meaning of the cultural influences of what the original writers were saying.
However upon saying all this, whilst I understand the argument about the importance of tradition and am willing to accept this to a point, I'm not convinced that it can claim to be innerent .
Like wise whilst I respect the theological hard graft that the RCC has done in Christian understanding. Which lets be honest is most of what we understand. However I cannot but feel that some of what the church says and by that I mean the Roman Catholic Church isn't based on self-interest but by that mean I mean the inerrancy of the church itself. I don't believe that.
In short to be honest, I think the battle over inerrancy is a waste that I don't believe it is possible for any of the traditions of the church to claim that it is innerent. We all need to acknowledge that as human beings we are just not capable of it.
Dear lord, excuse my gibberish, long comment by phone shouldn't be tried!
DeleteOk I give up, how do I delete?
Delete雲水,
DeleteI wrote a lot here and it crashed out and was lost, it seems, I will try again later.
Suffice to say for now that I was hoping for a fullsome reply from yourself on this topic, in which I am not so well versed, and you didn't disappoint.
@ Clive
DeleteWe're all hypocrites, I'm just helping you to embrace it 😁 (and it's not gibberish at all).
Yes, it's correct that Koine Greek is 'common' Greek, but that simply meant that it was a language shared across the Mediterranean world and those areas that had been 'civilised' by Alexander the Great and later became a common language across the Roman Empire. It was the equivalent of the way in which English was the common language of the British Empire. It's also true that Classical Greek was the language of the intelligentsia, but most of the NT scriptures were written by 'common' men (St. Mark's Gospel is written in particularly rough Greek). But I think it's a stretch to say, as Anton has, that the use of Koine implies that the NT was written to be easy for anyone to understand (2 Pet 3:16, Acts 8:31 and the frequent descriptions of St. Paul teaching imply the opposite). The argument also reads backwards into antiquity the immense impact that the post-Reformation development of mass printing, literacy and education had on the modern world: the early Church didn't read the scriptures so much as hear them and be taught them. The fact that one needs to draw on voluminous commentaries to explain the 'context' or 'setting' of the verses and endless speculation about 'what the author really meant' also rather undermines the claim of perspicacity.
In regards to inerrancy, I can play my Orthodox Cop Out Card (TM) here and say that inerrancy is a Western concept arising from the Reformation disputes and doesn't exist in the Eastern Church in the same way. The closest that we come is saying that the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, where the Church speaks as one, are authoritative and binding. As far as Scripture is concerned, to the OC it derives its authority because it was compiled and used by the Church as part of its living tradition; it cannot be taken out of or set against the received teachings of the Church. So textual criticism, which is the basis of a lot of modern western scholarship, isn't really a thing in the OC. Orthodox scholars aren't concerned, for example, with whether St. Paul 'really wrote' all the epistles attributed to him, or if some are pseudepigraphic. It is simply enough that the letters were seen as accurate representations of the Gospel and spiritually useful by those who knew Christ and/or the Apostles and made part of the life of the Church.
@GD - thank you, there are many deficiencies in my explanation - it's hard to do justice to 2000 years of history in such a small space! I'm aware that keeping language economical for the sake of brevity can sometimes come across as terse or pointed; if it does, apologies; that's not my intention.
Delete@lain, í was wondering about the Orthodox view on inerency. I suspected it wasn't the same as the western church, thanks for the clarification.
DeleteInteresting your point about Paul's letters, I had a long time ago come to the same conclusion.
There appears to be only two groups who demand that to understand the bible and. who it's various authors are, requires a literal approach and that's fundamentalists and atheists.
And atheists only do so, to make belief appear ridiculous.
And because their theological understanding is worse than mine!
It's ironic that the extremes of fundamentalism and atheism share the same way of reading the Bible. I think a lot of the militant 'new atheist' movement is rooted in a particularly American fundamentalist view of Christianity.
DeleteI had this discussion at length with Anton. I don't believe, for example, that God commanded the Israelites in the OT to wipe out the women, children and babies of those who occupied the promised land before them. God doesn't delight in infanticide - this is contrary to his revealed personality in Christ. I believe that the OT stories are a theological retelling of what is (probably) an historical event or amalgam of events. They're included in Holy Scripture because they teach important lessons about trusting in God, not oneself or one's king, and the importance of trying to weed out all traces of sin in one's life.
