Tuesday, 6 March 2018

The Child in us All

The Three Musketeers LOTSWI had put on my coat to leave the gym and was finishing a conversation with other victims of good health and rigorous exercise, when I caught sight of myself in a full length mirror. Who was that man staring back at me? When did I ever get to be so big? How did I come to look so deceptively grown up and respectable? Aware of the possibility of looking vain (a weakness of mine I confess) I looked away and rejoined the conversation, having gained an insight into what my interlocutors saw. In my head I don't see myself according to my outward appearance. The child is too much with me still.

One of the things I like about the now sadly missed comedy series Last of the Summer Wine is it's portrayal of three old men wandering about the Yorkshire countryside acting like boys. Look carefully and you see one man's pomposity as simply a grown-up role being played by a boy hiding behind a disguise of 'respectability', another man's willing resignation to the truth that they are all big kids, and a third man's wonder at and fascination with it all. Officialdom, iconoclasm, and philosophy out for an afternoon stroll.

I find it fascinating and bewildering in equal measure. The problem is, I can't take it all seriously enough to play 'respectable' bordering on ridiculous like the first man, I am yet a little too serious-minded to resign to the childishness of it all like the second, so I am left like the third, to wonder at it, fascinated by my ability to see everyone still in their juvenile greenery, their schooldays, wondering what it's all about.

I see the teachers' pet, I see the thinker who will enjoy quizzes and teach maths, the misfit who only shone on the rugby field, or in the carpentry shop, the prefect, the sensible one who will end up working in a bank, or a chemist's, the adventurous one who will travel and fill their life with memories, the timid one who will work a job, save money, and wear beige, the one who will surprise us all and become a successful writer.

Though old now, I see them in the classroom and school yard still. I find myself looking for, and am often rewarded with that sly, watchful eye that glances to see if they've been found out, the big kid in the bank queue, the little boy at the supermarket checkout, the little girl at her office desk, the class clown in the pub, holding a pint and incredulous that he is up so late and drinking beer. I have found them out. I have found you all out. I see the child in us all.

Wednesday, 14 February 2018

Dysphoria by Any Other Name

BisexualMy wife and I were watching the ITV Wales News last evening and two items covering very similar stories followed each other in quick succession. The first put a positive spin on plans to open Wales’ very own gender identity clinic, which will be the first in the country. The report, which you can read here. said:

'It’s a step forward which many in Wales’ trans community have welcomed, including one 20-year-old [transgender person]. He transitioned from female to male at the age of 14, but waited five years to see a gender specialist on the NHS. He eventually opted for private treatment, costing him £7000.

Knowing that you should look different to how you look, it’s so traumatising”, he said. “At the end of Year 11 I just thought I need to start hormones. I can’t go to college not starting hormones. I knew I wasn’t going to start taking them until I was 19 on the NHS”.'

There followed a report about a model and TV presenter from Aberystwyth, who has spoken out for the first time about the pressures she experienced whilst working in the fashion industry and how she subjected herself to laxative abuse in order to try and lose weight.

You can read the report here, which goes on:

'Shortly after [one particular] experience, [the model] received a message from a modelling agency which expressed an interest in representing her. After sending her measurements to the agency, she was told that they would only be willing to represent her if she lost weight and slimmed down to a “genuine size 8”. This particular experience made [her] turn to extreme lengths to try and get the “perfect figure” by taking laxatives.'

Having learned her lesson the hard way the model reports:

If I’d have realised before that I could do all this as me and embrace who I am, rather than trying to change to suit the industry, I would never, ever have done it and my body would still be working as it should be.”

The first story concerned plans, at great expense to the NHS, open a clinic to treat self-identified gender dysphoria with extreme surgical procedures, an acceptance, even a celebration of dysphoria, the second concerned efforts to persuade young models to avoid taking extreme measures, such as laxative abuse, and learn to be happy with the body in which they were born, an attack on a dysphoria.

Both reported on the trauma of thinking they don't look the way they should look. Both took extreme measures to 'fix' what they imagined was wrong. One is in the vanguard of making their extreme measures more readily available to others, at great expense to the taxpayer, while the other issues a stark warning of what can happen if you take extreme measures to change how you look, and urges young people to accept their bodies.

