Talk of 'British values' is making waves in the world of education. Great Britain has often prided itself on its moral superiority over 'lesser breeds without the law'. But perhaps our 'values' haven't always been as pure as the driven snow. One tawdry example will suffice. The Daoguang Emperor of China was rather fed up with the his country being
flooded with illegal imports of opium by British merchants. He dispatched experienced Qing official, Lin Zexu to stamp
out the drug trade. Lin promptly rounded up the smugglers and impounded 20,000
cases of British-owned opium. The response of Whig foreign secretary Lord
Palmerston to this outrageous violation of free trade was swift and brutal. Two
ships of the line, two frigates and two flat-bottomed steamers were dispatched,
plus transport vessels with the capacity to carry six or seven thousand troops.
The aim of this bristling flotilla was to blast the Chinese authorities into
submission. Palmerston's gunboat diplomacy worked. The Daoguang Emperor's
feeble junks were no match for the likes of HMS Nemesis, an iron warship armed with rocket launchers and 32-pounder
guns. And so it was that British opium once more flowed into China and from
thence into the veins of its users, ruining countless thousands of lives. A
fine example of 'British values', free trade and all that, or a shameful
episode in our history? What do you reckon?
It was the furore over the Birmingham 'Trojan Horse' that affair led to a call that all schools should promote 'British values'. Defined as:
the rule of law
tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs
Interestingly these 'values' were first set out as being distinctively British as part of the government's 'Prevent Strategy' in 2011, designed to combat Islamic extremism (see here). Given what happened in Birmingham, one might be tempted to say that this strategy was none too successful in preventing the spread of extremist ideology. Undoubtedly something must be done at a number of levels to stop schools being infiltrated by Islamic extremism. Ofsted has questions to answer here, as schools it had previously rated Outstanding are now in Special Measures because they failed to protect students from being exposed to extremist ideology. Local Authorities did little to stop the rot despite complaints from Headteachers concerning the conduct of governors who were bent on imposing Islamic beliefs and practices on non-denominational schools. Not to mention the failure of the Department of Education to prevent academies sinking into a swamp of extremism. There are signs that what was uncovered in Birmingham was merely the tip of the iceberg, with similar issues coming to light in schools in Bradford and Tower Hamlets. But whatever their own failings in this area, the main response of the education authorities to these cases seems to be that of ensuring all schools promote 'British values'. And that is the matter to which I give attention in this post.
The very idea of linking values with nationhood is of course risible. As the sorry episode at the top of this article shows, our 'values' have not always been noble and true. Democracy in the sense of the right of all adult citizens to elect a government that is 'of the people, by the people and for the people' has not yet been in operation for a hundred years. In the heyday of British Imperialism 'the rule of law' sometimes meant little more than, 'Britannia Rules the Waves: buy our dope, or you're toast'. In any case, labeling the five 'values' as being in some sense uniquely British is an insult to other nations who hold to them as proudly and tenaciously as we ourselves. Are Johnny foreigners' values somehow substandard? No doubt the American, German, French and Australian peoples to say no more might resent such an implication.
That the five listed 'values' are prized in Britain as well as other lands is the result of a complex number of factors including admiration for the democratic ideals of ancient Greece, the impact of the Christian faith on western culture, notions of tolerance and freedom developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and so forth. The very notion of uniquely 'British values' is misleading and ever so slightly chauvinistic.
However they are labelled in terms of national ownership, it is now the duty of governors to make sure that the five core values are being promoted as part of their school's SMSC and PSHE curricula and also that students are taught about different beliefs in their Religious Studies lessons. Governance should operate on democratic principles, including the regular election of Chairs and Vice-Chairs, collective decision making and ensuring a separation of powers by maintaining the strategic/operational divide. Governors should be subject to the rule of law, working within the legal framework of the education system. They should model 'mutual respect' as people of different faiths or no faith work together in pursuit of the common good of their school.
