Living as a Christian in a Pagan Society

Wisdom from 1 Thessalonians 4

The word 'disciple' occurs over 250 times in the New Testament so it seems important enough for us to understand it. Jesus invites us to a new way of life, a life we can only fully know if we follow him. Those who follow him are called disciples. A disciple is is a learner, a pupil, an apprentice. 'The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch' (Acts 11:26). A Christian, then, is a disciple of Jesus.

The chapter we are looking at is best summed up in verse one, 'How to live in order to please God.' A disciple is one who strives to do just that. If you want to live in order to please God you need to know what it will cost you. The context is very important if we are to appreciate its application today. Paul was writing to a church living in what was a hostile environment for Christians and we are beginning to experience this today in what is traditionally a broadly Christian country.

We are living in a time when principles established over thousands of years are overturned as easily it seems as a row of dominoes. Marriage is being radically redefined, and in ways that are not pleasing to God; what one actor describes as serial monogamy is being seen as a virtue; celebrity is celebrated over gifting, sacrifice, and service; gambling is part of our tax system; Christians are being sacked for sharing their faith at work, and street preachers are being arrested for simply quoting the Bible.

As Christians, what are we to make of the world's frantic flight from all that is Godly? It seems so sudden, when only a generation or two ago, such things were simply unthinkable. How are we to live in this world to please God?

 

Being Holy

This has been a major theme throughout the Bible. When man's sin was ripe God called Abraham out of Babylon, where he had been living as a Pagan, and set him apart. God called Abraham to live differently to those people around him, to be holy. Holy means, set apart for a special purpose, set apart for God. Abraham was told that nations would come from him, that through him salvation would come to the whole world. This was God's purpose in calling him.

So Abraham's family were different, lived differently, and looked for the day when God would fulfil his promises. Christians are in that place today, living differently, waiting for God to fulfil his promises.

When God brought the children of Abraham, the children of Israel, out of Egypt, he brought them to the foot of the mountain, gave them the law, and told them to live differently, faithfully to the God who saved them:

Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst.

You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim

(for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and you are invited, you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods. (Exodus 34:11-16)

When God's people renewed the covenant at Shechem Joshua challenged Israel:

'Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the river, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.' (Joshua 24:15)

The gods of Egypt, the gods of Canaan, or the LORD; choose!

 

The Wrong Choice

When the people of God demanded of Samuel a king to rule them, they didn't simply say, 'we want a king.' They said, 'Now appoint us a king to lead us, such as all the nations have.' (1 Samuel 8:5) God called them to be holy, but they insisted on being base, like other nations.

Their sin could not have been worse and God comforts a shocked Samuel, 'It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing now.' (1 Samuel 8:7-8)

Their sin was not simply demanding a king, their sin was rejecting the King! It is a sorry tale and it continues into the New Testament. It is a theme we find in the New Testament community of God's people, the church. Paul's letters frequently address the issue; how do we live in order to please God? It puzzles me when I come across Christians who seem to believe they can live the way of the world and still please God.

 

Thessalonica

We can learn a lot from Paul's letter to the church in Thessalonica. In Paul's day, the divisions between church and society were extreme and often dangerously so. He reminds his readers:

'It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him...For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.' (1 Thess.4:3-7)

Paul even goes so far as to echo God's words to Samuel, writing, 'He who rejects this instruction [to live holy lives] does not reject man but God, who gives you the Holy Spirit.' Once again God's people must choose: the gods of this unholy society, or the Lord!

Thessalonica had much in common with Swansea:

Like Swansea, it had a population of about 200,000; like Swansea, it was a sea port and so was quite cosmopolitan; like Swansea, it sat on the main road through the province; like Swansea, it was a regional capital.

It was Greek, with a small Jewish population, and so converts came mostly from a pagan background. Everything Paul said and taught was opposed to popular thinking, and his purpose was to encourage Christians as they lived in a society hostile to Christian thinking and practice. Let me draw some parallels for you.

In the Greco/Roman world female infanticide was rife across all classes. Female infants, and deformed male infants, were regularly and legally exposed on mountains because they were not wanted. One letter from a Roman to his pregnant wife bluntly instructs, 'If you are delivered of a child [while I am away], if it is a boy keep it, if a girl discard.' Perhaps we think this kind of thing couldn't happen today.

That is what the world tells itself. We are civilised, we don't do such things. In the past 40 years over 8 million babies were aborted in the UK, the great majority because of lifestyle choices. One lion gets shot in Africa and people take to the streets, there is a lynch mob and there is talk of extradition. We need to understand that the values of the world are not the values of the kingdom.

Christian women back then enjoyed significantly higher status than their pagan counterparts. Married women were honoured and able to hold property, women held office in the church, and widows were looked after. Infant girls were valued and, where society married off girls at scandalously young ages, in Christian society the norm was marrying older, sometimes as late as 18. In a society with an epidemic of single mothers and irresponsible and absent fathers Christians must stand out again.

Public baths were to be found in such great numbers that one writer of the time wrote, 'Smyrna has so many baths that you would be at a loss to know where to bathe.' (Aelius Aristedes) Mixed nude bathing was not uncommon and, whatever your sexual orientation, sexual activity was the norm in and around these places. A society every bit as promiscuous as that is becoming a fact in our day, and we are to holy.

Three things might be drawn from this chapter of Paul's letter to help us today:

1. Whatever the world says and does, we are to live in order to please God. Like ancient Israel, we are to be a holy people. Paul says it in his letter, 'God did not call us to be impure, but to live holy lives.' (v7) We face that same choice today that they faced. The gods of this world, or the God of the Bible? This means that, on any question regarding our life choices, it is God we consult, and not public opinion.

Our values are to be God's values. Which means, as the people of God, we are to value life, every life. As did that first Christian community, building on established Jewish practice, we are to see life as precious. All mankind is made in the image of God and so we are to have high moral values that reflect that fact, controlling our own bodies, not giving in to lusts. We are to love one another, as Paul urges, 'Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you...Yet we urge you, brothers, to do so more and more.' (vv 9-10)

How does this work out in our daily lives? Paul gives us sound advice, writing, 'Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anyone.' (vv 11-12)

2. The witness of our daily lives is vital to the work of the kingdom, much more so than any arguments, or controversies we may get into. The 'God-fearers' of the Jewish community, those who were not Jews but who adopted many Jewish ideals and practices, were attracted by the lives of Jews they met, worked with, and saw every day. The same is true of those attracted to the Christian community. They are not won simply by arguments, but with love and a good example.

3. Finally, how we live can ultimately prove dangerous. The major theme in Paul's letter is the second coming of Jesus as Lord and King. He reassures believers that their dead loved ones, those who have 'fallen asleep,' as he put it, will not miss out but will share joy with us at the second coming. He continues, 'For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.' vv16-17)

This is so comforting, reassuring, but it is a promise made against the backdrop of what is called the Imperial Cult. If I were to refer to, 'The God manifest...the common saviour of humankind,' you might think of Jesus. But this title was borne by the Emperor. Inscriptions abounded to, '...Caesar Augustus, Saviour of the whole human race...ruler of oceans and continents, the divine father among men, who bears the same name as his heavenly father...Liberator, the marvellous star of the Greek world, shining with the brilliance of the great heavenly Saviour.'

