ON CHRISTIANITY

2045-08-01T08:50:00.000-07:00

Getting clear on Christianity

2011-11-05T12:52:00.000-07:00

So often misconceptions keep us from taking things seriously. And people generally have three misconceptions about Christianity.

1) We wrongly assume that it is OK just to believe in God.
People have all manner of ideas about what God is like. To say “I believe in God” can be rather like the person who says “I once met Tony Blair” and then describes him as a 5 foot Irishman with one leg. The man’s name may have been Tony Blair, but he is certainly not the one who actually governed the country.

Jesus said: “Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.”[1] His point was that if we truly know God, we will recognise him in Jesus himself. In other words, we need to believe in the God who is actually there. Not an impersonal being who has kick-started the universe yet is unconcerned with it now; but the deeply personal Creator whose power, love and sense of justice are so clearly seen in Jesus.

The first momentous truth of Christianity is that God has actually entered space time history as a man, and that he did so in order to put our world right. Jesus spoke of establishing an everlasting kingdom – a new world order that he would reign over and that would be free from suffering and death. He promised that he would judge and exclude all evil from it, and fill it with those he would raise from the dead and enable to live in perfect love for God and one-another.

Now this is all rather a lot for a twenty first century mind to accept. But God has not left us without evidence. The historical trustworthiness of the gospels is verifiable. The writers had nothing to gain except death for writing what they did. And in the gospels we find eyewitness accounts that record Jesus’ ability to do just what he promised - overcome evil, suffering and death. Above all else we see that he himself was raised from the dead, proving that he is the one to bring in the death-free world.

In 1944, Lt. Hiroo Onoda was sent by the Japanese army to the remote Philippine island of Lubang. His mission was to conduct guerrilla warfare during World War II. Unfortunately, he was never officially told the war had ended. So for 29 years, Onoda continued to live in the jungle, ready for when his country would again need his services and information. Eating coconuts and bananas and deftly evading searching parties he believed were enemy scouts, he hid in the jungle until finally emerging on March 19, 1972.

Surely all of us long for an end to the darkness of our world. Yet we continue as if God has done nothing to bring this about. More worryingly, like Onada, many live in a way that ignores or is even hostile to God, to the God who is there – the God that is Jesus. And this lead us to our next misconception.

2) We wrongly assume that we are good enough for God.
Jesus said “No-one is good except God alone.”[2] He was so honest about the evil within our hearts. We may not commit adultery, but our imaginations do. We may not murder, but we feel the sort of bitterness that can lead to it. And what of Jesus command to love God with all our mind, soul, heart and strength? What of his example of actually seeking to do good to those who hurt and hate us? Next to him, our best deeds are like 60 watt bulbs when the sun comes out - inconsequential.

Jesus’ promise to judge and exclude all evil from his kingdom is therefore a problem for us, because to some extent we all do evil. It was for this reason that he spoke so frankly about hell - the place of exclusion. He desperately warned that it would be the most horrific of existences imaginable, and something we should avoid at all costs.

This brings us to a second momentous truth about Christianity. Jesus was willing to experience this hell on our behalf. He spoke of his own death as a laying down of his life for all who would come to him. He taught that it was somehow equivalent to the punishment we deserve for our wrongdoing. Do read the next sentence slowly to grasp what that means: By knowingly going to such an excruciating death, Jesus lovingly and purposefully endured the justice and anger of God at human wrongdoing so that you and I might not have to endure it ourselves.

Now that is good news. God is the God of the second chance. He is the God of the fresh start. This is why, despite being our judge, Jesus was still keen to spend time with those who were dishonest and immoral. It is why he was able to say he had come for those who are spiritually sick rather than healthy. It is why he was able to boldly hand out God’s forgiveness to those who sought it from him.

Here again we must slow down to take in, because this forgiveness is the heart of Christ's message. In the early church, the first physical act of faith was to be baptised, to be washed in water. It symbolised that the first spiritual act of faith was to bring all the grime of our lives to God for cleansing. Jesus taught that we are then treated by God as if we were clean, even though we so clearly aren't. We then have his acceptance. We are reconciled to him like hostile enemies to a benevolent King, or wayward children to a perfect Father.

And doesn’t all this bring relief? At times all of us experience guilt and shame. We may suppress it as soon as we can. Yet its presence shows that we know only too well that we will not be able to stand on judgement day. This means that we should be rightly fearful of facing Jesus. But for those who come to him, that fear can be turned to joy. And so to our third misconception.

3) We wrongly assume that being a Christian is just to uphold Christian values.
I hope you have already seen that it is so much more than that. Jesus calls all people to: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”[3] Sadly this brings only images of “the-end-is-nigh” sandwich boards in London. But the word “repent” refers to “a change of mind that leads to a change of life.” It is to truly believe in Jesus and so act accordingly: It is to believe that he has been raised from the dead and so is God’s Son, King and Judge. It is therefore to call on him as judge for mercy and forgiveness whenever we do wrong. And it is then to submit to him as King and so bring our entire life under his rule.

Centuries ago, everyone thought that the earth was the centre of the solar system and that the planets and sun itself revolved around us. A revolution in scientific thinking then occurred that caused a revision of all text books. Copernicus discovered that in reality the sun was the centre, and everything revolved around it.

The third momentous truth of Christianity is that the resurrection of Jesus means an even greater revolution in thinking needs to take place. We all live as if we are the centre of the universe. We believe what we want to believe and behave as we want to be behave. Yet in reality, it is the Son who is the centre, and we and all we think or do must therefore revolve around him. Some denied and opposed Copernicus’ theories. But that made them no less true. And just as all recognise that from the vantage point of today, so one day people will see they were wrong about Jesus.

Of course repentance can be hard. It really does mean changing the way we live: It means being part of God's new humanity and so living by the ways of the world to come. It means forgiving our enemies, cleaning up our language, purifying our sex lives and reforming our work-practices. It means joining a local church where the Bible is well taught, and giving time, money and effort to further Jesus’ purposes. It means caring for the needy and standing up for the oppressed, trying to tell others what we've come to know, and even enduring hostility in return.

Yet in all this, the one thing we must be very clear on, is that repentance is not an attempt to somehow earn or deserve God's acceptance, as many assume. No, it is simply the evidence that we really believe Jesus is who he claimed, that we are sincere in our sorrow at sin and that we want to share in the life of his kingdom.

And can I reassure you here, that repentance really is quite wonderful? Jesus promised that obeying his teaching would “set us free.”[4] It liberates us from the expectations of the world and the addiction of our own nature to what is wrong. He spoke of dying so that we can “have life in all its fullness”[5] – the wholeness of the truly human life, flourishing because it is lived as God created it to be lived. He welcomed his disciples with the words “peace be with you,”[6] declaring the love and acceptance of God that the repentant Christian can experience.

We read that the response of Jesus’ first followers to all this was quite simply “joy.”[7] This is the essence of the Christian life. No matter how hard life gets, the true Christian can know an inner contentment and delight in personally knowing God, marvelling at his ways, looking forward to his kingdom, honouring him with their life, and being a member of his family the church.

How then do I become a Christian?
We have seen that this entails three things:

Believing that God has raised Jesus from the dead, and that Jesus is therefore God’s Son, King and Judge.
Relying on God for mercy and forgiveness for all you have done or will do wrong.
Seeking to obey Jesus’ teaching in every respect.

To those who repent in this way, Jesus promises forgiveness, everlasting life in his kingdom and his Holy Spirit to help us to live for him. In the light of this, can I urge you not to delay in responding as Jesus asks? You may find the following prayer useful:

Lord God,
I thank you for your great love in sending Jesus to die for me.
I believe that you raised him from the dead and that he is your Son and King and Judge.
Please forgive all the wrong I have done or will do, every sin I know of and don’t know of.
I commit myself now to obeying Jesus as my King.
Please fill me with you Holy Spirit to help me live for him.
Amen.

[1] John 5v23
[2] Mark 10v18
[3] Matthew 4v17
[4] John 8v31-32
[5] John 10v10
[6] Luke 24v36
[7] Luke 24v52

Thou shalt not be certain

2011-08-08T02:32:00.001-07:00

In the lexicon of modern sins, 'thou shalt not be certain' seems firmly established as a cardinal offence. Mike Ovey looks at why this has happened and explores the sins of certainty and uncertainty.

'Forgive us for our sins of certainty.' It was a certainly a striking prayer to hear at a communion service and I had little doubt who it was aimed at. I was not sure whether to be amused or take offence.

Nevertheless, there is something about the phrase that nags away at me: can certainty be a sin, and if so, when and how? Why is it that this person felt such obvious antipathy to conservative evangelical assurance?

We need to decode some of these sentiments because Paul the Apostle clearly tells us to renounce disgraceful, underhanded methods in our proclamation of the gospel (2 Corinthians 4:1ff). We rightly see this as ruling out lying and deception for the gospel's sake, but if certainty is disgraceful or inappropriate, then we should renounce that too.

Certainty, extremism and fundamentalism?

So why might someone have misgivings about the notes of certainty that evangelicals and other Christians characteristically sound as they talk about Jesus and the instructions of the Bible? There are those, whether inside or outside the church, who point to the dangers of extremism.

After the Second World War, it was of real concern to understand what had made totalitarianism in its fascist forms possible, and this led to discussions of 'the authoritarian personality' by thinkers such as TW Adorno. From the 1960s it was becoming clear that religious extremism was not a thing of the past and the investigation of religious fundamentalism was a matter of genuine political importance.

It hardly needs saying that the murders of 9/11 in New York, or those of 7/7 in London, injected further deep unease about where some certainties could lead you. For better or worse, religious certainty is associated with extremism and, that bête-noire of op-ed writers, 'fundamentalism'.

'Fundamentalism', though, can be a much misunderstood word in today's discussions. It's worth remembering that the Fundamentalism Project, which spent years in the 1980s and 90s researching the patterns of 'fundamentalism', moved away from a tight association of certainty with the kind of fundamentalism that led to 9/11, or that we can see in cults. Instead they suggested we think in terms of a fundamentalist scoring several ticks on a list of characteristics.

It is quite a long list. Those characteristics are: first, reactivity to the marginalisation of religion, especially secularisation; secondly, a selectivity by fundamentalists in picking out bits of their own religious or ideological tradition; thirdly, a moral dualism, so that the world divides into the light and the dark; fourthly, an absolutism and inerrancy about the fundamentals, whatever those might be; fifthly, a millennialism and messianism, where history ends in victory for the believer; sixthly, an elect membership; seventhly, the saved and sinful are separated by sharp boundaries; eighthly, organisation in the movement is authoritarian, with no loyal opposition, but often a charismatic leader; and ninthly, in terms of behaviour, the believer, with his or her time, space and wealth, is treated as a group resource.

There are several points of interest here. First, the list really catches quite a lot. Arguably, and with pleasing irony, secularist organisations qualify for characteristics 3, 4, 5 and 7, and perhaps even 1, 2 and 8. Secondly, for a Christian, there is a striking lack of charity or compassion for the sinful who are 'outside' the blessed community of light.

Thirdly, and importantly for present purposes, certainty is featured here in relation to some but not all the characteristics. Certainty is there over the fundamentals of the religion or ideology, over the course of history and over the division between those who are in and those who are out. But certainty by itself does not automatically guarantee fundamentalism.

In one sense, there is nothing startlingly new about that observation. But I don't think that means we can simply heave a sigh of relief and dismiss outright the misgivings that our surrounding culture has, because certainty is indeed completely consistent with some of these marks of fundamentalism. That in turn suggests that certainty is not necessarily a virtue.

Conviction politics is not automatically a good thing: look at the conviction evident in the old apartheid politics of South Africa. Conviction religion is not necessarily a good thing either, and perhaps I would do well to be less impressed by the certainty, passion and conviction with which a fellow-Christian says something and more aware that fears about fundamentalism are not always groundless.

Certainty and arrogance?

However, we haven't yet thought about the genuine theological concerns behind the phrase 'sins of certainty'. The person who prayed the prayer was not, I think, simply wanting to argue for a multicultural democracy. Rather, I think the word 'sin' was being used with a real theological intention: certainty was in some sense associated with offence against God. Why might that be?

In fact, there can be a legitimate concern here for God's honour and glory. God is infinite in all his perfections and the words and descriptions that we have of him do not begin to exhaust him. In Psalm 131:1, David speaks of things that are too great and too marvellous for him, and the corresponding need for David and us is not to lift our hearts or eyes too high. If God is great in this kind of way, then the idea of being 'certain' that he is this or that seems presumptuous.

Here, of course, an evangelical wants to draw a sharp distinction between the words of scripture and other words that humans might speak. With regard to those other words, the fear of presumption and arrogance is very well taken. But the words of scripture are different, not because they have no human dimension to them, but because they have an authenticated divine dimension, authenticated ultimately by reference to Jesus himself.

Of course, I think this evangelical distinction between the words of canonical scripture and all other human words is right. I do, though, want to hear the warning that says it is perilously easy to confuse the words of God with my words, especially when my words are words about the words of God, as the sermons of evangelical ministers must be, and as the writings of evangelical theologians must be too.

In fact, it is not just perilously easy to confuse the words of God with my words, it is also perilously tempting. Naturally, we want people to be persuaded by what we say. We think it's right or we wouldn't say or write it, and it can seem an attractive short-cut to imply that there is not really a cigarette paper between our words and God's words.

Yet we need to be clear what this can involve. Not only is there the presumption of ascribing things to God that are the products of finite and fallen human speculation, there is also the presumption of speaking our words to others with a certainty that properly belongs only to the words of God, which amounts to lording it over others. This violates proper love of both God and neighbour.

At this point, the warning to us from those who speak of the sins of certainty relates to pride, especially the pride of intellect and domination.

Uncertainty and arrogance?

Nevertheless, the evangelical also wants to pose a question back to those who see certainty as lying so closely to sins of pride and arrogance. Can sin also lie behind uncertainty?

Initially this seems an odd question because we are so used to hearing uncertainty associated with humility. The argument runs that it is humble not to be definite or assertive about God. As God is an infinite being, all we can be sure of are our own inadequacies to speak truly of him.

In a similar vein, it can seem humble not to be too definite about what a particular passage of the Bible really means. The truth or definite meaning of the Bible is too uncertain for us to rule anything out. In this way, uncertainty can come to have a chic value, something too subtle for the cloth-headed proponents of certainty to grasp. Being uncertain comes to be a badge of honour.

But does this kind of uncertainty that honours us also honour God? I am afraid it does not. There are several reasons. First and foremost, something that sets God apart from idols is that he speaks. Idols are silent and have nothing to say, but God speaks and his words declare the future (see Isaiah 45:21 and Jeremiah 10:5). This means that to treat God as a god who cannot speak is to reduce him to the level of an idol. The idea that God cannot say anything, or at any rate nothing that can with certainty be understood, does treat him like an idol. That may not be the open intention, but it starts to look like the result.

Now the reply to this might be that this is circular. It relies on something the Bible says to assert something definite about the God who inspires the Bible. So it is worth remembering at this point that a circular argument can be completely true. Technically, circularity is something that deals with the validity of an argument, not the truth of its conclusion. More importantly, this idea of uncertainty about God is in fact certain about one thing: it is saying we can be certain we cannot be certain. There is something that we know God is not, namely a competent communicator.

But we also know that an awful lot of human communication (not 100% it is true, but still a lot) is effective for its purpose: I can order the right pizza in Pizza Hut and in many of my conversations with non-Christians their point is not that they don't understand me, but that they don't agree with me. It is, to put it mildly, odd to think that God cannot do something his human creatures can, namely use human language for effective communication. It leads one again to ask whether he really is perfect, or all that different from idols.

Secondly, the biblical God is a God who makes promises. In particular, he makes promises about my future and how I may enjoy eternal life. If I am certain of my eternal destiny or the rightness of my actions just through my own speculations, then that does look like arrogance and presumption.

On the other hand, if I refuse to believe a promise that God himself gives then there is an element of presumption there. For if he gives a promise which he intends humans to rely on and humans turn round and say that the promises are not reliable, they are dismissing what God says the promises are. It is a way of disbelieving and distrusting God.

At this stage, we can see that uncertainty is sometimes a way of not trusting and not relying. Obviously, humans are sometimes not trustworthy, so that uncertainty about their words and promises is entirely reasonable. But the biblical God is one whose word achieves what he intends, and who cannot lie (Titus 1:2). The problem of radical uncertainty is that it stops us trusting God.

Spiritually, this is deeply dangerous: it dishonours God and inclines us to rely on ourselves or our idols. Unfortunately, this is also deeply tempting, because I may prefer to rely on myself, with all the control and self-assertion that self-reliance suggests, than to trust God, with the humility and dependence that such trust suggests.

Thirdly, radical uncertainty inclines me to doubt Jesus: it makes me doubt that he is a perfect God who has taken flesh and who claims to have revealed things to me, notably the very name of his Father (John 17:6). He may not have revealed all things in heaven and earth to us, but he does claim to have revealed who God is.

Is it a sin to be certain of Jesus? Definitely not. Is it a sin to determine to remain uncertain of him and his words and will? Very definitely. Of course, certainty by itself can be sin. But so can a wilful uncertainty, and that is just as real a danger, and, I fear, a rather bigger one.



Mike Ovey is the Principal of Oak Hill College.



Commentary content listing

Read Commentary magazine online: click here (PDF, 6.3Mb)

Learning from the Sabbath

2011-04-20T01:43:00.000-07:00

If we had lived only a hundred years or so ago, we would have probably accepted the common view that Sunday was to be held as a Sabbath. The word comes from the Old Testament and means “rest.” This would have entailed ceasing from all work and other activity in order to gather with God’s people at church - twice, devote the day to deepening our faith and that of our families, and give time to serving the needy. The rise of secularism has almost totally eroded these convictions, not least because many Christians are required to work on Sundays and all sorts of activities can only be entered into on that day too.

This has led to a re-evaluation of what exactly scripture teaches in order to ask what is actually required of Christians on Sundays, and whether we are wrong to make this day pretty much like any other.

My own conviction is that this re-evaluation has been healthy and has highlighted an unhelpful legalism in how Sundays were regarded. Having said that, as is so often the case, there is a danger that the pendulum swings too far, and we forget the principles that led the church to act as it did and that are for our benefit.

This paper is intended to help you consider the issues so that we can frame our lives in our secular world in such a way that more fully honour God.

The creation

There were two stages to the development of the Sabbath in the Old Testament. The first is recorded in Genesis 2v2-3. God worked for six days, creating the watery chaos of the earth and subduing and filling it. He then rested on the seventh day and set it apart as “holy,” which means especially devoted to him.

We also learn that he commissioned humanity in Eden to image him by filling and subduing the earth too. The sense is that our own work in the world should be patterned on his. In other words, we should take one day in seven to rest and enjoy the creation in such a way that we are appreciating God as our creator and our ultimate destiny of sharing his rest in paradise.

The law

The second stage was the fourth of the ten commandments and how it was applied in Israel. This refers back to the creation but is more prescriptive. It was a joyful occasion devoted to delighting in the Lord and remembering his deliverance of Israel from slavery and his gift of rest in the land of Canaan. Nevertheless, because of Israel’s tendency to sin and so fail to devote the day to the Lord, it required a rigid rest that did not allow buying or selling, or even domestic chores such as preparing food. It also required that God’s people gather for worship.

The New Testament

Both Jesus and the apostles affirm the creation account and humanity made in God’s image as foundational for Christian living. On this basis, it would seem that the pattern of work and rest that is based on creation and reflects life in God’s image still applies.

Their understanding of the law is most clearly seen in Matthew 5-7 and from Galatians and Hebrews. We learn that the Christian is not under the law as Israel were. The fuller work of the Holy Spirit means that such rigid requirements are no longer needed to ensure we honour the Lord. We obey him not because we have to in the legal sense but because we now want to as mature children. We therefore do so not out of fear but out of love. It is this “want” and “love,” that are the marks of true faith and the signs of the Spirit’s work.

Yet there is still a place for the law in guiding these desires. We are told that the Spirit has now “written” the law on our hearts. The sense is that the renewed image of God in the Christian somehow reflects the law. By studying the law we should therefore see something of a blueprint of what God is working in us and so of what we should be and do.

Obviously not every detail of law portrays God’s image. Love fulfils the law. The sense is that it comprised the principles of love for God and neighbour applied to Israel’s unique situation. So we should consider not just how each law points to Christ, but how its application may be changed by the work of Christ and what it teaches about life in Christ, devotionally and ethically. We should ask what principles does each law portray with respect to love for God and his creation and love for our neighbour and community? And what wisdom does it give on how these might be worked out in our context today?

Think of ten rules a parent pins on the wall to ensure order in their house. They reflect the principles of care and respect. There is a sense in which their unruly children are under law. If they disobey they will be disciplined. If they obey all will be well. When the children grow up, the time of the list has passed. They are no longer under law. The reason is that as adults, they should not need rules because they should now want to live with care and respect. Nevertheless, the rules can still remind them of these principles and how they might be applied.

With respect to the Sabbath then, we should note its principles of ensuring others have a day off, and that the Israelite would so devote their time to God that they use their rest day to gather for worship and celebrate all they have been given - a sort of foretaste of the world to come. It is true that such things are not legally required of the Christian, but an understanding of our new hearts suggests that we should still want to match them.

The Sabbath in the New Testament

Interestingly, the New Testament’s teaching on the Sabbath leans towards just this. Paul in particular states that observing the Jewish Sabbath is no longer required, implying that its rigid requirements are not either. Indeed, he stresses that keeping a specific day entirely devoted to the Lord is a matter of freedom for Christians.

So the time for keeping the law as a system has passed. But the need to apply its principles remains. And so we see the apostles do two things. First, they go beyond the Sabbath. The principle of devoting time to the Lord is affirmed as something that might be done every day, and a daily meeting with God’s people is displayed. Second, they uphold the wisdom of the Sabbath. They designate Sunday “the day of the Lord,” setting it apart for the main church gathering. This is significant in that this has Sabbatical connotations. It was the day of the resurrection and so of remembering God’s new creation. As the phrase suggests, it was therefore a day that was particularly for the Lord.

This did not mean that the apostles required people to rest on that day. That principle could not be applied as many would have had to work in Greco-Roman society. So finding other opportunities for rest would need to have been considered. Nevertheless, the apostles did expect the early Christians to want to prioritize their time in order to meet together on Sundays, even if it meant meeting through the night and so before work! This shows a strong commitment to the Lord’s Day as special. We cannot therefore assume that if the apostles had lived in a more Christianized society that they would not have encouraged people to take a day off on Sundays too.

Summary

In short, the picture we have is twofold: First, an abiding call to take one day off in seven to enjoy the creation and remember the creator. Second, a suggestion that although the Mosaic Sabbath no longer binds us, we should want to apply its principles where we can.

Applying this today

For clarity the following are stated as commands, but we have learnt that they should reflect our heart’s desire.

1) Take a day off each week on the pattern of creation. We are commanded to image God in our work, and just as this requires us to do our bit in subduing and filling the earth, so it requires us to ensure we and any employees have a day off from our usual work-like activity each week to appreciate God’s gift of this world and the coming rest in the next.

We need to hear this in a society that fills every moment with busyness to the detriment of our health and our families. It takes faith to trust that God will enable us to do whatever is necessary in six days. But we are called to trust him, and taking a day off seems to be more a matter of obedience than an option. This really is good news!

2) Above all else prioritize time for formal worship with God’s people each week. This also a matter of obedience (Heb 10v24-25). What does it say of our love for God and his people when we allow activities that really are not necessary to prevent us from doing this? And what does it say to our children? If the early Christians forfeited sleep to gather together it would have been inconceivable for them to miss the gathering for the sake of a hobby or because they would not schedule a trip around church.

It is of course extremely difficult to pull out of hobbies and habits that are already formed and keep us from church. It is especially difficult to gently but firmly encourage our children to do so too. But our love for God, his people and our children’s good, really leaves us no option. Do talk to your minister for advice and support in this.

3) Maximize the free time you can use to appreciate all God gives and to deepen your relationship with him. This is surely the primary principle of the Sabbath law written on our hearts. Of course we are called to be industrious for six days of every week and need time for other things. But we should long to create ‘Sabbath-time’ every day to look to God. Moreover, in following the Mosaic principle, if possible we should want to take our day off on the day we gather with God’s people. This would enable us to meet more than once and motivate us in the very aspects of devotion to God in the rest of the day that we rarely have time for otherwise.

It is here that the swing from a rigid Sunday Sabbath has surely gone too far. We may not be required to devote a whole day a week to the things of God, but in our hearts we should surely want to at least approach this. Nothing is prescribed, but on whatever day we have off, we might give time to Bible study, prayer, praise, teaching our children the faith, visiting someone who is struggling, hosting a church family or simply being with our own. Yet in all this, we must not forget just enjoying God’s creation and reflecting on the creation to come.

As our culture gives two days off a week, we actually have a luxury Israel didn’t have that means that we are able to do necessary chores and extra socializing on one day in order to maximize our use of the other one. Our problem is perhaps that we expect too much time for ourselves and so resent devoting such a portion to these things.

4) If at all possible, do all these things on a Sunday. This is not commanded but it is strongly commended by the apostles and the early church designating Sunday “the day of the Lord.” When one consider its allusion to new creation and the lengths people went to in order to meet on this day, we really should be cautious of having no preference for Sunday as our day off nor assume it doesn’t matter which day of the week our main church gathering takes place on. Moreover, meeting on the same day other Christians do creates a habit in our week that makes it easy for us to attend another church if we move, and shows a concern to make it easy for those moving from elsewhere to attend ours.

5) Limit other activities even though they are not forbidden. It is not wrong to do basic chores, play sport, further a hobby, travel or even buy something on our day off or on a Sunday. We are not under Old Testament law and are not responsible for others having to work on any particular day unless they are our employees. In fact, some of these activities can mean enjoying the things of creation, and the Sabbath never required spending every moment in ‘spiritual exercises.’

But we should remember the rigidity of the law was required because human beings do not easily prioritize God. So we might well want to make some personal commitments about what we will and will not do on our day off, so other things do not encroach on our time at church and with the Lord.

6) If you are truly unable to do these things, be sure you are not sinning. In a secular society many Christians are required to work on Sundays and some not even be allowed one day off in seven. Others may be kept from these things by other necessities such as being a full time carer or having to maintain peace with a non-Christians spouse. Now some may be able to come to an agreement with their spouse or change their job or situation. But those unable to would just want to apply the above principles as best as they are able.

Conclusion

The point throughout is that we should not let the busyiness of life keep us from obeying God’s call to rest for a day each week and gather with his people for worship. In our hearts we should also want to maximize time on our rest day in focusing on the things of the Lord, and keep other things from dominating. More than that, we should prefer to do this all on a Sunday.

We are each responsible before God for what this means in practice for us and our own families and it may be depend on the sort of week we’ve had and the situations we face. But each of us should examine our conscience before God and pray he would give us a greater love and longing for him so that we would carve out more Sabbath-time and delight in doing so.

2011-01-13T03:54:00.000-08:00

2011-01-12T12:38:00.000-08:00

This site has been created to enable you to find the information you most need about Christianity without getting lost in cyberspace. We have purposely sought to keep it simple and uncluttered. If you are a Christian, see the top linkbar. If you are not, then the videos and icons on the right-hand sidebar are particularly for you.

Sex education in church schools

2010-12-21T10:38:00.000-08:00

21.12.10

More than any other issue in ministry, it is through confusion and irresponsibility in matters of sex that I see the greatest damage done to adults and to their children. For some it is the pain and destruction that stems from adultery or from multiple partners. For others it is the damage done to relationships through an addiction to pornography or a cold, even perverted, attitude to sex.

As those responsible for children in a church school, it is therefore important indeed that we think clearly on this issue if we are to protect not just the generations we care for but the generations they will go on to parent.

Understanding the times

As we approach this subject we must recognize that trends in sex education come in a cultural context that is (a) relativistic – and so the desire of the individual is rarely said to be wrong, (b) permissive – so one of the greatest taboos is to suggest something cannot be done, (c) broken – with a higher divorce rate than many. Those writing the materials are part of this culture and so likely to write what reflects it, or perhaps reflects their own choices in life in such a way that does not accept where they have actually made mistakes. In teaching the material, it is good to be aware of these tendencies in ourselves too.

We should also recognize the sexual attitudes of our culture are fairly novel ones. Throughout the majority of history, and even today amongst the majority of religions, something much closer to the Christian view of the place of sex has been held. If nothing else, humility before such a consensus should keep us from uncritically propagating our culture’s view in a manner that could lead the next generation to repeat the mistakes of their parents with all the pain that ensues.

Discernment

The diversity of backgrounds children come from may mean that we feel unable to be as clear about certain rights and wrongs as we may like. However one thing that can be done is to teach older children discernment. An ability to at least weigh up different views respectfully but critically, including that of their own parents, can only benefit.

Timing

A key question is over when teaching on topics such as body parts, masturbation and intercourse help prevent unwanted pregnancy, and when will it encourage an interest in these things that would not have otherwise been there. Children as young as 3 or 4 can be interested in touching one-another’s sexual organs or kissing each other on the lips. This is not surprising. Nor will it therefore be surprising if other ideas are introduced which in all innocence they then try out too.

In terms of mentioning homosexuality in particular, extreme caution is needed. It is commonly recognized that during the inherent confusion of puberty many feel some same sex attraction. If at this time it is simply taught that ‘homosexuality refers to those who are attracted to those of the same sex’ such children could very easily assume that they are homosexual. With all the concern for people to be proud of their sexuality such children might then feel great pressure to engage in homosexual acts that may be pleasurable and only seem to confirm their assumptions. This could cause them to have an identity crisis or miss out on what Christians would claim to be normal heterosexual development.

Obviously, at whatever level the ‘right’ age for sex education will differ according to the children. There will always be a few who may have benefited from sex education at a younger age, whether because of greater maturity or because of a lack of discernment in what their parents have exposed them to. However, this cannot be the determining factor for when the majority of their peers receive their own sex education.

Rather, the complexity of the matter suggests that what is included in sex education at certain ages should be decided on with strict consultation between teachers, governors and parents, but with the parents’ will taking precedence, as they are those, in a Christian understanding, who are ultimately responsible for their children.

The Christian view

In providing such education in a church school, an understanding of the Christian values surrounding sex must be determinative.

Many Bible passages could be referred to. The key ones are Genesis 1 and 2, and Matthew 19v1-11 where Jesus affirms the Genesis passages as the basis for understanding marriage and sexual ethics.