It would be difficult to argue that school children should not be taught the importance of the five core values. Helping young people to understand the importance of democracy and the rule of law, and promoting a tolerant attitude towards those who may differ from us is all part and parcel of preparing them for adult life in modern Britain. However, problems may arise when measures designed to prevent the spread of extremist Islam are imposed upon schools where that is hardly a pressing danger. Overzealous Oftsed inspectors may be as interested in a school's commitment to political correctness as in assessing its Pupil Achievement or Quality of Teaching. Signs of that happening are already becoming all too apparent, here, hereand here. What about 'tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs' when it comes to schools with a faith-based ethos that, while noting the legal redefinition of marriage and making their students aware of it, continue to teach traditional marriage as the norm? What about the 'individual liberty' of governors, senior leaders and teachers when it comes to such matters? Are seemingly binding guarantees that were given when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was passed worth the paper they were written on?
The five 'British values' are perfectly unobjectionable in themselves. But there is a legitimate concern that they may be used as a mask for a secularising agenda that is designed to squeeze faith-based views out of the education system. If so, where does that leave Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, who voted against same sex marriage on the grounds of her faith (see here)? Will one of Sir Michael Wilshaw's PC hit squads soon be paying her a visit? I think not. Sauce for the goose isn't always sauce for the gander.
We're in a right Pickle when the Christian faith that helped shape so-called 'British values' is in danger of being sidelined in favour of hard nosed secularism. Some have used the 'Trojan horse' saga to argue that all state-funded schools should be made to forsake their religious ethos. But if history is anything to go by forcing faith out of public life doesn't guarantee that mutual respect and tolerance will prevail. That's not exactly what happened in Robespierre's France or Stalin's Russia now, is it? If the promotion of 'British values' in schools is policed in a doctrinaire and insensitive way, measures intended to safeguard liberty and tolerance could have the exact opposite effect. How un-British would that be?
When this book arrived for
review I didn’t know quite what to make of it. It promised an intimate
biography of a world famous couple; Billy and Ruth Graham. That the author
seemed so breathlessly awestruck at his first meeting with the Grahams didn’t
exactly dispel my misgivings. The thought of having to wade through over three
hundred pages of sycophantic hagiography stretched my commitment to book
reviewing almost to breaking point. But from a misguided sense of duty I decided
to plough on.
While I can’t exactly say that
I’m overjoyed that I did, there are some good things in this work. Nüesch isn’t
blind to the faults of his hero-couple and paints a very human portrait of the well-known
20th century Evangelist and his wife. Their commitment to each other
and the Lord whom they served is both endearing and challenging. Nüesch probes
the way in which their lives were marked by partnership, authenticity,
humility, integrity and so on. Ruth was evidently a woman of spirited piety and
a tower of strength to her husband.
Nüesch tells the story of
Graham’s emergence as globetrotting Evangelist and friend of US Presidents. He describes
some of the preacher’s key achievements, such as the founding Christianity Today and inspiring the
Congress of World Evangelisation, 1974 and its successors.
Theologically, Nüesch places
the Grahams on the Calvinistic side of the spectrum. Billy certainly believed
that only God can save lost sinners by the gospel preached in the power of the
Spirit. But his practice of issuing calls for people to come to the front to make
a public commitment to Jesus smacked more of Finney-style revivalism. The
writer says little about Graham’s accommodating stance towards Roman Catholicism.
Indeed at one point he sums up Billy and Ruth’s commitment to ‘compassionate
living’ by quoting the words of Mother Teresa.
Stylistically the book veers
from an intimate account of the faith and life of a couple to passages of conventional
biography that describe Billy’s evangelistic ministry and other endeavours. Nüesch
can sometimes be a little preachy in his eagerness to set forth the Grahams as
shining examples of Christian faithfulness. While not entirely hagiographical, the
writer fails to maintain the critical distance between himself and his subjects
that is necessary for a rounded biographical portrait. This title is not altogether
without value, but putting it kindly, I doubt it should be at the top of anyone’s reading
Systematics for God’s Glory: God, creation, decrees and
by Jonathan Bayes, Carey Printing Press, 2013 edition, 256pp
It is vital for all Christians
not simply to be familiar with the stories of the Bible and its basic
plot-line, but also to understand the teachings of Holy Scripture in a logical
and systematic way. That is the purpose of systematic theology. Preachers
especially need a solid grasp of the way in which biblical revelation hangs
together as a coherent whole. Having that will better enable them to preach
‘the whole counsel of God’. Some works of systematic theology are forbiddingly
large, dry and technical, but Jonathan Bayes has succeeded on producing a
systematic theology for the people of God.
