Could this possibly be Christian England?

In 1996 I received a transcript of a talk given by Roger Ellis at the `After the Rain' Pioneer Conference in March of that year. It was like nothing I had read before, as you can tell from the opening section:

[Very slow, repeating drum beat, accompanied by slow, measured playing of notes on organ. Overall effect is mesmerising/hypnotic. This continues through the entire first section of talk.]

"Within the midst of this society, God is saying to the church that we're going to have to learn a new language. It is a language of symbols. It is a language of the heart. Whereas in the past, people were wanting to rightly divide the word of truth, now people are going to want to absorb the word of truth. The whole response to God is going to be different, and there is a challenge to us as we look at our pagan society, our pagan culture."

Even from this first paragraph you can tell that the speaker's way of thinking and reasoning is somewhat removed from orthodox Christianity. (Ellis would probably welcome this criticism, as he is from the same stable of Gerald Coates and his book Non-religious Christianity!). Note several salient features:

But Ellis seems to think the Bible is not sufficient in this matter. We must now "want to absorb the word of truth". Those who have hitherto followed Scriptural precepts must stop that, and experience (absorb) the truth via visual or audio (but not verbal) media like symbols and drumbeats.

Personally, I warmly support the use of some symbols in worship—26 to be precise, ranging from A to Z and making up the words in the 66 books of the Bible.

Fusion

In September 1996 Ellis was present at the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF) annual national conference, Forum. The UCCF leaders had been made aware of the aforementioned transcript, and the strong advocacy therein of "Celtic spirituality" (i.e. freedom to new ideas, free use of emotions and "ways of doing church") and rejection of the "Roman spirit" (i.e. control, orthodoxy, and prioritising the use of the mind). Why was Ellis there? He was in the process of setting up a rival national student initiative known as Fusion and was checking out the lie of the land.

Fusion is now flourishing and has had a big impact on several more charismatic CUs, notably Hull University, I'm told. They operate a `cell group' philosophy, in which big meetings with speakers are abandoned or sidelined in favour of more intimate, informal, seeker-sensitive sessions where individuals can meet with Jesus to explore the Bible together.

This has several implications, one of which being that systematic exegesis of the word of God by a trained, gifted and godly teacher is replaced by a free-for-all, hit-and-miss style of Bible study, where interpretations of a passage can end up being quite exotic to say the least.

Naturally small group Bible studies are valuable and have their place (I was a small group leader at my CU in London), but should they be the primary forum for teaching?

For their side of the story, see Fusion's website, at www.fusion-uk.org.uk (they obviously have international aspirations—IFES look to your laurels!).

Roger Ellis, Gerald Coates and Pioneer

Ellis is a charming, friendly, enthusiastic, sincere man by all accounts. I spoke with him personally and heard him preach at the first Fusion conference in London, and he spoke with conviction, and not without some Biblical exposition. He is clearly a visionary, a man with a passionate commitment for his cause. He has done much to challenge the Christian student movements in Britain, and asks the right questions, notably—what are we doing to reach the lost? But, as I hope to demonstrate in this article, he has an extreme tendency to "give heed to fables...which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith" (1 Timothy 1:4).

Unfortunately he has inherited this bug from his svengali, Gerald Coates, whose addiction for `stories' has got him into hot water, even though he has recently been charging believers £15 or so to hear them at that Royal Albert Hall (see articles on his teachings in previous issues of Vanguard).

Celtic Christianity

The biggest fable of all is Celtic Christianity. Whilst it is undeniable that God greatly used His Celtic servants in times past (as he does today!), it is surely another matter to reconstruct and redact (read and write back into) a whole edifice of `Celtic Christianity' on the basis of a hotchpotch of myths and historical anecdotes. What is more, all modern British Christians are apparently expected to re-establish their churches on this equivocal model presented to them from a particular (poorly documented) part of the Church's history. Why Celtic and why 6th-8th centuries, you ask? Because God says so, we are told. Why not Jewish and Greek and why not first century, you ask? Because God isn't saying that any more, we are told. The New Testament church is apparently not quite good enough any more as a model for our churches today. We need, it seems, to search for something more `rootsy', more `ethnic', more `aboriginal', more `vibrant', more `culture-specific', more `post-modern', so as to engage with our society today.