In short, Christians hold that God created sex as good gift to be enjoyed. There are no grounds then for portraying the Christian view as dull Victorianism. Indeed, the Bible even teaches that regular sex is necessary for a healthy marriage.

It has two purposes: The first is to result in children that will be raised to love and serve God. The second is in powerfully drawing the couple closer to one-another in order to help keep them united together in serving God as a team and particularly by raising any children that may be given.

The problem with sex in the Christian worldview is that by turning from God people have suppressed this understanding and been ready to satisfy its powerful desires in whatever way they choose, resulting in all sorts of sexual confusion within ourselves and our children.

By contrast, a true understanding of the Christian view helps us see why sex must be heterosexual. Its intent has always been to produce children and strengthen the partnership in which they are to be raised. The fact that children do not always result or that a gay couple can raise a child doesn’t validate sex outside of the heterosexual context because its purpose is defined by its original, God-given and therefore ‘ natural’ intent.

This understanding also helps explain why sex is only to be within marriage. Sex outside such an exclusive lifelong commitment with its public accountability to others (a) makes children vulnerable as it is easier for a parent to leave, (b) makes the other parent vulnerable in making it easy for them to be abandoned to care for the child on their own, and (c) can cause emotional devastation to the partner in being drawn so close to another through a sexual relationship only to then discarded.

God’s boundaries for sex are therefore for our own good and the good of any children we may wish to have. The evidence that this is so surrounds us in the brokenness of our current society and the pain many of us feel from brokenness in our own families. In the light of this, it is ironic that few are ready to question our culture’s norms.

The Christian view can be likened to the parent who lovingly buys their child a car for when they passed their test. Of course the child will be desperate to drive it before then. But if they do they are likely to crash it, harming themselves and probably others. So they need to control that desire and wait, knowing that they will get the best from the car and enjoy it most if they have passed their test and follow the highway code.

We should remember that as with all Christian living, the principle of selfless love in sexual activity is paramount. We do not primarily engage in sex because it gives us pleasure (though it does), we do so in order to serve God’s purposes in marriage and procreation (love for God), deepen our commitment to our marriage partner (love for them) and so better serve as a couple in the world and better raise any children we have too (love for others).

Current sex education material

No doubt there is much good material available. But the following do concern me in what I have seen:

1) A description of intercourse - recommended for 5+ years.

2) A description of intercourse carried out because “the man wants to get as close to the woman as he can, because he’s feeling very loving to her” – recommended for 7+ years.

3) A game of matching definitions and descriptions with words and phrases such as “anal intercourse, anus, bisexual, homophobia, homosexual, incest, lesbian, masturbation, oral sex, orgasm, prostitute” – recommended for 5+ years.

4) The definition of “incest” not stating it is wrong but only “against the law” – recommended for 5+ years.

5) A description of how people masturbate and the pleasure given as they do, with the phrase “it’s quite natural” and “sometimes, when people love each other they want to share these special touches” – recommended 7+ years.

6) Full frontal video stills of naked men and women – recommended for 7+ years.

7) Computer generated images of penetration and of an erection – recommended for 7+ years.

8) Cartoon pictures of two men in love – recommended for 7+ years.

9) A statement about those who “disapprove of” homosexuality or think that “gay relationships are wrong” that says: “Usually these people know little or nothing about homosexuals, and their views are often based on fears or misinformation, not on facts. People are often afraid of things they know little or nothing about.” – recommended for 7+ years.

10) A video still of two men kissing – recommended for 7-11 years.

11) Cartoon video stills of a couple having sex – recommended for 7-9 years.

12) A description of foreplay, erections and the “fluid” side of intercourse – recommended for 7+ years.

13) A description of fantasizing sexually about “someone you fancy” as “a safe way to explore your emotions” – recommended for 8+ years.

No doubt every parent will draw their lines in different places, but I imagine many would be surprised and concerned to find that material this explicit is recommended or used with primary aged children.

In sieving it through the Christian worldview outlined, a number of reflections need mention:

1) We cannot agree that masturbation, anal or homosexual sex should be portrayed uncritically as quite natural, because the historic and official Christian view is that they are unnatural in the sense that the sexual organs are not being used in the way they were created to be and do not serve the purposes for which sex is intended. Masturbation and anal sex can also be particularly self-indulgent and motivated simply by a desire to give pleasure to oneself.

2) In our current climate the teacher may not be able to say these things are wrong, but they should not say they are fine. My own view is that they should not even be mentioned in the classroom with primary aged children. But if they are mentioned, the teacher can say that Christians believe them to be wrong (a) for the reasons given in point 1, (b) because engaging in such things builds a desire for more of them, (c) because the wonderful intimacy and joy of sex and the purity of our sexual lives should be reserved as a special gift for our lifelong marriage partner. By way of anticipation, love can already be expressed for them by wanting them to have our best.

3) It should not be stated that sexual acts of any kind are engaged in ‘when’ or ‘because’ people ‘love one-another.’ This is very naïve as Children and young people often feel they love others, and this could easily be read to say that these things are then appropriate.

4) Rather it could be said: ‘Most people agree that these things shouldn’t be engaged in until the couple are properly committed to staying together so that they do not hurt each other by being intimate and then splitting up, and so that they can be together to raise any children that may come. Christians believe that we should not therefore have sex until we are married, because that is God’s special means of ensuring a couple stay together for life and so is the best protection for them and their children.’ An outline of the Christian view could then follow.

5) It is difficult to see how it benefits the majority of children to be told or shown any detail about foreplay or sexual intercourse before reaching secondary school. But it is not hard to see how it could intrigue and encourage them to engage in such intercourse.

6) We cannot affirm the harmlessness of “fantasizing” about sex if we are to do justice to Jesus’ opposition to lust and the sheer power of sexual desire when encouraged. Moreover, it is disrespectful to the individual being fantasized about, who might be very unhappy indeed that they are being thought of in that way.

7) If homosexuality is mentioned, it should not be suggested that people are fixed in their sexuality just because they experience some same sex attraction. Our feelings are far too complex for something so reductionistic. Moreover, a respect should be shown for those who think homosexuality is wrong, many of whom are very thought through and have close gay friends.

8) Because of its high positive view of sex and its realism about its abuse, the Bible affirms modesty with those other than one’s spouse, and sees the viewing of others’ nakedness outside of marriage and the family negatively. The video stills would therefore be inappropriate for some Christians.

9) At the very least it should be mentioned that it is illegal and so wrong to have sex when under 16 years old.

10) The whole project is in danger of contributing to the sexualization of children by encouraging an unhealthy focus and possible fascination with these things ahead of time.

Conclusion:

It is hard to teach in a church school if one does not share these Christian convictions. Nevertheless, if such schools are to uphold their concern for Christian values it would seem these points also need to be upheld.

What we believe

2010-12-02T01:15:00.000-08:00

People often wonder what the core of Christian belief is. You can think of churches or denominations rather like a series of windows. Some are clearer than others. But it is the same gospel that we look at through them. The word gospel refers to an announcement of good news. Again and again in the New Testament, when the essence of the gospel is stated the same three things are to the fore:

1) Believing in Christ’s person and work; and so…

2) Responding to Christ’s call to repentance

3) Trusting in Christ’s promise of forgiveness

This is perhaps most clear in Luke 24v46-47. Just before ascending to heaven Jesus explained the Old Testament to his followers. He then said:

“This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations.”

There we have it from Jesus himself. The core message of both testaments is this. We affirm these things when we confess our sins or say the creed in church. What follows looks a little more closely at what that entails. My prayer is that it will bring greater clarity to what we affirm and greater confidence of all we have in Christ.

1) Believing in Christ’s person and work

To believe is to trust God by trusting what he has revealed. The Apostles’ Creed summarizes what this entails regarding Christ. We can trace it to the second century. It is accepted by all major streams of the church: Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. This gives us confidence that its truths are clearly revealed and reflect the essentials of true Christian faith. It is therefore a good basis from which to unpack the basics of belief—not least because we so regularly say we believe it.

The Bible: The defining documents of all three streams agree that the entire Bible is God’s inspired Word, and so entirely trustworthy as originally given. In affirming the creed however, the worldwide church affirms that its truths stem from the apostolic writings of the New Testament in particular. Jesus commissioned the apostles as the foundational teachers for his church. As we affirm the creed, we stand in the long line of Christians who accept that their own ideas on matters of belief and behaviour should conform not to our instincts, traditions or culture, but to what the apostles taught.

The Trinity: We hold that God has revealed himself to be the only God, and that he eternally exists as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They structure the creed. In all being the one God, each person is equal, sharing the same nature, power, character and wisdom. But their titles show they relate to one-another in different ways. ‘Father’ stresses primacy, whilst ‘Son’ suggests that he represents and obeys the Father. ‘Holy Spirit’ implies the active presence of both Father and Son. As such we also affirm that God is holy and so supreme and faultless in every way.

God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth: Here is the context for all we learn of Jesus. The most basic definition of God is that he is the one who made everything and so is to be honoured and served. This is why Christians both enjoy the world and care for it. In being almighty, God can do anything—given that it is logically possible. The entire universe was made by his power.

Holding to this keeps us humble. We may struggle to understand the Trinity, or how suffering, predestination, hell or some of God’s commands are consistent with his love and justice. But this should not surprise us. We are mere creatures. When such struggles come, we must remember that God is the one who made the universe. So much of him will therefore be beyond us. But we can trust what he reveals in scripture, because he is almighty so has the power to have ensured its accuracy. More than that, we can trust him, because his goodness is so clearly seen in Jesus.

Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord: There is much here. The title ‘Christ’ means ‘anointed.’ It referred to the King the Jews were waiting for God to send them. He was to establish an everlasting Kingdom of righteousness and peace. The title ‘God’s Son’ was given to Israel’s kings, but Jesus hinted there was more to it: God the Son had come in person. ‘Lord’ was the title Jews gave God. So it confirms this, stressing Jesus deity and rule of all things. He is to be honoured and obeyed as God.

We affirm Jesus is fully God in being conceived by the Holy Spirit, yet also fully man in being born of the Virgin Mary. Because he is God we can be sure he reveals God to us. Because he is man we can be sure he can represent us before God. This means his death really can pay for our sin and his righteous standing can be counted as our own. When we unite ourselves to Jesus by faith, God therefore justifies us: He declares us righteous because Jesus is righteous and he represents us. So God treats us as if we’d perfectly obeyed him even though we so clearly haven’t.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended to the dead: “The wages of sin is death.” This truth lay behind Israel’s sacrificial system. Animals were put to death instead of sinners to show that a substitute was needed to pay the penalty for sin. For this reason God then sent Jesus as “the lamb of God.” We read he “bore our sins in his body upon the tree” and “the punishment that brought us peace was laid upon him.” So Jesus experienced the fullness of death both physically and spiritually - the equivalent of hell itself. What love: In his only Son, God satisfied the demands of his justice so that he could remain just whilst justifying and so pardoning us if we believe. (1 Pet 2v24; Is 53v5; Rom 3v19-26).

The third day he rose again: Jesus came back to life, proving the penalty for sin had been paid and that he is Lord of all. There is no doubt the creed intends us to accept a bodily resurrection. No other idea has ever been accepted in the church. So we have solid grounds for our faith: the prophecies fulfilled in Jesus’ life, his miracles, the supremacy and impact of his character and teaching, and the resurrection capping it all. When we doubt, we should remember these things. They are the facts on which our faith should be built. We can be confident in Christ.

He ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father: In his resurrection body Jesus was seen to rise up from the earth into heaven, which can be best described as the dimension to our universe where God is especially present. The idea of sitting at God’s right hand stresses that he is now ruling over all things with his Father’s authority and power. There is therefore nothing he is unable to do. So when our prayers are not answered there really must be a reason.

He will come to judge the living and the dead: Christ’s rule also means that he will return in person to judge everyone. It is good that there will then be justice and all wrongs will be righted. But it is terrifying too, as everyone is guilty and so deserves punishment. We all struggle with the idea of hell, but we cannot and must not ignore it. It is to suffer beyond death under the burning anger of God and the distress of being excluded from his kingdom. As our judge Jesus warned again and again that it is real and it is terrible, and is avoided by repentance and faith in him. (Matt 10v28-32; 25v31-46; Mk 9v43-49; Lk 13v23-30; 16v19-31; Jn 3v16-21).

The Holy Spirit: The Spirit’s full divinity is implied in the structure of the creed. He brings people to faith in Christ, transforms them into God’s image, empowers them to do good, equips them to serve in the church and brings them to eternal life.

The holy catholic church, the communion of saints: ‘Catholic’ simply means universal, and ‘saints’ refers to those who are set-apart as holy. So we affirm that when we believe we are spiritually united with all other believers. This should breed a concern for all Christians of all types throughout the world. It also means that being active members of a local church is not an option. It is part of what it means to be a Christian, and essential if we are to serve God’s purposes or remain believers. It is only there, in word and sacrament, in the people, the prayer and the praise, that God provides all we need to keep going and growing in faith.

The forgiveness of sins: This is the door to all God’s blessings. It assumes our sin, but with it God’s grace. Forgiveness is relational. It is to treat someone as if they have not wronged us. The wonder is that those who believe no longer face God’s anger and the punishment they deserve. Instead, they are reconciled to him. More than that, they are adopted as his children and so loved as his very own.

The resurrection of the body and the life everlasting: Those united to Christ by faith receive what he receives. So our destiny is not to be disembodied spirits. When Jesus returns we will be given a new more glorious body, fit for the new heaven and earth that God will create. Our everlasting life begins now as we start to live the life of that new creation inwardly. But it will be fully experienced when we are raised. Together, all who believe will then inhabit a world free from evil, suffering and death. But our greatest joy will be to perfectly know and serve the Lord.

2) Responding to Christ’s call to repentance

Now to the second of our three points. Throughout the creed we affirm ‘I believe.’ Repentance is the proof of whether that belief is genuine. It is to change our minds in such a way that we change our actions. To believe is not just to accept all we have outlined about Jesus. It is to trust him, and should therefore result in obeying him. Jesus confronted those who said “Lord, Lord” but did not do what he said (Lk 6v43-49). If someone truly comes to believe that Jesus is Lord, then they will treat him as Lord. So they will submit to him, striving to follow his teaching in every respect.

Here we must note that Jesus taught we should reject all ideas that contradict not only the teaching of his apostles, but of the Old Testament when understood in the light of his coming (Jn 14v25-26; 16v13-14; Matt 5v17-47; Mk 7v5-13). In modelling this he reaffirmed and internalized the moral aspects of the Old Testament law. So the great lifestyle lists of the New Testament teach that we must turn from all other religions or occult practices, from blasphemy, hatred, bitterness, violence, adultery, extra-marital and homosexual sex, from lust—and so pornography, from crudity, dishonesty, slander, factionism, greed and drunkenness. Instead, Christ calls us to live a new life, inwardly re-created “to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” So we are to seek to be self-controlled and free from even a hint of sin, striving in our hearts to be pure, joyful, kind, compassionate, humble, gentle, patient, forgiving, generous, faithful to others and at peace with all (Eph 4-6).

The life of faith is not about mere outward morality or religious practice. It is to truly cherish and so honour the Lord as first in our heart of hearts. Out of love for him, it is to daily seek to live this holy life as we speak to him in prayer, study and submit to the scriptures, play our part as members of his church, serve and bring the gospel to his world, and raise any children we may have to do these things too.

We repent when we confess are sins in church. We should note that when we do we are committing ourselves again to these things. Love for God and others summarises what they entail.

3) Trusting in Christ’s promise of forgiveness

This is the final mark of true faith. We must be clear that repentance does not require us to perfectly live as above. Rather, it is to desire and determine to do so, and call on Christ for forgiveness when we don’t. However we should not be complacent, as God promises to forgive only those who truly repent.

Having said that, if we do repent then we really can live each day holding firmly to God’s promise of forgiveness. It is this promise that assures us of his acceptance because of our faith. It is this promise that gives us confidence in prayer before him. It is this promise that guarantees his care and help throughout life. It is this same promise that we cling to when facing death and that assures us of the life to come.

The gospel is about grace. It is about God’s favour being freely given to all who follow his Son. Like the thief on the cross, we do not need to serve Christ for a number of years to earn our salvation, and we do not need to worry because we can never deserve God’s acceptance. These things are a gift of his glorious grace. It is on God’s promise of forgiveness through Christ that our confidence therefore stands, and from this promise that hope and joy remains, even when life is hard.

Being a Christian parent

2010-04-13T03:58:00.000-07:00

Priorities

Raising “godly offspring” is one of God’s key aims for marriage (Malachi 2:15). And even those unable to have children can still contribute to it through adoption.
Concern for our children’s eternal welfare should surely be paramount. Sadly however, many Christian parents put far less effort into nurturing their child’s faith than they do into helping them with homework or funding their various hobbies.

Yet the primary responsibility for teaching children the faith lies with parents, not the church (Deuteronomy 4:9, 6:4-25, 11:18-21, Ephesians 6:4), and neglecting it can be the cause of the next generation neglecting the Lord (Joshua 2:10). The family is a spiritual unit, a community for learning to serve God. Strong and spiritual family life must therefore be a priority.

Activities

Parents are to “direct their children after them to keep the way of the Lord” (Genesis 18:19, Joshua 24:15) in four particular ways: First, instruction: Many find one or two key times a day for family prayer and bible study helpful. But these things should also pervade family life and conversation in a more spontaneous way (Deuteronomy 6:6-9, 11:18-21, Philippians 4:6). There are many good (and bad) resources around to help get into the Bible, and simple catechisms of questions and answers have also proved very useful for many.

Second, discipline: The secular mindset assumes children to be basically good, and so frowns on discipline and even on setting any boundaries of right and wrong at all. We must therefore be convinced that discipline is for our children’s good (Proverbs 15:5, 32, 29:15). It is more to correct than punish (Hebrews 12:5-11), and should never be given irrationally (James 1:19-20), but only when justified, and always as an expression of concerned love (Proverbs 3:12).

Third, Sabbath keeping: A key factor in children not growing in the faith is lack of time. God has set apart one particular day for spiritual refreshment (Exodus 20:8-11). Using it God’s way is difficult in a society that encourages all sorts of other activity on Sunday. Nevertheless, in addition to helping our children find time for mid-week church events, we must gently, firmly, and prayerfully persevere in finding a way of getting them to church at least once and hopefully more each Sunday. We would also do well to make the most of the day for teaching them ourselves. It is sad indeed when children opt out of church events or miss out on the opportunity Sunday gives because parents are pressurizing them to take on yet another hobby or excel that bit more in sports etc.

Fourth, in all these areas parents are to lead by example (Titus 2:6-8). Though this is never sufficient in itself, if what we say is not backed up by what we do, our children will see right through us. How important it therefore is to be exemplary in our own personal prayer and bible reading, our own self-discipline, and our own attitude to church. And how important too that we guard our tongues in the home, love and serve our spouse and children, lead our family in caring for and opening our door to others, in giving to mission and to the poor, in discerning in the TV we watch, the books we read, and the music we listen to.

Roles

God has instituted an authority structure for families: Both mothers and fathers are to be involved in instruction and discipline, and both are to be obeyed (Deuteronomy 21:18-19). However, as the overall household manager and head (1 Timothy 3:4-5), the father is particularly responsible before God if these things are not done (Genesis 18:19, Joshua 24:15), and so should take the initiative in ensuring they are. Yet contrary to some Christian stereotypes, Proverbs 31 affirms the legitimacy of mothers sharing in this management and working to provide for their family too.

When a baby dies

2010-04-13T03:53:00.000-07:00

When a Baby Dies:
Answers to Comfort Grieving Parents
By Ronald H. Nash (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 128 pp)

Reviewed by Paula R. Kincaid
Tuesday, April 6, 1999

I was crying before I finished the prologue. Ronald H. Nash begins When A Baby Dies with the story of a seminary student who described what he and his wife experienced in the birth and the death of their first child. Nash correctly observes that it is difficult to read this testimony without feeling great empathy for parents who have lost a child. He attempts to provide an answer to the question, “Is my baby with God now?”

When a Baby Dies offers a biblically grounded assurance that “all children who die in infancy and all mentally handicapped persons whose intellectual and moral judgment cannot surpass that of children are saved.” His intention is “to answer the question of infant salvation in a way that is consistent with the plain teaching of Scripture and a sound theology based on the Word of God.”

Wrong answers

The first four chapters explore several wrong approaches to the question of infant salvation.

Chapter one discusses Pelagianism, which teaches that all humans are born morally innocent. This belief ignores the fact of original sin. Nash cited Scripture, including Rom. 3:23 and Psa. 51:5, to oppose the idea that humans are born without sinful tendencies.

Universalism, the belief that all humans will eventually be saved, is discussed and dismissed in chapter two. Again, Nash cites Scripture, including Mat. 7:13-14, John 3:17-18 and Rev. 20:11-15.

Chapter three examines the teaching that when children die before they are mentally and morally responsible for their actions, the issue of their salvation is postponed until after they die. Nash quotes Scripture (Heb. 9:27; Rev. 20:11-13) to negate this belief, stating, “In all these passages and more, one simple point stands out: Physical death marks the boundary of human opportunity for salvation.”

Chapter four deals with the widely held belief that baptism saves from sin. Nash finds it regrettable that many “believe and teach that infants and the mentally incapable are saved from divine judgment by virtue of the fact that they have been baptized.”

A case for infant salvation

Nash makes his case on the basis of four well-established biblical claims.

1. Infants are incapable of moral good or evil (Deu. 1:39; Jer. 19:4). Infants do not know good or evil, therefore they lack the ability to perform morally good or morally evil acts.

2. Divine judgment is administered on the basis of sins committed in the body (II Cor. 5:10; I Cor. 6:9-10; Rev. 20:11-13). God’s condemnation is based on the actual commission of sins. Since infants die before they are able to perform either good or evil acts, deceased infants cannot be judged. Nash quotes theologian R.A. Webb as saying that by definition, an unregenerate infant “cannot die in infancy: such a result would defeat the ends of justice. Consequently, … all infants dying in infancy are elect, redeemed, regenerated and glorified. … The death of an infant, therefore, is the proof of its salvation.”

3. Regenerate infants (Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:15). These biblical passages give examples of infants chosen by God for salvation while still in the womb. If it happened twice, then it can surely happen in other cases.

4. Jesus and the little children (Mat. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17). Here Nash quotes 19th century Presbyterian Charles Hodge, “The conduct and language of our Lord in reference to children are not to be regarded as matters of sentiment, or simply expressive of kindly feelings. He evidently looked upon them as the lambs of the flock for which, as the good Shepherd, He laid down his life, and of whom He said they shall never perish, and no man could pluck them out of his hands.”

Reformed theology

Reformed Christians, according to Nash, believe that no human, adult or child, can be saved apart from God’s choosing them, Christ’s dying for them, and the Holy Spirit’s calling them. “If Christ died specifically for those whom God chose or elected, then infant salvation becomes possible, because God in his grace is fully capable of electing infants as well as adults.”

Benjamin Warfield, a former Princeton Seminary theologian stated, “If all that die in infancy are saved, it can only be through the almighty operation of the Holy Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases, through whose ineffable grace the Father gathers these little ones to the home He has prepared for them.” The doctrine of infant salvation, he concludes, “can find such a place in the Reformed theology. It can find such place in no other system of theological thought.”

Prenatal death - Abortion, miscarriage

The last chapter, entitled “Some final questions,” ends with a discussion of prenatal death. Nash gives a brief description of what happens at conception, then quotes several passages of Scripture (Psa. 139:13-16; Jer. 1:4-5; Luke 1:39-45) that describe the unborn in “ways that clearly imply humanity and personhood.”

John Jefferson Davis, associate professor of theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, says such texts show “that categories normally applied to postnatal man are applied also to the unborn. … It is hard to resist the impression that God takes a deep interest in the unborn child … Far from showing that the unborn are less than persons, these texts appear, in fact, to point in the opposite direction.”

This section, as Nash readily admits, “carries unavoidable implications as to the immorality of abortion on demand.”

He believes that life in the womb is life, from the moment of conception. “And if the argument of this book about infant salvation is sound - as I obviously believe it is - then prenatal human life that is terminated either by miscarriage or abortion falls under the same general conditions of divine election as applies in the case of children who die in infancy.”

Heaven scent

Tears fell again while I read the epilogue. Entitled “Heaven Scent,” it is a story of the premature birth of Danae Lu Blessing. The story, according to a footnote, was found on the Internet and is unattributed. It’s a beautiful story of faith and hope. And it supports the belief, that yes, God does protect and care for the little ones.

Extra note be Jon Hobbs:

Such teaching also gives hope for the many babies who die in infancy through war, famine and disease. A good part of the “great multitude” then will be those taken straight to heaven, and saved from the pain and hardships of this world.

There is great comfort here then for grieving parents. But there is also a gentle challenge for those who have aborted children: As adults we are responsible for the wrong we do. We therefore need to trust and follow Jesus as Christians, receive his forgiveness, and so be certain of one day joining our little one in heaven with him.

2010-01-14T00:20:00.000-08:00

What of those who haven't heard of Jesus?

2009-09-25T05:45:00.000-07:00

Five key things need to be held together here.

1) The disciples asked Jesus two particular questions that touch on our subject: “Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?” (John 14v22) and “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”(Luke 13v23). In both instances Jesus’ answer was hardly encouraging. He stresses the need of his hearers to ensure they believe. This issue cannot therefore be used to sidestep faith in Christ. The fact is, we have heard and are responsible for accepting or rejecting him. Indeed, as John makes clear, "God's wrath remains" on those who hear of Christ yet reject him (John 3v36).

2) God is the author of salvation. We can therefore be sure that he can ensure the gospel is heard by all those who will be saved. Consider the vision given Paul or his sending Peter to Cornelius as just two examples.

3) One can only do justice to the New Testament data by concluding that we can have no assurance that anyone is saved without conscious faith in Christ. Evangelism must therefore be our priority. Two particular passages are pertinent here:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.”

John 3v16-18

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

Romans 10v13-15

We just cannot read these verses and still buy into the contemporary assumption that all who are sincere in whatever belief will be saved.

4) Having said that, there are sufficient allusions within the wider scriptures to say that God’s saving grace may (and we can say no more than 'may') deem those who believe in and call on the God of Israel for mercy as effectively believing in and calling on Christ. Here we would say that the nature of God as trinity means that the fact they do not know this God in the man Jesus does not mean that they are not responding to God the Son when they respond to God.

We might consider characters like Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab and the Queen of Sheba. They do not seek salvation through false religion, and on the basis of a very limited knowledge their acknowledgement of God is commended. Rahab in particular is mentioned in the line-up of Hebrews 11 as someone of faith.

Perhaps most significant here is Nineveh under the preaching of Jonah. The text is intended to express the wideness of God’s mercy, so we should be cautious about dismissing it, and doubly so when we consider Jesus used the Ninevites as a model of repentance (Luke 11v32). What we see in them is (a) an acknowledgement that the God of Israel is the God of heaven and earth, (b) a calling upon him for mercy, (c) a change of behaviour that follows. Now we can hardly doubt that this patterns the gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins in Christ’s name (Luke 24v47).

All this would make John 3 and Romans 10 (above) either encompass such belief as belief in the Son, or simply describe the general lostness of the world where people need concious faith in Christ and cannot attain it without hearing of him. If the latter, this would require us not to push the texts to apply to everyone without exception who hasn't heard.

Whatever the case, we must be clear that any such salvation would be despite the person’s inherited religion (or beliefs). It would be because God has enabled them to pick up enough of the himself through what is widely known of him through the influence of Judaism and Christianity that they acknowledge him as their Creator and Judge, and so repent with deep sincerity and cry to him alone for mercy. We might imagine then the truth of the gospel radiating like sound waves from his church. Those close hear everything with clarity, those far away only hear an uncertain whisper, but still may hear enough to respond.

We should recognise that doing so would mean that they reject the systems of salvation within all non-Christian religions (including Judaism and Islam) because, in contrast to the gospel, they stress reliance on one's own religious or moral works for God's acceptance. Moreover, we should also recognise that the test of whether such a person has responded to the true God would be that when faced with Jesus and the gospel, they would readily accept them. As John says, "whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God" (John 3v21).

We might understand Peter's interaction with Cornelius in Acts 10-11 in this way. This would make the Spirit's testimony that Peter will bring "a message through which you and all your household will be saved" as suggesting not that Cornelius wasn't already saved through his faith, but that either (a) his salvation would be completed with the gift of the Spirit through the message, or (b) he would now hear the message of how his salvation was made possible.

It must be stressed, however, that we just do not see people throughout the world responding with such heartfelt repentance from sin and reliance on God alone for mercy. We cannot therefore be complacent and assume all will be well with them. Instead we must step up to our commission to bring the clarity of the gospel to them so they would definitely respond as God calls them to.

5) A final question is whether people can be saved by God enabling them to glean sufficient knowledge from the created order. On this, at best we must be agnostic. Romans 1 tells us that although we suppress the truth about God, all humanity still instinctively know there is a Creator (v20-21) and that we deserve punishment at his hand (v32). And elsewhere Paul asserts that the blessings of creation testify that God is a God of grace (Acts 14v17). Because we are truth supressors, we cannot understand this of ourselves. But we cannot say it is impossible for God to give us this understanding by his Spirit. However we have no inferences of faith in scripture apart from picking something up from God's special revelation through Israel or Christ and the apostles (or in the case of Melchizadek, by tradition perhaps from Noah). Therefore we have to say that there is no suggestion that God does save people through the witness of the created order alone.

Conclusion:

We must summarise to ensure that I am not read to be saying something I'm not:

1) We can have no assurance that anyone is saved without concious faith in Christ.

2) Some may be saved through what is gleaned of God by the impact of Judaism and Christianity on the world, but only if they reject all works based ideas of salvation to acknowledge the God of these religions as the true Creator God, call on him for mercy and turn from sin.

3) There is no suggestion that people will be saved simply from what they witness of God in the created order.

4) The emphasis of the scriptures is on the need to hear of Jesus, and so we would be foolish not to ensure we respond ourselves and negligent if we fail to urge others to also.

Is Christ's righteousness imputed to the believer?

2009-07-23T03:23:00.000-07:00

When we are united to Christ, we share in him and his achievements. Now his obedience made him the spotless lamb, and the one worthy to be raised and inherit the kingdom. When we are united to him, his righteousness really is therefore counted as our in the sense that we are “in” the spotless lamb, meaning that we die with him and our sin is sufficiently punished in him, and we are treated “in” him as worthy of resurrection to eternal life. It is this latter worthiness that corresponds to the classic doctrine of imputation. Yet our formulation adds the workings. We do not just say that Christ represents us so that his righteousness is counted as ours leading to our justification. We acknowledge that it means that we are seen as worthy of the kingdom even though so clearly not.