This is the first contribution
to a projected three volume set of systematics. As the subtitle suggests, the
author covers the subjects of God, creation, decrees and providence. His method
throughout is first to grapple with the biblical teaching on the topic in hand,
second to draw on the insights of the creeds and confessions of the church,
third to chart key historical developments of the doctrine, and finally to
conclude with some words of personal reflection and application. This approach
can seem a little formulaic by the end of the book. It has its uses, but there are also limitations. For instance in the chapter on the Doctrine of God, the author's exploration of the biblical material is almost exclusively concerned with God's mercy. Discussion of God's oneness, power, spirituality, eternality and omniscience is divided between the creedal and historical sections of the chapter. It might have better had study of those attributes been rooted in the explicit witness of Scripture rather than the teachings of the church, however valuable. The approach works better in the chapter on the Doctrine of the Trinity, where the creeds and confessions use extrabiblical language in order to safeguard important biblical truths over and against heretical views. The writer also helpfully charts the important contributions made to the church's understanding of this great doctrine by Augustine and Calvin.
Bayes sees systematics as 'an attempt to have a tidy faith'.p. xi. That seems to imply that the truths of Bible are distributed in a rather haphazard fashion and it is the task of the theologian to arrange the jumbled pieces of the jigsaw to form a clear picture. But that is to do disservice to God's self-revelation in Holy Scripture. Biblical revelation is historical and progressive in character, but that does not mean that it is untidy or disjointed. There is more to systematics than a tidying up exercise. Theology is an endeavour to think God's thoughts after him and articulate God's talk after him. Systematic theology is faith seeking understanding of what Scripture as a whole has to say on key doctrinal topics set out in a logical order. In addition, theology is meant to be practical. According to John Frame, "Theology is the application of the Word by persons to the world and to all areas of human life." (Salvation Belongs to the Lord by John Frame, P&R, 2006, p. 79).Happily, as mentioned above, Bayes' practice is better than his stated approach. His systematics is a work of holy reason that is intended to promote holy living.
In some instances systematic theology can seem like a sequence of logically ordered doctrinal statements backed up by a long
string of proof texts. Bayes very helpfully avoids that pitfall by giving careful attention to key Bible texts and tracing the development of biblical themes in the
course of the Scripture's unfolding story. Biblical theology is thus placed at the
service of systematic theology, which is as it should be. The writer’s handling
of the biblical material is fresh and insightful. He is evidently familiar with
the original Scripture languages and draws on a range of commentators to help
unfold the meaning of the texts he draws to our attention. But all this is done
with a light touch that does not envelop the reader in thickets of abstruse
The creedal and historical
aspects of the work are a useful reminder that we are not the first generation
of believers to approach the Bible and inquire as to its meaning. We have much
to learn from the thoughts of those who have gone before us. The creeds and
confessions of the church serve as helpful summaries of the biblical doctrine,
often written against a background of intense theological controversy.
Knowledge of these documents can help us to detect and reject old errors that
often present themselves in new clothing. While Bayes gives welcome attention to the theological heritage of the church, he also interacts with present day concerns, tackling issues such as biblical inerrancy and ‘Open Theism’. However, Bayes is sometimes content to summarise the teaching of creedal and confessional statements in his own words, or to cite commentaries on the these documents rather than taking us back to the sources themselves. That is especially the case in the chapter on the Doctrine of Providence, which is a shame given the rich teaching on providence found in the words of the great Reformed Confessions and Catechisms (see here). Ad fontes, please Dr. Bayes. Having said that, a number of ancient creeds are reproduced in full in the book's appendices, which is good to see.
The author’s stance is
unashamedly Reformed, but there is no sense that he is attempting to foist a
prefabricated system onto the Bible. Rather, he shows that Reformed theology
accords with the Word of God and is consistent with the best insights of church
history. Biblical doctrine is meant to stir the soul to faith, action and
worship. Bayes’ handling of the themes covered in this book is practical in its
orientation and doxological in its goal. Reading it reflectively and
prayerfully will help enable the people of God to play their roles in the great
drama of God’s redeeming grace.