Fahy's critique

To avoid re-inventing the wheel, it would be useful at this point to recommend an outstanding booklet by Paul Fahy, Modern Celtic Spirituality (1996, St Matthew Publishing). Fahy has done a marvellous work, sensitively and uncompromisingly dealing with the issues Ellis raised by his talk. The rest of this article will comprise a short summary of Fahy's main points (no substitute for the booklet itself) and then a brief book review of Ellis' subsequent book of 1998, The New Celts.

In his introduction, Fahy laments the current rejection of critical faculties in the Church and points out the "sudden rise in popularity of things Celtic". He urges balance: there was a "truly apostolic move of God amongst the Celtic people in times past", and "there is nothing wrong with a resurgence of interest in an art form or a time period" in themselves. He, like me, is a big fan of the Christian music group, Iona. He contrasts this cultural rediscovery with an "elitist, mystical experience of Christianity that has no Biblical roots and is, in fact, closely related to paganism... Druidism [and] the New Age spirit and dishonours the Lord Jesus Christ".

Part One traces the origins of the Celtic peoples (the Galatians were a Celtic people) and their culture and racial characteristics. It then goes on to give in broad strokes a history of Christianity in the British isles, focusing on the main leaders among the Celtic Christians, including Ninian, Corantinus, Germanus, Patrick and Columba. It concludes by recording the decline in distinctive Celtic Christianity as the churches in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the West Country were subsumed into the Roman Catholic religion. Nevertheless, Fahy delineates six "Celtic Christian distinctives" which gladden the heart: a deep veneration for the Bible, a pure love for Jesus, a passion for Mission, baptism by immersion, an honouring of the ten commandments and a clear message of salvation. He quotes David Marshall who asserts, interestingly, that "if the Roman church had learned from the Celtic church instead of trying to eradicate it, there would not have been the need for the Reformation".

Part Two exposes the New Age's selective hijacking of `Celticism'. The Christian Celts' morality and zeal are jettisoned in favour of pagan rituals and mystical pantheism enjoyed by the Celtic peoples at large. Fahy points out the semantic confusion of `Celts' with `Celtic saints', two very different categories. In fact, confusion is a big problem. Because of the "tantalising mixture of the true, the dubious and the notably incredible" (Lehane) historical inaccuracies or speculations abound, and it is too easy to make the Celtic Church `do' whatever you want it to have done (whatever style of worship, for example, you're currently into). Some examples of the untrustworthiness of much of the literature about the Celtic saints: Patrick apparently killed his own sister by running her over with a chariot; he had authority over nature and could even transform himself and others into animals (such as Coroticus into a fox); at Brendan's birth there was a light in the sky, cattle were present and people came to pay respect. "Over-zealous" scribes, says Fahy. I'd suggest that is the tradition Ellis is attaching himself to—he too is an over-zealous scribe, hyping up the hagiographies of little known saints, so as to find authenticity and precedent for his own favoured, unusual practices (such as using a stick with symbolically coloured ribbons during church worship; Ellis, p150). Fahy lifts out six quotes from Ellis' talk to show what he calls the "credulity of our modern Celtic apologists":

Fahy aptly draws our attention to the Scriptures, which in his translation read "have nothing to do with godless and silly myths" (1 Timothy 4:7), and he argues that "undocumented folk-lore is a totally insufficient basis to hold before the Lord's people and inspire them to go and do likewise". There are other wrong conclusions, such as the assumption that women were prominent in church leadership in Celtic churches (a very convenient assumption, given that most house or new churches in Britain promote women as leaders with authority over men). As it happens, Fahy gives detailed evidence to the contrary and concludes that "support for women leaders comes more from a pagan religion (Druidism) than Celtic church practice".