The word Paul used to speak of Christ's second advent is parousia, a word that was used to describe the visit of an emperor. The Emperor Caesar Augustus was hailed as, 'the Son of God.' Where we cry, 'Jesus is Lord!' Romans cried, 'Caesar is Lord!'

In Acts 17 Paul and Silas had trouble in Thessalonica when jealous Jews accused, 'These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here...defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.' (Acts 17:7)

The people said of Caesar, 'With Caesar in charge, peace will not be driven out by civic madness or violence, or the anger that beats swords.' The Emperor bore the titles, Pax (peace) Securitas (Safety, security) Constantia (stability) Felicitas (fortune, happiness). It was against this backdrop of sycophatic flattery that Paul wrote later in this letter:

'The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly...and they will not escape.' (5:3)

Just as was Paul's, our witness is at odds with the world and, like Paul, we may yet pay dear for it. Yet The Lord will come, when least expected, when the world cries peace. Will he find us living to please him? Will he find a holy people, leading quiet but faithful lives, loving one another before a watching world? Because that is what it means to be a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Strangers 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)

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.

Not Another Church!

They were standing on the street corner handing out leaflets, and ‘preaching’ to passers-by. Their dark suits, white shirts, and conservative ties made them easily identifiable. I went over to speak to them. Declining the offer of a tract, I assured them that I was already a Christian and had just come over to say hello. I told them the name of my church and they told me they were with a local Brethren congregation.

“Have you been involved in some of the city-wide inter-church initiatives?” I asked, already knowing the answer I was likely to get. They hadn’t heard of it and looked puzzled at the idea that there should be any initiative beyond that of their own church.

A friend had a similar experience in the city. Seeing someone handing out Christian literature he, like me, went over for a chat. The man had come to the city from a Brethren congregation in the south of England.

“Are you working alongside the Brethren churches in the city?” my friend asked.

“Are there Brethren churches here?” was the response. In other words, these two groups, both from the same denomination and tradition, apparently knew nothing of each other’s existence. You might say this is typical of these particular believers and there is, indeed, an unhealthy exclusivity about Brethren churches. But this failure to acknowledge other churches is not, by any means, confined to them.

One of the questions that come up in conversation with my Christian friends is, why do groups come into our city to establish churches where we already have so many? Why don’t they go to areas outside the city that desperately need churches? And why do these incomers target the areas of our city that are already well served by established and, it may be said, well-heeled congregations? Why don’t they go to the areas where the need is greatest?

It might be argued that there is something symbiotic about the whole business.Go where the success is and you will be more likely to succeed. It certainly can cause bad feeling, leading to charges of ‘sheep-stealing’ as a new congregation benefits in part from the disaffection felt by some in an established church. It also encourages church-hopping, where those who find the long-term challenges of being part of a Christian community too much, and the attraction of a new start irresistible.

So why do ‘incomers’ take it for granted that the place to be is where everybody else is already established? Is it simply laziness? Is there a conscious attempt to begin by plundering the congregations of other churches? I think it is more basic and more troubling still. There is an attitude prevalent across Evangelical and Charismatic churches that says God is moving in our day, but he is only moving in and through us, through me and mine.

There has been, in my almost thirty years as a Christian, a catchphrase trotted out every time any innovation is introduced and challenged in the church, from guitars in Sunday services, to exercising the more spectacular spiritual gifts, to claims of prophetic anointing; ‘God is doing a new thing.’ It has become a trope in some circles, even a test of orthodoxy. In light of it almost anything may be instituted as from God, and Christians dare not question the new thing God is doing at pain of being regarded as dead in their tradition.

It is this attitude, this high-handed approach, I suggest, that motivates the churches that seek to establish themselves where there is ample Christian activity. Its not that they don’t see other churches, nor that they don’t appreciate the need outside and in other parts of the city. Its that they perceive a need where churches are already established because they judge these churches as somehow falling short, of not being the answer the new church is just bound to be because, in them, God is doing a new thing.

With this attitude they fall back on that other old saw, ‘We must get back to first century church!’ It is a model of church that is more real in their imagination than ever it was in this world, but its what they are determined to achieve anyway. It as though they have never read the New Testament and never seen the problems prevalent even in the first century. I am reminded of the saying that ‘the good old days,’ when they were happening, were known as ‘these trying times.’

Having decided that the rich, actually well-served, area of the city is in need of saving from itself, they view it as virgin territory, a mission field. They convince themselves that everyone there should be pleased that this group of pioneer Christians should choose to turn up here, pitch their tent among us and bless us with the message they bring, and with the innovations they insist are better than our bad habits and dead traditions.

There is a naivety about the whole business, certainly, but we must not be sentimental about it. It is damaging to the body of Christ, a threat to the unity in the Spirit that Paul calls for, and it creates and perpetuates bad feeling between churches. Because, make no mistake, if this ‘new thing’ survives, becomes established, especially if it moves from community centres to a permanent building,from a mission-minded group to a mature Christian congregation, others will come after them and despise them as much as they once despised others, seeing in the now established church dead tradition. They will, one day, find themselves asking the questions addressed here and perhaps fail to see the irony.

Paul writes to the troubled Corinthian church, “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” (1 Cor.11:19)

Factions are regrettable, deplorable, but they do serve to test us and distinguish those who are faithful to God’s purposes. This is not, however, an endorsement of factions in the church. In his letter to the Philippian church Paul writes of the view mature Christians should take of things, going on to say, “And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.” (Philippians 3:15-16)

The writer to the Hebrews cautions us against laying foundations where they are already laid (Hebrews 6:1) and Paul writes:

‘It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. Rather it is written, “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.”’ (Ro.15:20-21)

There is a troubling trend in the 21st century church that sees Christians despise anything and everything that is ‘established’ and go off to follow their own Christian way. ‘You don’t have to go to church to be a Christian’ they insist. But you do! Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian, but to ‘be a Christian’ you have to be part of the wider Christian community, be churched, part of a growing group of believers. This individualism is singularly unbiblical, spiritually unhealthy, largely uncalled for, but all-too-often encouraged by churches that set themselves up over and against established churches in the name of innovation, novelty, and some ‘new thing’ they imagine they alone have got hold of.

If you are coming to our city you are most welcome, but don’t seek to establish what is already here. Rather, put your weight behind what is already established. If you do see a need then have the courteously to meet and share your vision with other church leaders in the city. Maybe you can work together with them, benefit from their experience, gain strength from their support. Best of all, go where the need is greatest, where the Word of God is not well established. There is a mission field outside our large conurbations, as well as in the poorer areas within them. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

On Being Disciples: Jesus and Me?

The New Penguin Dictionary (an excellent dictionary I heartily recommend) defines disciple as, ‘a person who learns from, and is much in the company of, a teacher or instructor…’ It goes on to say, ‘any of the followers of Christ during his lifetime…’

The key for our purpose is, ‘much in the company of.’ A disciple is defined as much by the company he keeps as the ideas he embraces. Furthermore, disciples don’t just agree with a set of ideas from their favourite teacher, they emulate that teacher, putting into practice all they see of that teacher’s life. Clearly, learning, for a disciple, includes practice as well as theory.