A major proof of this is said to be Romans 4v1-11. First, in what way is faith not a moral work/righteous act that can be boasted in (v2)? The answer follows: (a) Faith is not relied upon in a meritorious sense as earning or deserving justification like a “wage” (v4). (b) Faith does not therefore presume itself godly, but is rather a recognition of ungodliness (v5). We might say that this doesn’t mean that faith is not the first fruit of godliness. It must be. For it is morally good to trust God, and be humble before him. It is therefore a righteous act. But it is not a “work” because it is not relied upon or assumed to be deserving.

Second, in what sense is faith credited to the believer? (a) The point above makes clear it cannot be in the sense of being seen as meritorious or especially godly. In this sense the “righteousness” must be alien to the believer. So it is not that faith is deemed righteous in a worthy or deserving sense. This would suggest that the fact that it is a righteous act at all, though correct, is far from Paul’s mind. Rather, it is (b) credited in a similar way that wages are, except that this is done not as payment for work done but simply as a favour or gift (v4). Moreover, (c) it is credited in a similar sense to which sin is not credited to those who are forgiven (v7-8). This is instructive. Sin is not counted as ours, we are not treated on the basis of having it, legally, it is not registered to us. So, Paul seems to be saying that faith registered to us in some legal sense, it is counted as ours, we are treated on the basis of it, but that treatment is given not in any meritorious sense, but as a gift from God. And it is not something that changes our nature as Roman Catholicism teaches, any more than forgiveness actually removes sin. No, this reckoning is a matter of the law.

The way in which faith is counted as ours in a non-meritorious sense is then qualified by numerous expressions in these verses.

V3 “Abraham believed God and it (his faith) was reckoned to him as/for righteousness.”
V4 “believing on the one justifying the ungodly, is reckoned his faith as/for righteousness.”
V6 “blessedness of the man to whom God reckons righteousness”
V9 “was reckoned to Abraham faith as/for righteousness”
V11 “for righteousness to be reckoned to them (those believing)”

Here we see that the stress of what is reckoned to the believer is “his faith,” separated in v3 from its qualifier “for righteousness.” This suggests that Paul doesn’t simply mean that “faith for/as righteousness” ie. a trust in God to make one righteous is what is reckoned to the believer. This would actually make no sense, because it tells us nothing of why it should be reckoned. Rather, v3 shows that “righteousness” is the reason or manner in which faith is reckoned to the believer. Ie. it is reckoned to them so that righteousness would result or in such a way that faith is counted as righteousness. This should govern our reading of v4 and 9. It is not “faith for/as righteousness” that is reckoned. But “faith is reckoned” and this “for/as righteousness.”

The way in which this reckoning or counting of faith to the believer in a way that results in/counts as righteousness is born out by v4,6,11. v4 teaches that the nature of this faith is belief in God as one who justifies, ie. counts as not guilty the ungodly. This hints that faith results in righteousness in the sense that it results in or counts as a righteous or not guilty standing. v6 and 11 seem to confirm this as “reckoning righteousness to the believer” becomes synonymous with “reckoning faith to the believer for/as righteousness.” Now this could mean that the faith is deemed inherently and sufficiently righteous in a way that it wouldn’t be if it were not for God granting this as a gift. Yet against this is (a) the hint of v4, (b) Paul’s rejection of any sense of merit or boasting, (c) the stress throughout the NT that our confidence is in Christ not our faith, (d) the NT assertion that justification is by or through faith rather than justification of faith, (e) the fact that throughout Romans to this point righteousness has entailed full covenant obedience, and faith cannot be pretended to be this without theological reason. More likely is the fact that faith somehow receives an alien righteousness, the state of perfect covenant obedience, as a gift, which is pretty much the classic doctrine of imputation. By union with Christ through faith, his perfect covenantal obedience is deemed as ours.

Having said this, we should note that this is more explicit elsewhere in the NT (see below), for in Romans 4 the stress is not on the reckoning or imputation of this righteousness per se, but of faith in such a way that results in/is counted as this righteousness. The reckoning of righteousness is only stated as shorthand for this. So the word “reckoned” is not necessarily one of crediting something alien, for our faith is ours. It is one of “counting something as ours in a particular way” – whether a reward counted as ours in a way that is earned or faith counted as ours in a way that receives righteousness as a gift or is counted as righteousness by way of a gift. Reformed theology doesn’t generally make this distinction. Yet this alone would seem to make sense of the odd structure in verse 4-5, where reward and faith are paralleled, rather than reward and righteousness as we might expect.

v4 To the one working
The reward is not reckoned
According to grace but according to debt
v5 To the one not working but believing God who justifies the ungodly
Is reckoned his faith
For righteousness

Finally, whether we translated “faith for righteousness” or “faith as righteousness” is to some extent insignificant, for if our faith is counted as righteousness then it results it in. And if it results in it, then there is a sense in which it is ultimately counted as it. Yet the latter makes it simpler and more common in translation and Reformed theology. Then faith is being credited to our account as righteousness rather like a cheque being credited to our account as money. On the promise of the writer who has given it to us, it guarantees the payment of something. And so we might say that by the promise and gift of God who grants our faith, he guarantees a righteous standing to be paid to us when we present it. This is certainly free from seeing faith as meritorious, and makes clearer sense of the idea of credit and money in Paul’s illustration. The problem is that the idea of faith being counted as righteousness can so easily be read as being somehow seen as the equivalent of righteousness, which is rejected by the context and wider NT. Moreover, “faith for righteousness” better stresses our faith looks to Christ for the righteousness. Having said that, it would seem that the idea of credited faith to our account as righteousness seems the best rendering as long as the exact meaning is understood.

This is somewhat clarified in Philippians 3v9-10. We note (a) Paul explicitly rejects any righteousness of his own. The focus is on that derived from the law. But this would be strange language if he had replaced this with faith itself being deemed as righteous, as this would still be his own. (b) His focus is in fact on righteousness as the object of faith not the faith itself. And this
holds whether he writes of righteousness that comes through “faith in Christ” stressing he is looking for righteousness from him, or through the “faith of Christ” stressing the faithfulness of Christ that comprises that righteousness. (c) By describing this alien righteousness as “the righteousness of God” in contrast to that of law, he can only reasonably mean God’s own righteous standing as owned by Christ, or at the least one that is given by God. Both expressions would again be odd, if Paul saw God deeming faith as somehow sufficiently righteous. (d) To say God’s righteousness is “upon faith” again suggest it less akin to faith, but more appropriated by it.

Other texts confirm further. 1 Corinthians 1v30 explicitly says that Christ is “our righteousness,” by virtue of our being “in him” and so united to him. This makes no sense at all if God has deemed our faith our righteousness. Less clear, but probably equivalent is 2 Corinthians 5v21 where the sinless Christ was “made sin” (which could only by representation and imputation), “in order that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” Again, faith-union is mentioned. And the suggestion in the light of 1 Corinthians 1v30 is that “righteousness of God” here and in Philippians 3v10 refers to Christ’s righteousness which is God’s righteousness.

The evidence is therefore compelling whatever one makes of Romans 5v12-20. Nevertheless, this passage is key: v13 sets up the idea of imputation/reckoning. The question is why people are dying if sin is not reckoned/credited to them (v14). The answer is “because of Adam’s transgression” (v12,15). And it would seem that this is not because it infected his descendents with actual sin (though it did), because we have just been told that their actual sin is not counted against them (v13). It would seem then that death came because Adam’s offence and lawbreaking was somehow counted as theirs (v14). This is confirmed by the continued focus on his sin for condemnation for the many, rather than on their own (v15,16,17,18,19). In doing justice to Paul's clear concern for parallel and contrast, we must conclude that what is received by those in Christ is therefore on the basis of imputation too. And it is thist that is described as “the gift of righteousness” (v15,16,17).

What then is this gift of righteousness? It is a righteousness given to us because of “the obedience” of Christ in a way that contrasts the way humanity were legally counted as sinners through the disobedience of Adam (v19), irrespective of the transmission of actual sin. It must therefore be the gift of a legal state of righteousness rather than an infusion of moral righteousness itself. This is consistent with what we learn of it in 4v1-11. Indeed, in Romans, "life" includes this transformation (chapters 6-8). Yet "life" is said to stem from the gift of this righteousness, not comprise it (v17). In short, the "gift of righteousness" is the gift of Christ's own righteous standing, which enables us to be justified or declared not guilty of failing to fulfil the stipulations of God's covenant.

The logic of this is compelling. The only query is over v18. There we read of “one act of righteousness” by Christ, and the flow with verse 19 suggests this is akin to “the obedience of the one” just as the “one transgression” (v18) is akin to “the one man’s disobedience” (v19). This leaves us asking, is it only the obedience of going to his death that is imputed to us? Or is Paul for the sake of his parallelism likening Jesus’ entire life to one act of righteousness? We should add that either way the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is proved. Nevertheless, the answer I believe is that the “one act of righteousness” actually refers to the one act of giving the free gift of Christ’s righteousness.

Here we should note that the language of transgression sets v18 more naturally amongst verses 15-17 than with v19, where the language changes to that of the less legal “disobedience.” And we can see (a) that from the start of v15 the issue is the comparison between the one “trespass” of Adam and the one “free gift” of Jesus Christ rather than the many acts of obedience that comprise it. So (b) in v15b and 17, “the transgression” is contrasted with “the abundance of grace” and “the gift of righteousness” suggesting the same contrast between “transgression” and “act of righteousness” in v18. Furthermore, (c) v16 places “the free gift” alongside “resulting in justification” paralleling “the one act of righteousness resulting in justification” in v19.

So v19 is explanatory, filling in the reasoning gaps. Ie. The one transgression resulted in condemnation (v18) because “by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (v19), and the one act of righteousness (the one giving of Christ’s righteousness) resulted in justification (v18) because through that giving “the obedience of the One the many were made righteous.”

Conclusion: Some in recent years have begun to question whether Christ's righteousness is actually imputed to us. Instead they suggest, God deems our faith as righteousness and justifies us on this basis. Or he simply forgives us without the need of a positive standing of covenant obedience. Though some aspects of the above discussion are complex or less certain, the general thrust that the righteousness of Christ is counted as our own because we are united to him and so represented by him is clear. It is this that leads to life, for life can only be granted to those who fufil the stipulations of God's covenant. We might ask why the cross is still necessary. But that means a discussion of Romans 3. In short, even if Christ's righteousness is counted as ours, justice must still be done when we actually sin. And this was done in Christ's death. We cannot therefore be justified on account of Christ's righteousness without atonement being made for our unrighteousnessness. And it is in this sense that we are "justified through his blood."

What exactly is repentance?

2009-04-28T03:06:00.000-07:00

My sermon last Sunday touched on ‘repentance.’ It noted the fact that Acts 2v39 urges repentance for forgiveness. This set me thinking. We can stress we don’t repent to earn or deserve forgiveness as the gospel of grace declares. But in what sense is it ‘for’ forgiveness. If repentance is necessary for forgiveness, it is still difficult for many to grasp how forgiveness is not dependent on works.

The answer surely lies in correctly defining repentance. The common definition of “turning from sin” is OK as far as it goes, but it can be misleading because it can suggest that repentance is the actual doing of good.

Repentance literally means “a change of mind” and that is “a change of mind that leads to a change of life.” We might say it is “a turning of our attitudes that then leads to a turning around of our actions.” So when God “repents” in scripture, he is not turning from sin; he is changing his mind and this then leads him to turn from one course of action to another. So we see God call people to “repent and turn away from” idols and sin (Ezek 14v6; 18v30). The latter follows the former, the turning in our actions follows the turning in our attitude, but it is the turning of our attitude that is repentance.

All this fits a number of other passages. John the Baptist calls people to “show fruit in keeping with repentance.” In other words, the good deeds were not the repentance itself, but the fruit of it. Again, in Acts 26v20 Paul calls people to “repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.”

So repentance is to change our minds and so the course of our life. Essentially it is not the same as faith per se, for when we continue in faith we are not changing anything. No it is more akin to coming to faith – to changing our mind about God and Jesus and so choosing to believe and then put them at the centre of our very selves.

This actually helps us see that there are actually two aspects to repentance: First, the response to the call to change our thinking, which is the moment of faith. Two, our commitment to then turn ourselves to God, which assumes prior faith, for there could be no other right motive. As Paul puts it, it is change our minds in a way that means we “turn to (or back to) God.” And it is only then that we do the good “deeds.”

What this all means is that the preaching of the gospel is very much a call for people to change their minds, believe and so turn to God. And this is why we read so much of Paul "reasoning with" and trying to "persuade" people in Acts.

The question this then leaves us with is whether reliance on God for forgiveness is an aspect of repentance itself or the good deeds that follow? This may be slightly pedantic, as the two are so linked that the one naturally flows into the other. Yet it seems that such reliance is primarily one of attitude.

Repentance is often equated with sorrow, because this is an attitude of mind (and heart). Moreover, by urging repentance for forgiveness, Jesus urges us to a change of mind that accepts that he is Lord and judge and that is itself an expression of faith in God's promise that those who turn to Christ will be forgiven and share in his kingdom. And so if the gospel has been rightly preached, our willingness to change our thinking about God is to implicitly rely on him for forgiveness. Yes, its initial action should then be to actually call on him for that in prayer. But the moment of changed mind and initial reliant faith is the saving moment.

So our forgiveness IS dependent on repentance, because it is dependent on our coming to faith in this way, and so on turning our minds and hearts to God. But the proof of whether we have done this will be whether or not we turn from one course of action to another - first in continually calling on Christ for forgiveness, and second, in continually seeking to obey him as Lord. It is in this sense that we can talk of repentance as lifelong. Strictly speaking it is our initial turning. But there is a sense that we repent again and again whenever we sin and return to God with sincere confession and commitment.

And here we need to recognise a slight difference in motives. You see, as repentance is "for" forgiveness, the motive for changing our minds and turning to God and Christ is rightly an appreciation of his reality, judgement and grace. As Calvin puts it: It is "induced by the fear of God." This after all is saving faith (Rom 10v9-13). And although its purest motivation should be a realisation that we are created to live to God's glory and a desire to do so, there is a sense in which we repent in order to "get something," or more accurately "receive something." Yet the motive for what follows is different. Having changed our minds and believed, we then seek to actively obey:

because we now accept that Jesus is Lord and our allegiance is his right by creation and salvation (Rev 5v12)
because we want to glorify him before the world with our lives (1 Pet 2v11-12)
out of thanks for the love and sacrifice of Jesus for us (Gal 2v20)
because we realise we are now a Holy People re-created by the Spirit to do good works (Eph 2v10).

Note none of these motives are to “get" or "receive" forgiveness, but are a response to it. Yet all are in some sense necessary for salvation in that they prove a genuine change of mind about God, that we have truly come to believe, that we have “repented.”

So if you struggle as we all do to maintain the new course of your life in all things, thank God again that your forgiveness and salvation is not dependent on perfect living, but on your attitute properly changing - on having come to and continued in a genuine belief that God raised Jesus as Lord and that he forgives those who turn to him.

Yet having said this, if you see little changing in your life, don't get complacent. Ask yourself whether you really have accepted who Jesus is and what he has done. For if you have, then out of love and a desire to honour him, you will seek to, strive to, long to change your life.

The nature of hell

2009-04-24T04:41:00.000-07:00

Hell is as an existence as real as this one. Jesus doesn’t do small print. He is honest. He doesn’t hide away the difficult truths. And as the Son of God he warned people about hell on numerous occasions. Yet the language he and the Bible uses, is metaphorical. And this has led to some debate.

You see on one hand certain passages stress that hell is a place of complete and permanent destruction. When referring to people, the "destroy" word group usually (though not exclusively) refers to a cessation of life. Moreover, much New Testament language on hell is taken from the Old Testament images of God’s judgement as like the burning of unwanted chaff at harvest or the consuming power of unquenchable and eternal fires.[1] And an actual consideration of the passages concerned really does show that these images were not intended to suggest that such fire and what it burns would literally exist forever (though they may). Rather, they were portrayals of the irrepressible (and so unquenchable) burning anger of God at sin - an anger that irreversibly (and so eternally) destroys its object. So in 2 Kings 22v17 God declares about Judah: "Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and provoked me to anger by all the idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched." (Do look up the passages in the footnotes) [2].

The paradigm the Bible itself gives for this is the destruction of OT cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah by "eternal fire" (Jude 1v7). The metaphor doesn’t mean the fires are still burning, but stresses that those places were reduced to rubble, never to rise again. And in this, the fires were unquenchable in that they could not be stopped from doing their work, and so these places could not be saved from their destruction. This is similar to saying that the great fires that recently swept Australia were unquenchable. The firemen could not put them out, and so they utterly destroyed the land, buildings and people in their path.

When Jesus speaks of eternal or unquenchable fire then, his focus may not therefore be on the length or experience of hell's destructive work per se, but the fact that no matter how long it takes, it is irrepressible, irreversible and so terrible.

Having noted all this, there are passages that suggest hell is actually a place of conscious torment that will last forever. Torment without hope of an end is the rich man’s experience as he tastes hell in awaiting the judgement (Luke 16v23ff). And it is certainly hard to deny that this is the plain sense of Revelation 14v11: “The smoke of their torment rises forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beasts and his image…” We should note here that Jesus himself equates hell with the lake of fire where the devil "will be tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Matt 25v41-46 and Rev 20v10).

Especially significant is the fact that in Matthew 25v46 he equates the eternality of "punishment" with that of eternal life. And he does so having described that punishment, throughout that particular gospel and in the immediate context in particular, not as a cessation of being but as an experience of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" in a place of darkness and fire (Matt 8v12, 13v42, 50, 22v13, ,24v51, 25v30). Indeed, in just one parable, Jesus seems to equate the idea of "destruction" with this concious experience (Matt 22v7, 13).

With all this in mind, it is perhaps no surprise that we find some stressing the difficulty in interpreting such passages in order to assert the more palatable idea of absolute annihilation after some period of torment. They explain the phrase “eternal punishment” to simply mean that this annihilation will last forever - that those in hell will never rise again. By contrast, others stress the sense of eternal conscious torment, and interpret the ideas of destruction as referring to the ruined state of humanity in which this will be experienced. One might ponder the ruins and stubble that the OT unquenchable fires would have reduced the places they consumed to. Something was left, though marred, blackened, distorted and void of goodness.

To my mind, those in the first camp too quickly side-step the allusions to eternal torment by Jesus and John, whilst those in the second camp read this idea into the terms "unquenchable fire" and "eternal fire" in a way that the Old Testament just doesn’t allow.

Nevertheless, hard as it is, I really think we cannot move from the view that hell will entail eternal conscious torment for the following reasons:

It seems to provide the only logical harmony of the various texts. Ie. one can understand how something can be destroyed in the sense of ruined but still conscious, but not how something can cease to exist whilst still tormented. Indeed, to fit the passages regarding eternal torment to a view of eventual annihilation means a significant going against their plain sense.
These passage seem much clearer in their intent than those describing "destruction."
The predominant view in Jesus' day was that of eternal concious torment, especially with respect to Isaiah 66v24. We would therefore expect him to go out of his way to correct this if it was incorrect. But instead, he only reaffirms the language and its seriousness.
There has been pretty much a concensus within the history of the church that this is the correct view. In the light of the above, humility should mean that though we may feel the case is less certain than has been made out, we should side with the concensus.

Whatever the case, there is a danger for the debate to be rather like Nero and another fiddler arguing over how to play the violin, whilst ignoring the fact that either way, Rome was burning. You see, what is clear is that those who die without faith in Christ will experience (for some period at least) the most horrific of realities.

Put most simply, the New Testament portrays hell as an experience of God’s curse in the removal of his blessing. It is therefore entirely just, for it is to finally give those who ignore God an existence without his benefits and excluded from his kingdom. It would therefore seem to entail an absence of the many goods God currently gives: whether the restraint of evil, the emotions of joy or love, or the provision of health, warmth, shelter, peace, friendship, food, technology, family or whatever. The metaphor of darkness (or absence of light) probably stresses this, whilst that of fire denotes that this is to experience God's burning anger at sin.

Paul confirms this by writing of God’s wrath currently being revealed in his handing humanity over to their evil desires, and in their experience of physical death with all the suffering from disease or disaster that leads to it (Rom 1v18-32). So hell will be the most heightened experience of this world’s sufferings and of the dehumanising consequences of sinning and being sinned against.[3] This may well be what Jesus means when he says we should “fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10v28)? The sense as elsewhere is that it is a fate far worse than death (Luke 17v2) more akin to the phrase "my life has been utterly destroyed."

Yet Jesus stresses that what will bring the most “wailing and gnashing of teeth” by hell's occupants may actually be their ongoing awareness of what they have missed out on (Luke 13v28-30, 16v23). We cannot grasp this because we cannot grasp the wonders of God’s kingdom. But when they are grasped, the despair of those shut out from it will be desperate indeed. Perhaps the only meagre paradigms we have for this is the torment of the disobedient child who has to miss out on the party their friends are enjoying, the employee who misses out on the ideal job, or the lottery winner who realises they have missed their millions by throwing away their ticket.

When we ponder these things, we realise that no matter what our view of hell, we cannot sit back on our laurels. It is so horrific that Revelation pictures people crying for mountains to fall on them and hide them from God’s judgement. It is so horrific that facing its equivalence caused the Lord Jesus to sweat drops of blood in his anguish. It is therefore something to do our utmost to persuade people to escape from by turning to Christ.

[1] Matthew 18v8-9; 25v41-46; Jude 1v7; Matthew 3v12; Mark 9v43-49; Luke 3v17.

[2] Chaff: Ex 15v7; Is 33v11-12; Mal 4v1; Unquenchable fire: 2 Kings 22v17; 2 Chr 34v25; Is 34v8-10; Jer 4v4, 7v20; 21v12; Ezek 20v47-48; Amos 5v6. It is these many clearer passages that should govern our interpretation of the less clear Isaiah 66v24. Moreover, the parallelism there suggests that “worm does not die” has the same sense.

[3] Babylon in Revelation 18v8-10 is intended to portray a foretaste of this. And we should note that the theme of being handed over to evil and suffering is a dominant idea of God's judgement in the Bible. Adam and Eve are handed over to life outside Eden. Cain is handed over to the wider world. Israel are handed over to the hostile nations. And Jesus himself is handed over to the Romans.

The importance of Bible teaching

2008-10-21T06:40:00.000-07:00

Very often church leaders hear people express some frustration about the length and depth of sermons. At one level they should be very keen indeed to hear those concerns so that they can improve their preaching and so that, in the image of Hebrews 5v11-14, they are not feeding solid food to those who actually need milk. On another hand, they may well have concerns about these concerns that are shared with the writer of Hebrews.

He felt that his readers should have actually progressed to solid food but were reluctant to do so. And so he moved them onto it nevertheless. In similar vein, whereas the minister trusts that these comments generally come from a sincere desire to learn and grow, experience suggests that for a few, they may actually stem from a lack of conviction about the importance of the sermon, a concern to keep service times short, or a lack of willingness to work hard at loving God with all our minds.

Either way, I felt it might be useful to outline something of how scripture views bible teaching, its place within the church, as well as some tips on how to get the most out of sermons.

The Bible’s view of Bible teaching
In John 6 Jesus was faced with a crisis over his teaching. We read that “Many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’” and then no longer followed him (v60, 66). Jesus’ response was to explain why his teaching is so important: “The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life.” (v63). His point is that his words are not like other truths. They are actually the means God’s Spirit uses to give us spiritual life. And the consequences of turning from them are therefore serious.

In John 16, Jesus seems to view the future teaching of his apostles in a similar way: “When he, the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.” (v13-14) In other words, the apostles’ teaching is from the Spirit and so is truth from Jesus. In short, it is God’s word. This is why Jesus can say so boldly that his apostles will be guided into “all truth.”

With all this in mind, it is no surprise to see the apostles affirm that their teaching gives (and protects) spiritual life too. So Peter writes that the Christian is “born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.” (1 Peter 1v23). Likewise Paul writes of how Christians reach maturity: “We proclaim Christ, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.” (Colossians 1v28). Most significantly, Timothy is charged in the light of judgement to: “Preach the Word in season and out of season” in order to keep people from turning to false teaching and teachers (2 Timothy 4v1-5).

All of us wonder at times what the key to Christian growth is; how we might deepen in our faith; how we might love God more; how we can be kept faithful. At one level, the answer of Jesus and the apostles is simple: Through their teaching, and through that of the Old Testament read in the light of it.

The Bible’s expectations of Bible teaching
This high view of Bible teaching is an undeniably central thread throughout scripture. So God declares through Isaiah what he looks for in his people: “This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.” (Isaiah 66v2). We see this expressed in the fact that every one of the 176 verses that make up the longest Psalm of the Bible are given to revering God’s word (Psalm 119). In the light of this, no-one can doubt that meditation on and study of the Bible should be central to Christian spirituality. And this is just what we see displayed in the life of the early church: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” and “everyone was filled with awe.” (Acts 2v42-43).

What did this reverence for and devotion to God’s word look like? Well, during the revival under Nehemiah, Israel are commended for listening to the book of the law being read and taught “from daybreak until noon” – for half a day. (Nehemiah 8v3, 8). Similarly, the gospels suggest that Jesus was happy to spend up to three days teaching and ministering to the people (Matthew 15v32). And it is easy to forget that the sermons on the mount and plain, which we cope with by splitting up over numerous weeks, were each single sermons.

Paul provides a humorous example. In Acts 20 we read of how devoted the church in Troas was to his teaching. Because Paul was to leave the next day, he talked until midnight; and so much so, that Eutychus fell asleep, fell out of the window and died. One would have thought after Paul raised him from the dead that the church would have called it a day. But we read that Paul then went upstairs and talked “until daylight” (v7-12)!

Other examples abound. My point is not to persuade people that these examples should be the norm for us. But it certainly is to demonstrate that the low expectations of many churches with respect to Bible teaching would shock the apostles and must sadden Jesus. Their expectation was that every Christian and church should be highly ambitious in terms of their Christian learning, and willing to work hard to understand and live by what they read or hear.

Tips for making the most of Bible teaching
I hope the above has sufficiently wet your appetite that you feel keen to rise to the challenge with respect to sermons. As you do, the following may help you better benefit from them:

Be expectant. To the extent that the preacher explains and applies the Bible correctly, you are actually hearing God’s word. Reflecting on this before sermons should certainly cause us to sit up. And we should therefore come expecting to be encouraged, stretched, challenged, strengthened or even rebuked, just as the disciples were by Jesus.
Perhaps the most helpful and important tip, is to actually open the Bible and follow what is said. This keeps your mind interacting. It also enables you to remember what you’ve heard when you later re-read the passage. In Acts 17v11 we read: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Their eagerness and studiousness is clearly intended as a “noble” model for the reader. And note the assumption that the Bible was the determiner of whether what was said was actually true.
Pray through what you hear as you hear it. Arrow prayers such as: “Lord help me remember that” or “help us do that” or “I praise you for that,” acknowledge that listening to a sermon is a spiritual activity, but also apply the sermon on the spot and aid attentiveness.
Memorise the main points. I do want to be clear that I do not expect everyone to understand everything in every sermon. The preacher hopes that the most knowledgeable and mature will grasp everything, but assumes others will just get the main gist and be left with questions to think about further, and others may just take the primary point away. This is the inevitable consequence of teaching a mixed group. And it is surely unwise to pitch the sermon at the level of the newest in faith, because it then leaves the more mature bereft. At the very least, repeating the main points to yourself as the sermon progresses helps to ensure you grasp and apply the general gist. And those who study memory tell us that when recalling those main points, much of the content that went with them will come to mind too.
Take notes. This is an obvious point and is the norm in some churches. I was deeply encouraged a few months ago when an 11 year old girl had stayed in the main service and took notes on a twenty minute sermon on Psalm 55. Her Mum gave them to me, and the girl had got the sense of every major point made.
Re-read and pray through the passage. This is a good discipline to get into, and could be done just before bed on Sunday night. As you do it, you will normally find points from the sermon coming to mind again and becoming more a part of your general understanding. It is also a great way of ensuring we are “not just hearers of the word, but doers also” (James 1v22).
Ask the preacher your questions. We have noted this was often part of first century teaching. The preacher expects people to be left with uncertainties as not everything can be covered, and no preacher is every crystal clear! So please please do ask your questions over coffee, or by way of a phone call or email. The onus is certainly on the preacher to try to be make things understandable, but it is also on the hearer to ensure they have rightly understood.

A note on attention spans
It is noteworthy that we see no concern in the Bible for attention spans. A number of reasons might be suggested why:

Although attention spans are usually limited to twenty minutes, those who study these things say that as little as a two to three minute activity then resets the attention span sufficiently for another fifteen to twenty minutes. The Rabbinic teaching model that included dialogue with one’s hearers probably acted in just this sort of way. In an ideal world, longer services that give time for this sort of interaction would be useful. At the very least, interspersing a longer sermon with a hymn would help and should perhaps be something for us to think about.
The experiments on attention spans are often carried out with pupils or students who may not be fully interested in their subject. There seems to be a certain assumption by Jesus and the apostles of sufficient interest for people to keep themselves attentive. In this, I have to say that I have often found enquiring non-Christians more ready to stick with longer talks than I have long-term Christians.
The greatest difference however, is that Bible teaching presumes the work of the Holy Spirit in keeping those who are keen to learn interested and attentive. Here it has been a delight to see uneducated (and even fairly illiterate) new Christians stay with and grasp even forty minute sermons, because of their Spirit-induced hunger for God’s word.

Getting clear about Christianity

2008-10-07T07:00:00.000-07:00

Believing that God has raised Jesus from the dead, and that Jesus is therefore God’s Son, King and Judge.
Relying on Jesus for mercy and forgiveness for all you have done or will do wrong.
Seeking to obey Jesus’ teaching in every respect.

About marriage

2008-08-04T12:32:00.000-07:00

God has called all humanity to “image” him by governing and filling the world in goodness—the creation mandate (Genesis 1:26-28). Eve was created to be Adam’s “helper” in this task, showing marriage to be the key means of its fulfillment (Genesis 2:18-23).

The three aims of marriage are therefore stewardship—utilizing one another’s gifts and the world’s resources for the common good, procreation—raising the next generation to do likewise (Malachi 2:15), and godliness—doing these things for Christ and through emulating him (Ephesians 4:22-24).