This series is especially aimed at preachers. It will be of special benefit for 'lay preachers' who may have had little theological training. Pastors will also find it helpful, but this is an entry level systematics that is no substitute for larger works such as The Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Bavinck. Any Christian who wishes to deepen their understanding of the great doctrines of the Bible will do well to pursue what looks from the first volume to be set of books that will enhance our vision of the glory of God.
Gratitude is the antidote for grumpiness. People who think
that the world owes them a living are always quick to complain about anything
and everything. You know the sort. But the fact is that whatever our problems in
life, we have a lot for which to be thankful. We live in a beautiful part of the
country with green fields, rolling hills and trees decked in their autumn hues.
Our local shops are packed with plentiful supplies or food and drinks. It’s easy
to take these things for granted. But a moment’s thought should make us grateful
for rather than grumpily about our lot in life.
Some of the Psalms in the Bible are full of exuberant thanks
to God for his goodness in creating this world and so richly providing for our
needs. Psalm 65 pictures valleys clothed with grain shouting for joy. If the
very fields proclaim God’s praise, then we should also thank him everything
that comes to us from his hands.
Psalm 65 also speaks of God providing atonement for our
transgressions. That was the gift that cost God the most to give. He sent his
Son the Lord Jesus Christ into our world of selfishness and ingratitude to die
on the cross for our sins. Through faith in Jesus we receive God’s offer of
forgiveness and the gift of eternal life. What a giving and forgiving God!
Recognising that whatever we may possess is a gift from God should make us
grateful to him and generous towards others who are in need.
All good gifts around us Are
sent from heaven above, Then
thank the Lord, O thank the Lord For all His love. * From the October edition of News & Views, West Lavington Parish Magazine. Harvest Thanksgiving Services at the usual times this Sunday.
of the great things about being British is a sense of dual identity. I’m a proud
Welshman living in England. I have a deep love of my homeland; its history,
culture and rugby playing tradition. But belonging to a small nation could become a
rather parochial and inward looking affair. That Wales alongside Scotland,
Northern Ireland and England belong to something bigger than their constituent
parts helps ensure that Celtic and English patriotism doesn't degenerate into a
narrow, sectarian nationalism. We can focus on what unites as well as our
distinctives as we strive to make Great Britain a great place for all its
citizens to live.
things achieved by the United Kingdom have been the fruits of our common
endeavour. Together we have ensured that all adults, whether rich or poor, male
or female get to decide on who governs us at the UK level, in our devolved
Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament. The
National Health Service is funded by the wealth generated by the whole of the
United Kingdom so that all our people can obtain the treatment they need when
they need it, free at the point of need.
I could go on to mention the technological advances of
the Industrial Revolution, driven by English entrepreneurialism, inspired by Scottish Engineering brilliance, forged by Irish labour and fired
by Welsh coal. What of British ideas of freedom, tolerance and democracy that
have served as a beacon of hope for the world, especially as we stood shoulder
by shoulder to defend them in two World Wars?
Christians should be doing stuff, like transforming the culture and redeeming society and that. Preaching the gospel so that people get saved and nurturing disciples in the church is alright, but we've got to get with the world-changing, holistic, transformational program. What we need is a distinctively Christian approach to politics, education, the arts, medicine, engineering, plumbing, fast food serving and rubbish collecting. Anything less would be Pietism and we all know that's a Bad Thing. And anyway, if believers don't make all kinds of stuff go Christian how's the new creation going to happen?
Whoa up a bit. David VanDrunen's essential thesis is that it isn't in fact the duty of Christians to try and transform, redeem or Christianise the culture at all. 'What?' you may say, 'is he a Pietist, or something?' Nooo. Good 'ol Calvinist. He seeks to recover the 'two kingdoms' vision of the Reformers as a way of engaging with the transformationalist tendencies of the likes of Tom Wright, Tim Keller and other influential figures.