This is illustrated by the example of the pupils in the music school of the Temple in the Old Testament, “The number of them along with their brothers, who were trained in singing to the LORD, all who were skilful, was 288. And they cast lots for their duties, small and great, teacher and pupil alike.” (1 Chron.25:7-8, ESV)

Another notable Old Testament example is that of Isaiah who, recognising that his message had been rejected by his people, determined to entrust it to a band of followers:

“Bind up the testimony and seal up the law among my disciples. I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob. I will put my trust in him.” (Is.8:16-17)

The parallel between Isaiah’s disciples and the disciples of Jesus is striking. Disciples are entrusted with the prophetic truth of God and are responsible for its preservation, proclamation and application.

Some other notable biblical disciples are, Joshua who was discipled by Moses; Elisha who learned his craft from Elijah; Timothy who learned from Paul. Then, of course, there were the disciples of John the Baptist.

Disciples are not confined to the Bible. Discipleship was commonplace in the ancient world, for example,  Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had their followers. Disciples chose who they would follow so if you were drawn to a materialist philosophy you might follow an Epicurean teacher. If you were searching for a philosophy that taught clear judgement and inner calm you might seek out a Stoic teacher.

Jesus and Me?

In this respect what made Jesus stand out was his statement:

“You did not chose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit...” (Jn.15:16)

What we make of this statement, typically, is that he chose me, personally, as though it is all about me. We use phrases like, my personal Saviour. We sing songs with words like, My Jesus, my Saviour. There is an unhealthy preoccupation with personal pronouns as we imagine Jesus somehow ‘coming through for me.’ There is a ‘Jesus and me’ tone pervading much of Christian thinking today.

We are familiar with the thought expressed as“God has a plan for your life.” We sometimes hear people quote Jeremiah, “’I know the plans I have for you,’declares the LORD, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’” (Jer.29:11)

Well, here goes a sacred cow to slaughter. God doesn't have a plan for your life. Too many Christians hang on to this misunderstood promise in the way children wait for Santa on Christmas eve. Too many name-it-and-claim-it frauds build up false and worldly hopes in naive people on the basis of such thinking. But God doesn’t have a plan for your life. Rather, God has a plan and your life fits into it for his purposes.

Sometimes God’s  plan will require something very specific for you, concerning your career, your calling, your life-partner, even where you live. Missionaries of all kinds are called to spread the gospel further afield over many years of sacrifice and service; church leaders are called to work locally, giving up worldly ambitions to serve the church in key roles; volunteers are called to serve in various ways in the church and community.

However, God doesn't always have a specific plan but simply wants you to be obedient. If you marry you should marry well, meaning marrying a Christian, you should work hard, raise a family, and do all things to the glory of God and, by the way, sometimes he uses you in a particular way. Otherwise simply live for him wisely and faithfully. In other words, since Jesus chose us for his purposes it is not about me and my bespoke life plan, but about Jesus and my faithfulness and obedience to his plan.

Next time I will look at what is God’s plan and how we fit into it.

Jesus, Yes! Church, No!

Have you heard someone say that? “Jesus, yes! Church, no!” It is so easy to be impressed by Jesus, so difficult, sometimes, to be impressed by his followers. “Call themselves Christian!” people say when they see us fall short, sometimes spectacularly, of their expectations.

When you hang out your shingle you can expect the world to be watching. That’s why its important for us to be humble, to be seen to to acknowledge our failings (repent) and to demonstrate integrity even when we fail. We also need to be able to deal with people’s misconceptions about church, what it is and why it is less than perfect.

Church must be one of the most controversial and divisive doctrines in the Christian faith. Perhaps that is why so many avoid the subject, except when they speak of it in the most general terms. Most Christians are quite comfortable with the idea of the church triumphant, the final and complete picture of the church in heaven. However the idea of the church militant, the church as it is now on earth, presents apparently insuperable problems.

So we fudge the issue and settle for the idea of the church invisible, that is all Christians in all places and at all times whether here or gone to glory and, most importantly, known only to God. Of course this is a good definition. The church certainly comprises all, whenever or wherever, who have and will yet put their trust in Christ and become born again into his kingdom. However, it will not do simply to think of "you in your small corner, and me in mine". Scripture teaches that "Christ loved the church and gave his life for it" (Eph.5:25)  We should be able to define and describe the object of his love and invite people to enter with us into that love.

Not a Building

Christ did not die for a building. We have so often heard it said that the church is the people and not the building (see my last post) and we believe that. Yet we still refer to "the church on the corner" and speak of "going to church". These conventions, not to mention buildings, are useful as long as we don't allow them to mislead us and, more importantly, mislead those to whom we have a responsibility to give a clear witness.

Neither did Christ die for an institution. Christians, of necessity, need to organise themselves and so we have church organisations. We need to have some form of government and order so we choose leaders, hopefully by inspiration of the Spirit, who will teach and counsel (1 Tim.3:2-3:8.c.f.) It is worth noting that church leaders are servants, not bosses! Inevitably out of this organising activity institutions grow, which is good and helpful so long as the institution serves the church and not the church the institution.

The Christian life begins with a change in our relationship with the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Christian baptism is into God and not into an organisation. At Pentecost, when the conscience-struck people cried, "Brothers, what shall we do?", Peter replied, "Repent and be baptised, 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." (Acts 2:38). Repentance is a turning to God in genuine sorrow for sin, baptism is into, or "in the name of" Christ, who is God.

After listing, in Ephesians 1, all the marvellous spiritual blessings we enjoy in Christ, the apostle Paul wrote, "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit…" (V.13). Everyone sealed this way is added to the number of believers, those who are being saved (Acts 2:47)

The Church is…

This "number of believers" is the church which is made up of "living stones" for, "As you come to him, the living Stone - rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him - you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house…" (1 Peter 2:4-5). Paul also reminds us that we are "God's building"; that we are "God's temple, and that God's Spirit lives in [us]" (1 Cor. 3:9 & 16) All these references are plural by the way. There is no place in the body of Christ for lone believers.

Church is not an organisation but an organism; not a structure but a body; not marked by offices and hierarchies but by the life of the Spirit in true believers. An obvious question is,  Why don't we see in the church the fruits of such an intimate relationship? In his book I Believe in the Church David Watson wrote, "Those who have recently declared that…the church is redundant…must know little of the God of history, the God who raised Jesus back to life, and the God who is able to work through human suffering and sin to reveal his reality to the world".

Until…

In Ephesians we read:

"And he gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers to prepare God's people to works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we 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" (Eph.4:11-14)

Now what will the church look like "until we reach a unity in the faith…and become mature?” Unity is not something that falls out of heaven into our laps. It is something that develops as we give ourselves to "works of service" and apply ourselves to the apostle's teaching (Acts 2:42) "so that the body of Christ (the church) may be built up until we all reach a unity of the faith".

Of course there is no room for complacency and every Christian seeks that maturity in the church. But since the church is living stones and not Portland stone, and since we are " being built into a spiritual house" there is need for grace as we become what we are destined to be.

