One of the things I’ve picked up previously on is the risk of getting into debates about whether or not this particular person is a Christian? You can read my most recent observation here. You will pick up that I’m cautious about making an assessment. That’s in part because I don’t really want to get into squabbles about whether x person is or isn’t in. That risks distracting from my primary concern to engage with whether particular words, thoughts and actions are true to God’s Word. Secondly, I want to be cautious because there is a risk that I comment based on incomplete knowledge. We will come to that shortly. Thirdly, however, I want to be clear that it isn’t my assessment that matters. And my view does not change anything. My view on whether Russell Brand is a Christian does not change whether or not I encourage you to listen to his teaching or follow his behaviours. Those things do matter to a local church though. The church are going to have to decide whether or not to baptise someone and possibly whether or not to discipline them and exclude them from membership.
So, if I can briefly look at Russell Brand for a moment and imagine that I was part of an eldership panel deciding whether or not to recommend him for baptism and membership. Where would I land if I were basing that on what I know of him.
Well, first of all, I’d want to look at what he believes. Is there a clear profession of faith in Christ. Some time back, people were pointing everyone to watch his interview with Charlie Kirk. That would prove that he really was saved. So I watched the interview, indeed I’vew just been listening back now to check my memory. My honest assessment was that we heard lots of words strewn together, some forming actual sentences but I’m not convinced he really said much at all. It sounded like a performative speech rather than testimony in answer to an interview.[1] I listened carefully but if there was a profession of faith, I missed it. My caution is that maybe it was there, buried in the verbiage. Or maybe, after the interview, Kirk said to Brand:
“Okay, the cameras and mics are off now. You don’t need to play up to your image. Drop the act, just tell me straight how did you meet Jesus? Are you born again?”
There’s something about those old fashioned evangelical questions that cut through the verbiage. Maybe Kirk did ask that or maybe Brand was asked that by others, maybe those who baptised him.
The second thing we would be looking at would be conduct, is there fruit of repentance. This would not be about expecting perfection but we would be looking for evidence of Christ at work in his life. Now it’s important to make a few distinctions. First, this is not an assessment on his past life pre conversion. Secondly, we need to be careful in terms of distinguishing real change. You see, does a more chaste, monogenous family life indicate the work of the Spirit? Is this regeneration? Or is this simply a reflection that a man in his 50s with kids is settling down after a wild past. This can be true of course of all of us.
What I would be looking at is response under pressure. Now remember that we still have to be careful . We are not expecting him to have everything sorted. However, I am interested in the response to the case. In his interview with Kirk, he mentions allegations which he regards as false and awareness of the allegations predate his claimed conversion. Now, what we can say for certain is that Brand had lived a promiscuous life style. We also know that his victims had talked in terms of the harm they had experienced. In that respect Brand may not have believed the allegations were true in terms of the strict sense of was consent given. However, he did know two things. First he had acted wrongly, secondly, consent is not something we can just presume.
How, could he have handled things differently? Well, first of all, if he genuinely did not believe he was guilty then that doesn’t mean he had to plea guilty. However, there may have been ways in which e could have instructed his legal team to minimise, pain and shame to the women. He could even have honestly acknowledged that he did not know if consent was present back those years ago but he did know he had wronged the women. There is a costliness to this. Most of all, he could have not encouraged the conspiracy theories around his case. The point of caution again is that we do not know if he attempted to go down that road.
Now, the other element of care is that we are looking at one piece of evidence. We don’t have the whole picture. I’m not aiming to draw a conclusion on the one case here. Rather, my point is to show that we can draw conclusions. It’s not about looking at belief or behaviour in isolation. I might meet someone whose testimony is seriously muddled but whose life seems to be reflecting an encounter with Jesus. I might meet someone who clearly professes their faith but whose behaviour leaves much to be desired. In both cases, that’s where discipleship comes in as we teach assurance into them.
What we should be doing is looking at the whole picture. Is there credible profession and are we seeing evidence of the Gospel in their life.