Essentially it boils down to this: there are two kingdoms. There is the 'common kingdom' which is ruled by God under the terms of the Nohaic covenant established in Genesis 9. Then there is the 'kingdom of God'. That is God's saving rule made known in the world through the covenant of grace in its various manifestations, from the Abrahamic to the new covenant. The believer belongs both to the kingdom of God and the common kingdom. That was the case under both old and new covenants as VanDrunen demonstrates.
In the common kingdom believers rub shoulders with non-believers as they engage in a variety of cultural pursuits including politics, work, education, the arts and so on. The believer will seek to honour the Lord in this context, but the same ethical standards will be expected of a Christian accountant, for example, as a non-Christian one. It is nonsense therefore to speak of 'Christian accountancy' or 'Christian plumbing'. Christian as well as non-Christian plumbers are both obliged to install central heating systems that don't leak like a sieve. OK, you would hope that a plumber who is a Christian wouldn't charge a little old lady the earth for fixing a dripping tap. But fair pricing policies aren't the exclusive preserve of believers. That's life in the common kingdom.
The kingdom of God is made a visible reality in the church, the gathered people of God who meet to hear God's word proclaimed, partake of the sacraments and be built up in the faith. Ministerial power in the church is different from the power entrusted to rulers in the common kingdom. It is non-coercive and is limited to the preaching and application of the Word. Ministers must be not to overstep the mark by giving believers detailed instruction on how they should operate in the common kingdom in terms of involvement in politics, voting intentions and so on. Yes, general biblical principles must be worked out in the whole of life, but Christian liberty must be honoured when it comes to matters like political choices and decisions regarding how the children of believers should be educated. If the Bible doesn't say, either explicitly or by implication, 'thou shalt vote Conservative, or Labour, or Lib Dem, or Ukip, or Yes or No to Scottish independence' then pastors should not go beyond the teaching of Scripture when ministering to the people of God. The same goes for parental choices regarding their children's education, whether home, Christian School, State School, or whatever.
VanDrunen calls for a biblical realism when it comes to the extent to which the world can be 'Christianised' by the activism of believers. The aim of the Christian is not to 'transform' or 'redeem' the common kingdom, for the form of this world is passing away. Redemption and transformation are only possible in the kingdom of God. That is not to say that believers may not strive to be 'salt and light' and try to make the world a better place. But even when they do that, their works in the common kingdom don't help to usher in the new creation. Christ has guaranteed that glorious future by completing the work God initially entrusted to Adam in Genesis 1 & 2.
On which point I think that it's a blunder on the author's part to conflate the 'cultural mandate' of Genesis 1:26-28 with the 'covenant of works' in Genesis 2. The 'cultural mandate' was issued to man as man 'male and female' as God's image-bearers. It continues despite the fall, but is
only finally fulfilled in Christ and the new creation. Adam's 'covenant of
works' role, however does not continue. It was made with Adam specifically as federal representative of all humanity. We should certainly not think of ourselves as
finishing off what he failed to do by our works in the common kingdom. Christ has accomplished that on our behalf by his redeeming work. As Herman Bavinck said, 'Christ takes is not to
the beginning, but the end of the road that Adam had to walk.' Nevertheless, the langue of multiplication in Genesis 1 is also used of God's
'new humanity' in the Abrahamic covenant, Exodus 1 and also in Acts of the
church. The cultural mandate of dominion and multiplication continues in the
'common kingdom', but grace perfects nature in the 'redemptive kingdom', Hebrews 2: 5-9, Revelation 7:9-10.
That said, I agree with VanDrunen's biblically argued cause for the two kingdoms view. It has helped me to think through one or two issues personally. Especially when it comes to involvement in the activities of the common kingdom. As a governor in a local state secondary school it is not my duty to try and 'Christianise' the educational establishment in which I am involved, but rather to operate in line with the rules and guidelines set down for all governors irrespective of their faith. Yes, my faith informs and influences my approach to governance, as with everything else, but trying to 'redeem' the school would be misplaced. The church is the locus of God's redemptive activity, not the world of education, or any other cultural pursuits in the common kingdom for that matter. The transfomationist agenda is a grandiose distraction from getting on with the Great Commission that Jesus has laid upon the church. That's enough for us to be getting on with.