The counterargument was that, if we couldn't take the OT accounts as being literal history, nor could we take the resurrection account as being literal history. But for me, my faith is rooted in the fact that the resurrection, as far as I can see, is encoded into nature and anticipated by most religious consciousness through history and witnessed to by a large group of believers whose lives were irreversibly changed and suffered greatly for proclaiming it. Their descendants still exist in the Church today, and it wouldn't matter to me if they'd never put pen to parchment.
I remember having an argument with Martin years ago. There is a belief that if something is included in the Bible it must be right ie as in your example above.
DeleteI think the bible still asks us to critically question actions and events and ask is this the God that Christ has revealed. And frankly I believe that these incidents were written by the authors of the massacres as an attempt to bring God on their side to justify what they knew to be wrong.
Bit like what Mohammed attempts to do as revealed by the Koran.
雲水,
DeleteOk, let's try again. (I very much wasn't criticising any deficiencies or lack of bevity, so no need for apologies).
As humans interpret things all the time, I don't think I can agree that individual believers interpreting the Bible is a novel idea at all. Surely any text - unless it is willfully meant to be nonsensical - is intended to be understood, and I've never seen the instruction "get somebody else to explain this to you" on Scripture or on any other text. (If Anton were here he could explain his 'self interpreting' theory.... but still he doth tarry...)
For sure the teaching of the church is important, but I'm not sure that Thessalonians 2:15 helps your argument: "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." The latter we have, approved by the early (and later) church, while the former may have been passed down intact or have easily been corrupted on the way; I'd rather trust the former.
Yes indeed we should be slaves of Christ, but a slave still has some freedom to wriggle in his chains - or even to try to escape; my point was about free will, which, untill I find a true saint, I will continue to believe is our common lot.
I think you'll find that there is a variety of denominations out there that tolerate peccadillos such as greed.
It's not a matter of the text being uninterpretable, but in who holds the authority to do so in matters of doctrine: the individual or the mind of the Church.
DeleteI don't think I can agree that individual believers interpreting the Bible is a novel idea at all.
But it is. The Bible didn't exist for the first few centuries of the Christian Church, and it was very rare - prior to mass printing - for most people to own their own literature, so it simply couldn't have happened. The (much later) writings of the early fathers indicate that scripture was meditated on individually for spiritual enrichment, but 'Bible study' as we think of it today is a very recent invention. There's also no precedent in the Old Testament for individuals (barring appointed leaders and prophets) interpreting texts outside of a communal context.
I've never seen the instruction "get somebody else to explain this to you" on Scripture or on any other text.
Scriptural truths are received and passed on by teachers and authority figures in the NT, they're never just arrived at on their own.
[A] man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet. Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.”
So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.
Acts 8:27-31
Then [Jesus] said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
Luke 24:25-27
The latter we have, approved by the early (and later) church, while the former may have been passed down intact or have easily been corrupted on the way; I'd rather trust the former.
We don't have the originals of either Testament. How do we know that they haven't been corrupted: copyist errors are very common - those ancient manuscripts that we do have have multiple textual variants. Who decides which is correct? Then there's the question of which canon we use. Who decides what books are in and which are out? Clearly, if the Church is secondary to Scripture, the Church cannot decide the contents of Scripture. If the Church can't be trusted to hand down Apostolic teachings, and if authority lies with individual believers, every believer must also reject all doctrine that isn't immediately apparent in Scripture: the equality of the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ (even his divinity), and so on. The Jehovah's Witnesses' reading of Mk 1:1 of Christ being 'a son of god' becomes equally as valid as the traditional understanding of Christ as 'the son of God' (and, again, some manuscripts omit 'the son of God' in Mk 1:1 completely - who decides whether to include this incredibly significant extension to the verse?)
Yes indeed we should be slaves of Christ, but a slave still has some freedom to wriggle in his chains - or even to try to escape
Yes, but a slave doesn't get to set the terms of their enslavement. They can't say, 'I don't like cocoa, I think I'll be enslaved on a cotton plantation'. Personal Bible interpretation allows that liberty.