The primary goal of marriage is not therefore to offset loneliness, but to provide a family cell or team that will serve God. Yet companionship is key in ensuring the unity of relationship needed to properly fulfill this goal, and is deepened through the delight of working together in it (Genesis 2:20b-24).

This working together manifests itself in different but complimentary roles: As head, the husband is to care for and nurture his wife, spiritually and physically, so that she grows to maturity in Christ and expresses her gifts fully in fulfilling, with him, the aims mentioned (Ephesians 5:25-33, cf. 4:12-13, 15-16). And she is to freely submit to his loving authority whenever he requires it, respecting his role and wisdom (Ephesians 5:22-23, 33). The husband is therefore particularly responsible before God not just for himself, but his wife too.

Marriage may therefore be defined as a covenant of companionship that is heterosexual—because sex and marriage were intended for procreation not same-sex friendship, and the roles required for marriage are complimentary not the same, sexual—in developing the one-flesh unity needed to fulfill all three aims, exclusive and lifelong—in ensuring this unity and providing a stable context for the aims to be met, and public—in establishing a new family unit within society (Genesis 2:24).

And any potential marriage partner must not only be of the opposite sex, and someone we are attracted to, but also a committed Christian (Deuteronomy 7:1-4, Nehemiah 13:23-27, Ezra 9:13-15, 1 Corinthians 7:39). For without the Spirit, the non-Christian is neither willing or able to consistently fulfill the roles of marriage or achieve its aims (Romans 8:5-8).

Many mixed marriages endure more conflict, and see the faith of children seriously hindered by the mixed messages received. Indeed, the Christian partner is rarely able to flourish themselves, and often falls away (Jos 23:12-13, 1Kgs 11:1-6).

We must set ourselves apart from the naive mindset that assumes fulfillment cannot be found outside marriage. It is surely preferable to be even unhappily single than stuck in a permanent but unhappy marriage (Matthew 19:9-10).

Paul actually urges us to prioritize singleness because of the greater opportunity it gives for worry-free and undivided devotion to Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:25-35). For this reason he suggests that even Christian marriage should only be entered into when two friends find themselves sexually attracted to one-another, and would otherwise sin (1 Corinthians 7:36-38).

(Key passages: Genesis 2:4-25, 1 Corinthians 7)

Preparing for marriage

2008-08-04T12:29:00.000-07:00

Spend some time thinking about the nature of marriage as background. If you could take 30 minutes out to list down some answers to the following, that would be great :

From Gen 1:26-31 What are the purposes of marriage?
From Gen 2:18-24 What is the nature of marriage?
From Gen 3:1-24 What are the problems that face marriage?

Also, in terms of role issues, the following are helpful. I do not agree with everything, but they will certainly stimulate your thinking and help you clarify any questions :

1) A chapter from the book ‘Biblical womanhood and manhood’ (which is all on-line):
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter20.html

2) Answers to common questions by those involved in the writing of the book:
http://www.cbmw.org/questions/index.html

3) A chapter from John Piper’s book ‘Desiring God.’ Try and answer the following question as you read : How practically should we develop joy in our marriage?
http://www.desiringgod.org/dg/id167.htm

4) This is a modernised version of a section from Richard Baxter’s (a 17th century pastor) writings. Some of it will make your smile, but it is well worth serious reflection.
http://www.puritansermons.com/baxter/baxter14.htm

Studies in 2 Timothy for CU leaders: Running the race

2008-08-04T12:07:00.000-07:00

2 timothy 1:1-18 : Term 1

'On the blocks' - preparations for leadership…

2 Timothy seems to have been Paul's last letter to Timothy before he died. Writing as someone imprisoned for the gospel, we see Paul ‘passing on the baton’ in preparing Timothy for both the opportunities and difficulties of the leadership he now faces. As these are reflected on, we find principles that should also be ours as we enter a year of leadership and take up this same baton passed down the centuries to us.

What prerequisite does Paul look for before encouraging the development of gifts (cf.1v3-7)? Construct an action plan under the headings of bible study, prayer, and church fellowship: of how you are going to ensure that your faith becomes, or remains, secure throughout the year?
What does Paul encourage Timothy to do with his gift? List two key gifts that you think you may have, and two areas of concern for which you feel unable this year?
It is important to consider these areas to ensure your own development during this year. List two steps that you are going to seek to apply to develop each of your main gifts this year, and two steps to tackle the areas that you don't feel particularly able in?
What does Paul's instructions about Timothy’s gift suggest about Timothy's own confidence in leadership? How is 1v7 an encouragement to him and us? Why do you think that Paul stresses these three attributes to Timothy, and in what similar areas do you particularly think you will need each of them?
To Paul, Christian leadership meant suffering (cf.2Tim3v12). In what ways do you think that you may be called to suffer in your leadership this year?
In speaking of suffering, Paul gives much space in 1v8-14 to simply outlining the gospel. Why do you think he does so?
List the different aspects of the work and implications of the gospel from these verses. Why is the gospel a motivation for Paul, and how should v12 be especially for us? How can you deepen your understanding of the gospel as Paul outlines it both in i) doctrine, and ii) implication, this year?
In what ways might we need to fulfil Paul's commands of 1v8a and 1v13-14: i) with CU members ii) overseeing the CU as a whole? How might you be tempted to compromise in these areas? What guidelines do the verses give to help you guard against this?
What does 1v15 hint that we might experience as a response to our leadership? What do verses 1v16-18 demonstrate helped to offset any demoralisation for Paul? How can you therefore ensure that you 'refresh' one-another - perhaps you could agree a ‘covenant of support’ between one-another as leaders?
On your own, or with another leader where possible, pray through the areas for development that you have highlighted, ask God for his help, and commit yourselves to suffering for the gospel in this coming year.

2 timothy 2:1-26 : Term 2

‘The first leg’ – priorities for perseverance…

Getting going is only the start of leadership. What is more important, is that we persevere in our service no matter what is faced. It is likely that 2 Timothy was written when Christians were suffering persecution from the Roman emperor Nero. However, the obvious temptation to give up, was not the only problem they faced. In this chapter, Paul also urges Timothy to stand firm against the timeless temptations of doctrinal error, and ungodliness. As we read, we too find ourselves urged to persevere, and guard ourselves and our CU’s at a time when such problems are no less real.

Jot down two or three feelings that you have about you leadership within the CU as you look towards its remaining time?
What is to be the source of Timothy’s strength within hardship? How can we ensure that we are strengthened in this same way?
What warnings and encouragements does Paul give through his three examples in v3 7 for ‘enduring hardship like a good soldier of Christ Jesus’?
As seen also in chapter 1, Paul’s main motivation is the gospel itself. How should his ‘gospel’ motivation in v8-13, drive us on in suffering service for Christ this year - consider: i) God’s work through the gospel ii) the purpose of the gospel, and iii) the perspective of the gospel on future glory rather than present difficulty?

In v2, Paul highlights the priority of ensuring that the true gospel is passed on to others, and it seems that v14 refers Timothy back to these ‘others’. Timothy is being spoken to here as a teacher with specific responsibilities, however v14-26 do provide principles that are applicable to every Christian as we ‘teach and admonish one-another’ with the word of Christ Col3:16.

In what ways does the CU fulfil Paul’s command in v2? And what should we therefore ensure those within the CU are reminded of both by us in individual conversation, and through those asked to speak and lead meetings cf. v14?
6 v14-26 display what might seem a tension between quarrelling over words, and instructing in truth. Considering the results outlined in v14-18 that stem from the quarrelling over words: what do you think the distinction is? How does Paul emphasise the seriousness of such ‘quarrelling’ in these verses?
List the principles Paul gives us in these verses for dealing with those who distort the gospel in this way: i) in prevention ii) in action iii) in attitude?
How is Paul’s comment in v19 intended to be an encouragement to us in this task?
Why is holiness so important when involved in such leadership v20-21? Why do you think Paul stresses the particular areas of holiness he does in v22-26?
Bring before God in repentance and commitment: i) any situations where you have been guilty of ‘godless chatter’ ii) situations that you are aware of where you have needed, or currently need to act to ‘guard the gospel’ iii) areas where you lack the holiness required to be an ‘instrument for noble purposes’?

2 timothy 3:1-4:22 : Term 3

'Completing the race' - foundations for the future…

As mentioned in the first study, 2 Timothy seems to have been Paul's last letter to Timothy before he died. As Paul draws his letter to a close, we come across the things of greatest priority to him as he prepares Timothy for his Christian life and service in the future. This passage therefore provides principles to govern our priorities as we also look ahead to our Christian life and service.

Read the whole passage: the context suggests Paul is talking primarily of issues within the church!! List the marks of 'ungodliness' that Paul therefore predicts will be evident within the church during these 'last days'?
Can you think of any specific issues or examples both within and outside the church today that fulfil Paul's statements of: i) 3v5 ii) 3v7 iii) 4v3-4?
List the attitudes and experiences throughout the passage, that Paul's life demonstrates should mark us in standing firm as 'godly' Christians within such an environment?
In v14-17, what action does Paul urge Timothy and us to take in protecting ourselves against 'ungodliness'? What basis does he give for the reliability of the two aspects to this (cf.3:14 & 1:13 / 3:16)?
What does Paul's prime instruction to Timothy as a church leader suggest the top priority should be in our choosing a church in the future? How important does 4v1 suggest Paul regards this? Why must this be so central when considering the problems outlined? What wrong priorities do we or our churches instead have today?
What perspective does Paul have that makes the struggle of the Christian life all worthwhile (cf. 4:6-8)?
What securities does Paul recognize we have as we fight on towards this goal (4v16-18)?
What particular problems and difficulties are you likely to face after graduation to which the truths of this passage will especially apply?
In prayer, commit yourself to i) godliness ii) deepening in God’s word, and iii) wholeheartedly serving God with your future - both during the remainder of your time as a student, and beyond. Write this commitment down as something to look back on in the years to come.

The going out thing

2008-08-04T12:05:00.001-07:00

It’s worth picturing what a truly Christian relationship might look like in today’s world. The following seeks to apply the principles of 1 Corinthians 7 which should be read first.

“7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband… 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion… 25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27 Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. 29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. 32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. 36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin--this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better. 39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is--and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.”

Going out

There would be very little evidence of “going out.” The relationship would simply be that of two Christian friends, of the opposite sex, who find themselves getting on particularly well. The couple would not choose to be alone at one-another's homes at times when temptation could come. Nor would they be physically “all over one-another.” If they agreed on any amorous physical contact at all, it would probably be kept to holding hands and a peck on the cheek. Out of mutual care, they would do their utmost not to bring about any sexual frustration in each-other, being aware that the other may have a lower tolerance on these things.

Secure in the knowledge that this pleases God, they would face whatever flack this might bring from friends. Nevertheless, it would be obvious to others that their friendship was a special one. Indeed, it would be likely to be all the more special because of these boundaries: There would be no baggage brought from other sexual encounters; and there would be no insecurity about whether the other would leave them because of the lack of sex, because this would only show that the partner was not an appropriate one. Instead, true friendship would flourish in a relationship of respect. The couple would spend their time chatting, and enjoying each other’s company socially—a far better guide to compatibility, and the best possible preparation for any marriage.

However, whilst recognising that their friendship might lead to marriage, the couple would ponder whether to keep their friendship purely at the level of friendship. They would be well aware of the anxieties and problems that inevitably come with marriage (and children), and the impact this would have in diverting them from devotion to Jesus, and limiting the possibilities they have for serving him. They would not therefore be quick to give up the advantages their present situation affords.

Engagement

Yet if they were sure they were both committed Christians, were at an age where marriage was an option, and found themselves worrying about whether they could continue to keep their friendship sexually pure, then they would conclude that it is obviously right to get married. They would undoubtedly talk about this, but one might still surprise the other by romantically popping the question.

In prioritising the concerns of the bible rather than those of the world, the couple would reject the assumption that people cannot get married until they have lived together or reached their late twenties. They would instead realise that faithfulness to God is far better preparation than either of these things. Instead, they would look forward to maturing together as husband and wife, recognising that marrying when older brings its own problems anyway, as each partner can be more set in their ways.

They would also reject the agenda of the wedding industry in convincing us that we should wait until we can afford marriage. They would realise that a good wedding can be organised in a matter of months if necessary, and so would keep their engagement fairly short to avoid prolonging the risk of sexual sin.

Marriage

The joy of their wedding day would then be enhanced by the knowledge that they are entering marriage without compromise, and its excitement would be enhanced by their looking forward to serving God as a team, and if possible raising children to do so too. They would not be naïve about the difficulties which might come, but be thankful that in having obeyed God they are at least free from some of the baggage others carry, and that by his Spirit and word they have the best resources any couple could ask for.

Marrying or romancing those who aren't Christians

2008-08-04T12:02:00.001-07:00

I am aware that those who read this paper come to it from a variety of life situations. I guess, many will themselves be married, going out with, or considering going out with non-Christians. You may never before have even considered whether the bible has anything to say on such matters. Well, I am so pleased that you are reading, and want to encourage you to read right through to the end. Some of what God has to say on this issue is pretty frank, but as you read on, you will come to see that if you are a Christian, this frankness only proves God's great love for you because it stems from his concern for your wellbeing.

What does the bible have to say on this?

It is clear within scripture that God views the marriage of one of his people with one who is not, as sin. It is perhaps demonstrated initially by Abraham's concern to seek only one of his own people as a wife for Isaac, just as Isaac later sought one of his own for Jacob (Gen 24:1-4). The first clear prohibition however comes in Deuteronomy 7:1-4, where God says about the nations that Israel would disposes as they are established in Canaan:

"3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you."

Again in Joshua 23:12-13, the LORD says:

"12 But if you turn away and ally yourselves with the survivors of these nations that remain among you and if you intermarry with them and associate with them, 13 then you may be sure that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations before you. Instead, they will become snares and traps for you, whips on your backs and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land, which the LORD your God has given you."

In short, the LORD forbid Israelites from marrying non-Israelites on the grounds that such relationships would lead them into sin and away from God - whether this be to follow another religion, or as is so often the case today, simply to ignore him and live instead for their own desires. The consequences of such marriages are most famously exemplified in the life of Solomon who was led astray by his foreign wives (1 Kgs 11:1-6). The seriousness of such marriages is emphasised by Nehemiah who described them as unfaithfulness to God and tore the hair out of the Israelite men when he found that they had married foreign women (Neh 13:23-27). Indeed, as with the passages quoted above, Ezra also sees mixed marriages as a matter warranting God's judgement (Ezra 9:13-15).

In the NT, 1 Corintians 7:39 is the passage which deals specifically with the issue.

"A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes only in the Lord [my italics]."

Here, Paul is talking specifically about a widow, and one might ask why in talking of first marriages earlier in the passage he didn't make this specification. The answer is probably (a) that it was assumed - the weight of the above OT stress on not intermarrying would strongly suggest this, and/or (b) because many of the widows were first married to unbelievers (having been converted when already married) and therefore greatly in need of this prohibition the second time round. 2 Cor 6:14-18 is also often cited. However, although it probably applies in principle, it doesn't in specifics. The context seems to suggest involvement in unbelieving sinful practices in general (cf. 2 Cor 7:1).

The requirement that believers marry only believers, is therefore one that runs right through scripture. Yet there are differences between the OT and the NT, the most important being that Paul doesn't advocate separation from unbelieving spouses as Ezra did.

Why does God prohibit marrying non-Christians?

Various reasons could be given. The primary one is that God is concerned that we glorify him by living lives of wholehearted devotion and godliness – something those married to non-Christians find incredibly difficult. For our purposes however, it is worth considering that one reason that God prohibits our marrying non-Christians is out of a concern for our happiness! This may seem to be at odds with him not allowing you to marry someone you may well love, but it is true nevertheless. You see, God's concern for your happiness refers to your ultimate happiness, which often comes only through hardship and which is intrinsically linked to your relationship with him, not the more short-term happiness we tend to fix our eyes on.

First, God is concerned for your eternal happiness, ie. your salvation. The primary reason that the OT warns against mixed marriages is because they lead people away from the Lord. As seem, this was particularly exemplified in the life of Solomon. And if he - a man far wiser than most of us - was led astray, are we not all the more likely to be? Time and again I have seen people marry or start to go out with non-Christians convinced that actually they will win them for the Lord. Yet time and again it has been the Christian who has begun going to church less and less, before ceasing to go at all and then even hardening their heart against Christ. God knows far better than us how unable we are in coping with such relationships, and forbids them for this reason. Indeed, we need to treat them with the same seriousness. Just as unfaithfulness in this area led to judgement in the OT, so, where it may eventually bring someone to turn their back on Christ today, it can only lead to the horrors of final judgement and hell. Surely no-one in their right mind would dabble with something that could have such consequences. As to the argument that the partner might be converted - Paul explicitly writes; "How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?" (1 Cor 7:16). Of course, there are some instances when by God's grace the non-Christian spouse or partner of a believer does become a Christian. But this is certainly not then norm, and might have come about far sooner if the believer had shown their non-Christian friend the nature of total commitment to Christ by refusing to go out with them in the first place.

Second, God is concerned for your temporal happiness, ie. your happiness in the hear and now. Again, you may well argue that you will only be truly happy if you are married to the non-Christian you love. But again, God knows better:

Marriage is the most intimate of all relationships, and this kind of intimacy is based on being able to share everything with one-another. What kind of marriage will it be then if you cannot share what is most important to you - your relationship with Jesus - with your spouse? Imagine a marriage where your spouse never met any of your family, and you were therefore not able to talk together about them. Well how much worse would your marriage be if your spouse had never met your God and so you were not able to talk in a mutual way about him, let alone pray together to him.
You may well think that your non-Christian partner will be very supportive of your faith, but it is a lot to ask of him/her to not mind your being absent once or twice on Sundays and once or twice mid-week. It is even more to ask them to run with how you think your children should be brought up - ie. as Christians. Paul writes: "An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs - how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world - how he can please his wife - and his interests are divided (1 Cor 7:32-33)." Now if Paul writes this about Christian marriage, how much more of an impact will mixed marriages have on your concerns and so your faith? At the very least, marrying a non-Christian will keep you from ever fully devoting yourself to the Lord, so always hindering your Christian growth - a price not worth paying. It may also mean a constant battle over being able to attend church that will cause your spouse to resent Christianity rather than consider becoming a Christian. Such a marriage is therefore not particularly fair on the non-Christian spouse either.
Marriage is at times extremely difficult, and the best marriages rely on recognising the roles God has given the man and woman in marriage together with a constant expressing of selflessness and forgiveness by both parties. Now the Christian is moved to act in this way because they are seeking to submit to the bible and are filled with the Holy Spirit who enables them to overcome sin and live in godliness. However the non-Christian neither wants to submit to the bible, nor even has the ability by the Holy Spirit to do so (Rom 8:6-7). A mixed marriage can only therefore fall short of marriage as God intends it.
If you make a bad decision on who you marry, there is no way out. Contrary to the contemporary acceptance of easy divorce, the bible only allows divorce where sexual unfaithfulness ie. adultery has occurred (Matt 19:1-9), or possibly where - where mixed marriages have occurred - an unbelieving spouse deserts a believing one (1 Cor 7:15). If as a Christian, you find yourself in an unhappy marriage, you are therefore bound to remain in it, fulfilling your duties to your partner faithfully, regardless of whether they appreciate it or not, and even if they treat you appallingly in return (1 Pet 3:1-7). It is of course difficult for you to see any potential problems as you look at the possibility of marriage, but don't be naive, problems will come. They come in Christian marriages, and for the reasons given above are even more likely in mixed marriages; and in these in particular there is likely to be a reluctance on the part of the non-Christian to visit you vicar/pastor to seek help.

God knows how hard marriage is, and you need to trust what he requires of you in choosing a partner. Indeed, if you have failed to recognise the need of being married to a committed Christian having read this far, then you are failing to grasp how pervasive and destructive sin is and the real difference the Holy Spirit makes to Christian marriage. God's intention is that any marriage you enter is to be a source of joy and blessing to you and your children (Gen 2:19-25, Mal 2:15). So I urge you in Christ Jesus, don't bind yourself to a life that may possibly be filled with this kind of tension and grief and that has the potential even for destroying your relationship with God.

Third, God is concerned for the eternal and temporal happiness of others:

Here children come immediately to mind. Christian marriage is a means God often uses for extending his kingdom as children are raised in the faith (Mal 2:15). Yet properly raising children is almost impossible in a mixed marriage, especially where one parent may be antagonistic. Moreover, a marriage that is more likely to suffer conflict is one more likely to bring incredible heartache to any kids.
Your marriage will also have an impact on those of your own age. Imagine that you could be sure that marrying a non-Christian would in no way be detrimental to your happiness, or that of your children. Even then it would be detrimental to that of others. Wouldn't it make your Christian friends think that marrying a non-Christian would be as problem-free for them? They would then be more likely to sin in the same way, and suffer any number of the problems listed above. There will always be some who can testify to having had a very happy marriage to a non-Christian, that hasn't hindered their faith at all, and that eventually saw their spouse converted. But this doesn't alter the fact that this does not generally occur and so is unlikely to happen for you, nor does it alter the fact that entering even such a marriage is still sin, because God forbids it. And one reason he does so, is because even the best mixed marriages encourage others to act likewise to their own harm. God's laws are for the good of the many as well as the few.

What if I am already married to a non-Christian?

Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 are worth quoting here in full:

"If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?"

Whatever the rights or wrongs of how you have found yourself in a mixed marriage, you need to recognise that once it has been entered it is a legitimate marriage, and it is God's will that you remain in it, committing yourself fully as a husband to serving your wife, or as a wife to submitting to your husband (1 Pet 3:1-7). Being "sanctified" here doesn't mean that the non-Christian spouse is saved, but that they are in some way set-apart by God from others, probably with respect to his purposes for your children. Of course, if you are in a mixed marriage because you married a non-Christian when you were yourself a Christian, then you will also need to confess your sin in doing so to God, asking his forgiveness for your mistake and his help for you to make the best of the marriage you now find yourself in.

What if I am going out with a non-Christian?

Hopefully, by now you will know what you need to do, and want to do it. 'Going-out' is not a biblical concept, but the nature of going out should mean that it would only be appropriate to go out with someone that you might possibly marry. As a non-Christian is not a possibility for marriage, then it would be wrong to go out with them. Furthermore, for the same reasons listed above for marriage, it would be detrimental to your faith, and unfair to the non-Christian to go out with them (not least because their expectations of what might be sexually permissible when you are going out should be very different from yours). Indeed, the more serious the relationship gets, the more detrimental and unfair. You may reason that if your boyfriend/girlfriend is not converted by the time you consider marriage then you will finish it, but by that time you will be deeply in love with them. To finish with them will then be near impossible. At the very least, it will cause great pain to the one who has been led on in the hope of marriage and then dumped. Most importantly however, this argument is invalid because the reasons that God prohibits marrying non-Christians stand for going out with non-Christians too, the going out itself is therefore unfaithfulness to God, not just any eventual marriage.

Hard as it probably is to hear, you will therefore need to finish with your partner if they are not a Christian, asking God's forgiveness for not considering his will on this matter before, and for his help to be strong as you seek to be faithful to him. Acting in this way is obviously very difficult, especially if you have been going out for a while and are in love. Your friends, and perhaps your family (especially if your partner is seen as a good catch), may well not understand. However faithfulness to God is often extremely tough, just as it was for Jesus himself, and it is he who requires us to "deny ourselves and take up our cross daily…for whoever want to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it (Mark 8:34-35)." Of course your witness to you partner in displaying your commitment to Christ by splitting up with them may be a means by which the Lord brings them to consider and accept Christ for themselves. However, you cannot know this, but must be faithful to God nevertheless, trusting him for the future, and trusting that he knows best for your life. If you are in this situation, do make sure you speak to your vicar/pastor or youth-leader so that they can offer you the support you need.

What if I am engaged to a non-Christian?

This is a more uncertain category to my mind. In NT times the commitment of a betrothal was seen as so equivalent to the anticipated commitment of marriage (although without the actual leaving, cleaving, and sexual union) that to break it off because of sexual unfaithfulness was described as divorce (Matt 1:19). In such a culture, it would therefore seem that the commitment of an engagement should be kept, even if it was entered into wrongly between a Christian and non-Christian. However, in our culture, the breaking off of engagements isn't viewed so seriously in their early days, but is more so as the wedding draws closer. It would therefore seem sensible to say that you should break the engagement off if at all possible, but if it has progressed to the point that the key preparations for the wedding have been made, because this suggests the seriousness of the engagement, the point of no return has perhaps been reached and the marriage may be carried out. In such circumstances however, you should speak to your vicar/pastor and your family if they are Christians, as there may be a way out of the engagement nevertheless. Whatever the case, the Christian should seek God's forgiveness for committing themselves to such a marriage in the first place, and his help for them if they do enter it.

Conclusion

Much of the above arguments have played somewhat on our own often self-centred concerns for happiness, in order to show the loving wisdom of God's requirements on the matter. However it is worth adding that our faithfulness to God here, does not depend on whether we agree with God's wisdom, nor whether it feels like the happiest option. Rather, it depends on the fact that God makes clear in scripture that to marry an unbeliever is a sin. Furthermore, we must remind ourselves again that although God is concerned for our happiness, as Christians our greatest motivations should be God's glory (ie. that he is honoured) and the good of others. As Jesus said, quoting the OT: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself (Matt 22:37-39).'" We should therefore obey God on this matter first because we love him, and so prioritise his will and pleasure above even our own desires, and second, because we love others, and know that faithfulness will be for the good of any children we may one day have, our Christian friends, and possibly even the non-Christian we may be considering a relationship with!

Now, as in all areas of obedience, faithfulness in choosing who we marry requires faith, and faith entails enduring hardship (read Hebrews 11). Depending on your own situation, the hardship you might face in obeying God on this particular matter could be that of heartbreak, embarrassment, the possibility of singleness, anger from your partner, or ridicule from family and friends - some of whom may even be Christians. As you face these, it is worth remembering that Christ also suffered them all in some way, and he did so because he first trusted God, come what may. It is this trust in the face of difficulty that he now calls you to exercise too, if you claim to follow him. Paul writes: "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it (1 Cor 10:13)." God has made clear that as a Christian you do have the resources and the means to be faithful on this matter, and so my prayer is that you would do just that - for the sake of God's glory, for the sake of the good of others, yet also for the sake of your own good.

Why should we go to church?

2008-07-31T04:06:00.000-07:00

You don’t have to go to church to be a Christian any more than you have to go to a garage to be a car. But the fact is that as with the car and the garage, you do need to go to church to keep running as a Christian.

Without a weekly refuelling and spiritual MOT, our faith only too quickly starts stalling and eventually breaking down altogether. This has generally been recognised throughout the history of the church. However, in the UK over the last ten years, the pattern has been changing. Sunday trading, busy living, weekend travelling, the focus on luxury and hobbies has all led to believers attending much more sporadically – once a fortnight or even once a month. This generation therefore needs a constant reminder on why to actually go to church every week if it is at all possible.

In short, the Bible gives three main reasons: We go because we love God, because we love others, and because we love ourselves.

Because we love God
1) We go to meet with God.
In Ephesians 2v21-22 we read “In Christ the whole building (of God’s people) is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”

The implication is that when we are “together” there is a particular sense in which God is present “by his Spirit.” Indeed, many Christians testify how they experience this to be true as they gather to hear God speak powerfully through his Word when it is read and preached, and then respond in praise, prayer and a renewed commitment to service.

2) We go because we want to better know and please God.
Yes, we can learn from the Bible on our own or in small groups. But many who give this as a reason for not prioritising church, don’t in reality prioritise these things either. Moreover, our love for God surely means that we will take any opportunity we get to grasp more of his nature and purposes. And in this, there is something special about the sermon: It communicates a lot of truth in a short period, and it often does this at a deeper level than other forms of teaching, and with more insight into how our views can be in error. It also comes with exhortation and challenge to live differently.

We should note that in 2 Timothy 4v1-5 Paul stresses the utmost importance of this sort of Bible teaching if our faith is to be protected. Hearing it should not therefore be an option for us.

3) We go because we want to speak to and glorify God.
Again, this can be done elsewhere. But it is often only in a service that we find sufficient help to pray and praise God as we are led by others.

Such things are difficult to come to terms with for many Christians. But when regularly practiced they become an incredible joy.

Do ponder how instinctive meeting together for prayer and praise was for the early church (Acts 1v14; 2v42, 47; 4v23-31; 12v5, 12; Ephesians 5v18-20; Colossians 3v16-17).

4) We go to demonstrate to God that he is our first love.
This sums up the above points and was key to the Sabbath. Keeping it took faith. It meant trusting God enough to stop work or other activity in order to remember him.

The principle applies to Christians through the story of Mary and Martha. Martha rushed around doing chores when Jesus was present. But Mary did what was best, sitting at Jesus’ feet (Luke 10v38-41).

We should ask what it says about our attitude to the Lord that we are reluctant to carve out just an hour and a half a week to be built up in faith and be with his people?

Because we love others
5) We go to encourage others in their faith.
The writer to the Hebrews urges us “not to give up meeting together” in order that we may “encourage one-another to love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10v24-25).

This occurs within services when someone is interviewed about how the Lord has been involved in their life. And Paul sees it occurring weekly as we “sing to one-another” (Ephesians 5:19) and so remind one-another of the wonderful truths of God.

The key way we encourage however is as we socialise. Our time for refreshments is therefore an integral part of our gathering. The ideal is that as we hear others’ needs, we encourage them perhaps with some truth from scripture or even offer to pray with them. So “speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into” Christ (Ephesians 4v15).

6) We go to see how we can best serve others.
For many in the church, the Sunday gathering is the one time in the week that they see each other. As we hear of needs, whether in the notices or in conversation, we therefore spot opportunities to serve as well as encourage – whether formally or informal.

Remember that it is not our love for unbelievers (though we should love them), but our love for one-another that Jesus said would mark us as his disciples (John 13v34-35).

7) We go to set a good example to others.
Titus was urged “in everything” to set younger men “an example by doing what is good” (Titus 2v7).

Whether we intend it or not, our actions impact others. When people in a church see others attending only sporadically they start to feel they might do the same (and vice-versa).

Parents in particular need to hear this point. If you only come when you have nothing else on, you teach your children that church really is only for when there is nothing better to do. Is it small wonder that they then resent going to church or Sunday school? Of course it is difficult when our society assumes our children’s availability for work or sports on a Sunday. But we are called to be “set-apart.” And in this, organising our weekends so that we can attend church is one way of showing unbelievers as well as believers what is first in our lives.

8) We go to display God’s wisdom and power to the universe!
Here is the most glorious reason for meeting with your entire church. In speaking of God’s purpose of uniting together those of every tribe and type through their common faith in Christ.