The booklet proceeds to challenge Ellis' derogation of the authority of the Bible (as we've discussed above), his emphasis on tribalism (the spirit of the Celtic Peregrinati is called down at the meeting where the talk was given), astonishing verbal gibberish ("it's the Celtic flow that will unlock the key"— just read that phrase again, it is errant nonsense and sadly typical of Ellis' argot and indicative of his thoroughly confused and opportunistic mindset; the man has combined neo-charismatic jargon with mystical new age mumbo-jumbo in a bizarre alphabet soup); the elevation of the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of the Son rather than to the glorification of the Son; the emphasis on "power encounters" rather than the Gospel; the regurgitation of the Kansas City Prophets/Paul Cain idea of "the new breed" of apostles, supermen, wonder-working endtimes warriors (see Paul's warnings against super-apostles in 2 Corinthians 9-12); the whole-hearted support for the heretic Pelagius who denied the effects of the fall and taught that man is naturally able to be saved without grace. Ellis and others try to make out that Pelagius was misunderstood or that it was only his followers who taught these things or that he is rejected because of his radical views on women, but in actual fact "Celtic Christians condemned Pelagius themselves and called for Germanus to help eradicate the heresy". As a result of allowing Pelagian thinking to enter his mind, Ellis speaks of "releasing the divine spark in people [we] are evangelising" rather than preaching to those dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1) while praying that God will regenerate them by His Holy Spirit (John 3:3-6).

Finally, under the headings `Dangerous Practices' and `Spiritual Dangers' Fahy cautions against ignoring the work of God (Ellis says in his talk that "the point is that the Celts are a symbol that resonates around history...the important thing is not what God did through them"). He warns of legalistic superstition (Ellis seems to recommend crossing oneself, drawing symbolic circles around oneself, "encountering the wild wind of God", praying in the snow and up to one's waist in the sea). He questions the "wavering between advocating a hermit existence and extolling the virtues of community life" and the emphasis on symbolism, as well as worldly involvement with culture, fashions and fads and (conversely) the kind of asceticism prohibited in Colossians 2. He shows concerns about authoritarianism, wild behaviour (whooping, shouting, screaming, yelling, crying, drums, growling, scratching of records), folks being encouraged to lose self-control and to receive a spirit ("I want us to catch the spirit of Peregrinati and the wild goose...this spiritual dynamic," says Ellis). Soberly, Fahy asserts that "this action can invite demonisation. There is no mention of Christ, no mention of the Spirit of God, the whole thing is extreme and hazardous". He concludes, "It is best to leave aside the elements of the world and focus on God's Word.
We are to have nothing to do with earthly forms and traditions," to which I can only pronounce a
hearty AMEN!

The New Celts

Most of Ellis' philosophies have already been discussed, but it would perhaps be helpful to touch on one or two extra ideas raised more recently in his latest book. The existence of the book in itself (6 or 7 sterling pounds from your local Wesley Owen) shows that Ellis hasn't taken a blind bit of notice of Fahy's gracious critique. A second observation concerns the publishing house which is notorious for its undiscriminating attitude towards its output. Thirdly, the list of illustrations reveals that they are all—you guessed it—Celtic symbols or `knots', such as `Trinity' and `Justice' by Revelation Church and Outa This World Designs. `Justice' is particularly disturbing (over page). Central to the picture is an eye within a triangle. Emerging from this are two arms, a body and legs. I find this a grotesque, almost obscene representation of our Crucified Lord. What is more, the floating Eye is a common Masonic symbol, actually identified with the Eye of Lucifer, atop the hierarchy of the New World Order. My fourth point is that the foreword is written by Mike Pilavachi, head of Soul Survivor, a church plant of St Andrew's Chorley-wood, home of Bishop David Pytches and hotbed of the Toronto experience when it first came to Britain a few years ago.

