I am a Christian (presbyterian with a 'Wee Free' background). AMA

[NoHaudinMaWheest]

This is a follow on from the brilliant orthodox Jewish threads to enable people to ask questions about Christianity without derailing those ones.

I was brought up in the Free Church of Scotland. It is often known as the Wee Frees so I have put that in the title but it is a somewhat derogatory term and not one I would usually use.

I left the Free Church when I was about 30 for really complicated reasons. I spent a long time as an Anglican but having recently moved back to Scotland I now go to the mainstream established Church of Scotland.
I have also attended various independent evangelical and Baptist churches in my time.

So I am happy to try to answer any questions but please note I really am not qualified to speak on behalf of Catholics, or many other Christian branches.

However, when the Romans accepted Christianity and it became mainstream they used the Roman Sol day as the Sabbath.

As a Catholic I wouldn't feel uncomfortable in a high church Anglican church, but I would know straight away it wasn't Catholic (not a cathedral, but an average parish church). It's not that there would be anything in particular that we wouldn't have, it would just be ... different.

Roman Catholic churches in England come in quite a wide variety of levels of ornateness and decoration (and tastefuness!) but almost all of them are 19th or 20th century (for obvious historical reasons!) and are nearly always recognisably Catholic, to an insider. That said, Catholics coming from outside the English-speaking world do often get confused.

I should add, I was mainly thinking of the church buildings, but exactly the same is true of the services - they have a degree of familiarity to a Catholic visitor (I speak as someone whose best friends are high church clergy), but don't feel actually Catholic. Unless English isn't your first language and then it's pretty easy to mistake them.

fink your experience of High Anglican churches as a Catholic is interesting. As a Presbyterian it all feel quite alien to me on first encounter.

I visited a variety of churches as DH is a choral singer and used to do a lot with visiting choirs. When I first knew him we went to a very high Anglican church and then Westminster Cathedral soon afterwards. I did actually feel more comfortable in Westminster Cathedral.

I have played the organ at a wide variety of church services.
I enjoy the variations in worship style.

Do you feel like your faith is treated with respect in Scotland today? Both Christian in general and your Church in particular?

I often feel like people think it's more ok to make fun of Christians than people of other faiths. People feel like they have to be respectful of 'minority' faiths like Judaism but it's fine to be less respectful of Christians.

Sometimes I get the feeling that people think "oh well we all used to go to Church but then we realised it was all a bit stupid so we don't go any more and think you're a bit weird for still going".

Someone at work once said something along the lines of "oh yes, my granny used to go to Church, and that old woman off Coronation Street, do folk still actually believe in all that?" And I don't think people would say the equivalent to a Muslim today. Of course there will be a minority of racist idiots who will say that but I often feel like it's more acceptable to be unkind about Christianity.

I've always thought this.
Just as racism towards Travellers seems to be almost acceptable, Christianity seems to be fair game for negative comments.

Maybe because Christianity is the most dominant religion in this country and the one most people are most familiar with.

I think Christianity can be seen as 'our own' and therefore fair game for criticism. People may feel they know about Christianity (even if their knowledge is actually pretty sketchy) and therefore can comment but are aware that they have limited information about other religions. There may be an element of punching up as well, given that Christianity does have some establishment status in this country.

Also though people may actually feel negative about other religions, most people don't want to be seen as racist or anti-semitic etc and so will be careful about what feelings they voice.

As far as hostility to the Free Church in particular goes, it is nothing new. I had some bullying at school because I was Free Church, probably exacerbated by being the minister's daughter.
I think the general view in Scotland of the Free Church is pretty negative. In the past I think it was mainly the sabbatarianism that was the focus, but the reaction to Kate Forbes shows that other issues have become more prominent.

though that said Kate Forbes was a great deal more popular with the public as opposed to SNP party members according to surveys than Humza Yousaf . People do appreciate honesty even if they don't always agree
Kate did say she will always be a Christian whether her political career is long or short and that obeying God and being true to what she believes is more important than changing views of morality according to flavour of the month
Murder Theft and Adultery are all just as wrong now as they were 4000 odd years ago

Yes and homosexuality was not wrong 4000 years ago any more than it is now. A good deal more accepted now though, by most people anyway.

Cottagecheese I have no doubt that Kate Forbes will remain true to her beliefs. It is also true that many members of the public appreciate honesty.

I doubt there are many people of any faith or none who would disagree that murder, theft and adultery are wrong. However it is undeniable that some of the views Kate Forbes expressed were against what is the current common view and she was severely criticised for them in the media and also in private.

This should not become a political thread but I'd trust KF far more than I'd trust YH.