@ Clive - he'd better steer clear of Gen. 19:30-38 then!
DeleteI think that you're right, there are many reasons why the texts could have come into being, but they had a value that led to them being retained (unlike the books of history referenced in Kings and Chronicles etc., which were lost). It seems to me quite clear that we, as Christians, have to understand the partial revelations of the OT in the light of the full revelation of Christ rather than the other way around (this is also the Orthodox position), and Christ never commanded his followers to dash out the brains of their enemy's infants. Otherwise, you get a borderline psychotic Father hiding behind a kind and loving Son and the incarnation is a lie (which makes Marcion a hero for cutting out the OT, rather than a heretic!)
There's a marked change from the triumphalism of the early part of Israel's history to the soul-searching (post)-exilic books trying to justify why everything could have gone so wrong for them if their god is so mighty. It's a messy record of the messy history of a messy people struggling to see God 'through a glass, darkly', and it has value because I think we all go through those same struggles - the desert, the self-assurance, the faithlessness, the falling away and running back, the feeling that God has abandoned us. If the OT is simply a literal historical record, then I can't see much point in reading it more than once.
"Scriptural truths are received and passed on by teachers and authority figures in the NT, they're never just arrived at on their own." The Bereans didn't seem to have any bother.
DeleteBut the text with Philip and the Ethiopian is a good one for your case, I'll happily give you that! (And who wouldn't have wanted to have received guidence from somebody who had actually known Christ?) However, this hardly represents 'church tradition', and the chance of any priest these days knowing what Philip said is vanishingly small, whereas the texts we have from that time might only contain a copyist's error or two.
Your parallel with slavery does not work for me. I assume we agree that we have both volunatarily chose enslavement to Christ. And while I feel free to use my God-given powers of intellect and appreciation of morality to read the Bible - assisted, of course, by wiser men who may guide me - you used yours to decide which church denomination to join (even staying within traditional 'Apostolic Succession' you had a range to choose from, adhering to different numbers of ecumenical councils and having different scriptural canons), and now, although you are presumably required to always adhere to their interpretations, you had and still have the option to leave and find interpretions that you prefer. You also may prefer to be enslaved on a different plantation.
All the best!
And who wouldn't have wanted to have received guidence from somebody who had actually known Christ?) However, this hardly represents 'church tradition', and the chance of any priest these days knowing what Philip said is vanishingly small
DeleteThis simply isn't true. We have much material passed down from figures who sat at the feet of the Apostles, such as St. Polycarp who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. I think it does a huge disservice to those early Christians who often ended up watering the Church with their own blood, to suggest that they'd be careless enough with those sacred teachings to pass them down accurately.
whereas the texts we have from that time might only contain a copyist's error or two.
Grab a copy of the UBS Greek NT, which is pretty good at listing variants, and see for yourself. Here is an article dealing with, among others, issues with variants of Jn 1:18, a key verse supporting traditional understandings of Christ's divinity. I've already noted that variants of Mk 1:1 can be as easily use to deny Christ's divinity as affirm it. These are significant variants. It seems inconsistent to me to say that the Church has no authority to decide these issues, but a group of Bible scholars and translators do.
This isn't to even start with the variant-ridden OT, where some passages are now simply incomprehensible. Or the fact that most English bibles draw on the Hebrew Masoretic text of the OT, written with an anti-Christian bias by Jewish scholars centuries after Christ, instead of the more Ancient Greek text which preserves many of the messianic texts that the
Masoretic text erases. Again, it seems strange to me to place so much faith in non-Christian communities and academic scholars to do something that one believes that the people who knew and loved Christ couldn't.
So to say that one views 'the Bible' as authoritative hits a very difficult speed bump in that there exist so many different canons and textual variants that it's not really to point to one thing know as 'the Bible'. One can, at best, say that one reads 'a Bible' - the contents of which have been decided by others. This is less of an issue, of course, if one is supported by 2000 years of authoritative understanding, but if one decides to view one's own interpretation as authoritative, then one ends up where we are today, with earnest 'Bible believing Christians' holding mutually contradictory views on vital matters of salvation.
