The Rt Revd Nicholas Holtam, Bishop of Salisbury.
Dear Revd Holtam,
An
open letter regarding your views on same-sex marriage, popular culture, and
apartheid.
In
an interview with The Times you said,
“My position is to uphold the views expressed in Issues in Human Sexuality.”
However, you also said, “Part of responsible leadership is having the vision,
the sight, to see that’s where I want to go.” The press described you as a
theological liberal who acts according to his conscience and some commended you
for that.
However,
what has changed in the last decades that did not change in the previous two millennia?
Can anyone with all honesty claim that our new, subjective interpretations
better reflect the will of God than the orthodox interpretations of the Christian
church? What about the unity of faith? What about devout Christians teachers,
for example, who could now lose their jobs for believing in marriage as
described in Scripture?
Your principled image is not matching your
loyalty towards the church in which you are a senior leader because of your disregard
for the polity and doctrine of your own church. Your maverick intervention in
the same sex marriage debate came in spite of the Church of England's official
opposition to legalising gay marriage. By breaking Episcopal collegiality, and
by distancing yourself from the Church of England’s official position, you
became an ‘instant celebrity’ amongst the liberals in the recent same-sex
marriage fiasco. That might have been your hearts desire but by doing that, you
divided, if not destroyed, the message of your church.
You
base your argument, by your own admission, on the fleeting authority of popular
culture by arguing that theology and morality evolves along with society. You
said: “Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and
our reasoned experience”. You hold this view in spite of the fact that popular
opinion is a notoriously unreliable and subjective measurement of
what is ethical and durable. How can God direct our lives if we subject Him to
the whims of pop culture?
You
consequently advise Christians “to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the
light of experience.” As proof of the evolution of morality, you cited the
example of slavery. You claimed that “before Wilberforce, Christians saw
slavery as Biblical and part of the God-given ordering of creation.” However,
you forgot to mention that at least four Popes condemned slavery, long before
Wilberforce’s day.
You also
accused supporters of traditional marriage of being like Christians who used
the Bible to justify apartheid. Liberals in the UK habitually judge a section
of the South African society based on this false presuppositions. This
propaganda purports the idea that the Dutch Reformed Church supported apartheid
because it was Biblical and part of the God-given order of creation.
This
kind of propaganda goes back two hundred years. It is rooted in very old
bigotry against the Afrikaner dating back to the early 1800’s and accounts of
heroic British missionaries who
risked their lives to bring civilization to the deprived tribes in Africa. It
has however now been conclusively shown that the roots of cultural xenophobia
and racism originated from Cape liberalism and the so-called ‘civilising
missions’ of humanist British missionaries. The attitude of British
colonization, and that of imperialism, boiled down to cultural and biological
racism. The argument was that black Africans could not attain equal status with
whites unless they were first “civilized”.
However,
the indigenous black population received the message of the humanist
missionaries mostly with indifference and the expected mass conversions never materialized.
However, the value of the missionaries at that time was the access to goods
they brought with them - like for example, guns. These arms came in handy in
attacks on frontier farmers.
The Imperial
Government in the Cape made terrible mistakes because of their lack of
knowledge about the cultural attitudes of the black population. These mistakes created
political instability in the border regions during that time. The British Imperial
Government maintained a strict policy of segregation during the early 1800s.
They excluded the indigenous black people, like the Xhosas, from the territory
of the Colony.
Many
of these mistakes were made by General John
Francis Cradock, 1st Baron Howden GCB, who was appointed Governor of the
Cape Colony in 1811. In spite of his failings, he was elevated to the Peerage
of Ireland as Baron Howden in 1819. He, for example, savagely expelled the
Ndlambe and Xhosas beyond the Fish River into the territory of the Ngqika
chiefdom in 1811-1812 [[i]].This
did not resolve any problems but rather threw the frontier into turmoil. His ill-fated
actions instigated retaliatory raids on the frontier farmers who happened to be
mostly Dutch Boers.[[ii]]
However,
the humanist missionaries vehemently criticized the Boer farmers for defending
themselves against attacks of the indigenous tribes. These missionaries were the
first to describe the Boers as Old Testament Christians who believe they are
God’s chosen people. (This sounds a bit like British Israelism – a view rejected by the Reformed Church with
contempt).They accused the Boers as claiming that God had selected them for
some divine destiny in Africa or that God ordained them to be the rulers in the
Cape. It would appear that the missionaries have appointed themselves as the
only ones with a Christian voice in darkest Africa.
This
propaganda has ever since been very popular with the apologists for the British
takeover and rule of the Cape and of the atrocities of the Anglo Boer war.
Examples of such works are those by J. Cappon (Britain’s title in South Africa
- 1902), W.C. Holden History of the Colony of Natal, South Africa -1855), A.
Wilmot (The History of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope - 1869), J. Chase
(The Story of the expansion of Southern Africa -1895), and Arthur Conan Doyle
(The Great Boer War – 1902).