There is a biblical precedent for such a view of the church - Israel, God's chosen people in the Old Testament. When you read the account of God's dealings with them they often looked like anything but the elect of God. Consider the account at the time of the judges when "everyone did as he saw fit". (Judges 21:25)

Or the time when Eli's sons showed contempt for the Lord's offering (1 Samuel 2) Or the times when Israel had to be punished for following other gods and worshipping in the high places (Ezekiel 20) Think of Samson who went straight from a brothel to do the work of a judge amongst God's people (Judges 16:1)

Or Saul who, with bitterness in his heart and evil intent, nevertheless could not help but prophecy along with the prophets of Israel (1 Samuel 19) Consider further the dividing of the kingdom and the warring factions within Israel. Good times, bad times, Israel never stopped being Israel - and the church never stops being the church.

Archbishop William Temple observed:

"What we must completely get away from is the notion that the world as it now exists is a rational whole; we must think of its unity not by the analogy of a picture, of which all parts exist at once, but by the analogy of a drama, where, if it is good enough, the full meaning of the first scene only becomes apparent with the final curtain; and we are in the middle of this. Consequently the world as we see it is strictly unintelligible. We can only have faith that it will become intelligible when the divine purpose, which is the explanation of it, is accomplished." ( F. A. Iremonger, William Temple [London, 1948], p.22)

The church is also in the middle of the drama. What a great picture!  It is a drama, in process, and the full meaning will indeed become apparent with the final curtain. Meanwhile we must recognise what we are in the middle of, and to what end it is taking us. Times test us and prove us and the world see this. Much is not right and we need to be vigilant in declaring truth, correcting error, seeking to know more intimately the mind and will of God, and becoming what we ought.

For this we have scripture and, "all scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim.3:16), W have the indwelling Spirit who gives life (2 Cor.3:6); helps us in our weakness (Rom.8:26); helps us bear fruit (Gal.5:22); and will guide us into all truth (John 16:13).

But we must trust that the building work continues and that God's plan for his church, despite the dire pronouncements of those who would write us off and start afresh, continues apace. For it is his church and his work and "He who began a good work in [us] will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus" (Philip.1:6).

Power, Authority and Historical Perspective–Ascension

In the last post we began to look at how Jesus, before his ascension, prepared the disciples for the task of taking the gospel “to the end of the earth.” He offered them, many convincing proofs that he was alive.” (Acts 1:3); He opened their minds to understand Scripture, giving them a biblical theology; He promised to send the Holy Spirit, giving them a spiritual dimension. To continue:

4. He sent them out with power and authority.

Jesus gave them authority to speak about all they had seen and heard him do. Here we have apostolic authority and an evangelistic programme. Our remit is to faithfully pass on the account of what the apostles saw and testified to. These are the people who can declare down through history,

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life...that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you.” (1 John 1:1-3)

These men are described in Acts 4 when they are brought before the Jewish authorities to account for having healed a beggar and preached Christ. “By what power or in what name did you do this?” they are asked. Peter replied, “It is in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.”

The Bible then says, “When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realised that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.” (4:13)

We are not free to make the message in the image of our own impressions no matter how much cleverer, better educated we think we are, or how well developed our theology. There is no “that was then, this is now” dynamic in this story. What they saw and heard, what they testified to, we are charged to faithfully pass on. The writer of Hebrews wrote:

We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?

This salvation which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (Heb.2:1-4)

5. They had been with Jesus and he had shown them his glory.

Having prepared them, taught them, empowered and commissioned them, Jesus showed them his glory. He was taken up from them and, we are told, a cloud took him out of their sight. But this was no ordinary cloud, no cumulus from the weather map, but a cloud of glory. The important thing about the ascension story is not the question of whether heaven is somehow “up there,” but about the fact that Jesus returned to his former glory, God left the scene in physical form and was to come to believers in spiritual form. Finally, we are told:

“They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 'Men of Galilee,; they said, 'why do you stand there looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:10-11)

It is possible to be too earthly minded to be any heavenly good, but we can also be too heavenly minded to be any earthly good.  While there is nothing wrong with the prayer, “Come, Lord Jesus!” nevertheless we must be about the business before us. Some ask why it is we don’t have continuous mountain top experiences. It is because the work is in the valley and, like the disciples, we must return from the mountain top of whatever special experience God has been pleased to give us and get on with things, find a gospel focus. We can find that focus if we get these things into historical context:

1. Jesus returned to heaven (Ascension)

2. The Holy Spirit came (Pentecost)

3. The Church goes out to witness (Mission)

4. Jesus will come back (Parousia)

We are in the mission phase of God’s great plan for the redemption of creation and mission and discipleship is our focus until king Jesus comes to sum up the whole cosmos in himself. When the disciples returned from the Mount of Olives we are told, “They all joined together constantly in prayer...” We do not worship the book, nor do we adhere to the dead accounts of past events, but we treasure the account preserved for us and faithfully transmitted to our time. It is our task to prayerfully and faithfully pass it on until he comes.

Previously: To the End of the Earth – Ascension

Jesus Prepares his Disciples – Ascension

Jesus Prepares His Disciples–Ascension

In the last post we saw Jesus give his disciples a task that would see the known civilised world hear about Jesus by the end of the century and Christianity become the official religion of empire within 300 years. How did Jesus prepare them for such a work?

1. He showed himself to them. Jesus' post-resurrection appearances were not simply magic tricks but were vital in presenting evidence of the reality of the resurrection. Luke describes these appearances as , “many convincing proofs that he was alive.” (Acts 1:3)

Paul tells us “he appeared to [Peter] then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time...Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me also.” (1 Cor:15:5-8)

During these times, we’re told, “He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom.” (Acts 1:3) These were his parting instructions and what the disciples passed on to others, to us, are the words of Jesus.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus ascended the way he did? He had been appearing and disappearing miraculously for forty days. Why didn't he just go and not come back? I suggest it is because he wanted their focus to change. They were not to wait around for his next resurrection appearance but were to wait for the Holy Spirit.

“On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ‘Do not leave Jerusalem but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptised with water, but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 1:4-5)

God had been with them for three years in the person of Jesus but now it is by the Holy Spirit that God was to dwell in his people. It is interesting to step back and take a panoramic view of Luke’s account. Luke began with the temple in his gospel, with the story of Zechariah, and now he ends his gospel story with the promise of a new, living temple. A temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Paul writes,

Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?(1 Cor.3:16)

The Spirit would to come to make the church, the people of God, a living temple. Luke brings the church onto the scene with a clear picture of what church is; a blood-bought, Spirit-filled, kingdom-motivated new humanity. There are huge things of eternal consequence happening here. It is these great truths to which the disciples are witnesses to the ends of the earth. John wrote,

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life...that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you.” (1 John 1:1-3)

I wonder if we value as we should these first eye-witness accounts? Every time we read them they witness to us again.

2. He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, explaining that all that had happened was a fulfilment of what had been prophesied in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms.  We see him do this with the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:45-46)

Here we see Jesus cutting across their confusion over recent events and developing a biblical theology; it is written. Jesus peppered his teaching with “it is written” How can we be sure this message is true? Because God promised it of old, Jesus fulfilled it when the time was right, the disciples witnessed it and we are commissioned to tell the good news of it in the same power of the Holy Spirit and with the same biblical and apostolic authority; it is written.