I was going to contribute with my views on the antagonism towards Christians in public life, but I'll leave that for another time ...

I have questions about the doctrine of sola scriptura. I've only really heard one side of the debate, which is against it. And the people I've heard defending it have been local streeet preachers and such and they haven't really been able to articulate why they believe in sola scriptura, they just keep repeating that any source other than the Bible is from humans, not God, but when I try to engage them in more detail, they don't have anything further to add and in fact seem bemused that there is an argument to be had. It just seems to them to be a self-evident 'fact' that sola scriptura is the only valid approach.

So I'd welcome any positive explanation of sola scriptura from people who hold to it. Things like, how do you reconcile different intepretations of Scripture? Are some more valid than others, are some plain wrong? Is there any concept of an authority in interpreting Scripture?

What weight do you give to things like archaeology, linguistic studies etc. in interpreting Scripture? I.e. do you accept the scholarship behind Biblical interpretation, or does each person have to figure out just from the words of Scripture themselves without any research background?

How much linguistic study does the average church member do? Are you expected to learn any Greek and Hebrew as a regular Christian? Do church leaders have to spend a certain amount of time studying biblical languages? If you read in translation, is there a certain philosophy of translation that is preferred (on the scale of dynamic equivalence - formal equivalence)? There's a myth floating around that some churches teach the KJV to be divinely inspired as though it were scripture itself, does anyone actually believe that or is it just a legend?

How do you come to an understanding of moral issues that are part of modern life but didn't exist in biblical times?

How do you decide which parts of the Bible are meant to be understood literally and which are metaphorical? Which parts of the Old Testament in particular are eternal (moral) laws and which are ceremonial or judicial and no longer apply? Is there an authority on this within different churches, or does each Christian have to discern for themselves?

What do you do about inconsistencies, discrepancies, or contradictions within Scripture?

What do sola scriptura Christians believe about the centuries of Christians before the Reformation? Not directly before, because we all know about the immediate causes of the Reformation, but through the ancient and early medieval period?

What do you think about the canon of Scripture and when it was established? Is there any consensus amongst Reformed Christians about when the Jewish scriptures were fixed and (assuming you don't hold to a really early, pre-Jesus, date which would be the outlier in terms of scholarship) how that impacts on things like the life of the early Church, or what Jesus himself considered to be Scripture?

One of the most common Catholic criticisms is that sola scriptura itself is a sixteenth century invention and is utterly alien to Jesus's own words and culture. How do sola scriptura believers answer that?

If you've got to the end of all this, thanks! You don't need to answer every question! They're just sort of prompts to get across what I wonder to do with sola scriptura. Any defence of the doctrine would be interesting. TIA!

I doubt anyone had a problem with Kate Forbes because she thinks murder, theft and adultery are wrong.

Hi fink lots of thoughtful questions!
I will start by saying that I no longer hold to sola scriptura and the infallibility of the Bible. It was because I struggled with these doctrines that I left the Free Church, among other reasons.

However I didn't leave without a lot of thought (and angst) so I will have a go at answering your questions though more in a factual 'this is what is taught' rather than a defending way.

I am also speaking from a conservative Scottish Presbyterian perspective. Other types of Protestant will have different perspectives and practices.

There is a subordinate standard, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1648), which is used as a reference point for interpreting scripture. Anything which goes against that would be considered wrong and a minister teaching anything outwith the Westminster Confession would be breaking his ordination vows.

Obviously the Westminster Confession doesn't cover everything, so there are plenty of Bible commentaries and general works of theology which would be used to help explain scripture. Only those which are written by men in the same tradition would be considered though and none would have ultimate authority.

The ordinary member of the congregation would rely on the preaching and teaching of the minister to a large extent but many do do other reading for themselves. There are lots of Bible reading schemes and notes to help with private Bible reading and study at a basic level. Commentaries can be at a popular or more scholarly level. Again people know or are guided to which writers are 'sound'.

Both preaching and the written material will use scholarly research to some extent but usually only if it fits with the existing traditional views. Quite a lot of commentaries beyond the most basic level spend a lot of time refuting textual criticism and other academic research which might conflict with a view of the Bible as inerrant and literally true. (Often tying themselves in knots in the process.)

Ordinary Christians are definitely not expected to learn the original languages. One of the principles of the Reformation was that everyone should be able to read the Bible in their mother tongue. Only the Bible in the original languages is inspired though.

As far as Scottish Presbyterians go the KJV thing is a myth. The stricter denominations do only use the KJV (or possibly the NKJV which has updated the archaic language forms but is not a new translation). However this is because they consider it the best available, based on the texts used and the credentials of the translators, not because it is inspired.
The Free Church now uses more modern versions, principally the NIV.