Both 'suffer' from a dysphoria, but the approach to each is very different. One is accepted, the other rejected. The extreme measures to treat the one are embraced, those to treat the other met with dire warnings.

Dysphoria is defined as 'a state of feeling very unhappy, uneasy, or dissatisfied.' (Merriam Webster Dictionary. The Concise Oxford gives the same definition) There seems to be a cognitive dissonance between how we regard gender-based dysphoria, and how we regard other forms of dysphoria. Both stem from the same place, a feeling of dissatisfaction that can so trouble someone that they are driven to extreme measures, but one is treated as a physical problem, while the other is regarded as a psychological problem. One declares, 'your body shape is wrong, nature has made a mistake,' the other declares, 'your body is naturally what it is intended to be, you have made a mistake.'

The prefix dys means abnormal, impaired. It is used to describe something that has gone wrong with body (dystrophy, dyspepsia), mind (dysthymia, dysphasia) even society (dystopia), it is a dysfunction. In the case of the model the dysfunction is mental/emotional, is 'it's all in your head,' while for the transgender person the dysfunction is physical, 'your whole body is wrong.' Both are dysphoric, but one regards radical surgery a reasonable solution, the other considers a change of mind a better solution. If you were to advise the model that she is making unhealthy choices you might be regarded a caring friend. If you were to offer the same advice to the transgender person, you might be accused of hate speech and prosecuted.

To my mind this demonstrates we are an increasingly dystopian society as we cherry pick which problems we identify, how we describe and diagnose them, and what treatments we prescribe, not according to sound medical and psychological knowledge, but according to a frighteningly overbearing ideology of the left that thinks it can reshape the whole world in its own bizarre and dysfunctional image.

Society has to pick up the bill for the proposed clinic, but that same society will have to pay again, it seems to me, to undo the terrible wrong being done to vulnerable people whose issues are being identified and resolved according to an ideology. Perhaps it will take a lifetime's therapy and support to deal with the outcome of a momentary ideological fallacy.

Sunday, 14 January 2018

The Way ‘They’ do Things These Days

The World in HurricaneIn her latter years my mother would explain to herself an increasingly confusing world with the words, ‘Well, that’s the way they do things these days.’ From free love to microwave ovens this phrase explained it all, ‘I don’t understand it, but that’s the way they do things these days.’

Most people follow the way they do things these days, whoever ‘they’ are. From the clothes we wear to the opinions we hear and retail, from what we choose as entertainment to our eating habits, and ther company we keep we all do things the way they are done these days.

But what if ‘they’ make bad  lifestyle choices, express dangerous, destructive opinions? How would we even know those choices were unwise if the way ‘they’ do things is our only measure of what is good, If man is the true measure of man?

I am reminded of the adage, ‘Who marries the spirit of the age will end widowed.’

James, in his letter to Christians scattered across the empire, writes about the trials of many kinds that come and test our faith (Js.1:2-3). He encourages us to have a firm faith, warning against doubt, or we will find ourselves ‘like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind,’ driven by the way things are done these days. Does that sound familiar?

When Jesus spoke of John the Baptist he said, ‘What did you go into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?’ (Lk.7:24) A single reed was the personal emblem of Herod, a man blown about by every political wind, driven by the way things are done these days, defined by expediency, nothing to cling to but the latest piece of fashionable flotsam.

What we learn from my mother’s ‘explanation’ of the way things are done these days is that the spirit of the age will pass. The way things are done is not the way they were done in her lifetime, neither is the way things are done today the way things were done in my memory, The way you do things will pass too, another generation will rise and do things their way.

We are mistaken, of course, if we assume the way things were are preferable to the way things are, to imagine a golden age. At the same time it is folly to assume improvement is inevitable with each passing generation. Things can’t only get better, as history teaches us. What can we find to cling to in this process of rising and dying ages, this sea of life that tosses us this way and that?