I would disagree that I 'used [my powers of reason] to decide which church denomination to join' (and the Orthodox Church isn't a denomination, it's a pre-denominational church). It was only when I abandoned reliance on my own reason and surrendered it to Christ that I was led there. Choosing my church based on my own reasoning made me utterly miserable since, as the author of The Cloud of Unknowing writes, the intellect can never reach God. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
I forgot to add, as I've seen the used as exemplars before, that the Bereans were not sola scripturists. Acts 17 says that they heard Ss. Paul and Silas preach that Jesus was the Jewish messiah to whom the scriptures pointed (v 3) and that 'they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so' (v11). They simply verified the scriptural claims that Paul and Silas made. Again, they were taught to understand that the texts pointed to Christ. If scriptural perspicuity were true, they shouldn't have needed the pointer.
Delete雲水,
DeleteI don't doubt that we have writings from Polycarp's time with St. John the Apostle, and I'd love to read them; I was purely concerned with Philip's conversation with the Ethiopian, which, I'm guessing was not recorded.
You've mentioned the messianic texts and
Masoretic text before, and I really must look into that.
I guess that Christ (and the Holy Spirit) also led me to my church (I had little idea about its theology or style beforehand), as I pray they also lead me when I read (and necessarily interpret) Scripture.
I was not saying that the Bereans were necessarily sola scripturists - though they have surely been cited to support the idea! - but that they were at liberty to read Scripture - every day, as it happens -without anybody looking over their shoulder, and it seems that it was perspicacious for them as we have no record of them asking for explanations.
Ok, can I make an appeal that we don't make the mistake of going the full Cranmer and rehash old arguments that don't change anyone's mind? I'm enjoying the ecumenical spirit of this blog,!
ReplyDeleteCranmer got personal and abusive at times, whereas here we surely can discuss differences in a more amicable manner in the hope of sharing different understandings.
DeleteYou want to be more specific, Clive? :-) I suspect that most arguments here would inevitably be 'old' in some respects (as are many of the minds).
DeleteActually HJ and GD, you have changed my mind, what HJ says is true. As long as we can be respectful and gracious in our discussions, things will be fine.
DeleteIt can be as you wish. I feel I have plenty of questions and things to say, but I am probably still in 'Cranmer mode' to an extent. Anyway, I will give 雲水 a rest now and go off to read some Polycarp.
Delete@ Clive - we can have good disagreements and mutually flourish 😉.
DeleteUntil you all realise that I'm right, of course; a realisation that I shall accept with characteristic grace and benevolence.
Well, this thread soon left Dutch child euthanasia and got back to the old slugfest ground!
ReplyDeleteAs for euthanasia, we can be pretty sure that it will be a stalking horse for things to come. The right to die will become a duty to die because misery and depression are pretty much universal experiences at some time or other in a person's life, and there is certainly a lot of unhappy children around. Personally, I would favour laws banning under 18s from social media and massive fines for offending companies.
I was however interested in Anton's claim that Charles is trying to Islamify the coronation service. I wouldn't be surprised because Charles's grasp of Christian theology is as shaky as his grasp of Christian ethics, and if it is true that Westminster Abbey (as liberal a place as most of the C of E establishment - one of its clerical staff is in a lesbian relationship with a clergywoman I used to know) is opposing him, that would be good to hear. If Anton is following this site, it would be god to hear from him.
I suspect that the case for disestablishment will accelerate under this monarchy, I think rightly so. There's no guarantee that being born first in the line of succession makes you a devout Anglican, so making the monarch automatically the Supreme Governor of the CofE seems to be on shaky ground to me, particularly in the modern age.
DeleteWhat if Charles decides to return to his father's Greek Orthodoxy? Or becomes an atheist? Should he then abdicate and we rummage through the family line until we find an Anglican to take over? Or should he go against his conscience and just go through the constitutional motions pretending to be an Anglican? An atheist monarch is one thing, an atheist Supreme Governor is another (although being Christian doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for high office in the CofE these days, so maybe not).