Moving on into the content of the book, I'd like to pick out a few phrases and comment on them.

1. "It's as if God placed rhythms in the earth itself which people were to explore and interpret with him" (17). This is more in keeping with new age ecology and the `natural theology' of the Roman Church than anything else, and this often—by exalting the general revelation of creation—dips into denying the sufficiency of Scripture as God's final and special revelation to mankind (Hebrews 1:3).

2. "The task of this book is not primarily one of historical research…our approach to the history is that the Celtic church movement is a symbol to us" (18,19). This point was raised by Fahy, but it is clear that Ellis and Seaton are much more concerned with making use of romantic ideals and hazy notions to authenticate their own behaviour, rather than establishing the truth of what happened in Celtic church history. Christians ought to be concerned with truth at all times (John 16:13), and this cavalier approach to history has disturbing implications for our view of the Bible. We may well be tending towards a neo-orthodox approach (i.e. the Bible isn't historically accurate, though it is `spiritually').

3. "…the horrors of the Catholic/Protestant split of the past 400 years" (20). Later on they speak of Catholics as Christians (72). It's quite clear that those bound up with the Celtic Spirituality movement resent the Reformation. They view it as a hideous mistake. I find it hard to believe that anyone who views the re-emergence of the doctrines of justification by grace through faith alone as a mistake, is actually saved by grace themselves. If we are to go back to any cultural forebears or aboriginal apostles other than those of the New Testament, surely the Reformers must be our models?

4. "The Lord Jesus Christ is both the summit and summation of all true spirituality and holistic lifestyle" (129). Are any of those words in any way connected to the Bible, apart from the "Lord Jesus Christ"? "Build a bridge…leitmotiv…baton we need to pick up…unblocking the wells" (20). All these phrases occur in the same paragraph, and the book as a whole is riddled with confusing mixed metaphors which show the authors' blithe and sloppy attitude towards language (and therefore thought and meaning) as well as history. On page 40, for example, they talk of flows of streams laying deep foundations. In other places, people carry streams, flows are eclipsed, grass roots on the streets, etc. Elsewhere the book is almost indigestible with jargon:

As we look for the shape of the church tomorrow, we predict that we shall find elements from the past rediscovered and reinterpreted for our creative dialogue with contemporary culture (65).
"Communication," they say, "consists of a series of symbols and sound-bites (rather like this chapter!)." They seem delighted about this content-free, package-obsessed, New Labour drift in our culture. They seem to positively will the destruction of language as a medium of anything other than `vibe' rather than genuine and substantial meaning and truth. It is not bad that "our society has become suspicious of words" and we should aim for people to "belong before believing" (74) and to "encounter God's power tangibly [i.e. fall over and have an ecstatic experience], feeling the conviction of the Holy Spirit long before choosing to commit themselves to Jesus via the grass-roots relational network of the Christian community" (74). "People who are not believers are often genuinely open to experience the power of God at work" (131). Once again, the office of the Holy Spirit has been changed—He is no longer present to convict men of sin and draw them to Christ; that will come later "via the community". The neo-charismatic community has taken the place of the Catholic priest. We come through the collective vibe to Jesus. Do these people have any sort of individual and personal relationship with Jesus at all? Is that why they need their meetings to go on day after day, into the small hours? Because when we all go home to our beds, can we still hear the still small voice?

5. "The Celtic Christians loved to invoke the Trinity, or `the name of the powerful three'" (29). Can't Ellis and Seaton see a dangerous superstition in `invoking' a name, as if it were a magic charm?