James reminds us, ‘If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach and it will be given him.’ (Js.1:5) The Father, he reminds us, is one ‘who does not change like shifting shadows’ (Js.1:17) and Jesus, we are told, is, ‘the same yesterday, today, and forever.’ (Heb.13: 8)

Isaiah reminds us, ‘All flesh is grass, and all its beauty is like the flowers of the field…The grass withers, the flowers fade, but the word of our God will stand forever.’ (Is.40:7-8)

If you’re looking for stability in a changing world look no further than the word of God. It will often make you unpopular with those married to the age, but when this age has died and another rises, you will still be standing faithfully doing things God’s way, while they seek yet another marriage of convenience leading inevitably to another funeral.

Sunday, 6 August 2017

Inventing the Individual: Book Review

Inventing the Individual 2The book Inventing the Individual, by Larry Siedentop, works on the premise that liberal thought is the offspring of Christianity. That it emerged as the moral intuitions generated by Christianity were turned against an authoritarian model of the church.

He traces the development of society, beginning with its earliest model, the family under the absolute authority of the paterfamilias, guardian of the family god and the sacred flame, through the wider family unit, the clan, to the tribe and the city state. The problem of transferring loyalties from family, to clan, to tribe and city state is addressed, with the establishment of hierarchies of gods, mirroring the hierarchical nature of society.

It is when we come to the Greek/Roman world that the influence of the church is first felt, with Paul establishing an entirely new concept of individual freedom in Christ. Where someone's value had always been determined by their role in society, Paul brought the idea that a 'soul' has worth apart from societal status. In place of the traditional assumption of natural inequality there was, for the first time, a moral equality, a common humanity, with citizens and slaves rubbing shoulders 'in church.'

With the fall of the Roman world and the fracturing of society, the church had to carve out a role for itself as a sovereign power whose area of authority was the care of souls. In doing this the church established canon law that defined its role and proscribed the role of secular powers. Indeed, it was the church, in seeing to its own affairs and survival, that first separated the spiritual from the secular.

The book traces the development of church authority alongside that of the secular world, describing the growth of papal authority and how successive generations wrestled with the inherent dangers in establishing in one man an absolute power, thereby re-establishing the hierarchical model of leadership followed in the ancient world.

There were long periods of conflict, with secular rulers, as well as within the church, as they addressed the question of where authority lay in the church, in the 'servant of servants' or in the church as a body of believers, represented by councils, cardinals, bishops, and clerics. Were Christians 'equal in submission,' as was thought by the Dominicans, or 'equal in liberty,' as taught by the Followers of St Francs? The growth of universities gave a space where these issues could be battled over, the main protagonists being Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham.

The book is well organised, with chapter heads and endings giving good summaries of where we have got to so far and where we are going. Near the end of the book Seidentop writes:

'We have seen how Christian egalitarianism (the 'care of souls') first shaped the distinction between spiritual and temporal authority, creating a sphere for individual conscience. We then followed the gradual but far from complete penetration of this egalitarianism into traditional beliefs - emerging as a kind of schizophrenia among Carolingians.

Finally, we discovered its full potential for transforming institutions in the papal revolution of the twelfth century, when the idea of a 'sovereign' authority over individuals, embodied in a coherent legal system, not only transformed the church, but also began to inspire secular rulers with the project of creating 'states' out of a jumble of feudal jurisdictions.'

Here is the nub of it. The role of the church, as it carved out its own space in the world, is powerful in the development of European, therefore Western liberalism. The 'Renaissance' is a product of this process, and not a break with it, as is popularly believed. Chapter by chapter we see how church government develops, who were the characters involved, what were the respective roles of reformists and traditionalists, what were the issues they struggled over, and what the outcomes.

Addressing the implications of losing sight of our roots, Siedentop e ends with a challenging question:

'If we in the West do not understand the moral depth of our own tradition, how can we hope to shape the conversation of mankind?'

Monday, 10 July 2017

The Christian Narrative

In speaking to someone about faith issues I dropped into the conversation the, to me, uncontroversial term 'non-Christian,' only to be challenged, 'That's not a nice thing to say, that someone isn't a Christian.' Rather taken aback, I nevertheless realised the problem was one of definition. I was speaking to someone raised to believe a Christian is a good person, as in, 'He's a good Christian man, he'll always do you a good turn.' Of course, the Bible knows nothing of such a man and defines a Christian as a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, indeed, as a bad person who has turned to Jesus seeking forgiveness and salvation.