Paul writes that God’s “intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 3v7-12).

Do take this in. He is saying that when angelic beings (not to mention unbelievers) see the greatest diversity of people uniting together, they see a visible representation of God’s purpose to create a new humanity in his Son. More than that, they see proof that the gospel is true, that sin can be overcome, that Christ really can do what society can’t do – reconcile young and old, black and white, poor and rich (Ephesians 2v14-16).

If you are reluctant to go to church because there is no-one like you there, that is exactly the point. The world deals in divisions. Yet by being at church, you show your town, village or area that the gospel has overcome that, and that God is powerfully present among his people, transforming them by his Spirit.

Because we love ourselves
9) We go to grow in our faith.
This has been implied throughout. Paul writes that pastor-teachers are given “to prepare God’s people for works of service,” and that as we then “speak the truth in love” to one-another, the body of Christ will “be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4v11-16).

Quite simply, if we don’t expose ourselves regularly to pastor-teachers and to one-another, we will not be reminded of or deepened in what we know, and our faith will be neither strengthened or developed.

History is littered with those who first started going to church less regularly, before without realising they stopped altogether and ultimately fell away. Salvation is too important to allow such complacency.

10) We go to experience joy.
Of course church can be frustrating or even dull. But often this depends on our attitude. When you seek to pray and sing in your heart the words that are prayed or sung out loud, and when you pray home and praise God for the truths you are hearing in the sermon (no matter how uninspiringly they are presented), you really can find yourself profoundly edified almost every time you attend church.

And here is joy - rejoicing to better get to know God and his will, rejoicing to pray to and sing to him, rejoicing as you learn to love his people, rejoicing in the knowledge that by being in church with an open heart you please him.

If there is one message to the letter to the Philippians, it is that the key to Christian contentment is to find your greatest pleasure in living to please Christ.

Conclusion:
So often Christians who start to withdraw from church, do so saying ‘I just don’t get anything out of it.’ Well I hope you have realised that we go to church predominantly to give rather than to receive: to love and glorify God, and to love and serve others.

A better question to ask ourselves when we go to church then, is not “what am I getting out of it?” but “what am I putting into it?” And what you will find, is that the more you ‘put in,’ the more you will ‘get out;’ because as you truly love God and others, you will find your faith grow and your joy increase.

Appendix: What’s so special about Sunday?
The church of the New Testament assumed regular gatherings of God’s people. In fact Acts 2v46 reads that “every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.” It does seem that the requirement of a Sabbath of absolute rest from all work no longer applied (Colossians 2v16-17). Nevertheless Sunday, “the first day of the week,” was given a special prominence as the day of Jesus’ resurrection.

For this reason the apostolic church made this the primary (though not only) day for meeting together (Luke 24v1; Acts 20v7; 1 Corinthians 16v2). And picking up the pattern of the synagogue, they met to praise God, pray together, read from the Old Testament and the writings of the apostles, hear teaching on them, and then “break bread” together – the early form of communion (Acts 2v42-47; 1 Corinthians 11-14).

Despite this, it has however become popular recently to play down the importance of meeting on Sunday. ‘If the Sabbath no longer applies, why not meet on another day if that better suits others?’ some say. ‘And why not have numerous meetings, so that we can go to whichever fits us that week?’

As Acts 2v46 makes clear above, there is no reason why Christians cannot meet on other days. Indeed, the ideal is that of the Sunday gathering, followed my numerous mid-week meetings for all sorts of reasons: to serve the community, to discuss the Bible’s teaching on a topic with some other interested believers, to pray for a particular concern, to play music together, to socialise – whatever it may be. These things reflect what it is to truly live as a community, as the family of God.

Having said this, a number of points need to be made in response to those who would hold loosely to Sundays: First, there is great importance and symbolism in having all God’s people in an area meet at the same time. It demonstrates his presence and reconciling power to those outside. Second, maintaining a commonly agreed day for this helps unbelievers instinctively know when Christians meet. But it also helps believers who can move house or travel, and not have to restructure their lives and create new habits in order to settle into their local church. Third, it is noteworthy that although the first believers had to work on Sundays (and many were servants or slaves), they still kept this as a special day for meeting. There are hints that they gathered very early in the morning or late in the evening so that those who worked could be there, but no suggestion of another day being kept. Fourth, continuing to meet on “the first day of the week” affirms the theological truth that we meet to celebrate the resurrection, praising our creator for his work of salvation and new-creation in Jesus.

We can conclude then that the New Testament (and all church history) strongly commends the wisdom of believers gathering together every Sunday.

Gathered worship in the early church

2008-07-31T02:01:00.000-07:00

When the church met.
It seems that the early church began meeting daily (acts 2:46, 5:42). This may have continued, but as time moved on, Sunday, the first day of the week became the day for the main gathering (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2, Rev 1:10). This was not seen as a Sabbath, for the time for keeping special days was passed (Col 2:16-17).[1] It was simply judged the most apt day to get together, being the day of Jesus’ resurrection and so a reminder of the salvation and new-creation the believers had received.

What went on.
In terms of what comprised these gatherings, the testimony of the NT is remarkably consistent. In short, the church adopted the general structure of the synagogue service which comprised: (1) Praise in a “call to worship.” There is apparently no record of singing. However as this was central to temple worship in the OT, we might consider it likely.[2] (2) Prayer that recalls God as creator and covenant maker, followed by the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4 as an affirmation of faith, and then a litany[3] of praise and petition. (3) Instruction, beginning with readings from the law and prophets, and then a sermon. This was given by someone in the congregation who was deemed suitable and who was invited to give it.[4]

So it is that we consistently find the elements of praise, prayer and instruction dominating the gatherings of the early church. This is seen in verses that explicitly record these assemblies (Acts 2:42-47, 1 Cor 14:26-28, Col 3:15-17 cf. Eph 5:18-19). Yet this praise-prayer-instruction structure also seems so ingrained in the life of Paul that it provides the structure to sub-sections of his letters (Phil 4:4-9, 1 Thess 4:16-22, 1 Tim 2:1-15) and even the entire structure of the majority of them (Romans, Ephesians-2 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy)! This is particularly fascinating as the letters could almost be used as a service outline. Consider Ephesians: Greeting (1:1-2), Praise (1:3-14), Prayer (1:15-23), Instruction (2:1-6:22), Blessing (6:23-24).

At the very least we surely see here the wisdom of generally maintaining the structure (though without legalism), and beginning and ending gatherings with similar greetings and blessings to those of Paul’s letters. However an examination of all these passages and the wider NT suggests a number of other developments and innovations on the traditional synagogue service.

The Holy Spirit, praise and prayer.
First, consistent with the arrival of the new covenant, the work of the Spirit in worship is paramount. Joy (the second fruit of the Spirit) and song is therefore expected as the overflow of hearts convicted by the Spirit of God’s word (Eph 5:19-20). So a number of “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” were commonly sung (Col 3:19, 1 Cor 14:26). The terms suggest some of these were OT psalms, perhaps sung antiphonally as they originally were. But others seem to have been Christian compositions. Indeed, 1 Corinthians 14:26 may suggest it was common for those who were musically gifted to write a hymn and perform it when the church met. Many are convinced we find examples of some favourites within the letters themselves (Eph 1:1-14, Col1:13-23, Phil 2:6-11, Heb 1:1-4).

All this suggests that the NT church expected heart-felt devotion to God to be expressed in its gatherings rather than any dry formalism. Even prayer was to always be “in the Spirit” (Eph 6:18). This didn’t necessarily mean that it shouldn’t be according to a set form. Records suggest that Christians were encouraged to recite the Lord’s Prayer as early as 80-100AD. What it meant was that whether spontaneous or liturgical, prayer was to be sincere and made with a heart-felt concern for God’s concerns expressed in his word (note the context of verse 17 to Eph 6:18), and for society as well as for the church and its mission (1 Tim 2:1-7).

We might include under prayer the place of tongues. This seems to have been a supernatural language in which praise or prayer was expressed to God. Paul was happy for it to occur when the church gathered, but only two to three times and if interpreted (1 Cor 14:1-18). The gathering was to be ordered, and was for corporate not individual worship. Nothing should take place that others cannot understand or say “Amen” to.

The Holy Spirit as the spirit of truth.
Second, life in the Spirit of truth meant that the centrality of preaching is undeniable. Within the synagogue, as much OT scripture was read “as time allowed.” And just as the synagogue service was a service of the word, so was that of the early church. Consider the quarter of the day spent in God’s word in Nehemiah 8-9. Consider Paul preaching so long at church that someone fell out of the window (Acts 20:7-11)! Consider too that after 13 chapters of some of the most dense theology, the writer of the Hebrews declares “I have written you only a short letter” (Heb 13:22)!

So it was that the early Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles teaching” (Acts 2:42). And where there was no apostle present, it seems that they read out the OT scriptures and followed Jesus’ example in commenting on how they are fulfilled in him (Luke 4:16-21, Acts 18:28, 2 Tim 3:16-4:5). As the apostolic writings spread however, they began to be read too (1 Thess 5:27, Col 4:16). Indeed, in line with Jesus’ promise that his apostles would be inspired to write God’s word accurately (John 14:26, 16:13), the apostles’ writings were seen as holding divine authority (1 Pet 1:12, 1 Cor 2:13, 1 Thess 4:2, 15; 2 Thess 3:5, 12), and accepted as scripture (1 Tim 5:18, 2 Pet 3:16).

So it is that early church records speak of weekly readings from the OT and the apostles (ie. the embryonic NT). Paul’s earlier letters suggest that as with the synagogue, everyday members of the congregation took opportunity to “teach and admonish” the church from these writings (Col 3:16). 1 Corinthians 14:26 pictures those with the appropriate gifts (12:1-11) bringing a “teaching” (probably the word/message of wisdom or knowledge) or up to three “revelations” (probably prophecies). In the wider chapter both were for the strengthening, edification, comfort and instruction of the church. The difference was probably that the former was a spontaneous (or perhaps prepared) comment on the readings, whereas the latter was a message directly revealed from God (v29-32).

The nature of prophecy is much debated. In my view that mentioned here was probably the revealing of gospel truth and its implication for matters at hand, and by means of a vision.[5] There are hints that the practice was for someone to teach or prophesy, and for others then to weigh this by discussion that included questions and comments (1 Cor 14:29-35). It should be noted again that not everyone taught or prophesied, but only those with suitable gifting. And it seems that it was this that led to the rise of the office of “teacher” testified to in Paul’s later letters.

This was a role people aspired to (1 Tim 1:7, 3:1), it was one people were expected to be qualified for by their reliability (2 Tim 2:2), and it was authoritative in guarding God’s people against heresy by “correcting, rebuking and encouraging” (2 Tim 4:1-5). This authority meant it was not a role for women (1 Tim 2:11-12). Nevertheless, it was to be Christlike authority, so exercised with patience, gentleness and careful instruction (2 Tim 4:2).

Such teaching was also the province predominantly of elders (Tit 1:5-9, 1 Tim 3:2). It seems then that due perhaps to the rise of heresy in the congregations, to the realisation that Jesus may not return for some time, to the decline in prophecy and the death of the apostles who were the original official teachers (Acts 2:42), the bulk of teaching was taken over by those who were able teachers, sound in doctrine and prepared not just to encourage but to confront (Tit 1:9). Having said this, there is still suggestion that such teaching was followed by opportunity for questions and comments (2 Tim 2:11). And this of course has precedent in Jesus’ own example.

The Holy Spirit and fellowship.
Third, alongside joy, love (the first fruit of the Spirit) was the defining mark of the early Christians. The gathering was not simply about engaging with God, but engaging with one-another. The early believers would have been horrified at the idea that we can come and go on a Sunday morning with just a few words to each other. They were not just devoted to the apostles’ teaching, the breaking of bread and prayer, but to “the fellowship.”

This is undeniably why communion took the form of a meal together (see below). Songs were to be sung to one-another as a means of mutual exhortation (Col 3:16). Believers were to meet together in order to “encourage one-another to love and good deeds” (Heb 10:24-25). “In view of God’s mercy” that they would have been reminded of in the gathering (Rom 12:1-2), they were to “offer their bodies as living sacrifices” which meant not only lives of love, godliness and mission in society, but of mutual service (Rom 12:3-8). So it was that the giving of money took place at the weekly gathering (1 Cor 16:1-2), and history records how designated members would later distribute this to the poor whilst others would take communion to the infirm.

A lack of ritual.
Fourth, it is noteworthy in this, that Paul uses the language of priesthood and sacrifice to refer to all these acts of service (Rom 121ff, Heb 13:16, 2 Cor 8:5, Phil 4:8, Heb 13:15, Phil 2:17, 1:24, Rom 14:16, Phil 2:15, 30, Rom 15:27, 2 Cor 9:12). There really are no grounds at all for the concept of specific Christian priesthood set-apart from others by its dress. Christ is now our Great High Priest, and all believers priests in him, whose call above all is to represent God to the world in evangelism, and the world to God in prayer (1 Pet 2:9, 1 Tim 2:1-14).

As the book of Hebrews relates, the rituals of the OT were shadows pointing to the realities now present in Christ. The early church was therefore surprisingly unritualistic.

The Lord’s Supper.
Fifth, the Lord’s Supper was probably the most significant addition to the old synagogue service. The phrase “breaking bread” alongside mere “eating together” in Acts 2:46 suggests the former term referred to what we call communion (Lk 22:19), and that it probably came in the context of a meal. The suggestion is that it was celebrated every week (Acts 20:7 1 Cor 11:20), and the major passage in 1 Corinthians 11 highlights that it is to be a time of thanksgiving, remembrance, of proclaiming the Lord’s death (v23-26), and partaking of his body and blood through faith (10v14-22).

It was not therefore a re-sacrifice offered to God, but a re-calling and re-partaking of the sacrifice provided by God and offered by his Son. Nevertheless, the supper should not be received without self-examination to ensure one eats and drinks worthily (11v27-34). Moreover, because the Lord’s Supper came in the context of a church family meal, just as the Passover it fulfils was a family meal, it should be enjoyed with feelings of love and peace towards other Christians (v17-22).

The church today.
Though we see no suggestion of a formal communion liturgy within the early church, we do therefore see the elements of our modern service: Confession, the peace where believers are encouraged to ensure they are reconciled to one-another, the thanksgiving prayer, the words taken from 1 Corinthians 11v23-26, and the time of confession. We might note that many other elements of services today were also present: Song, prayer, the saying of the Lord’s prayer, sermons (though with opportunity for interaction).

We might comment that because the Lord’s Supper was celebrated every week we see no example of confession without it. Nevertheless, the stress of the gospel on repentance and faith together with the model of God’s word leading to confession in Nehemiah 8-9 would make this wise.

The NT even suggests mini-creeds (1 Cor 15:3-7) and “trustworthy sayings” (1 Tim 1:15, 3:16, 4:9-10, 2 Tim 2:11-13, Tit 3:3-8) were also circulating in the churches. The former may have only been used on occasion, and the latter may have been little more than common catchphrase. However it is equally possible that they were spoken in a liturgical manner during services. Add in the official welcome and final blessings modelled by Paul and we have most of what we now include.

There is method behind Anglican liturgy after all. What then are the major differences today? We have mentioned the danger of formalism already. But one thing that protected against this in the early church was the stress on participation. Everyone played a part making the gathering inevitably different every week, and putting limits on any set liturgy used: Some brought a hymn, others a word, others commented on it or asked questions, others brought a prayer.

We should be cautious about unlimited extras being included in services. But there is certainly scope today for further contributions that might enhance the key stages of praise, prayer and instruction: The playing of instruments, the sharing of a written poem or prayer, or its projection using technology, the acting out of a drama of the bible reading, a work of art that brings its truth home. It would seem all these would be permissible as long as they are understandable by all and are not individualistic, but can bring an “amen” from all (1 Cor 14).

Our other great lack today is in the area of fellowship. How much we need to spend social time together, on Sundays and mid-week; time to eat together, have coffee, laugh and play. How much we need the instinct of hospitality, generosity, service and encouragement displayed by the early believers. Whether organising homegroups, service groups or interest groups, or informal getting together of musicians or sports enthusiasts, whatever it might be, Christians should be encouraged to be spending time together mid-week and on Sundays, and include those who would be left out by the world or those who are not yet Christians.

Above all, groups might simply arrange to meet to informally to eat together, chat over the scriptures, and sing and pray together. Such things don’t need organising by the church before they can be done.

Summary.
One can imagine the NT church. Forty or so people arrive at the large house of a believer, and people greet one-another with a holy kiss as they arrive (Rom 16:16). There is a buzz as people catch up with one-another, until at an appropriate time an elder or mature congregation member starts the meeting, perhaps with a “grace, mercy and peace” as in one of Paul’s letters.

A call to worship might then be shared from a psalm or a prayer of praise and thanksgiving said. The believers might then sing some songs together, or an individual share one they had written. A time of open praise and prayer might follow. The catalyst for this might be an opportunity for individuals to share encouragements they want to glorify God for or needs they would value prayer for. But particular prayers for society and the church would also be said.

Where any of this brought one to mind, someone might quote a trustworthy saying to a hearty “amen” from the congregation. Someone would then be asked to read from the OT and from an apostolic letter or gospel. One of the elders or teachers would then teach from it. This might be followed by additional comments and questions of clarification from the congregation. Perhaps in this context a trustworthy saying might be mentioned, and the time followed by the reciting of a relevant creed.

In response more songs might then be requested and/or prayers of praise and petition made. Finally, when it was felt appropriate a final prayer of blessing might conclude everything.

Early church history records that it was common then for the unbaptised to leave, whilst the baptised would congregate for the Lord’s Supper (this may not have always been the case). The congregation might be then encouraged to examine themselves and confess their sins, especially with respect to the teaching. A song might also be sung and an elder or other congregation member then pray a prayer of thanksgiving for the cross/resurrection and repeat Christ’s words from the night before his death. The bread and wine would then be passed round, and after everyone had partaken, the meal start.

During it people would chat about the sermon, marvel together at God and his goodness, encourage those in need of encouragement, offer to serve where service is needed, arrange perhaps to meet mid-week for all sorts of social and spiritual reasons, and generally just enjoy friendship before departing.

Conclusion.
Of course, although the key elements of praise-prayer-instruction are commanded of the church. The exact format by which they take place is not. Here the early church is simply a useful model. Nevertheless, we would do well to note what we lack by not adopting this model in a general sense, and what would be gained if we did.

The church is intended to be an embassy of God’s kingdom, a place where its values are lived out and from where its ambassadors are sent to call people to take up citizenship through faith in Christ. It is to be a holy temple where God is present amongst his people, building them up and shining through them (Eph 2:21-22). In particular, it is to be a place where those people join the joyful assembly of heaven in their time of praise, yet worship with reverence and awe in the seriousness with which they take their time of instruction (see Heb 12:22-29).

It is this sort of fellowship, filled with joy, awe, love and truth, that is essential if the church’s calling is ever to be fulfilled. In a day of suspicion at formalism, a longing for authentic spirituality, and in which relationships are incredibly superficial, nothing could be more attractive to the watching world.

Appendix : Justin Martyr’s record of early Christian assemblies around 150 AD[6]
The following is his description of the Christian Eucharist, subsequently to the baptism of a convert:

"Afterwards we conduct him to those who are called brethren, where they are assembled together to offer earnestly our united prayers for ourselves and for the enlightened one [the newly baptized convert], and for all others every where, that we, having learned the truth, may be thought worthy to be found in our deeds good livers, and keepers of the commandments, that we may be saved with the everlasting salvation. Having ceased from prayers, we salute each other with a kiss; and then bread is brought to him who presides over the brethren, and a cup of water and wine; and he taking it, sends up prayer and praise to the Father of all, through the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit; and offers much thanksgiving for our being thought by him worthy of these things. When he has finished the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present respond, saying, 'Amen.' Now, Amen in the Hebrew tongue means, 'So be it.' And when the presider has given thanks, and all the people have responded, those who are called Deacons among us give to every one present to partake of the bread and wine and water that has been blessed, and take some away for those who were not present." [Sect. 65. p. 82.] The following is Justin's account of their worship on the Lord's day: "In all our oblations we bless the Creator of all things, through his Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Spirit. And upon the day called Sunday, there is an assembly of all who dwell in the several cities or in the country, in one place where the records of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets are read, as time allows. When the reader has ceased, the presider makes a discourse for the edification of the people, and to animate them to the practice of such excellent things [or the imitation of such excellent persons]. At the conclusion we all rise up together and pray; and, as we have said, when we have ceased from prayer, the bread and wine and water are brought forward, and the presider sends up prayer and thanksgiving alike, to the utmost of his power. And the people respond, saying, Amen. And then is made to each the distribution and participation of the consecrated elements ([Greek: eucharistauthenton]). And of those who have the means and will, each according to his disposition gives what he will; and the collected sum is deposited with the presider, and he aids the orphans and widows, and those who through sickness or other cause are in need, and those in bonds, and strangers; and, in a word, he becomes the reliever of all who are in want." [Sect. 67. p. 83.]

Things to note:
1. Communion prayers seem to be spontaneous, but with a fixed or agreed theme. 2. Blessing and consecrating is present. 3. Communion is received every Sunday. 4. Reading from the scriptures is long ie. as time allows. 5. Preaching centres on ethical response. 6. Intercessions seem to be made as all stand suggesting spontaneous open time of prayer. 7. Money is given primarily for the poor and needy, not for the building etc.

[1] Whereas all Israel were able to rest on the Sabbath due to the law, only free and wealthy people would have been able to exempt themselves from work in NT times anyway. It seems that the church therefore met from Saturday night into early Sunday morning (Acts 20:7-11). This is instructive. The church still stuck to Sunday for meeting, but found the time when most could attend. The current tendency to meet on another day cannot be said to be wrong. However we should note that by sideling the apostolic and historic choice of Sunday we loose both a sense of continuity with the church of history and with the significance of the resurrection for the life of the kingdom community.
[2] Edersheim, Alfred. “Synagogue Worship,” http://www.piney.com/Synagogue1.html
[3] A litany is a list of short set prayers.
[4] This structure is outlined by Martin, Ralph P. Worship in the early church, (Greand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1974), p.24-27
[5] This is suggested by its parallel to preaching, and by the fact that in chapter 13 it is to “fathom mysteries and knowledge” which in the wider letter is language used to describe knowledge of God and the gospel (see 13v9-12). So this form of prophecy comprised the sort of truth and application we find in the NT letters and was much needed during the period in which they were not in full circulation. It was therefore the foundational form mentioned in Ephesians 3:4-6, that gradually ceased as the NT was compiled. It is revelation of more circumstantial matters such as the choice of leaders, an event to prepare for or the direction of a church that may continue today (Acts 11:27-28, 13:2, 21:10-11). I might also add that as far as I can see, in every instance where we are actually told how such prophecies are received in scripture, we are told that it is through some powerful and direct visionary or audible experience—whether an angelic visitation, the appearance of Christ himself, or a vision, dream or voice that comes with the same clarity to our senses as something actually seen or heard (Numbers 12:1-8, 1 Kings 13:18, 2 Kings 1:15, Hebrews 1:1 cf. 2:2, Luke 1:67-79 cf. v5-20, Acts 2:17, 10:9-16, Gal 1:12 cf. Acts 26:12-18, Revelation 1:1-2 cf. 2 Corinthians 12:1, 7, 1 Corinthians 13:12 cf. Numbers 12:6-8).
[6] www.logoi.com/notes/christian_worship/evidence_justin_martyr.html accessed 20/3/08

Is there still a place for liturgy?

2008-07-31T01:56:00.000-07:00

Evangelicals have a natural and somewhat instinctive aversion to liturgy. Our concern for genuine conversion and high view of the work of the Spirit make us nervous of rote worship in which we confess what we do not believe and pray what is not "in the Spirit."

Why Liturgy?
Yet liturgy has a strong biblical precedent: Consider the Psalms in which a phrase such as "his love endures forever" is repeated. Consider similarities between the prayers of Daniel ((9:4) and Nehemiah (1:5) that suggest a common form was used. Consider the worship of the synagogue in Jesus' day, and the known "trustwothy sayings" and "hymns" of Paul.

Liturgy it seems was an accepted aid, and a number of reasons can be thought of as to why: (1) It enables the congregation to respond in the service, rather than just listen. (2) It aids certain ideas to take deeper root by regular use. (3) It gives opportunity for reflection on what is said rather than missing the moment after it has passed. (4) It provides a familiar structure in which the worshipper is able to relax sufficiently to focus on what is going on. (5) It ensures what is said is carefully thought through and particularly that the gospel is actually communicated. (6) It displays the flow of the service to those taking part. (7) It ensures by preparation that what being said by the leader is thoroughly scriptural (as often in freer services it is not).

I am sure more reasons could be given. Suffice is to say we should not be overly hasty to totally eradicate liturgy (not least for the Reformed, because it is part of our heritage). In particular, during a postmodern age in which words are cheap, caution and the bringing home of what is said is key. Moreover, as more and more enter our churches with no idea what is going on, a structure can help them from feeling to lost at sea. By contrast, the everchanging services some experience in free church can seem dynamic, but are rather inaccessible to those not initiated into its words and ways.

Qualifications
This is not to condone rote repetition or dry formalism (although both can be found in non-liturgical churches too). It is up to the leader and congregation to consider ways to protect against such things. In particular, space for spontaneous prayers, testimonies, encouragements and songs can quite easily be fitted into a general liturgical structure. This fits well the all-involved services of the early church (1 Corinthians 14:26-18). In line with this, I am not by any means suggesting absolute similarity of service each week. Here we should note that postmoderns have been raised to value variety, and variety itself can make us think twice about what we say because we weren't expecting it. We must also recognise that theologically wordy liturgy is extremely inaccessible to those not understanding our terms (and many who have said them for years don't).

A Sample Service
What then might a service look like? Before looking at the detail we should note that the overall structure itself is liturgical following the reformed and scripture progression: Reflection on God-conviction of sin-repentance-joy at forgiveness-praise and commitment in gratitude. Within this is a basic structure of Preparing for God's Word-Hearing God's Word-responding to God's Word. Spontaneous prayers could be made by the leader or by invitation from the congregation at almost any point as "feels right" in the moment. But some particularly opportune times are noted below.

Preparing for God's Word
(1) A call to worship: A few verses chosen for that Sunday and read from one of the many psalms that act in this way, perhaps typed out for use in responsive form.

(2) A prayer of invocation: This is ideally spontaneous, giving a sense of imminent expectation in asking the Lord to meet with his people in and through his word, and move them in their praise, prayer and service.

(3) A hymn/song (or more) of adoration affirming the majesty and holiness of God.

[Where the sermon directly demands repentance, the reading and sermon could come here before confession]

(4) A call to repentance: This could be a set or spontaneous, involving an appropriate verse from scripture.

(5) Confession of sin: This could vary on occasion, but regular use of one or two helps people to truly engage with the seriousness of the words and the move from repentance to asking God for help to change. Where the sermon directly demands repentance a specific confession could be written to reflect that.

(6) Assurance of forgiveness: Again, using a set amount of declarations helps people get to know them. Each should ideally be based on one of the many promises of forgiveness the Lord gives in scripture.

[A spontaneous, set or typed responsive prayer might be given by the leader or congregation here in praise and thanks for sins forgiven, especially if a hymn/song does not immediately follow.]

(7) A hymn/song (or more) of praise and thanks for the gospel or of preparation to hear God's word. If the latter, this could come after two readings and just before the reading preceding the sermon. This ensures people are fresh and attentive for the reading and sermon.

Hearing God's Word
(8) Readings: A psalm (often neglected today) could be read aloud with leader and congregation alternating verses. This would then be followed by an OT and then a NT reading. The psalms could be worked through consecutively, and the passage not preached on could either provide background to the passage that is, or could be arranged as a simple reading through of an unrelated Bible book over a number of weeks.

(9) Sermon: This is best straight after the reading be spoken about so that it is fresh to mind. It should be introduced and finished by an appropriate prayer of illumination and application respectively that picks up the Bible truths of the sermon.

Responding to God's Word
(10) A hymn/song (or more) that applies the passage in terms of knowledge, repentance, commitment etc. This is a great time to let the praise etc build if you have time.

[Here is an appropriate spot for spontaneous prayers, testimonies, encouragements, even songs. The danger is that they distort or distract from the sermon. This needs careful leading and clarification before moving on. The creed can help refocus if introduced well.]

(11) Creed: Again, to get to know these regular use of a few is best as a norm. But on occasion one could be crafted from the Bible passage to reflect what has been learnt.

(12) Prayers: They could include set or prepared prayers, spontaneous prayers, or spontaneous prayers according to a set or prepared structure. Some refrain such as "Lord in your mercy, hear our prayer" works well because it keeps the congregation with things. They must be warned about the refrain however.

(13) Lord's Prayer: This is key if people are to get to know it and learn how to say it in a way that prays the phrases as it is said. (If a set prayer for the day (collect) is to be said, it works well to do it before the Lord's prayer as it the set prayers then come together).

(14) A hymn/song (or more) of final commitment or affirmation of God

(15) A final prayer of praise (doxology) or blessing (benediction): This would ideally pick up the scriptural truths and language of the passage preached on and so remind people of what they've learnt as they leave. This needs to be profound and succinct, so is best set or prepared. Ideally use a doxology or benediction from scripture.

Can people be saved without conscious faith in Christ?

2008-07-31T01:48:00.000-07:00

(c) Jon Hobbs, 2003

An outline and evaluation of John Sander's "inclusivism" as propounded in his book No other name.