It is striking to see how wholly different the
views of American authors were. The American, Howard C. Hillegas, for example,
wrote the book ‘Oom Paul’s People’ in 1899. This book introduces the
situation in South Africa immediately preceding the Anglo-Boer War of
1899-1902. He says for example, “The wholesale slander and misrepresentation
with which the Boers of South Africa have been pursued can not be outlived by
them in a hundred years.”
How did he know that? That
propaganda has never gone away. The liberal British elite have always applied this
false propaganda against the Afrikaner in one way or another. If you read the
books that I have listed, you will find that the concepts of social Darwinism
have also been applied to the Afrikaner by the end of the 1800s. It is a fact
that “social Darwinism” was comprehensively entrenched in the imperialist
attitudes of the British upper classes. It is clear from Darwin’s notebooks [[iii]] that he always
intended to explain human society as well. By the late 1800s this led to the
racist perspective that certain “inferior races” were less evolved, less human,
and more apelike than the “superior races.”
I am
an ordained minister of the Dutch Reformed Church but we came to live in
England 13 years ago. I can therefore talk from personal experience and I can
inform you what we have been taught and what I still believe:
Apartheid
has always been a political system devised by politicians. The Dutch Reformed
Church (Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk)
never ruled South Africa but it traditionally stands accused of being the
architect of apartheid. That is simply a continuation of longstanding false propaganda.
Those who supported apartheid represented many different churches. The Dutch
Reformed Church happened to be the biggest but it is only one of four Reformed
churches in South Africa and it is not the most conservative of the lot. Did
you know that those who insisted on a rigid policy of “no equality between
white and black in church or state,” formed the Nederduitsche Hervormde Kerk in 1857? The name of this church also
translates to the Dutch Reformed Church in English.
I
have personally never laid eyes on any official document (old or new) of the
Dutch Reformed Church that supported apartheid because it was Biblical or
because it was part of the God-given order of creation. None of my Professors during
all my 7 years at university ever promoted this concept. None of our official
handbooks mentions anything like that. Not a single document of the Dutch
Reformed Church ever crossed my desk. I never preached anything like that from
the pulpit.
Apartheid
as a political and social issue was most probably instigated by a historic need
for survival amongst hostile Imperial and indigenous threats.
I
have a very good idea where this hugely distorted propaganda originated. The
theology of Reformed churches have been influenced by the theology of Reformers
like John Calvin and the ‘Three Forms of Unity’ of which ‘The Canons of Dort’ is one. In opposition to the views of Jacobus
Arminius, the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) formulated the biblical concept of ‘Unconditional Election’. Voting representatives from eight foreign Reformed
churches, including Scotland, were also invited. Unconditional Election
boils down to God's choice of certain
individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world. This choice
rested solely in God’s own sovereign will – hence the idea of selected people.
This is still the belief of truly Reformed churches worldwide. Some Christians
despise this idea and believe that faith is a personal choice (Armenianism). I
still believe that God saved me because He chose to do so. Salvation is a gift.
Dr.
Abraham Kuyper [[iv]]
argues that the human way of knowing is not religiously neutral -
Christians and non-Christians start from completely different pre-suppositions.
Their conclusions will consequently be different. The starting point of
Kuyper’s theology is the absolute Sovereignty of God. He holds that "there
is not a single inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which
Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'" As Reformed
Christians we believe that Jesus Christ is Lord over all things.
Why?
Because the Triune God created the universe, humanity, and the diversity of
societal communities. That would include marriage and certain God given morals
as well. Reformed Christians believe that God grants human beings, and the rest
of creation, existence for the sake of glorifying His Name.
God
can therefore not to be identified with the created world and therefore with
humanity, as in pantheism, nor as isolated from humanity, as in Islam. It is
clear that we hold a realist view of God. This implies that God exists
independent of the human mind (and the entire created universe). The same God
also created morals that are independent of human creativity (or cultural
evolution as you might claim). On this basis, I reject your notion that God’s morality
evolves with popular culture. God’s morality is not the slave of impulsive
human whims or preference.
Based
on our acceptance of a Creator God I have also been taught, in home and at
University, that all humans are equal because all were created in the image of
God.
In his
lecture, Kuyper mentions the concept of sphere sovereignty - Coram Deo. God delegates His sovereignty
to humanity, but not to one person or institution alone. The variety of
societal communities includes worship, civil justice, marriage, family, etc. There
is a distinct sovereignty over each sphere of life. Each of these spheres has a
person or institution to which God has delegated some sovereignty. For example,
in the realm of education, the school is sovereign, and in the realm of
justice, the state is sovereign.
These
societal communities are sovereign in their own circle, which means
that each sphere of life has its own distinct character, responsibilities, and
authority. A family does not function like a business, and a business does not
function like an institution of civil justice. None of these societies, whether
it is a faith-institution or an institution of civil justice, should seek
totalitarian control over one another.