I replied that there are many people in the world who would not thank you for calling them Christian. This was met with sudden incredulity, and I was asked, 'Who?'

Muslims, I replied, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, Hindus, Atheists; When you think about it the list is formidable, and all those communities comprise many good people without being Christian people, non-PsychobabbleChristians.

In his book Psychobabble Dr Stephen Briers, addressing the subject of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, writes about the power of narratives, the stories people tell themselves:

'The stories we tell ourselves are powerful organising forces. They exercise an inexorable pull over our actions, feelings and choices, rather like a magnetic field draws scattered iron filings into alignment with its own invisible lines of influence. When dealing with the steady undertow of someone's implicit narrative, reason and logic often prove feeble instruments. If an action, or feeling or belief 'fits' within the dynamic of the tale being told it will be embraced, however illogical or absurd it may be. Recasting and rescripting such stories is always destined to be an art as much as a science.'

The person in my story found it impossible to relinquish their narrative explanation of what defines a Christian. No amount of logic, or reason, no appeal to the authority of the Bible was going to change their mind. For them, for over seventy years, 'Christian' had been a good person, and 'non-Christian' was an unkind label.

If we want to understand how very powerful someone's implicit narrative can be, consider how seriously God takes this question in addressing it. God delivered Israel out of Egypt, the 'house of slavery,' and having brought them to himself, making them a holy people, set them apart as special before God. You might think such a people would prove eternally grateful, faithful, and uncompromised in their love for him. Yet, in Exodus 19, God must remind them through Moses:

'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.' (Ex.19:4-6)

Chapter twenty of Exodus begins with the ten commandments, that are further unpacked throughout the rest of Exodus, Leviticus, and beyond. Two things stand out here. One is the undiluted devotion Israel is to offer to the God who saved them. It is worth noting that the first five commandments remind us to offer honour to those who gave us life, the first four to God, the fifth to parents.

The second notable command is to avoid being like other nations. As Israel entered Canaan they had a raft of laws designed to make them different, make them stand out, remind them of their special status before God. Their diet was to be different, even the clothes they wore were not to be made of mixed fabrics (Lev.19:19; Deut.22:9-11). Several reasons are offered to explain this, which is not a moral law, one of which is that it was a reminder that they were not to mix Israel's customs with those of the surrounding nations; a sort of daily and visual mnemonic.

Yet Israel so often compromised, adopting the ways of surrounding nations, from demanding they be given a king, 'like other nations,' when they had God for their king (1 Sam.8:5), to practising child sacrifice to Molech (2 Chron.28:3; 2 Kings 21:6) even when God had expressly forbidden it (Lev.18:21) and made clear the precious worth of children (Pr.17:6; Ps.127:3)

Israel proves that if we are not attentive to our covenant faith in God, our narrative, the way we explain the world to ourselves and our place in it, will increasingly be defined by the world around us. Whether via social media, friendships, even family, the clamour of voices vying for our attention, seeking to mould our thinking, is increasingly loud.

Tragically, many follow the clamour and find themselves, like Israel, compromising and compromised. They deny the authority of Scripture, disobey God's commands, avoid the gathering of God's people, find easy fault with the church for which Christ gave himself, and make themselves deaf to the one voice that speaks true words of salvation. The writer of Hebrews gives a clear and urgent warning against such things:

'As the Holy Spirit says:

'Today, if you hear his voice,

do not harden your hearts

as you did in the rebellion,

during the time of testing in the


where your fathers tested and tried me

and for forty years saw what I did.

That is why I was angry with that


and I said, 'Their hearts are always

going astray, and they have not know my ways.

So I declared in my anger,

They shall never enter my rest.''

'See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.' (Heb.3:7-15a)

It was B.B. Warfield who observed, "If everything that is called Christianity in these days is Christianity, then there is no such thing as Christianity. A name applied indiscriminately to everything designates nothing."

It may be comforting to think a good deed makes a good Christian but it does not do to allow what has already been defined clearly, definitively by God in Scripture, to be redefined indiscriminately simply because it suits those who embrace the spirit of the age. So what is a Christian?

Jesus said in Matthew 7:

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. [...]

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’."