His commissioning words to the disciples, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you” apply to us and the message we are sent to proclaim is what is written by them, the message of Scripture. Every truth claim is brought to the plumb-line of God's written word. Every proclamation of God's word should be firmly rooted in Scripture and every promise on which we stand is found in the Bible and fulfilled in the wonderful events the Bible describes.

3. He sent his Holy Spirit, giving us a spiritual dynamic. What we have to share with the world isn't simply dry words, speculative philosophy, ink on paper, but the preaching of the Word is accompanied by the work of the Holy Spirit that convicts sinners, changes hearts, forms new minds, makes a people new in Christ.

When someone comes under the preaching of the word and finds themselves convicted by what they hear it is not the persuasive power of the preacher but the work of the Spirit that has brought conviction. When someone acts on that conviction and is moved to turn to Jesus the preaching informs them but it is the Spirit that moves them. When they confess their need of a Saviour and are born again it is the work of the Spirit not of the preacher.

When people challenge, “Where is this Saviour who is supposed to come again? Where is your God?” we can reply that God already dwells in his people by the power of the Holy Spirit. He has not left us orphans; we don't operate in his absence. The Bible speaks of the Spirit's power in Christians to witness effectively, for victory over sin, over Satan, and power to work miracles.

We will look again at power and authority and discover where we fit in this great scheme to redeem all creation and bring all things under one head, king Jesus.

Previously: To the End of the Earth – Ascension

To the End of the Earth–Ascension

The pivotal point of history is the resurrection of Jesus. Everything that went before led up to this one defining event and all that comes after is viewed in light of it. The hope of the ages is realised in the sacrificial death and triumphant resurrection of Jesus. For every person looking for identity, purpose and hope the Cross and the empty tomb offer the answer. The apostle Paul wrote to Christians in Corinth:

I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures … (1 Cor. 15:3-5)

He goes on in this same passage to declare that, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” (1 Cor.15:14) We may quibble over some points of doctrine and there will be secondary issues but if this isn't true, if Christ is not risen and only in this life we have hope, we are, Paul writes, “of all men to be pitied.” (1 Cor.15:19)

And to the Ephesian believers Paul sums up God's great plan in this way:

In the king, and through his blood, we have deliverance – that is, our sins have been forgiven – through the wealth of his grace which he lavishes on us. Yes, with all wisdom and insight he has made known to us the secret of his purpose, just as he wanted it to be and set it forward in him as a blueprint for when the time was ripe. His plan was to sum up the whole cosmos in the king, - yes, everything in heaven and on earth in him. (Eph.1:7-10 Tom Wright, New Testament for Everyone)

So – What Next?

There is a plan and it is founded on that great work done on the cross of Calvary and the power demonstrated by an empty tomb. It is summed up in God's purpose to renew everything in King Jesus. So what happens next?

When it comes to the ascension we can treat it as a high point in what is otherwise a sort of hiatus, the time we are marking between the miracle of the resurrection and the drama of Pentecost. Nothing more than a signal in the story that Jesus has now gone back to glory, a waiting time. Indeed Jesus did say “Wait in Jerusalem until the promised Holy Spirit comes.”

But so much more happened in the days leading up to Pentecost, indeed a full ten days before Pentecost the church already had been given an assurance of power to act, an authority to speak, a mandate to go, and a clear Bible message to share; clear teaching about “what next.”

I wonder how big is your vision of God's plan?

After all they had seen and heard the disciples' vision was still too small. As they stood with him on the Mount of Olives they asked Jesus “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” They were still thinking of a military and political restoration such as had happened before, when invaders had been repelled, when God's people brought back from exile once again inhabited the land free and unmolested. Jesus' answer tells us two things:

1. “It is not for you to know times and seasons.” How often have these simple but clear words been overlooked in some complicated scheme that plots days and weeks, months and years, and arrives at a date for the end of the world, only for the day to pass unremarked except for more embarrassing headlines about failed prophecy and wacky preachers? It is not for us to know but it is for us to turn to the business in hand. So what are we to do until that great day comes when he returns?

2. “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses...to the end of the earth.” The vision is much bigger than physical Israel.It was not about a plot of land in the Middle East, a discrete people group.  This was a greater vision than they could possibly have imagined. It encompasses the restoration of the whole of creation – to the end of the earth.

After the events of the Mount on Olives, the ascension, the disciples returned to Jerusalem we are told. And in an upper room just 120 of them met together, talked about recent events and prayed.

Today there are between 2.2billion and 2.6billion people in the world who self-identify as Christians. If you are fortunate to live in a free country you may be aware of many different churches in your town or city. Your own church, you know, is just one of countless churches around the world.

Put yourself in that upper room. Imagine a disparate group of people with no money, no influence, indeed considered outcasts after their leader had suffered an ignoble execution on a Roman cross. The fact of the resurrection would surely have given you incredible confidence, the promise of the Holy Spirit instilled great hope. But – to the end of the earth?

Are you ready for that, people most of whom had never left Israel? So unfamiliar with the end of the earth that they thought the Lake of Galilee was a sea? Are you ready?  Next time we'll look at how Jesus prepared the disciples for a task that would see the known world hear about Jesus by the end of the century and the whole Roman world accept Christianity as the state religion within 300 years.

Fire brigade cuts Christian references from Remembrance service - Telegraph

I am so sorry that those big, butch brave boys in the Norfolk fire service are so sensitive and tender-hearted that the very idea of religion offends their little sensibilities.

"A fire brigade has removed all religious references from its remembrance service after complaints from staff.

The Church said it was “a big step” to take but the decision was welcomed by the National Secular Society, which said religion had no place in the annual commemorations.

Norfolk’s fire service said it had taken the decision because some staff felt excluded in previous years by the Christian references during Remembrance Day.”

Although, it has to be said, their aversion to religion seems incredibly selective. Isn’t this the same fire service that sent a great big, kissy-kissy “Happy Eid” greeting to Muslims on September 10th?

They eschew the Christian faith that gave us the values for which those we remember fought so bravely and send good wishes to the faith that burns a giant poppy on the stroke of eleven to coincide with the two minutes silence to mark the Armistice. Of course, the National Secular Society is doing its usual high-minded gloating. Does this mindless ingratitude and rank hypocrisy take your breath away? It does mine.

Fire brigade cuts Christian references from Remembrance service - Telegraph

Proclaiming Jesus from the Roof Tops | Christian Concern

An excellent comment on the increasing restrictions on Christian activity in the UK and the difference between freedom to worship and freedom of religion.

“What kind of freedom of religion do we want to see in the UK? The freedom to worship in private, unseen and behind closed doors - or the freedom to practice and boldly proclaim our faith in public?”

Proclaiming Jesus from the Roof Tops | Christian Concern

Something For The Weekend

When I first saw the headline “Christians Complain about EastEnders” I thought perhaps some group of culturally savvy Christians had had enough, made a stand and demanded this poor excuse for a TV drama be taken off our TV screens. But no, this country’s taste for low end, badly-written, poorly acted and depressingly repetitive kitchen sink drama is nowhere near being satiated.

I remember when these programmes were interesting portrayals of lives lived out on the gritty streets of Northern towns, or farming communities in the Dales. But I haven’t watched one since Ena Sharples got buried under the railway viaduct and everyone in the snug of the Rover’s Return commiserated with Ena’s best friend, Minnie Caldwell, buying her milk stouts and lending a shoulder to cry on.