The
Dutch Reformed Church never promoted the idea that the Church should prescribe
to the state on how to rule a nation. In fact, the church may not exercise
undue authority over the state, science, or the arts, because these spheres are
free to develop according to the law of God that determines their nature.
The
state, as an institution of civil justice, should also not seek control over
the church or the Word of God. This new meddling with the biblical view of
marriage is a step in the direction of control over faith-institutions – ultimately
over God and the Bible. The state claims the authority to prescribe to the
Church on how to interpret the Bible or how to run its affairs. The same sex
marriage debate is an attempt by the secular (pagan) civil authorities to seek control
over the church, biblical morality, or the authority of God. This can only lead
to totalitarianism.
Reformed
Christians reject a dualism between a private faith, for the sake of personal purity,
and a public faith, diluted for the sake of cultural relevance. There is no
biblical demand to be culturally relevant. The opposite is more likely the will
of God. We believe the state is under God’s rule – whether secular society
accept this notion or not. Majority pressure and secular law is now forcing Christians
to be culturally relevant by doing their civil duties according to a morality
that denies God. The same secular political majority bulldozed same sex
marriage through Parliament.
We
all know that the modern view of marriage is based on the authority of the pop
culture of the masses. We also know from experience that popular opinion is
a notoriously unreliable measurement of what is ethical. Ethical
decision-making and leadership are the basis of ethical organizations. It is simply
irresponsible to base ethical decision-making on subjective and unreliable
sentiments.
The
marriage debate appears to be the culmination of the sexual revolution. The progressive
minded have brought marriage, and the family, under continued attack for
decades. The secular media established the idea that people could dispense with
marriage and live together. They fought against any censorship in terms of
allowing every sexual perversion and violent acts to be shown on film, TV, and
the internet. I have been horrified to hear that my children have been taught in
school that sexual promiscuity is acceptable as long as safe sex is applied.
Ridiculously lax divorce laws have been pushed through parliament. The latest
blow came with the promotion of same sex marriage as culturally acceptable in
spite of the fact that God created all humanity man and women. What sacrifice will
pop culture demand from the Church next?
I do
not understand how a small minority can dominate a society in such a profound way.
The report by the Office of National Statistics placed Britain's gay and
bisexual community at 1.5% of the adult population. It has been stated many
times that the number of people with a genuine interest in homosexual
‘marriage’ (or as I see David Cameron now calls it “equal marriage”) is
astonishingly small.
The unfortunate
position you took, at such a critical time, divided, if not destroyed, the
message of your church on this matter. Your selfish attitude brought all of Christianity
in disrepute. Can you honestly claim that your maverick action (in spite of the
views of you colleagues) reflect the will of God or the biblical message? This
is where Protestantism fails and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches triumphs.
In fact, your actions highlighted a massive problem
within the worldwide Church – that of division. The deep-seated historic
animosity between Protestants and Catholics in the UK is but one example of
this division. However, the biggest problem is the division between Protestant
Churches and the staggering range of theological views. This is not the legacy
the early Reformers had in mind. Very few modern, Protestant Christians truly
understand what Reformers like Luther and Calvin stood for – in fact, the views
of these people has become widely despised by theological modernism. I will go
as far as to claim that Protestantism, as a whole, is as far removed from the truth
as the Catholic Church used to be during the Reformation.
This
division makes God’s position, humanly speaking, unsustainable. We are forcing
God to choose sides. Whatever God’s answer might be, some ‘Christians’ will
feel that God has ignored them. It is like Christians during a war – both sides
pray for victory. Your actions are another good example. You preferred to be led
by cultural whims rather than the Gospel.
Christians
are quick to claim Biblical supremacy for all of life. I am not convinced that
we place ourselves under that authority – there are always those who make a
‘different interpretation’ of God’s Word. The Word should change us – not us
the Word. The ‘cancer’ of division is killing Protestantism.
When things like this happen, how can people look at
the church and not conclude: “It’s a joke.” I am beginning to understand how
people become atheists.
Respectfully
Yours,
cc: The Most Reverend Justin
Welby,
Archbishop
of Canterbury
Lambeth
Palace,
London,
SE1
7JU
[i] LESTER, A 1997 "The Margins
of Order: Strategies of Segregation on the Eastern Cape Frontier, 1806-c.
1850", Journal of Southern African Studies, 23(4), December,
635-653, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2637430
[ii] Lester 1997, p. 641.
[iii] Darwin, Adrian Desmond and James
Moore. Darwin: The Life of a Tormented
Evolutionist. W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition. 1994)
[iv] My reference to Dr. Abraham Kuyper are based on his lecture SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY - A
public address delivered at the inauguration of the Free University, Oct. 20,
1880. http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/SphereSovereignty_English.pdf