6. On page 35 they warmly endorse "the streams of revival from the wells of Toronto in Canada, Pensacola in Florida and Argentina in South America….Alpha, Cities for God and March for Jesus" in the context of ecumenism or "local church unity". Is it any surprise then that "many non-Christian commentators have more faith for a spiritual awakening than some Christians!"? (70). I have no doubt that the aforementioned goings-on are much more appealing to sensation-hungry unregenerate individuals than genuine Christians. It's hardly a ringing endorsement is it? "The author's own church has all five TV channels expressing interest in filming what God is doing among young people today" (70). That ought to fill them with some suspicion at least: normal Christian practice ought to be unappealing to the world's media, as we are the smell of death to those who are perishing (2 Cor. 2:16), and men have loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil (John 3:19). "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets" (Luke 6:26).

7. They talk of the "life-affirming worldview" and "affirmative doctrine of humanity" of Pelagius (42) and some Celts, which are fairly common euphemisms for a rejection of the doctrine of original sin. Even though they call Pelagianism "an unhelpful heresy" they seem to want to follow "the monk himself" whose "strand of thought… many of us today find more constructive than some of Augustine's doctrinal ideas" (42). Later they talk of losing "a form of Christianity which, through its druidic roots, was truly linked to the perennial philosophy of humanity" (211). They speak of Erigena (John Scotus) of being a "true Celt, a great theologian" (228) even though "in contrast to Augustine of Hippo, he held fast to the essential goodness of creation, claiming that the natural destiny of all creation, including humanity, was to reach God through Christ. Erigena had many wonderful theological ideas. For example, he held that every object was a flash of the supernatural—God was more than Creator, he was the essence of all things" (228). Does this mean they don't see the need for man to depend completely on God's grace for salvation (Ephesians 2:1-8)? Does this mean they support universalism (all will be saved) and even a form of pantheism (God is in everything) whilst rejecting the Biblical concepts of original sin and election? If this is the case, their interest in things Celtic is not just a dubious fad, it's a declaration of war on the Christian gospel of grace and salvation through Christ alone.

8. "The real draw of the Celtic Christians for us is not primarily an appreciation of their considerable achievements for the gospel…it is more to do with their…way of life…" (50). Surely the evangelistic endeavours and gospel work of Christians should always be one of the most interesting things about them, especially if we are seeking to model our church on them? I for one ask this question: how can my own church be better evangelistically?

9. Although the authors say that "our primary source of inspiration will be the Scripture itself" (67), there is limited evidence for this: the thrust of the book itself belies this claim. Just a page later, they seem to disparage the "old apologetic that is affirmed, `The Bible is historically accurate'". Also, "empowering women is both biblical and timely in the light of contemporary culture" (80). Surely if something is Biblical, it is timely in all cultures?! The second part of this sentence (timely in the light of contemporary culture) to me empties the first part of it (biblical) entirely. Contemporary culture, not the Bible, is where the rubber hits the road (or the stream) for these men. "It is unbiblical to preach from the Bible every time you are involved in evangelism. Now there's something worth thinking about!" (125). There's an almost unholy glee in this prospect of being able to jettison the Bible in evangelism.

10. "We don't believe this generation has rejected Jesus yet. We believe it is waiting to hear about him in its own language and to encounter him in its own culture" (81). This and all generations have rejected Jesus, because we are all sold under sin from our mothers' wombs (Psalm 51). But this is a self-fulfilling prophecy they have uttered. I suggest they are going to keep changing and whittling away at the language and culture of Scripture until it is unrecognisable. And then of course young people will accept Jesus. It will just be a shame that `he' won't be Jesus any more. Francis Schaeffer spoke about this prophetic foresight in all his books, most particularly in Escape from Reason when he told of groups that appropriate the name of `Jesus' for their own ends, emptying the word of all its Biblical connotations and filling it up again with whatever suits them. Schaeffer insists, and I firmly agree, that our problem is not primarily communication; it's sin! New church leaders and post-evangelicals cannot seem to understand that, yes, sometimes we Christians don't put things in the best way, but the bottom line is people reject Christ because they don't want Him Lord of their life. You can't fool people by trying to make Jesus `funky' like a gansta rapper or `revolutionary' like Che Guevara (see the Churches Advertising Network). `He' might be cool, but he won't be the Jesus of the Bible. Let's stop trying to diddle non-Christians into the kingdom and tell them straight. "Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost" [NB it does not say "to those who haven't rejected Jesus yet because they haven't heard the gospel `in their language'"] (2 Corinthians 4:1-4). Otherwise all we will convert them to is our rather inferior Christian dance or folk rock subculture and warmer-than-most-social-clubs communities.