There is doing in the life of a good Christian, good works, but that doing is according to the will of God, whose will so many feel they can ignore while still calling themselves by the name of Christ because they are decent people. This is the spirit of our current age and, for so many, the imperative narrative. But as William Ralph Inge wisely observed, 'Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.'

What defines our imperative narrative, that story about the world and our place in it that is not easily changed or compromised? Is it the world itself, that changes like the weather, now forbidding, now commanding, approving and disapproving, moving this way and that depending on whose voice is loudest? Is it the Word of God, that is consistent, unchangeable, guiding God's people as we navigate this troubled world, offering hope to a dying world, looking to a promise of a new world in which God reigns supreme, even as he reigns today in every heart that trusts and obeys him?

Monday, 8 May 2017

What is a Man?

GrantchesterIn a recent episode of the 'charming turning to seedy' British TV drama Grantchester the lead character, a vicar, ended the episode in his now familiar Jerry Springer way, with a little homily to his dwindling congregation. 'Live for today, in the now,' is the sum of his message, before he rushes off to have sex with a now married, but once his secret sweetheart, friend. This is a live-for-now hang the consequences sort of world in which our desires, hopes and dreams are frustrated by a nebulous entity called 'society.'

A eulogy in an earlier episode reminded us we cannot be what we want to be because 'society' wouldn't allow it, as though we were meant to fulfill our immediate desires without judgement or hindrance. If you were looking for something encouraging and uplifting, Grantchester is eminently avoidable. But this seems the spirit of the age, if it feels good, do it; what else is there?

The neo-atheists, channelling Thomas Hobbes, would have us believe nothing makes sense at all and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Richard Dawkins, when espousing his particularly spiteful form of atheism insists life has no purpose, there is no objective right and wrong, and certainly nothing as asinine and vulgar as good and evil. Yet he dedicates his life to teaching us dullards the correct way to think about things. Lucky us!

The Psalmist wrote that if, 'the lines have fallen for me in pleasant places,' it is because, 'Lord you have assigned me my portion and my cup. You have made my lot secure.' (Ps.16:5/6) Not so, Dawkins would insist, if your portion and cup prove pleasant and secure it is the luck of the draw. Of course, whenever he seeks to demolish any arguments against his bleak world view, he is prepared to label religion as evil, to cry 'not right!' and more than a few have had fun with that.

I don't know what sort of world you live in but I find that even the most militant God-denier instinctively seeks purpose in an apparently purposeless universe, justice in a life that has no seeming obligation to be just, reason in an existence that is evidently blind and aimless. Indeed, so important are purpose and justice that the typical atheist cannot actually do without God for, without God, who would they blame?

It is popular to jibe that Christians pray to an 'invisible friend,' but don't atheists aim their ire at an invisible enemy? It is rightly observed, the first two principles of atheism are, 'there is no God, and I hate him!'

Deny purpose in creation as we might, who doesn't identify with the words of Hamlet; 'What is a man if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed?'

In his Confessions, Augustine famously wrote, 'You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.' Surely something in us has us recoil from the bleak prognostications of Thomas Hobbes? Some part of us agrees with Hamlet, what is the point if we simply live, eat, breed, and die? What are we - cattle?

And even if we are not yet drawn to Augustine's defining conclusion yet, even as people deny God, I find they seek him in one form or another. Either to blame him or to find, finally, rest for themselves. Either way, it seems, only God can satisfy.

If God is there, what difference does it make? If, unlike Thomas Hobbes, we instinctively seek community, richness, kindness, civility, and purpose in life then surely it matters how we live? Not for the moment, like a character in a play, but for the more we find ourselves reaching out for. If God is there, and if purpose is instinctive but frustratingly elusive, we must surely seek God, discover his purpose for us, and like Augustine, find our heart's rest in finally being the more we were made to be.

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

Strangers in the World

Fellow CitizensFollowing on from my last two posts, God’s Plan for your Life, I thought it good to republish this from March 2015. God may not have a plan for your life but we do have duties and responsibilities as cotizens of his kingdom. Do we know who we are in Christ, what are the implications of our kingdom citizenship? Lets talk about being God’s elect in the world.