These days, soaps are a grotesque parody of themselves as they present increasingly implausible plots in a breakneck race to top the previous week’s plot with ever-more improbably complicated relationships and more incredible cliff-hangers to keep an increasingly credulous public on the edge their seats awaiting the next excruciating episode. Anyone who followed Jimmy McGovern’s groundbreaking drama, The Street, in recent times will surely have been spoiled for this sort of pap served up three times a week, the opiate of the people.

No, the complaint is about the portrayal of a Pentecostal pastor who turns out to be your typical neighbourhood wacky Christian wife murderer. It is a negative portrayal, they insist, and wonder if the BBC would have portrayed a Muslim cleric in such a bad light. I see what they mean, of course, but it isn’t as if this is a departure from the norm when it comes to portraying Christians in TV dramas. And isn’t this “you wouldn’t do it to Muslims” lark wearing a bit thin. It’s true enough but it is a tired old argument that everyone knows is true but it falls on deaf ears.

The aforementioned Ena Sharples, if I recall, was the caretaker of the local mission hall back in the ‘60s, and she was a right busybody, criticising the lifestyles of other inhabitants of Coronation Street and telling them to “think on.” A popular ploy for drama writers is to make the vicar gay (I think that was EastEnders too), or a woman in a comedy role – the vicar of Dibley, a limp and overwhelmed by it all liberal, as in the latest TV comedy “Rev”, or a hellfire and damnation, Pope-hating, Presbyterian with a Northern Irish accent (you couldn’t make it up)

What concerns me, however, is not how Christians are portrayed on television. After all, dramas revolve around conflict, that is built on character flaws and the bible is chock full of those, and comedy is founded on an oblique look at the ridiculous, and how can that happen if the vicar isn’t somehow funny, intentionally or otherwise. No, what bothers me is that Christians watch EastEnders. I think people who watch these things can distinguish between a dramatised portrayal of the clergy and the local pastor in their street. But what will they think of the faith when Christians show themselves so unimaginative in their choice of entertainment? Like sin, poor taste is something you expect from the world but, surely Christians need to aim much higher.

Christian preacher arrested by homosexual police officer for saying that homosexuality is a sin - CCFON.org - Christian Concern For Our Nation

Gays in uniform are now taking the law into their own hands. It is not enough that they are legal, they have to make anyone and everyone who disagrees with them illegal. They as fascist as any right-wing movement that defames and condemns them. Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens wrote:

‘The Public Order Act of 1986 was not meant to permit the arrest of Christian preachers in English towns for quoting from the Bible.  But it has.  The Civil Partnerships Act 2004 was not meant to force public servants to approve of homosexuality.  But it has.

‘The Sexual Offences Act of 1967 was not meant to lead to a state of affairs where it is increasingly dangerous to say anything critical about homosexuality.  But it did.

‘And the laws of Britain, being entirely based upon the Christian Bible, were not meant to be used by a sneering judge to declare that Christianity had no higher status in this ancient Christian civilisation than Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism.

‘But it has come to that this week,’ he wrote.

‘We have travelled in almost no time from repression, through a brief moment of mutual tolerance, to a new repression.  And at the same time, the freedom of Christians to follow their beliefs in workplaces is under aggressive attack.’

Christian preacher arrested by homosexual police officer for saying that homosexuality is a sin - CCFON.org - Christian Concern For Our Nation

Religious Liberty Monitoring: PERSECUTION, whatever that is.

A thoughtful and intelligent blog on the nature of persecution asking whether we are being “persecuted” in the UK. Elizabeth Kendal’s Religious Liberty Monitoring blog is well worth the time to visit.

“When it comes to showing what we believe about the Lordship of the Risen Christ, I advocate that the Church stop wasting time appealing to "Pharaoh" (Exodus 5:15) and instead, look to the Lord, our crowing glory, for the "strength to turn back the battle at the gate" (Isaiah 28:5-6).”

Religious Liberty Monitoring: PERSECUTION, whatever that is.

Latest News - Gospel for Asia UK

Ignorance and superstition defeated by light and faith. God still works today, you just have to look.

The people in Rijul's village worshiped a plethora of gods and goddess, and Rijul's family was no different. But there was one god that captured most of their devotion.

Rijul and his family believed if they worshiped this god, it would give them power to have victory over their enemies. But Rijul received no strength as he battled his own inner weaknesses.

Latest News - Gospel for Asia UK

Charity in a Moral Vacuum?

By last night (20/03/’10) the popular charity initiative Sport Relief had raised almost £30 million for charitable causes both abroad and in the UK. Via telethons and sponsored events such as running the Sport Relief Mile huge sums have flooded into the charity and much more is expected to be raised in events up and down the country this weekend.

You would have to be churlish to the point of perverse to not celebrate the good-hearted generosity of people and the great and practical good that is done as a result of such events. From the now historic Band Aid concert, through the well established British institution Comic Relief to Sport Relief and even the money raised for causes by the National Lottery  much good is done.

However, I can’t help but think that when we look back at 19th century missionary societies and, indeed, their 21st century counterparts, and consider how they are represented in our social and cultural histories they don’t come out well. Yet they did, and continue to do much the same in raising resources to help developing societies, feed the hungry, teach the ill-educated, protect the vulnerable – and share the gospel. This last is what our secular society finds little to celebrate about, being suspicious about the fact that what they do is done in the name of Christianity. But what is the difference between going into a country in the name of liberal democracy and insisting that something must be done and things have to change and doing the same in the name of Christian charity?

Christian teaching, building, nursing and, yes, evangelistic missions are carried out by people who have chosen to serve a moral cause because they have committed their lives to a moral course. Unlike the celebrities who front events like Sport Relief and who fly in for a few days filming and then fly out to talk endlessly into a camera about how harrowing and moving was their experience, Christian missionaries devote years, sometimes their whole lives in the cause to which they are committed. Sometimes they sacrifice their lives to serve their God by serving “the least of these” (Mt.25:45)

The difference, it seems to me, and the great advantage to a secular society of such charitable events as Sport Relief is that, where Christian missionaries serve a moral cause because committed to a moral course, here people can serve a moral cause without making a commitment to a moral course. In this way they can salve their conscience, feel they are doing some good, but make no fundamental change to the way they live their daily lives.

It looks as though they are living their lives in a morally neutral world. One in which they can give and serve if it suits but pass on the other side if not. But this is not a morally neutral world and the requirements, indeed commandments of the God who made us apply equally to everyone in it. That is why mission exists in its most fundamental, evangelistic form. It is ironic that, while many perhaps feel that charity without religion is the best of all possible worlds, the greatest good that can be done them in this world is to remind them of their obligations to God and of what he requires of them “in these last days” (Acts 17:29-30)

Every effort at helping and serving the needy and vulnerable is to be applauded but as Christians the greatest help we could ever offer is to pray for and be involved in the mission of the church to “go into all the world and tell the good news” (Mt.28:16-20) It is not always popular but we may as well nail our colours to the mast – the world has.

BBC News - Muslim protester denies plan to upset Luton parade

Muslims desecrated the proud occasion when  the Royal Anglian Regiment marched through Luton town centre at a homecoming parade on 10 March last year. As British citizens expressed their pride and gratitude to brave British troops a group of Muslims hurled abuse and insults, calling them murderers and baby-killers.