As far as translation principles go, the stricter denominations favour a more formal equivalence approach (word for word type thing). Again the present day Free Church would move more in the direction of a dynamic equivalence (thought for thought) approach though to a limited extent. The NIV is fine, the Good News version not so much and The Message quite unacceptable.

Ministers are (I am not sure if the requirements have been diluted in the Free Church recently) expected to study both Greek and Hebrew as part of their theological training. I am not sure how many keep the languages up once in congregational ministry. They may quote original languages in sermons and Bible studies but I suspect this often comes through commentaries rather than from their own reading in the original languages.
Certainly my father, who was on the more scholarly end and who taught Greek, would admit that his Hebrew was pretty rusty.

Some ordinary members do learn Greek (and much more rarely Hebrew) but it is unusual and I am not sure many get very far. I have studied the Bible in Greek and Hebrew in the past, but I am definitely an outlier.

I think that's enough for the moment but I can come back to the other questions later if you like.

Thank you so much @NoHaudinMaWheest , that's a very helpful starting point. If anyone who does still believe in sola scriptura is around, I'd be interested to hear your views.

I'm quite shocked to hear that the Westminster Confession is still used! It's very anti-Catholic, I assumed the churches had moved on from that period. I remember Ian Paisley had some fruity views on the Pope as antichrist, but I think I assumed he was an extremist outlier. Doesn't it also ban marriage with a non-Christian? Is that still observed? Now that Orthodox Christians are more present in the UK, would they be lumped in with Catholics as idolaters, or is it just Catholics because of the history of the western Chuch and Easterners aren't involved?

I think most people would sit light to the Pope as the antichrist nowadays (probably not the strictest denominations though).

Yes marriage with a non Christian would be out for church members. Marriage is considered a creation ordinance so you don't have to be a member or even a church goer to get married in a Free Church. I am not sure what the ruling would be if one party was an active member of another faith. I suspect that it almost never happens.

I don't think there is a lot of awareness of the Orthodox but where there is they would be considered in a similar way to Catholics.

Do you think that even now that the UK, even those parts of the UK where most Presbyterians live (Scotland and NI), is becoming more diverse, marriage to a Catholic (specifically banned, I believe) or a member of another faith might become more of a question? Or is it just such a hard no on being unequally yoked that it wouldn't ever be considered acceptable?

Replying as another scottish Christian. I was raised church of Scotland however now attend a small, independent evangelical church. I love that the preach and teach God's word every week and their discipleship is far better than church of Scotland. However even as a member here, where I stand strong in my salvation I struggle with some of the more Conservative thoughts and beliefs.

As someone above has highlighted, I'm both surprised and pleased that this thread hasn't descended into a 'God isn't real and it's all made up' which you usually see in Christian threads. People seem to have no problem telling Christians this, its definitely much more acceptable to mock Christians and not other religions - then people get offended by gospel truths which they don't believe in, in the first place!

I think it is still considered among members as just not acceptable. Really I don't see how it could work as a marriage as the whole of life is involved in the faith.
There are far fewer cultural Free Kirkers now so though there might be some residual cultural disapproval, it would not be really difficult.

About 40 years ago my cousin, culturally Free Church but not a member or regular attender, got married to a Catholic man. He was also culturally Catholic and didn't attend church much at all. The family were really upset at the time but came round. One issue was that the family were concerned that they would have to promise to bring the children as Catholics.
Is that still the case in the Catholic church? And are Catholics allowed to marry people of non Christian faiths?

I was baptised and brought up in the Presbyterian church and married a practising Catholic in a Catholic Church. As part of our pre-marriage preparation, I had to sign a document acknowledging that I was marrying a Catholic and that I would not actively prevent him from raising any children of the marriage as Catholics. I didn’t have to commit to bringing them up Catholic myself. My Presbyterian mother had to make the same promise when she married my Catholic father.

Ps Catholics can marry non-Christians but they have to get a dispensation first I’d they want to do so in a Catholic church.

Thanks ghislaine. I don't think my cousin's children were brought up in any church particularly though her daughter did get married in the Free Church.

I've heard older family members talk about Catholics only being allowed to marry in the foyer if they were marrying non-catholics.

I think people have mellowed a lot with regards to 'mixed marriages' over the last 50 years, certainly in the central belt.
My friends mum felt she needed to become Catholic 'turn her coat' because she didn't want her kids talking about stuff she didn't understand.
But their wedding caused a lots grief at the time from both families.