The apostle Peter’s first letter is addressed, ‘To God’s elect, strangers in the world.’ Does it feel like that to you? If you are a Christian do you find yourself out of step with the world? The world, of course, is familiar to us. We know how it operates, we engage with it, and we negotiate our way through it in our every-day lives but, ultimately, Peter seems to be saying it is alien to us. In his second letter to Christians in Corinth the apostle Paul insisted, ‘we regard no-one from a worldly point of view,’ and goes on to describe Christians as, ‘Christ’s ambassadors.’ (2 Corinthians 5:16&20)

As ambassadors, we may be adept in the arts of tact and conciliation, speaking the truth with ‘gentleness and respect’ (1 Peter 3:15) yet we never lose sight of where our duties lie, of who has first call on our loyalties. As Paul makes clear, we don’t look at things by the standards and values of the world, but by those of the one we now represent. We are to represent his interests in the world, ‘God making his appeal through us.’ (2 Corinthians 5:20)

Going back to the beginning, we see that it was in a fallen world that Abel brought a better offering. It was ‘at that time people began to call on the name of the LORD.’ (Gen.5:26) In a sinful world Enoch walked with God and ‘when the wickedness of men was great in the earth,’ Noah found favour with God (Gen.6:5-8) Discipleship is not popular. It follows a different path.

Sometimes it can feel as though we are overwhelmed by the world, and we find it easier to ‘go with the flow.’ Perhaps that is why Peter writes as he does to ‘God’s elect…throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,’ in other words scattered among the nations and in danger of being overwhelmed. That is one of the pitfalls of representing one country, or one business from one country, to another; going native. Sometimes called ‘clientism,’ or ‘localitis,’ it is when a representative comes to regard the people and officials of the host country as ‘clients,’ when he or she defends the interests of these ‘clients’ as though they are the employers.

Of course, in many respects, this can make life, at least in the short term, easier. The people with whom you have to do every day seem somehow easier to get along with once you see things from their point of view, while the people you represent seem distant and out of touch with the way things are, ‘on the ground.’ Ultimately, however, as Peter reminds us, we are, ‘a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that [we] may declare the praises of him who called [us] out of darkness into his wonderful light.’ (1 Peter 2:9)

We do things God’s way, see things God’s way, and we describe things as God’s ambassadors, however diplomatic we feel we need to be. Peter reminds us that we are ‘chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and the sprinkling of his blood.’ (1 Peter 1:2) It is no accident that we find ourselves ‘strangers in the word,’ for God the Father has chosen to make us citizens of a heavenly kingdom. He has done this by a work of the Spirit that sanctifies us, prepared us for that citizenship and calling, and he has given us the work of obedience to Jesus Christ. Our ways now are as alien to the world as are the world’s ways to us.

This means that only other Christian believers properly know and understand what it is to be chosen, an ambassador for Christ, sanctified, and striving to obey that call. Only other Christians fully appreciate what it means when we obey Jesus and reject the world’s self-centred-ness. Such a course is alien to the world and ever has been. Just like those early Christians, first in Jerusalem, then scattered across Asia Minor and ultimately the world, we finally have each other in this world because the rest simply don’t ‘get it.’  Paul writes in his first Corinthian letter:

‘This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things  that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgements about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgement: For who can know the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.’ (1 Corinthians 2:13-16)

Think of it! We even have a different ‘language’ we speak, ‘expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words,’ a language the world considers unintelligible, foolishness. We have the mind of Christ with which to discern and make sound judgements concerning the affairs of his kingdom, and a language in which we express that kingdom business. But remember that, ‘it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe’ (1 Corinthians 1:21) Our speaking, acting, and doing are not futile, for those who believe may come to know that language, to have that mind, to be ambassadors of the one who chose them, just as once we did. The question is, are we speaking the language of the God who chose us, uttering spiritual truths as we go about kingdom business? Or have we fallen victim to clientism, speaking the language of the world that is so familiar to us?

The world doesn’t speak our language, doesn’t know or accept Christ, and is proving increasingly hostile to his kingdom and rule. It is surely up to us, we who have the mind of Christ, who speak the language of spiritual things, to stand together in advancing the work of the kingdom entrusted to our care in this generation, and for the benefit of the next.