“A Muslim protester accused of calling soldiers murderers at a parade claims he did not intend to upset anyone.

Munim Abdul told Luton magistrates he did not expect to cause offence because his group had spoken ‘the truth’.”

Their defence is that if its the truth then it is not abuse. Remember this the next time you hear an hysterical Muslim crying “Islamophobia”; if it is the truth then it is not abuse and therefore not a prejudice. Here are some truths about Islam which I hope will cause no offence because their true.

You will hear people declare that Islam is a peaceful religion and that “Islam means peace!” This is not the truth. Islam means submission and even if you submit to Islam there is little chance of peace since within 50 years of the prophets death Muslims were at each other’s throats and have been murdering each other ever since. Have you ever wondered why Muslims would blow up Mosques?

It is a fact that not all Muslims are terrorists but the majority of terrorists are Muslims (read who said it here). Islam is historically, culturally and temperamentally a vanquishing and subjugating religion. The Christian Crusades are a complicated historical phenomenon but make no mistake they were a response to a violent Islam that fought and butchered its way to the South Iberian Peninsula and posed a real and present threat to Christian Europe. Many of the countries and communities we today regard as Muslim were, in fact, Christian and only became Muslim by conquest. Eastwards, Islam warred its way as far as SE Asia in the same way. Ask the Hindu how he sees the history of Islam on the Indian continent.

Of course, any religion is a mix of dogmas, cultures, traditions and other influences. That is why it is quite reasonable to say that my Muslim neighbour and yours are decent, peace-loving people whose concerns in life are common enough, family, security, community, etc. But does he share our values because of his religion or in spite of his religion?

Jesus told his disciples to “Go into all the world and tell the Good News to all creation” (Mark 16:15) He said “But I say to you, do not resist evil, but whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:39)

Muhammad declared, “Against [the unbelievers] make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, who ye may know, but whom God doth not” (Q 8:59-60)

This Muslim group have abused the very freedoms fought for by those soldiers, freedoms not available under Muslim rule. We must welcome the stranger and proffer our hospitality and those who seek to live among us, as one of us, are welcome to adopt and embrace our values. However, those who seek security in the notion that, if you concede a little territory, accommodate a little sharia,  allow cultural ghettos in the name of peace and liberal values then all will be well, are tragically mistaken. Remember the fable of the camel's nose:

One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the Arab, "and welcome" as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, "May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do." "Yes, yes," said the Arab. "Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us." So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

BBC News - Muslim protester denies plan to upset Luton parade

Why Mormons Have problems with Jude

How often have you set out to argue your case for your Christian faith with a Mormon only to be met by a determination on their part to maintain what they regard a civilised detachment, insisting they don’t want to be contentious? You expect at least a lively discussion, for your Mormon friend to give a good account of his/her faith, but they imperiously declare that they don’t engage in such dubious and uncharitable bickering.

They quote the late Krister Stendahl, (1921-April 2008) one time Bishop of Stockholm and renowned religious pluralist, who said that when you are trying to understand another religion, don’t compare your best with their worst. Of course, in quoting him like this, they are doing that very thing, comparing their admirable determination to stay out of it with your unfortunate propensity to argue.

Mormons have a real problem with Jude. Jude instructs Christians to "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3) But Mormons confuse contending for the faith with being contentious, arguing your case with being argumentative. You are left staring incredulously as the Mormon runs every time to the protection of "contention is of the devil. I would never drag down your church!"

This way the actual issues that stand between Mormons and Christians (and they are legion) never actually get addressed. Not least the fact that the Mormon Church is built on a claim that specifically “tears down” other churches (Joseph Smith History, 1:19)

Jude wrote, "Contend for the faith" and if today's Mormons can't bring themselves to defend their beliefs and contend for their faith they are actually being unbiblical. Mormons will protest that any such argument as you present is based on the idea that Mormons are not Christians and since Mormons are Christians your argument is hollow. But this response postulates the very thing that is in contention and is yet to be demonstrated. Their view is based on the hubristic assumption that what Mormons believe is true beyond doubt or revision, is not there to be questioned but received gratefully, and therefore anyone questioning Mormonism is misled, mischievous or plain wicked

Ultimately it excuses the Mormon from the biblical injunctions to "contend for the faith" and "go into all the world telling the good news". The refusal to engage is hard-hearted because it says in effect, "I ‘know it’s true’ and if you don't believe it, tough luck." You may be a soul to win but because you come up with good questions and won't just roll over and express your undying admiration for all things Mormon no one will contend for your soul. So it’s the Terrestrial Kingdom for you.

A Mormon will cite the words of Jesus, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Mt.7:1). However, the idea that we should not judge is unbiblical in respect to the words of Jude. Even Paul urged his readers to "judge for yourself what I say" (1 Co.10:14) and the saints of Berea are commended as noble for "examining the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11) Proverbs counsels us to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Pro.31:8-9) (What about the spiritual poor and needy)

The injunction from the Lord that we should not judge is a warning to not put ourselves in the place of God as ultimate judge. It does not condone the strange idea that we are not to use wise judgement. Scripture counsels us to judge wisely in doctrine and practice, in faith and action. We judge what company we keep, what we believe and what we reject as untrue, how we respond to the needs of others and who we trust. And James, so beloved of Mormons, wrote a whole letter about wisdom and sound judgement in how we conduct ourselves and live out our faith (Js.1:5 has nothing to do with finding truth but with the wise application of the truth we have. See how he develops his argument in Js.3:17)

Many Mormons are raised in almost entirely Mormon communities and many others come under no other influence. Until they serve a mission, or venture onto the Internet for the first time, or engage in this discussion they are so keen to avoid they never hear any other argument. They are drilled with these ideas by their families and church leaders who will shake their heads in regret more than anger that muddle-headed Christians, influenced by anti-Mormon elements, still misunderstand Mormonism and would rather contend than act in the grace so clearly taught in the Bible. But Jude wrote that we should “Contend for the faith.”

Jesus said that if we love our friends we only do what the heathens do. It seems to me that Mormons only want to love their friends and only want to keep company with those who love them back. But Jude said that we should contend for the faith; perhaps because he felt he had a faith worth contending for and because there are souls out there worth the battle.

---

Note: You may ask how a man like Krister Stendahl, Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm, religious pluralist, ecumenical and gay rights activist and champion of women’s ordination, came to be a champion for the anti-clerical, anti-gay, anti-women’s ordination and staunchly conservative Mormon Church.

It seems that in 1985 the Mormon Church met strong opposition to their building a temple in Stockholm. In a press conference Stendahl took the part of the Mormons and presented his three rules of understanding, developed in response to this crisis for Mormons. It was, then, not so much a meeting of minds but more a case of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.” Strange bedfellows indeed.

Stendahl’s rules are:

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

These are very helpful as a rule of thumb and we mustn’t dismiss them as guides to conduct but:

(1) what if the adherents of the religion are deceived or, heaven forbid, deceiving? Would we have been considered wise to ask Kenneth Lay about Enron?

(2) What if direct comparisons don’t help except in the most general of terms, since generalisation is a lie. Mormons are nice people but what does that tell us?