The structure of Sanders' argument comprises a definition of inclusivism,[1] an outline of how both testaments affirm God's salvific activity outside the covenant with Israel,[2] followed by five supporting theological considerations,[3] a consideration of inclusivism’s key defenders,[4] and an historical bibliography.[5] For the purposes of this essay, the main arguments gleaned from the chapter are outlined and evaluated, rather than the validity of Sanders’ historical assessments.
Outline

Inclusivism is defined by Sanders as the conviction "that some of those who never hear the gospel of Christ may nevertheless attain salvation before they die if they respond in faith to the revelation they do have." Thus although inclusivists "affirm the particularity and finality of salvation only in Christ," they "deny that knowledge of his work is necessary for salvation" - a distinction between ontological and epistemological necessity.[6]
God’s attitude to Gentiles in salvation history

In arguing his case, Sanders suggests that God’s “benevolence” towards those outside the covenant in the Old Testament is proved by the fact that God provided land for other nations[7][8] Indeed, Amos 9:7 is particularly appealed to as evidence that “God does not show favouritism.” Furthermore, God’s judgement on the nations “primarily for moral failures rather than religious failures,” is seen as testimony that they “did have a genuine knowledge of God and obligations to him.”[9] It is therefore concluded that God was graciously and salvifically active outside of Israel on the basis of the Genesis covenants,[10] as “the universal is made manifest through the particular.”[11] The context of the whole chapter[12]Israel and then particularly through Christ universal atonement was eventually made as the basis for this salvation, even though those benefiting would have known nothing of this. and performed exodus-like events for them. suggests that what is probably meant by this phrase is that through

Abel, Enoch, Lot, Job, Balaam, the Queen of Sheba, Ruth, and especially Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab, Naaman, Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, and Jonah’s pagan sailors are appealed to as further evidence of God’s favour. Sanders sees as particularly important, the fact that Rahab’s and the sailor’s faith was not “theologically well informed,”[13] and that Naaman maintained “a serious theological misconception,” showing that God is more inclined to grant salvation to those of faith than those merely adhering to a “set of doctrines or liturgical practices.”[14]

Finally, further support is taken from the New Testament’s assertions about God being the God of the Gentiles, Jesus’ “softer tone” with Gentiles, the importance of the magi, the faith of the Canaanite woman and the centurion - without acknowledgement of Jesus’ divinity or of “the Apostles’ creed.”[15] Most space is given to Cornelius however. Sanders contends that Cornelius was saved before hearing the gospel, and therefore the archetype of those who are “saved by Christ without knowing about Christ.”[16] Indeed, the revolution in Peter’s thinking at the time is exactly that which Sanders’ wants his readers to accept.”[17]

In this opening section, Sanders therefore argues (a) that God has always been salvifically active outside of his covenant with Israel, and (b) that the important factor of saving faith is not therefore its theological content, but its “existential quality.”[18] The rest of his chapter is given to developing and unpacking these two key conclusions as outlined below.[19]
(A) The nature of faith

“Believers vs. Christians”

Consistent with the above, Sanders defines saving faith as "the process of moving from some truths about God's character to a degree of trust in the person of God that results in obedience to his will."[20] Here it is important to recognise how his wider considerations govern his meaning. When speaking about faith in God, Sanders is not exclusively speaking of a conscious acknowledgement of Yahweh, but faith in a higher being that Yahweh considers as directed to him despite the ignorance of this fact in the individual concerned.[21] He therefore affirms that "some degree of cognitive information is essential," but quotes with approval Strong's assertion that it is belief on the basis of light received, or "dimly shadowed forth in nature and providence."[22]

This gets to the heart of the inclusivist argument. Believers and Christians can be seen as two distinct sets. Although all Christians are believers, not all believers are Christians; the former having responded to the light they have been given, and the latter to the gospel. As has been seen, the key question is therefore over the necessary content of faith. As Sander's puts it: "Is cognitive information the most important element in saving faith, or is a person's attitude the decisive factor?"[23] By way of response, he asserts as "essential" a humility that stems from "the faintest stirring of guilt,"[24] yet affirms that God's acceptance of an individual does depend less on their "specific behaviour" or "concrete knowledge," than "the direction in which they are heading."[25]

In addition to his discussion of Gentile "believers" three further grounds for this position are posited. First, Sander's rejects passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 as defining the content of faith, by saying that Paul is not talking of requirement here, but of what he preached.[26][27] Citing Abraham, Gideon, and Samson as examples, he points out that what was common to them was God as the object of their faith, yet the specific content of their faith varied - they trusted God for a son, for victory, and for strength respectively.[28] Sanders sees Romans 4 and Hebrews 11:6 as key in supporting this view. Romans 4 portrays Abraham as believing in "the God who kept his word," and Christians as believing in "the God who raised Jesus from the dead." Therefore justification depends on faith having the same object (God) and action (trust), but not the same content.[29] Moreover, Hebrews 11:6 teaches that - "Anyone who believes that God will respond benevolently to those who seek him thereby gives evidence of trusting God and thus possesses saving faith;"[30] a faith which is "compatible with ignorance of any historical revelation through Moses or through Christ."[31] Third, Sanders also mentions the doctrine of infant salvation as proof that even restrictivists hold that God can and does save those who have no knowledge.[32] Second, he asserts that Old Testament Hebrew believers had a "limited" knowledge concerning Christ, especially with respect to his death and resurrection, but "were justified by faith in God's word.”

(B) God’s universal salvific activity

“The work of God in effecting salvation”

Although this consideration is placed after that on general revelation, theologically it precedes it by providing the justification for how and why God reaches out in the manner the inclusivist holds:

“God the Father loves all and desires the salvation of all, God the Son made this salvation possible through his redemptive work, and God the Holy Spirit has a universal outreach in seeking the lost and sinful humanity.”[33]

Three particular arguments stem from this Trinitarian assertion that reveal Sanders' systematic presuppositions.[34] The first relates to the character of God. As Sanders' states elsewhere:

"If God is indeed not willing that any should perish but wishes all to come to repentance...is it credible that he would create billions of people without any hope for salvation?"[35]

The second relates to the atonement: Christ’s universal redemptive work is mentioned in the section on general revelation, where Romans 5 is said to “emphatically” state that Jesus died for all sinners.[36] Thus Sanders' has concluded that:

"If the redemption procured by Jesus objectively provides for the salvation of every human being, and if God intends this salvation to be genuinely universal, then it must be possible for every individual who has ever lived personally to receive that salvation regardless of the historical era, geographic region, or cultural setting in which these people have lived."[37]

Third, the universal outreach of the Spirit is argued on the basis of two particular texts. John 3:8 is seen to show that “the work of the Spirit must not be confined to the church,” and so "the Holy Spirit is working to convict all people of their sin and turn them back to God (John 16:8)." Nevertheless, Sanders affirms that the gospel is needed to grant “salvation in its fullness,”[38] and that the revelation of Christ provides criteria for judging the validity of any spiritual presence outside the church.[39]

“The role of general revelation”

The above assertions perhaps explain Sanders logic in stating that “general revelation [God's revelation of himself in nature] is salvific because its source is the saving God.”[40] If God is a saving God in the three-fold way he describes, then it would seem that general revelation would have to be salvific. Scriptural texts about the witness of creation are brought to support this view;[41] especially that of Romans 10:18 which “appears to say” that what is heard by this means is sufficient for salvation.[42] Three further arguments are then made. First, that the incarnation can “only” be fully understood within the context of general revelation’s assertion “that God is real.”[43] Second, that Romans 1-3 is “quite unintelligible” unless it implies that general revelation can be salvific.[44] Third, that the scriptural promises teaching that those who seek God will find him, find hope in the passages about God’s concern for and work among the Gentiles.[45]

“The cosmic work of Christ”

On the basis of John 1:9, the “logos Christology” of the church fathers is adopted as a sub-set of general revelation.[46] By it, the “best” and “true” within other religions can be ascribed to a non-incarnational revelation of the Son. Thus, “all people have some degree of divine revelation," and so it can be claimed that “the god of the pagan was the same God the Christians worshipped,” even though pagan worship may need to be critiqued.[47]

“The implications of the presence of other religions”

Three particular assertions are made to provide evidence of this “cosmic” work in real-life. First, the fact that the LORD appropriated names and attributes of other deities within the Old Testament, showing that comparison between Yahweh and other gods was possible. Sanders see the parallels between Psalm 104 and the Egyptian “Hymn to Aton” as a particular appreciation of revelation outside Israel.[48] Second, the use of indigenous names for God and pagan “ideas, values, and practices” as “compatible.” Here Paul’s affirmation of common truths in the sermon of Acts 17 is in mind as evidence that the Athenians had “experienced to some degree God’s revelation and grace.”[49] Therefore it is concluded third, that the Athenians imperfectly but genuinely worshipped the true God.[50] In the terms established under his first consideration Sanders therefore explains the Athenian response to Paul’s preaching as “believers became Christians.”[51]

His final argument is an anthropological one: "The similarities between the biblical revelation and beliefs, values, and practices found in other religions" testify that "god is at work redemptively with these people" through general revelation, dreams, and reasoning. Here, Sanders refers to Richardson's idea that these similarities are "redemptive analogies" that make the gospel accessible to those who haven’t heard it.[52]
Evaluation

By way of evaluation, we shall look at sections A and B in turn, considering Sanders' initial arguments regarding non-covenanted Gentiles under these. As Sanders' understanding of faith is the cornerstone to his thesis, its consideration is given most space.

(A) Faith in salvation-history.

There is perhaps a tendency amongst many evangelicals to require too great a theological understanding for salvation. Here Sanders' critique may be justified. Nevertheless, his general understanding of faith is groundless, failing to account for the related ideas of covenant and idolatry within biblical theology.

The pattern of salvation portrayed throughout scripture is of God specially[53] calling individuals, and indeed a whole nation, to turn from idols and enter into a relationship with him as the true God by trusting in his covenant promises. Adam's original righteousness was certainly instinctive to his nature and perhaps to the wider testimony of general revelation. Yet God spoke to him to establish a covenant with its promises of life or death.[54] Likewise, the Abrahamic covenant encompassed the promise that Abraham's descendants would be the means by which God would bless "all the families of the earth."[55] It is in this context that Abraham's faith is commended. It was not simply faith in God's promise to give him a son, but in God's covenant promise being fulfilled through that son.[56] Abraham did not necessarily need to know the Christological details of that fulfilment, but his faith was certainly Christological in the sense that it trusted the God of that covenant to fulfil his promise, and the way he later did so was through Christ.[57] Similarly, after the administration of this covenant was developed through Moses, Israel were required to continue to trust God's fuller covenant promises of blessings and curses, life and death.[58] Their unfaithfulness was therefore synonymous with an idolatrous trust in false gods.[59] Thus the calls to "seek the LORD" did not commend the sincere worship of any god, but were explicit calls to Israelites and pagans to turn from false gods to the true God - Yahweh.[60] Indeed the use of this name itself "entails distinctiveness; it sets God off from others who have names, incl. gods."[61] When the prophets spoke of a new covenant, they therefore spoke of God instilling a faithfulness to himself in human hearts, that they will "know the LORD;"[62] a promise that would specifically include Gentiles too.[63]

Hebrews 11:6 confirms this understanding of faith.[64] Believing that God "exists" here should not be interpreted under the modern pluralist assumption that it must mean any undefined god. Rather, it calls for an acknowledgement of the one God who exists and who created the universe with a word;[65] an acknowledgment of him over others.[66] Interestingly, the writer seems to want to explicitly relate the faith of those prior to Abraham to their having seen and greeted "the things promised."[67] He then outlines the faith of those after Abraham, who as his offspring all believed within the context of the Abrahamic covenant community. Israelites cannot therefore be used to suggest that some may be saved through a vague God-ward faith. The particular faith-acts they were commended for were certainly varied, but they were always expressions of faith in the LORD, the covenant God, who had made a promise to them that would be fulfilled through Christ. It is arguable that Abel and Enoch should be seen in this same context. Abel was only one generation from those who had received the first covenant with its promise of a serpent-crusher, and the name Yahweh is used with respect to both Abel's offering and the godly line of Seth of which Enoch was a part.[68] Indeed, there is no reason to assume that there were not a number of people who on the basis of God's special revelation to Adam and then Noah, worshipped the true God over the false gods the rest of humanity had turned to. Melchizedeck might be just such an example.[69]

Sanders is therefore right in seeing that Old Testament believers were “justified by faith in God’s word,”[70] but fails to see how this is still a faith in Christ and how it is exclusive to those who have contact with God’s covenant community. If any salvific blessing were to come to pagan humanity before Christ, this was to be not through the covenant of creation per se,[71] but through the Abrahamic promise, by hearing of and coming to know Abraham's covenant God. One intent in the exodus itself, was that non-Israelites might see the impotence of their gods, and "know the LORD" - the God of Israel.[72] Similarly, this seems to have been a purpose behind the law,[73] explaining why Israel's unfaithfulness served to "profane" God's name before the nations.[74] Significantly, Paul explicitly describes Gentiles as "separated from Christ...strangers to the covenants of promise" and so "without God."[75] How could he be more frank? Any commonality between Yahweh and pagan deities, whether in Old Testament literature or Paul's sermon in Athens cannot therefore be interpreted as evidence of valid worship of God through other religions. Rather, a response to special revelation, whether of God’s character and deeds displayed in history and/or his spoken promise, would seem to be necessary for salvation. It is no surprise then that almost all the pagans Sanders lists did in fact have contact with God's covenant people, through whom they learnt about the LORD. Of those that didn't, Job did nevertheless receive special verbal revelation, and Cyrus is presented as God's tool, not as a believer. It is not clear that the Magi should be read as believers either, although they were seeking the Jewish Messiah-king.[76]

Sanders is surely right however, in concluding that Cornelius was a believer. But we must note that his faith was still in the God of Israel,[77] not the Roman pantheon or any other god. The point of Acts 10-11 is that the issue of cleanliness that separated even God-fearers [converts to Judaism who hadn't been circumcised] from the true Israelites was now obsolete. Yet, interestingly, Cornelius still needed to hear the gospel of Christ to receive the new covenant fullness of salvation through the Holy Spirit;[78] a fact which gives insight into how the content of faith required, may differ depending on its place within salvation-history. After Abraham, his offspring should have believed the promise,[79] after Sinai, the promise and Moses' development of it - both then contained in the books of the Law, after the exile, both the Law and prophets. Why? Because they all looked towards Christ.[80] Once the Abrahamic promise was fulfilled, faith then needed to encompass that fulfilment rather than merely its foreshadowing.[81] Thus as Bultmann writes, within the New Testament "kerygma [preaching] and faith always go together."[82] Indeed, he explicitly rejects the distinctions that Sanders seeks to make, stating that there is no "distinction into two kinds of Christians, the pistics [those of faith] and the gnostics [those of knowledge]."[83] Rather, saving faith is consistently portrayed as being faith "in" Christ.

There is not enough space to consider the key New Testament texts in detail,[84] but two stand out. First, in the context of Christians being in continuity with the nation of Israel, 1 Peter 1:23-25 explicitly states regeneration and purification come through the word of the gospel. Second, Romans 10:1-21 makes clear that zeal with little content is not enough as Israel's zeal was "not according to knowledge."[85] Rather, belief in the Lord with respect to the Law and prophets can now be equated with confessing Jesus is Lord and believing "that God raised him from the dead."[86] Furthermore, the logic of verses 14-17 imply that faith comes only through "the word of Christ," which is the gospel;[87] for without it being both preached and heard, "how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed?"[88] Sanders' suggestion that verse 18 is evidence that this word is actually heard through general revelation could not be more clearly refuted by the context. More likely, the psalm is being used as an analogy of the gospel having been preached to both Jews and Gentiles, or as hyperbole for it already having being preached throughout the known world.[89]

(B) Distinctions in understanding God's universal activity.

As already mentioned, this biblical understanding of faith undermines Sanders' entire thesis. Nevertheless, his other considerations can be questioned also.

The trinity
First, in his comments on God's triune salvific work, Sanders’ emotive language of "what must be possible" and what is "credible" effectively bullies the reader towards his view. Elsewhere he writes: “what kind of God is he who gives man enough knowledge to damn him but not enough to save him?"[90] At times Sanders suggests that humanity is in some sense innocent and God is obliged to save. Rather, the bible should define a right understanding and expectation of God’s action and human deservedness.

Here particularly Carson has shown the importance of considering the different ways the bible speaks of God's love.[91] His love is certainly universal providentially,[92] and in terms of his "salvific stance towards his fallen world" in taking "no pleasure in the death of the wicked."[93][94] God's love cannot be considered apart from his other attributes and concerns. All deserve condemnation, and any expression of love whether providential or salvific is down to God's great mercy and is distributed according to his sovereign will. Yet for the highest purpose of his own glory, his electing love chooses to save only some.

In terms of redemption there is also therefore a particularity.[95] Sanders' use of Romans 5 to show otherwise is problematic: If Paul meant that the atonement "leads to justification" for all without exception, then all must be justified and therefore saved. Yet Sanders is not a Universalist. In a letter addressing Jew Gentile divisions, it is much more likely that the "all" here refers to all types without distinction, or possibly to all who are in Christ - paralleling all who are in Adam.[96] It is the former difference between exception and distinction that explains the other passages Sanders brings as evidence of God's universal salvific intent. In describing a gospel that promises Gentiles a share in the promises to Israel, it is the inclusivism of Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, that is at the forefront of the apostles’ minds.[97] This is particularly apparent in the usage of "world" in John 12:19-20. Here Jesus statement about drawing "all people" to himself clearly refers to all types of people not every actual individual;[98][99] a meaning that probably also explains John's use elsewhere.

The two presuppositions on which Sanders argues the likelihood of the Spirit's outreach therefore lack foundation, and the two texts he cites provide little other support. The Spirit blowing where he pleases does not speak of a universal work, but of the fact that it cannot be predicted who will be born again and believe in the Son.[100] Furthermore, the nature of the "world" the Spirit does bring under conviction[101] is that discussed above.

In summary, Strange clarifies the general distinction that needs to be made when he states that "the one word and Spirit have different spheres of activity in creation and re-creation."[102]

General revelation

Turretin helpfully outlines the question here: It is not over whether common elements of religion exist, the existence of general revelation would expect exactly this. The question is over whether such elements are sufficient for salvation.[103] Strange outlines Helm’s (a restrictivist’s) comment that he finds it hard to believe that the LORD would not respond to a humble and repentant prayer that may possibly (though not generally) stem from general revelation.[104] However, the question is whether general revelation is sufficient to truly elicit such a prayer. Here another distinction needs to be made: God presents himself in creation "not as an object of faith" but as "an object of knowledge" - a creator, but not a redeemer.[105] Our discussion of Romans 10 already shows that Paul did not see Romans 1:19-32 salvifically.[106] Indeed, it would seem that the passage's place in Paul's argument would be forfeited if it were. His point is that another revelation is needed, of the righteousness of God, witnessed to by the Law and prophets and now made known in Paul's gospel.[107] It may be granted that ideas of mercy and appeasement might be gleaned from general revelation, but there no promise of certain acceptance is heard that finds fruition in Christ.[108] It may be that this issue of certainty is key to saving faith; not a certainty in the believer as much as a trust in God’s promise as certain rather than merely possible or plausible.[109] The logos Christology may be adopted of course, to suggest that general revelation is ultimately rooted in Christ. However, if John 1:9 does refer to general revelation it doesn't follow that it is salvific. Moreover, its context suggest that it refers to the light that entered the world in the incarnation.[110]

Thus, although we may fall through one sin by ourselves, scripture suggests that our subsequent slavery and particularly its noetic effects are such that we cannot be restored without the greater cause of God's word and Spirit.[111] Here, Sanders’ use of infant salvation as opening the door to inclusivism needs consideration. It is the fact that at every stage scripture suggests that God does not save morally accountable humanity through general revelation but through faith in Christ that counters inclusivism, whether or not there is another category of people who may be saved differently.[112] Such an argument would also counter Edwards’ (another restrictivist) view that there may be a category of morally accountable people who will be saved, who have been given hearts that are disposed to God but haven’t heard of Christ to trust him.[113] Scripture says nothing of such circumstances, yet always speaks of people needing to trust the gospel.
Conclusion.

What hope then might one have for those unreached by the gospel? The above evaluation would suggest that scripture gives little grounds for hope. Although the radical and gracious inclusivism of the gospel being offered to all without distinction should not be minimised. Nevertheless, as already seen, restrictivist writers do generally hold back from closing the door on any wider possibilities.[114] Scripture does deal in generalities. One should perhaps therefore refrain from saying that God cannot or does not save through general revelation, only that every suggestion is that he does not do so; although it must be said that the argument of Romans 1-3 suggests that the former statement may well be closer to the truth. Furthermore, it is impossible to discern in modern non-Christian religion what has been gleaned from general revelation, and what may have been borrowed from God’s special revelation through Adam, Noah, Israel and the church. By this means, God may bring sufficient knowledge to some for salvation, whether informationally BC or AD.[115] He might certainly specially reveal himself through a vision or dream. Whatever the case, an urgency in evangelism remains. Despite Sanders’ affirmation of the importance of evangelism for temporal reasons, it is difficult to see how his position doesn’t negate its necessity and trivialise the suffering many have undergone in preaching the gospel, and others in confessing Christ when this may not have actually been required. Having said this, one’s theological framework governs whether our response to these truths outlined above is one of reassurance or despair. Sanders is an Open Theist. As such, he believes that God does not know who will be saved in advance and cannot therefore target them specifically. It is therefore no wonder that he seeks a wider hope for salvation than the preaching of Christ. By contrast, both the Calvinist and the Arminian can be reassured that the LORD is able to ensure that all who will be saved will hear the gospel to that end.

Bibliography:

1. Anderson, J N D. Christianity and comparative religion, (London, Tyndale, 1970)

2. Barrett, C K. The gospel according to John, (london, SPCK, 1978)

3. Bultmann R. "pisteuw ktl" in Theological dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1968)

4. Calvin, J. Institutes of the Christian religion Vol I, ed. John T McNeill, (Philadelphia,Westminster Press, 1960)

5. Caneday, A B. "Evangelical inclusivism" and the exclusivity of the gospel: A review of John Sander's 'No Other name,' SBJT

6. Carson, D A. The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism, (Leicester, Apollos, 1996)

7. Carson, D. The difficult doctrine of the love of God, (Leicester, IVP, 2000)

8. Chhetri, Chitra. "1335: bqs, baqqasa - seek" in New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, ed. Willem A VanGemeren, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 1997)

9. Denninger, David. "2011: drs, midras - seek" in New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, ed. Willem A VanGemeren, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 1997)

10. Fretheim, Terence. "Yahweh" in New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, ed. Willem A VanGemeren, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 1997)

11. Hoffecker, W A. "Manichaeism" in Evangelical dictionary of theology, ed. Walter A Elwell, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 2001)

12. House, Paul R. Biblical theology and the inclusivist challenge,SBJT Vol2(2), pp.2-4, Sum 98

13. Lane, William L. Word biblical commentary: Hebrews 9-13, (Dallas, Word Books, 1991)

14. Nash, Ronald H. "Restrictivism" in What about those who have never heard: Three views on the destiny of the unevangelised, (Downers Grove, IVP, 1995)

15. Moo, D. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996)

16. Packer J. "Christianity and non-Christian religions" in The J I Packer collection, ed. Alister E McGrath, (Leicester, IVP, 1999)

17. Pinnock, Clark H. "An inclusivist view" in More than one way? Fopur views on salvation in a Pluralistic world, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1995)

18. Richard, Dr Ramesh P. The population of heaven: A biblical response to the inclusivist position on who will be saved, (Chigaco, Moody Press, 1994)

19. Sanders, John. No other name: An investigation into the destiny of the unevangelized, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1992)

20. Strange, Daniel. "Presence, prevenience, or providence? Deciphering the conundrum of Pinnock's pnematological inclusivism," in Reconstructing theology: A critical assessment of the theology of Clark Pinnock, ed. Tony Gray and Christopher Sinkinson, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 2000)

21. Strange, Daniel. The possibility of salvation among the unevangelised: An analysis of inclusivism in recent evangelical theology, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 2001)

22. Turretin, Francis. Institutes of elenctic theology Vol I, ed. James T Dennison Jr, (Phillipsburg, P&R, 1992)
Appendix A : Faith according to Hebrews 11

It would seem from Hebrews 11, that faith must include all the following:

1) As belief (that is trust) that God exists, where God is the Judeo-Christian God of Hebrews 11:1-3 – Yahweh – as opposed to other God’s. This is therefore a belief that he is the true God; a belief that only those who may have had contact with the Jewish, Christian, and possibly Mulsim religions could ascribe to.

2) A belief that he rewards those who seek him; that he will accept and bless the believer by grace and not on the basis of their own merit. A belief therefore that only a Christian may ascribe to, although others may do so having picked up such a possibility through contact with God’s covenant people throughout history, and the Jew may do so by believing the OT rather than the teachings of Judaism. It is certainly not clear that aside from special revelation, it is possible for human beings, corrupt and self-glorifying as they are, to come up with a religious system of total divine grace.

3) A belief that an aspect of this reward is not of this world, that ones home is therefore in the next.

4) A confident assurance of this reward. If general revelation could give an understanding of grace, certain assurance of God being propitious could conceivably exist if such an idea was so engrained in one’s culture that they considered nothing else.

5) This confidence perhaps based on a specific promise of God. This is what definitely separates out any faith in grace that may even have been gleaned from general revelation, from that stemming from scripture. The former, would not have received a promise as gaurantee of it, as general revelation makes no promises; for that, words are necessary. Therefore, if the issue of promise is an essential object of faith, as it seems to be in Hebrews 11 and throughout scripture, then there can be no salvation apart from special revelation.
Conclusion

Points 1, 2 and 5 seem to suggest that there is no salvation apart from special revelation.

[1] Sanders J. No other name: An investigation into the destiny of the unevangelized, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1992), pp.215-216

[2] Ibid, pp.218-224

[3] Ibid, pp.224-249 (1) Both testaments distinguish between believers who have faith in God and Christians who have faith in Christ. (2) "God uses general revelation to mediate his salvific grace." (3) The trinity seeks to effect salvation in every individual without exception. (4) Christ has always worked cosmically in enlightening others to the extent that all "truth and goodness" amongst pagans can be seen as the revelation of the divine "logos," and sufficient for salvation. (5) The worship of other religions can at the same time be worship of the true God.

[4] Ibid, p.249-264

[5] Ibid, pp.267-280

[6] Ibid, p.215 It is not therefore essential for someone to hear the gospel to be saved, rather, through "general revelation and God's providential workings" people may come to a sufficient commitment "to the God who saves through the work of Jesus" without actually knowing about Jesus.

[7] Citing Deut 2:5, 9, 19, 21-22, 2 Kgs 5:1

[8] Citing Amos 9:7

[9] Ibid, pp.220-221

[10] Citing Gen 1:26-28, 3:15, Gen 9:8-19, 12:3, 18:18, 22:18, 26:4, 28:14

[11] Ibid, p.219

[12] See below.

[13] The same phrase is repeated: Sanders, Op Cit, p.219, 220

[14] Ibid, p.220

[15] Ibid, p.221

[16] Ibid, p.224

[17] Ibid, pp.223

[18] Ibid, p.221

[19] A different order has been adopted to better clarify the logic of Sanders position.

[20] Ibid, p.228

[21] See point 5 above.

[22] Sanders, Op Cit, p.229

[23] Ibid, p.225

[24] Quoting Carnell, Sanders, Op Cit, p.229

[25] Ibid, p.231

[26] Ibid, p.225

[27] Ibid, pp.225-226

[28] Ibid, p.336

[29] Ibid, p.227

[30] Ibid, p.228

[31] Quoting Plumptre, Ibid, p.228

[32] Ibid, p.231-232

[33] Ibid, p.236

[34] It must be acknowledged that some inclusivists may not share these presuppositions.

[35] Ibid, p.218 Citing John 12:32, Lk 15, 2 Pet 3:9, Lk 23:34

[36] Probably meaning v8 and especially v18. Romans 11:32 is cited in support.

[37] Ibid, p.216 Citing 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 Tim 1:15, John 1:9, 3:16-17, 12:32

[38] “to help free us from the ambiguities and futilities of this present life” – suggests a giving assurance, and clarity on lifestyle. Ibid, p.238

[39] Ibid, p.238

[40] Ibid, p.233

[41] Citing Acts 14:17, Rom1:20, Ps 19:1

[42] Quoting Erickson, Ibid, p.234 Sanders makes four qualifications: That this is not to demean special revelation. That knowledge of God from general revelation is still by God’s instruction. That such salvation is still by grace and through faith, and that this doesn’t deny universal sinfulness.

[43] Ibid, p.234

[44] Ibid, pp.235-236

[45] Ibid, p.236

[46] Ibid, pp.238-239

[47] Ibid, pp.240-241

[48] Ibid, p.242

[49] Ibid, pp.244-245

[50] Ibid, p.246 citing Acts 17:23 and 27.

[51] Ibid, p.247

[52] Ibid, pp.247-248

[53] Stressing the distinction between special and general revelation.

[54] Gen 2:15-17

[55] Gen 12:1ff.

[56] Gen 15:1-6, cf. Rom 4:13-14, 16, 18, 20-22

[57] This seems to be the sense of Gal 3:8, 16, 19

[58] Deut 28

[59] Deut 12:20-28 and 29-32, 2 Kgs 17:7ff.

[60] Deut 4:28-29, Ps 83:16-18. This turning from idolatry is explicit within the NT also, cf. Acts 14:11-16, 1 Thes 1:9

[61] Fretheim, Terence. "Yahweh" in New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis, ed. Willem A VanGemeren, (Carlisle,Paternoster, 1997), p.1297

[62] Jer 31:34

[63] Isaiah 56:3ff.

[64] Consider also appendix A.

[65] Heb 11:2

[66] Lane cites 4 Macc 5:24, Wis 13:1 in support of this. Lane, William L. Word biblical commentary: Hebrews 9-13, (Dallas, Word Books, 1991), p.338

[67] Heb 11:13-14. Note the theme of promise throughout the chapter v9, 11, 17, 33, 39.

[68] Gen 4:3-7, 26

[69] Carson, D A. The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism, (Leicester, Apollos, 1996), p.250

[70] Sanders, Op Cit, p.225

[71] Although it must be acknowledged that the Abrahamic covenant is built upon the covenant of creation, as the ultimate means of re-creation of the world, and of those who trust Abraham's God.

[72] Ex 7:5

[73] Deut 4:6-8

[74] Ezek 20:9 The law enshrined both moral commands and blessing as reward. Thus God's name was profaned both by Israel's disobedience, and their lost of the land - portraying God as immoral or impotent.

[75] Eph 2:11-12, cf. 2:1, 4:17-18

[76] Carson, Op Cit, p.299

[77] Acts 10:22

[78] Acts 11:14-18

[79] Gen 50:24-26

[80] Lk 16:31, 24:44-47, Acts 10:43. John 5:39-40

[81] For an interesting discussion of this with dispensational presuppositions, see Richard, Dr Ramesh P. The population of heaven: A biblical response to the inclusivist position on who will be saved, (Chigaco, moody Press, 1994), ch. 5

[82] Bultmann R. "pisteuw ktl" in Theological dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1968), p.215

[83] Ibid, p.227

[84] With respect to John 14:6 as a key text; it can only be interpreted in the context of faith within the book cf. John 3:16. In fact John 20:31 explicitly links belief "in his name" to understanding the gospel, and "belief in the Son" in 1 John 5:10-12 is belief in God's testimony preached by the apostles cf. 1 John 1ff.