11. "The future belongs to the networkers" (89). It's funny, I thought it belonged to the meek!

12. Preaching is put on a level with arts and contemporary music as a medium for the Gospel. But the Bible says that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). "We have encouraged artists to come and draw what they feel is happening as the church worships together…we have also had sculptors and even potters working to one side of the meeting…people are invited to go and view it at the end and ask the Holy Spirit to speak to them" (158). I think this quote stands alone. Also: "one friend of ours wanted to challenge people with God's dynamic character so he dyed his hair blond and had the word `fire' shaved at the back and dyed red!" (184).

13. "Monologues full of absolute propositions" (126) are frowned upon. I suppose the Sermon on the Mount would have no place in Ellis' Revelation church then?

14. "We need to be looking at fashion, clothing and other areas of symbolism to help people reflect on God's truth on an ongoing basis. Rather than wearing sackcloth and ashes, perhaps contemporary clothing and jewellery could be designed which symbolises devotion to God. Then when, for example, our people go out into clubland they will carry some symbols which not only provide them with a reminder of God's hand upon their lives, but also with some potential conversation starters" (151,152). Perhaps we should start wearing sackcloth and ashes! (Note: when the Bishop of Norwich visited a nightclub, clubbers tried to grab his ornamental cross because crosses are cool. Do you think this gets them closer to Christ?).

15. A song of worship to the sun is included as a good example of worship-poetry!!! I know it sounds hard to believe, but there it is: "Glory to thee, thou glorious sun" (166). I thought at first it might be a reference to Jesus, the Sun of righteousness (Malachi 4:2), but no—it really is sun worship they are supporting. I dearly hope they didn't realise this when they printed it. But the fact that they didn't says a lot about the lack of true rigour in their whole mentality. Please check this, because I wouldn't believe this if I read it- a so-called Christian book supporting sun-worship!

Conclusion

In summary, then, I have these concerns and questions in addition to those expressed by Paul Fahy:

1. Creation spirituality > Biblical revelation?

2. Symbolism and myth> Historical fact?

3. Reformation a mistake?

4. Jargon, mixed metaphor, vibe and community (belonging before believing) > Language, truth and propositional preaching?

5. Invocation of God's names > Praying to God?

6. Acclaim of non-Christians and hyped revivalism > Genuine, hard working, persecuted, daily Christian commitment?

7. Universalism, pantheism, natural goodness of man, works > Election, original sin, grace?

8. Living `incarnationally' Preaching the gospel verbally?

9. (Language of) contemporary culture (Language of) Scripture?

10. Mankind has communication problem and is naturally open to Jesus vs. mankind has a moral problem and is naturally closed to Jesus.

11. Technique and networks Fruits of the spirit and godly perseverance in the divine commission?

12. Art, music, sculpture, dance as vehicles for gospel preaching?

13. Dialogues full of relative notions Monologues full of absolute propositions?

14. Fashion as essential gospel tool?

15. Should we really worship the sun?

May God deliver us all from any confused, man-made, worldly notions we may have picked up through our study of culture and illuminate us by His Holy Spirit speaking through His timeless Book, perfectly relevant for all cultures because it meets the needs of all men in all ages—the Bible.

"But evil men and seducers shall become worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But you continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of knowing of whom you have learned them; And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works" :2 Timothy 3:13-17