(3) What if you find nothing to envy and much to regret about their religion? How far would investigators have got in probing the truth about Enron if they had grubbed around determined to find something to like?

Christian hotel owners face ruin after 'defending their faith' in row with a Muslim guest | Mail Online

 It started as a religious discussion over the breakfast table at a private hotel.

Several months later, the Christian owners face ruin after a Muslim guest complained that she had been insulted. Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang are being prosecuted under controversial public order laws designed to target yobbish and abusive behaviour on the streets.

While everyone is making the economy the central issue in the run up to the next election an equally serious issue is going unnoticed; this government’s obsession with policing and micromanaging our lives. This story is a case in point.

A Christian couple who run an hotel in Aintree got involved in a religious discussion with one of their guests, who turned out to be a Muslim lady having treatment in a local hospital. Exchanges were said to be “warm”, the couple insisting they were simply defending their faith against remarks made by the guest. The lady complained to the police and the couple now face a possible £5,000 fine and a police record, as well as losing regular business from the hospital as a result of the incident.

I have to say that if you are running a business that depends on the good will of the public it seems the height of folly to be so forthright in your views as to risk your reputation and damage your livelihood, especially when the woman is a patient in the hospital on which you depend for 80% of your business; you are asking to make her a victim and you a villain. “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” (Proverbs 15:1) I am all for being “fools for Christ” but I don’t see anything in the Christian faith that demands foolishness. That having been said since when was it against the law to be foolish?

The issue here, however, is that the views we hold, the thoughts we have, our right to express them and the common and well-established principle that we all occasionally have to hear things we don’t like without being a girl about it are all under threat. George Orwell observed:

“Liberty is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear”

The thought police don’t agree and, sponsored by the liberal agenda prevalent across parties today, they are all over us like a rash and they are showing an alarming bias.

You remember the story of the woman caught “in the act” of adultery who was brought before Jesus (John 8:3). The question often asked is, if she was caught “in the act” where was the man? In the same way, since this was a “discussion” why is only one party in the dock?

The newspaper reports, “It is alleged they suggested that Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was a warlord when the guest challenged them about their Christian beliefs. The woman also claims that the couple, who vehemently deny the allegations and say they were simply defending their faith, described her traditional dress as a form of bondage.”

She said something, they said something, feelings ran a little high and the thought police ran to the defence of the perceived victim. But there is no victim, only an exchange of views, a disagreement and what used to be called, before the world went mad, “ a bit of an argy-bargy”. In political circles such exchanges, when they occur, are euphemistically labelled “a frank exchange of views”, everyone picks up on the sub text and moves on. Why is religious discussion treated differently?

It is because we live in a secular society and officialdom “can’t be asked” to bring wise and equitable judgement to these situations. In their efforts to achieve a “fair” and liberal society they have developed a vision of the future that sees religion effectively privatised. Influenced by such “fine philosophers” as Dawkins and Hitchens (that was a joke) they feel they can dismiss religion as socially insignificant, even dangerous.

The problem is that, notwithstanding the bad-tempered pronouncements of curmudgeons like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens et al, people have faith and express and practice it in a variety of ways.

Notably, both Islam and Christianity are evangelising religions so trying to privatise religions with declared society impacting intentions, and with those religions making up the greater part of the earth’s population, seems ambitious to say the least. I suppose the default position in that case is to placate the religion that is perceived to pose the greatest threat and oppress the religion that is little more than irritating and and inconvenient.

If these darling liberals are determined to defend the rights of Muslims to live and express their faith, sometimes in very offensive and threatening ways it must be said, they must defend the right of Christians to the same degree, even if they can be foolish about it sometimes.

I have said that both both faiths are evangelising religions but that has not always been true of Islam. In his book From Babel to Dragomans the orientalist Bernard Lewis writes of Islam as a conquering religion observing that:

“In traditional Islamic states, the business of government was carried on by two main groups, known as the men of the sword and the men of the pen. The former were the armed forces, the latter the civilian bureaucrats…the two together were commonly considered to be the twin pillars of the state…The Fatimids, for the first time in Islamic history, added a third – the Mission.”

Note that until the coming of the Fatimids mission was not part of the Islamic state. The Fatimids emerged in Egypt towards the end of the first Millennium (Christian calendar), following in the footsteps of the Abbasids whom they attempted to overthrow, and held that other branches of Islam had gone astray. Believing themselves to be the true heads of pure Islam (why does this sound familiar?), they followed the traditional policy of conquest and subjugation against other Muslim states. But the rest of Islam was bigger and better prepared and they resorted to the novel policy of mission.

It is interesting that one of the complaints made by the guest at the hotel was that the proprietors insisted that Islam’s founding prophet was a warrior. Perhaps not a wise thing to say to a paying Muslim guest who might take offense and her business elsewhere nevertheless quite accurate. Which raises the question, are they being prosecuted at least in part for stating, not a religious conviction, but an irrefutable historical fact? Is the state now insisting on a role in defining what is and what is not legitimate historical reporting?

This all leaves me, and I am sure others, in something of a dilemma when it comes to voting. On the one hand I don’t believe the alternatives to this current government are viable for all sorts of reasons (I might be persuaded otherwise). On the other, I am convinced that something must be done to stop this petty-meddling juggernaut before the freedoms we have for so long taken for granted, that our fathers fought and died to preserve, and that make our country great are totally taken from us.

Christian hotel owners face ruin after 'defending their faith' in row with a Muslim guest | Mail Online

The Scrawny Pulpit: Daring Thomas

Did it occur to you that:

Thomas was not so much a doubter, as a “darer.”

This is profound lesson from the Story of “doubting” Thomas told with great brevity and a lesson to share with Mormons for whom the account of first hand witnesses is not enough.

The Scrawny Pulpit: Daring Thomas

Christians being ‘sidelined’, says head of Asian Christian Fellowship

“Christians in this country are being sidelined and discriminated and even some pastors have been threatened and beaten, because of preaching the Gospel,” he said.

“I believe it is time for Christians to raise our voices and stand up for our rights and values, which are being sacrificed in the name of political correctness.”

Who is speaking and which country does he have in mind? The speaker is Canon Yaqub Masih of the Asian Christian Fellowship so you might expect his concern would be for an Asian country but no. He is addressing the problem of growing persecution of Christians in the UK.

It is reported that one in five Christians now complain of discrimination because of their faith. Have you noticed that people hate Christ now? Say you are a Christian and often people will screw their faces up in a sneer and exclaim, “Don’t ram your religion down my throat!” Defend your faith and they speak disparagingly of Christian superstition and ignorance. The reaction is positively violent and they will speak of anything but Christ.

I think it is time we stopped apologising for being Christians. You may look through all of Scripture and never find a text prescribing political correctness or niceness (that bane of Western Christianity). By all means let us have the fruit of the Spirit, peace, love, etc, but always remembering that it is to make our Christianity more real and challenging not more respectable and accommodating.

Turning the other cheek does not mean turning our back on the truth; neither does loving your neighbour mean not warning them of impending judgement for fear of offending. Standing for truth necessarily means exposing and refuting error and while we do it with love we do it nevertheless.

Christians being ‘sidelined’, says head of Asian Christian Fellowship