[85] Rom 10:2

[86] Rom 10:6-13. The context to this passage is Deut 30 and Joel 2.

[87] As Rom 10:17 follows v16

[88] Rom 10:14

[89] Moo, D. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996), pp.666-667

[90] Ibid, p.233

[91] Carson, D. The difficult doctrine of the love of God, (Leicester, IVP, 2000), ch 2

[92] Matt 6:26, 10:29

[93] Ezek 33:11

[94] Rom 9, esp v11-12, 19-24 cf. Deut 7:7-8, 4:37, 10:14-15. Eph 5:25

[95] John 10:11, 15, Eph 5:25, Rom 8:32-35, Matt 1:1, 20:28

[96] Moo, Op Cit, p.343

[97] Gal 3:26-28

[98] Any other meaning in John 12 would mean that every human being actually was seen by the Pharisees as going to Christ!

[99] John 3:16, 1 John 2:2

[100] John 3:7-8, 14-16, 36 cf. John 1:12-13

[101] John 16:8

[102] Strange, Daniel. "Presence, prevenience, or providence? Deciphering the conundrum of Pinnock's pnematological inclusivism," in Reconstructing theology: A critical assessment of the theology of Clark Pinnock, ed. Tony Gray and Christopher Sinkinson, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 2000), p.242

[103] Turretin, Francis. Institutes of elenctic theology Vol I, ed. James T Dennison Jr, (Phillipsburg, P&R, 1992), 1:10

[104] Strange, Daniel. The possibility of salvation among the unevangelised: An analysis of inclusivism in recent evangelical theology, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 2001), appendix 1

[105] Ibid, 1:56

[106] Nor therefore 2:14-15

[107] Rom 3:10, 21 cf. 1:1-6, Heb 1:1ff, 2 Tim 3:15

[108] It may be that this issue of certainty is key to saving faith, cf. Heb 11:1-2. The certainty does not negate any possible doubt, but is a certainty in terms of what is trusted in, ie. that God’s promise is certain, not merely possible.

[109] This may be the point of Heb 11:1-2

[110] Barrett, C K. The gospel according to John, (london, SPCK, 1978), pp.16-161

[111] this may be the point Turretin makes in quoting James 2:10: "More things are requisite for the obtainment of salvation than for incurring damnation justly and without excuse. For evil arises from some defect, but the good requires a whole cause." Turrentin, Op Cit, 1:10

[112] Strange, Op Cit, appendix 1

[113] Ibid, appendix 1

[114] See Strange’s discussion of these views in – Ibid, appendix 1

[115] That is, picking up something of that which did promise Christ without knowledge of him, or even, perhaps with Islam or a Christian cult, knowledge of Christ, as an adherent may discern enough by God’s grace to be drawn away from the religion’s erroneous doctrine to a sufficient understanding for salvation.

The place of work

2008-07-30T13:49:00.001-07:00

God commissioned the first humans to govern and fill the world in goodness—the creation mandate (Genesis 1:26-28). Two areas of work are implicit: overseeing the world’s resources, and childrearing. These loosely correspond to work outside the home and work within it. Men and women are to engage in both (Proverbs 31:10-31) and not neglect their family responsibilities (1 Timothy 3:4-5, Ephesians 6:4, 1 Timothy 2:15, 5:14).

Although every legitimate job contributes to these callings in some way, we might choose “careers” that most benefit others. Scripture particularly esteems evangelism, church leadership, government, law, and the building of families—presumably because these best promote God’s purposes (Matthew 9:38, 1 Timothy 3:1, Romans 13:1-5, 1 Timothy 5:14).

God commands us to complete all work in six days, setting the seventh apart to rest and meet as believers—the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11, 16:23-26, Leviticus 23:3, Acts 20:7). The physical, social and spiritual fallout of not doing so is only too obvious. Unless absolutely necessary, we should therefore complete all homework, chores, and paid work on other days.

Before the fall both Adam and Eve worked (Genesis 2:15, 18-24). So work is not a result of sin; it is good; it is to emulate our creator. Indeed, work will continue in the new creation (Isaiah 65:21), presumably as we perfectly utilize and enjoy its resources in an increasingly creative manner.

Those who have time on their hands should take the opportunity to seek out further ways of serving God and fulfilling the creation mandate. There is no retirement from this calling. Paul condemns laziness, charging those at home to ensure they keep busy (Titus 2:5), and people in general to work in order to provide for themselves and others (2 Thessalonians 3:11-12, Ephesians 4:28). Lack of fulfilment will stem from not expressing our God-likeness in this way, and so we should feel for those who cannot work.

Through the curse for sin, childbearing became more painful (Genesis 3:16) and our engagement with the world’s resources more toilsome (Genesis 3:17-19). Our work will not therefore always be a joy, but often a struggle. Indeed, the expectation that it must fully engage our gifts and bring great satisfaction is a luxury unique to those who can choose their employment.

The bible’s priorities are to do with seeing all work as service of God, and every facet of it, no matter how mundane, as integral to our responsibility to govern and fill the world. Such work is pleasing to God and so eternally significant! Here then is satisfaction: We work “wholeheartedly,” seeing “whatever” we do as service of Christ, and as something that he “will reward,” even if no-one else does (Ephesians 6:7-8).

Considering the environment

2008-07-30T13:14:00.000-07:00

Bible Study:

Genesis 1:26-31

1. How does v31 encourage you to environmental concern?

2. What task does God give humans in this world (v26-28)?

3. How do you think fulfilling this task is to be in God’s image i.e. like him?

4. What does the phrase “in God’s image” suggest about the manner in which we should fulfil the task we’ve been given?

5. Try and define in a sentence what it should mean to properly rule or subdue the creation in a way that pleases God.

6. How does our task relate to our responsibility to care for other human beings?

7. If God would have us perfectly care for our environment, then the ultimate cause of its current destruction is our sin, our disobeying his will. With this in mind, complete the table below.

	God’s call to fill the world	God’s call to subdue the world
How have we corrupted it.
What sinful desires lead to this corruption.
How does this destroy the environment.
What godly virtues need to be adopted to reverse this destruction.

8. Who and what does God want to enjoy his creation (v29-30)?

9. What steps can you take to better care for the world’s vegetation?

10. What steps can you take to better care for the world’s animal life?

11. What steps can you take to limit the impact of environmental degradation on humans?

12. Read Colossians 1:15-23 below. Annotate it with comments on how Jesus brings hope for our environment.

15 [The Son] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. 21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation-- 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.

Christian conservation:

See: http://en.arocha.org

General advice:

Taken from: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/faqs/questions/help_planet_2005.html

Energy

Being energy wise helps combat climate change - the biggest environmental threat we face. Everyone can make a difference - it can even save you money.

See our Climate Challenge and earn 1, 2 or 3 stars by choosing pledges. Other energy tips are:

Replace light bulbs with low energy ones - some of these use less than a quarter of the electricity of their equivalents - and they last much longer too.
Insulating your home will prevent valuable energy being lost to the outside air - and keeps your home warmer. For more green DIY tips on energy savings at home, see the Energy Saving House.
Energy efficient appliances use less electricity than their less efficient counterparts. For details - see the Energy Saving Trust.
Buying green electricity from suppliers that support renewable energy sources - like wind power - helps to cut C0₂ - a dangerous climate changing gas. See our green electricity guide.

Getting around

Cutting the number of car journeys you make helps reduce pollution - and it can keep you and your family healthy too:

School journeys can be safe and more fun if made on foot with a Walking Bus scheme. See Sustrans for advice on school travel plans.
Leave it behind - can you make your journey on foot, by bike or using public transport and give your car a couple of days a week off? Contact TransportDirect for public transport information or CTC for details of cycle routes in your area.
Small is beautiful if you have to drive - a small, fuel-efficient car will produce less polluting emissions - compare models at VCA.
Are you local? Use local shops rather than going to a supermarket that you have to drive to. You'll cut down on congestion and also support local businesses.
Cleaner fuels - some alternative fuels like biofuels don't harm our climate. These are renewable alternatives to petrol and diesel, produced from crops like oil seed rape. Many cars can use biofuels with little or no modification to the engine. Biodieselfillingstation will tell you your nearest supplier. The Energy Savings Trust offers grants of between £700 and £1500 to help with the purchase of electric and hybrid cars.
Car renting and sharing. Smartmoves runs pay as-you-drive car clubs and has a growing list of centres. Liftshare organises car-sharing schemes. For more sensible ideas, see our guide - Cutting Car Use.

Buying it...

Want to be a green shopper? - being more selective in what you buy can benefit the environment and smaller or local producers:

Consult the Good Shopping Guide which lists the most environmentally-friendly products and high street brands. For greener alternatives to ordinary household goods and gifts see Natural Collection, Greenchoices and the Green Shop.
Go organic - the Soil Association and BigBarn will help you find organic and local food suppliers.
Fair trading means small producers get a fair deal for goods. Friends of the Earth believes that sustainability - a commitment to people and environmental limits must underpin the whole trade system. For sources of fair-trade products, see Natural Collection and the Fairtrade Foundation.
Wood - new wood products should have FSC approval or use re-claimed timber. The Good Wood Guide will help you to find better sources.
Green investing - don't support bad business - talk to EIRIS about changing to an ethical bank for your savings, pension or mortgage.
Holidays nearer home can mean lower emissions of C02 - a dangerous climate changing gas. For shorter journeys, let the train - rather than the plane - take the strain. Tourism Concern has lots of advice on holidaying ethically.

Our new book Save cash and save the planet has been launched. Greening your lifestyle is not only good for the environment, but could save you £100s or even £1000s, according to this new guide from Collins and Friends of the Earth.

It includes top tips on how to save energy, detox your house and be a smarter shopper, while helping the environment and your budget too.

Find out more and place advance orders online at: www.savecashsaveplanet.org

...and chucking it away

Recycling or reusing more of the things you throw away could help improve the UK's terrible recycling record.

This will also help combat climate change since it takes more energy to make products from virgin materials than by using recycled materials:

Recycle locally - Wastewatch and Wasteconnect will tell you where you can recycle or re-use all sorts of waste in your area. Lobby your local authority to improve its recycling services if you think it's not doing enough.

Press for change

There are lots of easy actions you can take to help with our campaigns.

Recycling and sourcing a few ethical items each week is a good start. But we can go further and be actively involved in changes that benefit the planet.

Thoughts on the charismatic movement

2008-07-30T12:34:00.000-07:00

Introduction

The Charismatic Movement is a recent movement of Christians within the church who hold a specific view of spiritual gifts.[1] The faith and prayerfulness of many within this movement is deeply commendable and a great example. Nevertheless, a number of Christian thinkers have strong reservations about some aspects of charismatic thought and practice.[2]

This short booklet highlights some of the most central issues, and starts with the assumption shared with those of the Movement, that scripture is the means by which all ideas and experiences are to be tested. It alone is definitely and perfectly inspired by God and so wonderfully able to “thoroughly equip us for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17).

For a deeper discussion and interaction with various writers, see my paper entitled: “How God speaks today” – here

Rethinking our understanding of certain gifts.

Words of wisdom and knowledge.

The Charismatic Movement generally sees the “word” of “wisdom” as “the God-given ability to speak an appropriate word,” and the “word of knowledge” as “an insight implanted by God about a particular person or situation for a specific purpose.”[3] An OT counterpart is said to be Elijah hearing God’s “still small voice” (1 Kings 19:12), and the expectation is that any wisdom and knowledge received is often to be passed on as from the Lord. However these too gifts are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians 12:8, and “wisdom” and “knowledge” in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians actually refer to the “wisdom” of the cross and to the “knowledge” of God and his moral will (1 Corinthians 1:17-3:23, 8:1, 10-11, 13:2, 8, 2 Corinthians 2:14, 4:6, 10:5).[4] The insight of these gifts is not therefore into the lives of others, but into the truth of God. Moreover, the word translated “word” also means “message.” What Paul probably has in mind then, is either the Spirit-given ability to teach or preach the gospel and its implications, or the more spontaneous sharing of the gospel and its implications with respect to a matter at hand. As for Elijah? The “still small voice” communicated nothing to him. He needed to actually hear God’s voice, and with such clarity that he could hold a conversation (1 Kings 19:13-18). We just don’t find a justification here for the insights people claim to receive today.

Prophecy.

Prophecy is similarly said to include the “speaking merely human words to report something God brings to mind.”[5] Now in a general sense, the term “prophecy” can refer to any declaration of truth about God, such as preaching the gospel or praising him for it (Luke 11:50-51, 1 Chronicles 26:1-7). Our concern here however is with the “gift” of prophecy, that is, the communication of specific messages from God for people or situations. And as far as I can see, in every instance where we are actually told how such prophecies are received in scripture, we are told that it is through some powerful visionary or audible experience—whether an angelic visitation, the appearance of Christ himself, or a vision, dream or voice that comes with the same clarity to our senses as something actually seen or heard.[6] True prophets are therefore distinguished from false in that they truly “see” or “hear” God’s “word” (Jeremiah 23:15). Moreover, “visions and dreams” become the catch-all term for prophecy, and so are presumed to be the means by which “the word of the LORD” comes to prophets (Proverbs 29:18, Lamentations 2:9, Ezekial 7:26, 12:22ff, Daniel 9:24, Micah 3:6, Zechariah 13:4). Indeed, challenging the charismatic view, God specifically rebukes those who equate mere visions, dreams or voices in their imaginations with the voice of God (Jeremiah 23:16-40, Ezekial 13:1-23). Genuine prophecy then, should come with clear conviction by the means ascribed above.[7] Moreover, it should not be contrary to or add to God’s certain word – the Bible, and it should not be passed on directly to an individual. Instead, it should be communicated via a pastor or in a church environment where both the message and lifestyle of the prophet can be carefully weighed to discern whether the “spirit” by which they speak is indeed of God (1 John 4:1-3, 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, Matthew 7:15-23).

Visions and Voices.

A prophet is a spokesman for God. To have one of these powerful visionary or audible experiences of God is therefore only prophetic when received in order to be passed on. We might agree at this point then, that on occasion a believer might see a vision or hear God’s voice simply for their own benefit, perhaps to guide their Christian service (1 Sam 3:3ff, Acts 16:10).[8] However we must note that the prevalence of such things in scripture suggests that this is a rarity, and so any such experiences should also be talked through with a pastor before acting on them.

Pictures.

One area that is less certain is the sharing pictures in the imagination with others as if from God. As noted above, there are passages that seem to specifically warn against such things (Jeremiah 23:16-40, Ezekial 13:1-23). Moreover, I can see no example of this practice anywhere commended in scripture, nor find a single author who can give a biblical basis for it. Of course, if the picture comes in some form of trance as if actually seen, then it would be better classed as a vision and considered under the two sections above.

Impressions.

Having said this, we do accept that the Bible does mention impressions that are God-given (Nehemiah 2:12, Mark 2:8, Acts 14:9, Acts 20:22). However, here too we must not go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6). On the basis of these examples, some argue “God speaks to us through impressions all the time.”[9] Yet these examples simply allow the possibility that on occasion God might give a believer a supernatural insight that is useful for ministry or direct them by a supernatural compelling. And we must note that in scripture such things are extremely rare, never portrayed as normative experience for everyday believers, and never actually equated with God speaking or as a means of receiving a message from him for others.[10] Indeed, the first two examples might be little more than godly intuition, whilst the last two come with such extraordinary conviction that there is no doubt they are from God. These texts just don’t bear the weight of those who would look to uncertain impressions as a regular means of guidance.

Conclusion.

The fact that things spoken on the basis of mere pictures or impressions strike home as if from God should not therefore be seen as validating them. Indeed, it is only too easy to fit what is said in an expectant atmosphere to one’s own circumstances in an almost astrological manner. No, the Bible alone should govern our view of such things, and its teaching above suggests that much of what is communicated as impressions, words, pictures or prophecies from God, are at best, even when experienced in prayer, no more than the well meaning thoughts, ideas and imaginings of the Christians experiencing them. Acting upon them may therefore not only lead us to make bad decisions, but also to relying on fallible humans for guidance rather than the infallible word of God. Indeed, when one considers how our hearts and minds can be led astray by sin and the way in which the Devil himself “impresses” things upon us, it is not too difficult to see why God chooses not to “speak” by such corruptible means.

Rethinking our expectations of the Spirit.

Then and now.

A key characteristic of the Charismatic Movement is an understandable desire to see God’s church operate as it does in Acts, with signs and wonders accompanying the preaching of the gospel. However, although there is no suggestion in the Bible that God has stopped performing miracles when he so chooses, there is suggestion that we should not expect them with the same prevalence.[11] John explicitly teaches that it is the miracles of Jesus that are to be the basis for faith, saying nothing of any future miracles within the church. And this follows Jesus’ pronouncement that people would have to believe without “seeing” such things (John 20:29-31). In this respect it is noteworthy that miracles are generally spoken of as done by the apostles to provide evidence that they are God’s spokesmen (Acts 2:43, Hebrews 2:3-4, 2 Corinthians 12:12). The Gospels-Acts period was a unique one in which God was establishing his church with Christ as its cornerstone and the apostles as its foundation (Ephesians 2:20). The Bible just doesn’t give us grounds for assuming that every manifestation of the Spirit back then should also be manifested now.

Reading 1 Corinthians 12-14.

We should not therefore assume that the prevalence of the various gifts displayed in the Corinthian church during this period must be displayed to the same extent today. The NT had not yet been compiled, so prophecy in particular was necessary as a means of God communicating the gospel and its implications for the situations the churches faced. Charismatics and non-charismatics agree that this use of prophecy was foundational, and that now we have the NT we should reject any who claim to have received new doctrinal and ethical truth from God (Ephesians 3:4-6 cf. 2:20).[12] Yet having accepted this, we should accept its implications for 1 Corinthians 12-14: Because of this foundational use to prophecy then, prophets are said to be second only to apostles, and prophecy a gift that all should seek (1 Corinthians 12:28, 14:1). However, now that this primary use has ceased, we might expect the status and prevalence of prophecy to have significantly decreased accordingly – just as church history suggests it has.[13] Paul’s letters to Timothy seem to confirm this. They look beyond the apostolic age and stress the teaching of the gospel and its implications, not prophecy, as the leading gift in the church and the one to be eagerly desired (2 Timothy 4:1-5, 1 Timothy 3:1-2).

Consequences, consequences.

Unclear thinking in these areas does have unhelpful consequences. A number can be discerned by reflection on Charismatic practice.

As mentioned, this high expectation of Gospels-Acts manifestations of the Spirit has bred a deep longing to see the Holy Spirit at work in the same way.

(1) At times this has in turn led to an unintentional fabrication of the work of the Spirit as people too quickly claim a Gospels-Acts type encounter. Tales abound not only of claims to healing where there has been no healing at all, but also of things that have been spoken as if from God and even struck home as if from him, but that have proved incredibly damaging or never come to pass.[14] Just consider a common means in which people are encouraged to receive the gift of tongues. They are first told to “start to praise God in any language but English or any other language known to you.” They are then instructed to “believe that what you receive is from God,” and “don’t let anyone tell you that you made it up.”[15] Now I believe tongues to be a gift that many exercise today. But this advice is deeply concerning. Anyone can start speaking in what sounds like an unknown language. There just aren’t grounds for assuming this is tongues even if you have prayed for it, for God does not promise to give this gift, but dispenses it as he alone pleases (1 Corinthians 12:1-11).

(2) One cause of unintentional fabrication, evident in this assumption about tongues, is a tendency to equate anything that seems to be a “spiritual experience” with an experience of the Spirit. This is also seen in the view of impressions mentioned above, and in speaking highly of the peace known in silent prayer, or of God’s presence in a heightened environment of worship. Now don’t get me wrong, we may be certainly aware of the Spirit’s presence in prayer and worship, but such experiences could also be down to the fact that we are simply feeling peaceful or caught up in a charged atmosphere. The Bible’s teaching is that the only definite evidence of the Spirit is faith and godliness (Romans 8:5-11).[16] Focus on other experiences only too easily leads Christians who do not experience them to doubt that they have “every spiritual blessing,” and those who do to assume that this means they are right with God. We must be clear: Those who truly are Christians lack nothing (Ephesians 1:3-14), whilst those who seem to exercise spiritual gifts and have quite profound spiritual experiences may not be Christians at all (Matthew 7:21-23, Colossians 2:18-19). Indeed, according to the Bible, the “spirit” behind such gifts or experiences could even be the devil himself (2 Thessalonians 2:9).

(3) A result of all this can be a rather formulaic attitude to Christian spirituality out of a desire to replicate the situation where it was thought the Spirit was previously present. Some act as if prayers will only work if said in a certain way. For example, the prayer “Come Holy Spirit” is given huge significance. Yet the prayer “lead me not into temptation” is just as much a prayer for the Holy Spirit in intent, which is probably why Jesus mentioned praying for the Spirit directly after the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:1-13). Likewise, worship leaders can feel immense pressure to generate atmosphere that engages the feelings because people assume that this is when God is most present. Only too often have I heard someone remark at the Spirit’s presence being lost simply because the musical atmosphere changed! No, the normal way we engage with God is by his Spirit through his word. What this means, is that he uses what he has revealed in scripture to engage our entire inner person – understanding, emotions and will (Nehemiah 8:1-12, Psalm 119). When this occurs in prayer or worship, no matter what the atmosphere, we can be much more confident that we are truly meeting with God.

(4) With this formulaic attitude to Christian spirituality comes at least an implicit sense that non-Charismatic Christians do not have all God has to give. This is seen most clearly by the Charismatic Movement’s use of the term “charismatic” itself. The “charisma” in NT Greek are the gifts of the Spirit in general.[17] Now we are told that every Christian has a gift (1 Corinthians 12). Therefore every Christian, not just those who hold a particular view of the gifts, is a Charismatic. Every Christian has been filled/baptised in the Spirit at conversion (Ephesians 1:13, Galatians 3:14), has experienced the miracle of new birth enabling them to live in godliness (Titus 3:5), and is equipped with whatever gifts for service the Spirit has chosen to give (1 Corinthians 12). Though a subtle consequence, any suggestion of a two-tier Christianity is one of the most serious: First, because it leads those who feel less spiritual to wonder whether they are Christians at all. Second, because these people are then tempted to rely on rules and techniques for being spiritual, rather than Christ, putting their salvation itself in jeopardy. The entire letter of Colossians was written to a church where this was a problem. Paul’s message was simple: Those who are truly converted have fullness in Christ (Colossians 2:9-10). There is nothing they lack (Ephesians 1:3-14). Indeed, in Colossae, it was those who appeared super-spiritual that were actually unspiritual, and even unconverted (Colossians 2:18-19).

(5) I would respectfully suggest that this whole desire to experience Gospels-Acts type manifestations of the Spirit actually leads to a rather narrow view of the Spirit’s work, which diminishes and even dishonours him. The focus ends up being on his seen rather than unseen work, whether the felt presence of God, the miraculous gifts, or falling down, shaking, crying or laughing in the Spirit. Yet the more the attention is drawn to these things, the less is given to the greater works that are the Bible’s focus: How rarely people talk with wonder at the Spirit’s work of re-birth and renewal by which he gives even our faith and urges us to live in godliness (Ephesians 2:1-10, Galatians 5:16-25), his work of illumination without which we are unable to truly understand and accept anything from the Bible (1 Corinthians 2:4-16), and his dispensing of the more ordinary gifts such as administration, encouragement, or hospitality, all of which are “charismata” too (1 Corinthians 12:28, Romans 12:6-8). Here the use of the term “prayer ministry” to refer to praying for the needs of others is telling. The assumption voiced by many is that it is primarily here that the Holy Spirit ministers to people. Yet that is not the case at all. He certainly ministers in response to prayer, but he also ministers as the Bible is being preached, as he convicts people of sin, as he moves them to make a godly decision, as he enables them to serve, and as he comforts them when fearful etc.

(6) Finally, though Charismatic Christians do have a very high regard for the Bible, their emphasis on experience does in practice lead to a prioritising of the authority of experience over the authority of the Bible. First, where a verse strikes home to one’s experience it is often assumed to be from God, even though it is not consistent with the meaning the Spirit intended in causing its writing. A classic example is Jeremiah 29:11: “For I know the plans I have for you…plans to prosper you…” etc. Someone may be praying about a career change, experience this verse come to mind and conclude that God is telling them to go for it. But this verse does not intend to say anything about our careers. It is about God’s promise of deliverance of Israel from judgement, and its counterpart for us is his promise of deliverance in the gospel. Letting one’s experience govern in this way effectively changes the Bible’s true meaning, distorting the word of God and enabling us to justify anything through it! Second, and in a similar vein, rather than letting the Bible test the rights and wrongs of one’s experiences, so often it seems, the Charismatic Movement has come from their experiences to the Bible, looking for some justification for them. The interpretation of “words” and “prophecy” countered above are two examples. People experience strong impressions and find justification for them in gifts that do not encompass such things at all. In the area of spiritual warfare in particular, all sorts of ideas from demonized homes to generational possession are sanctioned by passages that really don’t speak about them.[18] It is far better to just accept that God has not revealed anything about such things, hold back from making any definite statements about them, and focus on the things he has revealed - the importance of the Bible, faith and prayer – in tackling any bizarre situations we might face. Otherwise we are in danger of all sorts of distractions and superstitions, and in the context of spiritual warfare, we should be all the more discerning lest we are deceived by the great deceiver himself.

Conclusion.

If you would consider yourself a Charismatic, I’m sure that what you’ve read has given you much food for thought. Well can I encourage you not to pass over it too quickly? Read it again. Look up the references. Reflect on how your friends talk about the Spirit and the way the Movement does things. See whether the points made above are true.

If you would not call yourself a Charismatic however, can I stress to you that this booklet has been written very much in order to facilitate discussion between brothers and sisters in the family of God. There is no place for a reverse super-spirituality in which Charismatic Christians are ridiculed or looked down upon. On the contrary, I would recommend you ponder their faith, their prayer lives, their passion for Jesus and for evangelism. As you do, I guarantee, given the concerns expressed above, you will still be deeply challenged.

[1] Penteclostalism dates to the early twentieth century, and the Charismatic Movement to the 1960’s. Hollenweger, Walter J. “Preface” in Stremas of renewal: The origins and Early Developmemt of the Charismatic Movement in Great Britain, by Peter Hocken, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 1997), p.vii

[2] For a balanced discussion, see: Are miraculous gifts for today? Four views, ed. Wayne Grudem, (Leicester, IVP, 1996). For a discussion of wider issues, see: Power religion: The selling out of the evangelical church? ed. Michael Scott Horton, (Chicago, Moody Press, 1992)

[3] Definitions given in Huggett, Joyce. Listening to God, (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1986), p.128-130

[4] Thistelton, Anthony C. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The first epistle to the Corinthians, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 2000), p.941-944

[5] The definition argued in Grudem, Wayne. The gift of prophecy in the New Testament and today, (Leiecester, IVP, 1988), p.89

[6] Numbers 12:1-8, 1 Kings 13:18, 2 Kings 1:15, Hebrews 1:1 cf. 2:2, Luke 1:67-79 cf. v5-20, Acts 2:17, 10:9-16, Gal 1:12 cf. Acts 26:12-18, Revelation 1:1-2 cf. 2 Corinthians 12:1, 7, 1 Corinthians 13:12 cf. Numbers 12:6-8.

[7] Some scholars do suggest that prophecies may have come by God simply compelling the prophet to speak, rather than by some prior vision, dream or voice. However, the weight of evidence (above) suggests that if this was ever the case, it was not normative. Moreover, most of these scholars would still say that this was a form of direct revelation in continuity with OT prophecy, which was therefore to be seen as absolutely accurate and authoritative - a far cry from the Charismatic understanding of prophecy today.

[8] For some examples of personal and prophetic visions, see: Pytches, David. Does God speak today? (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1989)

[9] Deere, Jack. Surprised by the voice of God, (Eastbourne, Kingsway, 1996), p.154

[10] Jack Deere misses all of these points in his discussion: Ibid, p.151-155

[11] See the gracious discussion by Don Carson: “The purpose of signs and wonders in the New Testament” in Power Religion: The selling out of the evangelical church, ed. Michael Scott Horton, (Chicago, Moody Press, 1992)

[12] For charismatic agreement, see: Watson, David. Discipleship, (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1988), p.149

[13] The charismatic writer Jack Deere can quote only sporadic references: Deere, Jack. Surprised by the voice of God, (Eastbourne, Kingsway, 1996), p.64-78

[14] A number are listed as counterfeit revelations in Pytches, David. Does God speak today? (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1989). One refers to a “prophecy” given to a student, telling her that she would never marry. It led her into depression and then suicide.

[15] The advice given in the Alpha course: Gumbel, Nicky. Questions of life, (Eastbourne, Kingsway, 1993), p.147

[16] The classic discussion of this comes from Jonathan Edwards (not the triple-jumper) who documented incredible manifestations during a revival he was much used in: Edwards, Jonathan. Works: Volume 1, (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1974), p.234-430. Edwards’ conclusion is that it is “religious affections” resulting in “Christian practice” that are the genuine marks of the Holy Spirit.

[17] Gaffin, Richard B. Perspectives on Pentecost, (Phillipsburg, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1979), p.46ff.

[18] For bad examples of this, see: Horrobin, Peter. Healing through deliverance, (Tonbridge, Sovereign World, 2003), p.85-207. He uses the purification of the Temple in 2 Chronicles 29 to justify demonized buildings, and Exodus 20:5 to justify generational possession. Yet neither are evidently about such things. To claim that they are is to claim an insight into their meaning that the Bible just doesn’t give – something that effectively adds to scripture.

About the Church of England

2008-07-30T12:30:00.000-07:00

Many find themselves at our churches for all sorts of reasons. We are pleased to have in our congregation those who have had no previous Christian involvement whatsoever, and those who have come from a whole kaleidoscope of Christian denominations.

This paper is intended to give you just a little information about the Church of England itself so that you can make some sense of what we think and do here.[1]

A worldwide Church

The Church of England is part of what’s known as the worldwide Anglican Communion.[2] This has more than 70 million adherents in 161 countries located on every continent. Although the churches are autonomous, they are also unified through their history, heritage of theology and worship, and their relational link to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

A diverse Church

Anglicans therefore speak many languages and come from many different races and cultures. This itself makes a rich diversity. However, throughout the history of the church, a certain diversity in theology and worship has also developed. This means that in attending any two Anglican churches within England today, one might experience services that feel rather different, and one might hear teaching that may actually be rather different too.

Government
In considering the government of the church we must remember that because it is an historic institution, there are a whole range of terms the Anglican Church uses that are rather archaic.

Roles: Its three key offices are those of Bishop, Priest (more appropriately called Presbyter), and Deacon:

1. The word “Bishop” means “overseer.” Its New Testament (NT) Greek form is “episcopos.” The Church of England is therefore described as an Episcopalian Church. In the NT “Bishop” was simply another way of referring to the “Presbyter” (Titus 1:5, 7). However, as the early church grew, the title was used to refer to those overseeing a number of churches in an area.[3] The roles of Titus and Timothy may provide a hint of this in the NT itself (1 Timothy 1:3-7, 2 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:5-16). Today each Bishop therefore oversees a particular region, supporting the clergy and ensuring they and their churches remain faithful.

2. “Presbyter” means “elder.” Its NT Greek form is “presbuteros.” The presbyter’s usual role is to oversee particular congregations, whether as Rector or Vicar in charge of a parish, or Curate being trained by the Vicar. Presbyters are licensed to fulfil every facet of ministry in the parish, but the NT portrays their primary role to be that of governing the church, especially through teaching the Bible and protecting God’s people from error (Titus 1:3-9).

3. “Deacon” means “one who serves.” We are told little about this role in the NT other than that it was a formal serving position in the church (1 Timothy 3:8-13). Today the deacon assists the Presbyter in their responsibilities, but is not licensed to lead communion services. Every Curate is a deacon for their first year.

Structure: England is divided up into parishes over which a clergyman has responsibility for the “cure of souls.” A cluster of these parishes is known as a deanery. The Rural Dean is a clergyman of a parish church who co-ordinates various aspects of his particular deanery.

A wider region known as a diocese comprises a number of deaneries. There are 43 in England. The Diocesan Bishop oversees the diocese, assisted by one or more Suffragan Bishops who are in turn assisted by Archdeacons.

A certain number of dioceses combine to make up a Province. England contains two Provinces: those centred around the Cathedrals of Canterbury and York. Each Province is overseen by an Archbishop, and the provinces together form the worldwide Anglican communion.

Archbishops have no greater authority than other Bishops, nor any jurisdiction over other provinces. They simply aid co-operation between their Bishops, and represent their Bishops and province to the wider communion and to society. The Archbishop of Canterbury however has a unique role in representing and providing a relational focus for the entire worldwide communion.

Synods: In addition to the local clergyman who has ultimate responsibility for his parish, there are four levels of decision-making within the Church of England:

1. The Parochial Church Council (PCC) which comprises the clergy of a parish and a number of lay (non-clergy) representatives. The PCC exists in order to make administrative decisions, consider and discuss church issues, and provide a voice for the laity in the running of their church. Two Churchwardens are ex-officio members of the PCC. They are the parish’s most senior lay representatives, and are responsible for various administrative aspects to church life.

2. The Deanery Synod exists to promote God’s purposes in the deanery. It therefore discusses the views of the deanery’s parishes, fosters interdependence between the churches, and considers any wider matters within the Church of England. The deanery synod comprises all clergy within the deanery (the house of clergy) and lay representatives from the parishes (the house of laity) that are elected at their Annual Parochial Church Meetings.

3. The Diocesan Synod carries out similar functions at a higher level and liaises with the Bishop. It comprises a “house of laity” and “house of clergy” elected by the deanery synods. It also includes all its Diocesan and Suffragan Bishops (the house of Bishops).

4. The General Synod decides matters of finance, administration, and liturgy for the two English provinces. It also acts as a forum for the expression of views and discussion of various aspects of church business. The houses of laity and clergy comprise individuals elected from the dioceses, whilst the house of Bishops comprises all Bishops and nine elected Suffragans.

Church and State

The “establishment” of the Church of England does not mean that the government controls the decisions of the Church. It simply defines various rights and responsibilities the Church has in society, and various restrictions and limitations Parliament can place upon the church. On one hand the two archbishops and twenty-four senior bishops sit in the House of Lords, with opportunity to make a major contribution to Parliament's work. On the other, the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, appointing archbishops, bishops and deans of cathedrals on the advice of the Prime Minister, who must himself decide between options put to him by the church.

History

Space does not permit a full overview of Church of England history. Instead we consider the two most significant centuries in explaining the church as we have it today.

The sixteenth century: Many assume that the Church of England was born out of the marital shenanigans of Henry VIII. This is not actually true. It is more that they gave an opening for those already seeking to transform the Church, to carry that transformation further.

The sixteenth century was one of some religious turmoil in Europe. A number of thinkers had begun to highlight the discontinuity between the prevailing Roman Catholic teaching and practice, and that of the Bible and the first Christians. This led to the rise of various new denominations comprising those who were known as “Protestants,” because they “protested” against Roman Catholic views. The period is called the “Reformation” because it was one in which the church was being “re-formed” along more biblical lines.

It was in this context that Henry VIII sought to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. When the Pope forbade it, Henry took the church out from papal authority and took upon himself the title “Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England.” Nevertheless, he kept the church Roman Catholic in its teaching and practice.

Henry’s son, Edward VI, was schooled in Protestantism however. When he took to the throne in 1547, reformation therefore made significant headway. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and others had been hugely influenced by the ideas of reformers on the continent, and Cranmer supervised the writing of the two Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552, ensuring that they reflected reformed teaching and worship. These developments were brought to an abrupt halt with Edward’s death and the accession of Mary Tudor (1553), Henry’s embittered Catholic daughter through Catherine. She sought to return the church to Rome, beheading Lady Jane Grey, who succeeded Edward for only nine days, and burning 283 Protestants alive, including Cranmer.

When Elizabeth I then became queen after her half-sister Mary’s death (1558), she recognised the need for religious stability. Her “Elizabethan settlement” was Protestant, seeking one national church with her as its supreme governor. The church’s teaching was defined under Elizabeth in a statement known as “The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.” Though differing from the continental reformers on matters of church government, and not going as far in reforming its worship, the Church of England from then on was generally reformed. Indeed, even today, all clergy are expected to accept that the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 prayer book[4] reflect the Bible’s teaching, and so teach only what is consistent with them.

The Nineteenth Century: After the strengthening of the church during the reformation, Western Christianity found itself threatened by new thought forms. A recognition of its rationality led to the assumption that Christian truth could be established by reason alone, without the need of revelation from God in the Bible. This in turn led to an assertion of reason over revelation, and to a rejection of all within the Bible that was considered irrational and superstitious. This movement is known as “the Enlightenment” because of its rather arrogant assumption that humanity was finally able to understand things clearly.

The enlightenment significantly impacted the church in England during the nineteenth century. On one hand biblical truth was attacked at the intellectual level through what’s known as “liberal” or "critical" scholarship. On the other it was attacked at the moral level, as secularists expressed their revulsion at teachings they didn’t like. Under this twofold assault many church leaders across the denominations lost confidence in true Christian belief, and softened it out of fear that people would otherwise leave the church.

Ironically, the decline of church attendance in the UK almost coincides to the very year with this capitulation. Nevertheless, liberalism still pervades much of the Western Church. Its influence is seen in the denial, even by clergy and Bishops, of such things as the infallibility of the Bible, the deity of Christ, miracles and hell. Most recently it is seen in attempts to revise the church's teaching on sexuality. The liberal sentiment is however present whenever we doubt or reject a particular Bible truth because it just seems or feels wrong to us.

Not all however embraced this new agenda in the nineteenth century. In the face of “reason’s” challenges to the Bible, many within the Church of England sought to rely instead on “tradition,” seeking refuge in Roman Catholic thought which claimed to hold the oldest and so most authentic expression of Christianity. This led to the birth of a movement within the Church of England known as Anglo-Catholicism. As well as sympathy for Roman Catholic teaching, its marks were a focus on the beauty of Church buildings and the use of heavy symbolism and ritual in services.

Many of the more Catholic clothing and practices found in Anglican churches today began with this movement, as do features such as the use of candles and incense in services, and the procession of choir and clergy. Moreover, it is the Anglo-Catholic influence that has fuelled calls for reunification with Roman Catholicism. Indeed, some contemporary Anglo-Catholic churches are almost indistinguishable from Roman Catholic ones in their teaching as well as their practice: They hold to the belief that children are saved through baptism, that the bread and wine in communion actually becomes Christ’s body and blood, that our works are necessary to merit salvation, that the rituals of the church are necessary to maintain it, and that Mary somehow shares in enabling it. Such views would have horrified the reformers and directly contradict many of the thirty-nine articles.

The shift to liberalism or Anglo-Catholicism left a third party in place: the Evangelicals - those who hold to the supremacy of the Bible above reason and tradition, and the centrality of the “good news” about Jesus.[5] Although the evangelicals should be commended for remaining faithful to the Bible during the nineteenth century, more could have initially been done. Rather than engaging the liberal and Catholic views by giving grounds for holding the bible as trustworthy and for seeing reason and tradition as fallible, many UK evangelicals simply battened down the hatches by continuing to preach, but with little intellectual engagement with the questions being raised. The evangelicals did however show a tireless desire to alleviate the poverty stemming from the Industrial Revolution, and their concern for sharing the good news of Jesus contributed significantly to the spread of Anglicanism worldwide.

This means that though worldwide Anglicanism still comprises the liberal, Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical convictions, it is said to be largely, though not exclusively, evangelical.[6] Moreover, though an anti-intellectual strain remains in evangelicalism, its best forms are now faithfully Biblical and robustly thought through.

Our Churches: Our two churches are evangelical churches because we accept the Bible’s view that human reason and therefore human tradition are both open to error. Though we seek to engage our reason and consider traditional interpretations in our understanding the Bible, we hold that the Bible alone, as originally given, is trustworthy. We cannot therefore ignore its plain meaning because our reason doesn’t like it or because tradition isn’t in line with it. Instead we seek to be aware of our own fallibility in coming to the Bible, whilst being faithful in teaching what it actually says and relating it to the issues of our day. As we will see, this view is in-line with the Thirty-Nine Articles. More importantly, it is this view that was the view of Christ himself (Mark 7:5-8, Matthew 5:17-20, John 14:26, 16:13).

Teachings

All Anglican clergy are still required to accept that “The Thirty-Nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.”[7] At their ordination service, they are also required to vow “always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same.”

Despite the fact that so many hold fast and loose to the articles today, there is little doubt then that they are intended to govern Anglican thought and practice.

The following summarises the articles. Not all their points have been included, and so to read them in full see: http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

The Thirty-nine Articles in summary
God: There is one true God who is everlasting and of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the maker and preserver of all things. In the unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power and eternity: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. [Article 1]

The Son: The Son took a human nature in the womb of a virgin so that the two perfect natures of Godhead and Manhood were forever joined in the one person of Christ. [Article 2]

The cross: Christ therefore truly suffered, died on the cross and was buried, to reconcile us to his Father. This sacrifice granted freedom from guilt, an appeasing of God’s wrath and a satisfaction of his justice sufficient for all the sins of the whole world. [Articles 2 and 31]

The resurrection: Having descended to hell, Christ rose from death in his physical body and with a perfect human nature. He then ascended into heaven where he now sits until returning to judge all people on the last day. [Articles 3-4]

The Bible: Nothing is to be required of anyone as an article of faith or as necessary for salvation that is not read in or proved by the Bible, which consists of the Protestant Old and New Testaments and not the Catholic Apocrypha. The two testaments do not contradict one-another, but present a consistent message of salvation through Christ. And no Christian is free from having to obey the moral principles of God’s law. [Articles 6-7]

Sin: Human nature is inclined to evil, meaning that we are unable to believe and call upon God without his making us willing to do good and then moving us to it. Every person from birth therefore deserves God’s wrath and damnation, and the inclination to sin remains even in those who are regenerate. [Articles 9-10]

Salvation: Nevertheless, by putting faith in Christ, we are justified, accounted righteous before God not on the basis of our own works or deservings, but on the basis of Christ’s merits, who alone was without sin. Indeed, good works done before conversion are not even pleasing to God because they did not stem from faith; nor do they make people fit or ready to receive God’s grace. [Articles 11-16]

Predestination: So salvation is received only by those God has chosen, or predestined to life, and in whom he therefore works by his Spirit so that they obey his calling, are justified freely, adopted as God’s sons, renewed into his image, and brought to everlasting joy. [Article 17]

Other faiths: This salvation cannot come by the light of nature and so by whatever morality or religion someone holds to. It can come only by faith in the name of Jesus. [Article 18]

The Church: The church is a congregation of faithful people in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments administered as Christ ordained. The church has power to decree rites and ceremonies and has authority in controversies of faith. That which is ordained and consistent with scripture must not therefore be broken. Nevertheless, the church cannot itself ordain anything that is contrary to the Bible, nor teach one place of scripture in a way that contradicts another. Moreover, traditions and ceremonies can be changed or abolished according to the country, times, and situation. [Articles 19-20 and 34]

The sacraments: The only two sacraments of the church are baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the former being for both adults and children. These are witnesses and signs of grace, effectual not in themselves, but in the sense that God uses them to point to his good will and so inwardly grant, strengthen and confirm our faith in him. [Articles 25]

Roman Catholicism: Councils can make errors and so are not binding in decreeing what is necessary for salvation unless it is scriptural. In this, the Roman Catholic Church in particular has erred. Its teaching on purgatory, pardons, worshipping, adoration, images, and asking deceased Saints to pray is all contrary to the Bible; as is its teaching that the substance of bread and wine is actually changed into the body and blood of Christ at the Lord’s supper, and that the Priest actually offers Christ for the living and the dead in the service, to remove guilt or gain a reduction in the pains of purgatory. [Articles 19, 21-25, 28, 31-32]

The state: The Monarch is the chief governor in both civil and ecclesiastical matters, though this does not mean that they (or their government by derivation) are responsible for ministering God’s Word and sacraments. [Article 37]

[1] For further reading, see: Welsby, Paul A. How the Church of England works, (London, CIO Publishing, 1985)

[2] The term “Anglican” simply expresses the fact that the worldwide churches stemmed from the Church of England itself, i.e. the “Anglo-Saxon” church.

[3] Beckwith, Roger. Elders in every city, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 2003), p.55-63

[4] This was based on that of 1552, though with some changes in matters of ritual.

[5] The word “gospel” means “good news” and in greek is translated “evangel.”

[6] It is estimated that by 2010, 50% of English Anglicanism will be Evangelical: Brierly, Peter. “Evangelicals in the Church of England” http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/article3.asp - accessed 21.12.05
[7] Canon A2. The canons of the Church of England, (Church House Publishing, 2000)

What is an evangelical?

2008-07-30T12:29:00.001-07:00

“Evangelical” is a word thought of in various ways. Non-Christians often relate it only to TV evangelists, the media often equates it with an unhinged fundamentalism, and even Christians can stereotype it simply as those appreciating modern music and methods in church.

In reality, the word stems from the Greek “evangel” - meaning “gospel,” and has historically described those from various denominations (whatever their preferences on music and methods) who prioritise and proclaim the “fundamentals” of the gospel. It is in this good sense that they are “fundamentalists,” not in the negative sense that the word is used.

Numerous attempts have been made to define what exactly makes a Christian an evangelical, but perhaps the most helpful is that which uses a scriptural definition. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 and Titus 3:3-8, Paul lists the gospel fundamentals, i.e. the things “of first importance” that church leaders should “insist on”: (1) The centrality and supremacy of the Scriptures in revealing God’s will, (2) the sinfulness of human nature that requires salvation by God’s grace alone and not by our initiative or works, (3) the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ by which we are forgiven, justified and made heirs of eternal life, (4) the bodily resurrection of Jesus with all that implies for the work of the Spirit in giving new life, faith and godliness, (5) the need to actively preach and take a stand on these things.

In short, evangelical belief is triune: It is about the sovereignty of God in revelation and redemption, the sacrifice of Christ in forgiveness and justification, and the sanctification of the Spirit in regeneration and renewal.

Of course many non-Evangelical Christians hold to these truths. However Evangelicals are those who actually give them first importance in their own spirituality and Christian service. And because it is these things that the Bible actually asserts as “of first importance,” it must be said that though evangelicalism is by no means perfect Christianity, it is nevertheless a purer form.

The evangelical spirit has shown itself throughout church history. Its commitment and missionary attitude was evident in the early Church Fathers and in those who sought to renew medieval Catholicism. It was first used descriptively however of Lutherans during the reformation, because they were those who sought to bring the church back to scripture and the gospel. Evangelical spirituality then dominated Puritanism in seventeenth century England, the pietism and revivals of eighteenth century Europe and America, and the preaching, social action, and missionary endeavours of the Victorian church.

In the last century, however, evangelicalism has had a bumpy ride. In response to liberalism and its stress on social transformation without the need of seeing people saved to eternal life, many evangelicals took on a rigid dogmatism that withdrew from engagement with the world and displayed a certain paranoia over any who differed on even non-essential matters. Fortunately there are few churches that display such attitudes today as the movement has once again asserted the relevance of God’s word to the totality of life.

Yet it could be said that evangelicalism is now in danger of another more serious error. The relativism of the early twenty-first century has spawned a suspicion of truth claims and a nervousness about holding anything at all as “fundamental.” This has given rise to two particular traits within the evangelical church: First, many churches and Christians see teaching as secondary to action. In discipleship this shows itself with an impatience about being intellectually stretched, and in evangelism in the conviction that if we simply do good without actually sharing the gospel message, people will still somehow come to Christ. Second, many subconsciously give their experience a greater authority than the Bible. Not only everyday Christians, but even some evangelical theologians and thinkers are starting to move away from the central biblical tenets of evangelicalism because they seem to contradict their instincts about God or human nature.

We must be clear that the future of evangelicalism, the church more broadly, and even God’s kingdom depends on following the apostle Paul’s example (1 Corinthians 15:1-8, Titus 3:3-8) in “insisting” on “the things of first importance” against all tides of anti-truth. May God in his mercy strengthen us to do just this.

The Church as an embassy of heaven

2008-07-30T11:43:00.001-07:00

A covenant is an agreement with conditions and promises. The church is to be seen as a continuation of the OT covenant community—those whom God promised to bless if they remained faithful to him (Exodus 19:5-6, Deuteronomy 28-29). The difference is that now, non-Jews, or Gentiles can be a part of this community, sharing equally in God’s promises to it through Christ (Ephesians 2:11-13). Jesus died for the whole world not in the sense that he bore sin’s punishment for every individual, but for individuals from every nation—reconciling them to one-another and to God (John 10:14-16, Ephesians 2:13-16).

Spiritually then, all Christians are already united because they are one in Christ. So being the church does not depend on visiting a certain building, but on having trusted Jesus (Ephesians 2:18-19). And seeking unity is not about working to get all denominations under one umbrella, but about seeking greater conformity to the truth about Christ (Ephesians 2:20, 4:13), and playing our own part in God’s purposes in a manner that loves, and, where useful, works with others who are also “in Christ” (Galatians 2:6-10).

Each local church is to be a kind of sub-department of the universal church, serving the same purposes and built on the same biblical foundation (Ephesians 2:20). It is therefore essential that above all else, good and sound bible teaching should govern any church we choose to attend or work alongside, because this is the key protection for the believer’s faith (2 Timothy 3:1-4:6). Indeed, the Christian goes to church because they recognize that they are in need of the teaching and encouragement of other Christians if they are to remain faithful to Christ (2 Timothy 4:1-6, Hebrews 10:24-25). A good church is therefore a welcome necessity that those who love Christ actively seek out.

The word “church” (Greek: ekklesia) simply means “assembly.” Theologians distinguish between the invisible and visible church. The invisible church is the unknown and so invisible assembly of all God’s elect, past, present and future (Hebrews 12:22-23). The visible church is the assembly of all who currently profess faith here on earth, whether or not they do actually believe (Matthew 13:36-43).

Belonging to a church does not therefore guarantee that you are a Christian (Matthew 7:21-23, 2 Peter 2:1-2). Indeed, where a Church member refuses to turn from their sin, the church may have to exclude them from fellowship as a sign of the exclusion from heaven they are currently in danger of (Matthew 18:15-20, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Hebrews 10:26-30). Such Church discipline is an act of love intended to protect the church and bring the individual to true repentance and faith, and so to salvation (1 Corinthians 5:5-7).

Considering baptism of your child in church?

2008-07-30T11:30:00.001-07:00

The following is a booklet used in church.

A time for thanksgiving

It is a joy to be a parent. In an ancient song recorded in the Bible, we read that “children are a gift from the LORD.”[1] The birth of a child is a time of wonder at the miraculous handiwork and incredible generosity of our maker, a wonder that can only overflow in grateful celebration.

At St Bartholomew’s and St James the Less we are delighted to share in this sense of celebration, and offer two options through which it might be expressed:

1. Baptism is the badge of belonging to the community of God’s people, the church. Children belong to this community because of the committed Christian faith held by at least one parent. This service therefore involves parent(s) (and godparents) publicly declaring their own commitment to Christ and promising that their child will be brought up in the Christian faith and as a member of one of our church families.
2. Thanksgivings are offered to those who do not yet feel able to make such strong declarations with integrity. This service is one of joyful thanks and prayer to God for your child, and still provides the wonderful opportunity for parent(s), family and friends to celebrate together. Moreover having a thanksgiving for your child in no way excludes the possibility of baptism at a later date.

Many who enquire about baptism are unaware of the declarations involved or of the alternative open to them. This leaflet therefore explains these things in some depth so that you can start to consider whether a service of baptism or thanksgiving is, at this time, most appropriate for you. Either way, we look forward to sharing in your joy at the child the Lord God has given you.

Baptisms and thanksgivings usually take place at one of our All Age Services on the first Sunday of the month.

Jon Hobbs

Rector of Maresfield
Vicar of Nutley
About baptism

The key symbol in baptism is water, which cleanses and sustains life. So children are baptised as a sign and pledge to them of God’s promise to spiritually cleanse and give everlasting life to all who trust and live for Christ.

The Bible teaches that as human beings we have all in some way rejected God’s loving authority over our lives. We believe only what we choose to believe about him and behave only as we decide to behave. We therefore fall short of the perfect goodness God created us for, and this is what the Bible means by the word sin. The evidence of sin is painfully apparent both in our world and in our own lives. In the light of this, the water of baptism speaks of two types of cleansing from God:

1. A cleansing from the guilt of sin: It matters to God that he is rejected and lives are therefore ruined. Our rebellion rightly offends and angers him, and he won’t let it go on forever. This means that even we should face the punishment beyond death that our own sin deserves. Fortunately however, God has not totally abandoned us. In his great love he sent his Son Jesus to die as a way of bearing that punishment on our behalf. So those who turn from their sin and follow Jesus can be totally forgiven and no longer counted guilty by God.

2. A cleansing from the grip of sin: Jesus actually came back to life from the dead. This proved that he is God’s ruler and judge and so able to grant us this forgiveness, and with it an everlasting life beyond death. This will be a perfect life, utterly free from sin in a new and perfect world. Yet Christians taste something of this life and freedom even now as God’s Spirit enables them to start again with God and begin living to please him.

Peter, one of Jesus’ closest followers and a leader in the early church put it this way in the New Testament of the Bible:

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call.”[2]

About children

It is important to recognise that Children do not receive these things simply because they have been baptised. The water is an outward symbol of what we pray will be an inward reality. As Peter makes clear (above), the spiritual benefits of baptism are received by responding personally to what baptism speaks of:

1. by faith - trusting that Jesus is God’s Son and ruler who has done everything necessary for us to be forgiven and so receive everlasting life.
2. by repentance - demonstrating that trust by turning away from our wrong belief and behaviour to live with Jesus in charge of our lives.

In this respect a child born to a Christian parent is hugely privileged. Being too young to articulate this response to Christ, the child is represented before God by its Christian Mum or Dad. If their parent(s) are sincere in their repentance and faith, the child is therefore treated by God as a Christian.[3]

God promises wonderful blessings to such children.[4] And on this basis we trust that he begins a work in them.

Yet this trust must not lead us to complacency about our children’s spiritual needs. Just as every seed needs watering and nurturing to grow, so truly Christian parent(s) recognise that they are to be God’s means of growing faith within their children.

It is for these reasons that the Bible reserves baptism for those with one or more committed Christian parents, and stresses the responsibility of the parent(s) to teach and model the truths of the Bible to their child and to attend church with them.[5]

About parents

The Church of England reflects all this in requiring at least one parent bringing a child for baptism to be able to publicly declare three particular things:

1. That you will actively help your child grow in the Christian faith by encouragement and example:

In the service the minister says to the parent(s):

Parents and godparents, the Church receives this child with joy. You speak for them today as we all trust God for their growth in faith.

Will you pray for them,
Draw them by your example into the community of faith
and walk with them in the way of Christ?

Answer: With the help of God, we will.

Will you care for them,
and help them to take their place
within the life and worship of Christ’s Church?

Answer: With the help of God, we will.

Here you declare that you will pray for your child and set an example in both regular church attendance and a desire to deepen in your own commitment to Christ. You also declare that you will care for your child, not least by encouraging them in these things too, and by teaching the Christian faith to them.

2. That you have actually committed yourself to Jesus in repentance and in faith:

The minister goes on to say:

As it is your duty to teach this child to fight against evil and follow Christ, I must ask these questions, which you must answer for yourselves and for them:

Do you reject the devil and renounce all evil?

Answer: I reject the devil and renounce all evil.

Do you repent of your sins and all rebellion against God?

Answer: I repent of them.

Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?

Answer: I turn to Christ as Saviour.

Do you submit to Christ as Lord?

Answer: I submit to Christ as Lord.

Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?

Answer: I come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life.

The Bible describes turning to Christ as an acceptance of him as Lord. This means turning away from what is wrong to live our whole lives for him and so according to the book he sanctioned, the Bible. Here you commit yourself to Jesus in this way.

3. That you do personally believe the Christian faith and will raise your child in it:

The minister goes on to say:

You must now declare before God and His Church the Christian faith into which this child is to be baptised and in which you will help them to grow.

Do you believe and trust in God the Father,
source of all being and life,
the one for whom we exist?

Answer: I believe and trust in him.

Here you declare that you do actually believe and trust in the God of the Bible, who created everything and whom all should acknowledge and serve. With the following declarations you also state that you believe and trust that this one God exists as a trinity of three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Do you believe and trust in his Son,
who took our human nature,
died for our sins and rose again?

Answer: I believe and trust in him.

Here you declare that you believe and trust that God the Son actually became a man in Jesus, and at the cost of his own death has enabled you to be forgiven your sin by God and so freed from its punishment and power (see page 4). You also declare that you believe and trust that Jesus rose bodily from the dead confirming who he is and that forgiveness and eternal life is truly on offer.

Do you believe and trust in God the Holy Spirit, who gives life to the people of God and makes Christ known in the world?

Answer: I believe and trust in him.

Here you declare that you believe and trust that God the Holy Spirit is currently active in our world bringing people to repentance and faith (see page 5), enabling them to live God’s way, and eventually raising them also from death to an everlasting life.
About godparents

You may already be pondering who to ask to be godparents. It is therefore worth considering the Church of England’s requirements for godparents too.

You will need three godparents, two of the same sex as the child and at least one of the opposite sex. Their role is of course to be God-parents, providing extra prayer and care for the child and an extra example of what it is to follow Jesus.

What is often not realised is that godparents are therefore also required to be baptised and committed Christians who are able to make the same declarations as parents (see pages 6 and 7).[6] This will obviously be a governing factor in who you choose to ask, and you may find that you struggle to find suitable candidates. In such cases only one godparent of each sex is needed. As one of these can be a parent, then in exceptional circumstances you actually only need ask one person.
About thanksgivings

Some people may not be fully able to make the declarations required in the baptism service, yet still want to acknowledge their thankfulness to God for their child. The Service of Thanksgiving enables them to do so without asking them to compromise their integrity.

The Service of Thanksgiving is designed to be a simple service at which parent(s), the wider family and friends can come together to acknowledge their joy at the new arrival. There are no strings attached and no promises to make, but opportunities are given to express gratitude to God for the child’s life and pray for his/her future. Family and friends also publicly declare their commitment to supporting the parent(s) in their new role.

At a key point in the service, the minister says to the parent(s), family, friends, and wider congregation:

Do you thank God for the birth of this child?

Answer: We do.

Do you receive this child as a gift from God?

Answer: We do.

The minister then addresses the family, friends, and wider congregation only, asking:

Will you do all that you can to help and support N and N in the bringing up of this child?

Answer: With the help of God we will.

For those who do not yet feel able to make the commitments assumed by the baptism service, the service of thanksgiving provides a wonderful opportunity for family and friends to join with parent(s) in celebrating God’s incredible gift of their child.
The way ahead

We do hope you have found this leaflet helpful, and that the various requirements for baptism don’t seem too constraining. We highlight them from the start so that no-one opts for baptism only to find themselves having to publicly declare what they do not mean.

Because baptism is an important sign of Christian commitment, we ask parents (and godparents wherever possible) to attend a preparation course lasting two evenings which will enable them to think through the issues involved. The Church of England actually specifies that this kind of instruction must take place before your child is baptised.[7]

If you would rather not attend this course, or feel having done so that you still cannot in all conscience make the baptismal commitments as they are explained above, we ask that you hold back on baptism until you feel you can.

There are currently therefore three options for you:

1. You feel able to make the baptismal commitments as outlined, and so would like to proceed with baptism and enrol on the preparation course for it.

2. You are not yet sure you can make these commitments, but would like to enrol on the course in order to think them through further before then deciding on whether to have a baptism or thanksgiving.

3. You would like to proceed with a thanksgiving for now, and perhaps enrol on the course at a later date to consider baptism.

Your next step, when you are ready, is to call me (Jon Hobbs - 01825 762192) to ask any questions and let me know how you would like to proceed. For now, can I say again how delighted I would be to hold a baptism or thanksgiving for you? You are always very welcome at our services (see the back page), and will, we hope, find a home amongst us.

[1] Psalm 127 verse 3

[2] Acts chapter 2 verses 38-39

[3] 1 Corinthians 7:14

[4] Genesis 17:5-8; Deuteronomy 4:5-10; 30:6, Psalm 102:28; 103:17-18; Isaiah 65:23; Ezekiel 37:25; Acts 2:39

[5] Genesis 18:18; Deuteronomy 4:9; 4-9; Joshua 24:15; Matthew 19:13-14; Ephesians 6:4

[6] These requirements for parents and godparents are outlined in Canons B22-B23: The canons of the Church of England, (London, Church House Publishing, 2000)
[7] Canon B22: The canons of the Church of England, (London, Church House Publishing, 2000)