To whom it may concern

Funny Stuff

2012-01-25T17:38:00.001Z

I came accross these on Facebook.

A guy had written below this last one, 'Give it to me!!!'

The hot-water bottle

2012-01-23T17:25:00.001Z

One night, in central Africa, Dr. Helen Roseveare worked hard helping a mother who was giving birth. Despite all her efforts the woman died leaving a tiny pre-mature baby and a two-year old daughter.

The staff had no incubator and so had difficulty keeping the new born alive. So one of the student midwives went for the box they had for such babies and the cotton wool the child would be wrapped in. Another went to stoke up the fire and fill a hot water-bottle. This young woman came back in distress to report that the hot water bottle had burst. It was the last hot-water bottle. All they could do was put the baby as near the fire as they safely could.

The following day Dr. Roseveare went for prayers at the adjoining orphanage. She told the children about the baby. She mentioned that this tiny child could die if it caught a chill. She also told them about the baby’s two year old sister.

During the prayer time at that orphanage one of the children, a ten-year old called Ruth, prayed a blunt prayer. ‘Please God send us a hot-water bottle. It’ll be no good tomorrow, God, the baby will be dead, so please send it this afternoon, and while you are about it, would you please send a dolly for the little girl so she know that you really love her?’

Helen Roseveare had to say amen but doubted anything would happen. She had been in Africa for four years and no one had yet sent a parcel from home. If someone did send a parcel why would they think of sending a hot-water bottle to the equator?

Anyway, half-way through the afternoon a message came to Helen that there was a car at her front door of her house. By the time she got there she could see that a large parcel had arrived. She taught that she could not open the parcel alone and sent for the orphanage children. Excitement grew as the removed the string and paper. Helen lifted out coloured jumpers which she gave to the children. Then there were knitted bandages and raisins and sultanas. She cried as she pulled out a brand-new rubber hot water bottle. Ruth was sitting at the front of the children and exclaimed that ‘if God has sent the bottle, he must have sent the dolly too!’ Rummaging down to the bottom of the box she pulled out a small beautifully dressed doll. That parcel had been on its way for five whole months, packed by Roseveare’s former Sunday school class whose teacher had heard and obeyed God’s prompting to send a hot water bottle, even to the equator.

B. Noble

2012-01-20T12:20:00.002Z

As Pa would say, 'check this out, cuz!'

Please don't be risk-averse

2012-01-13T16:58:00.000Z

I love to be around people with vision. I need to rub shoulders with 'can do' types I am inspired by those who are willing to take risks. I actually think that as Christians we must not be risk-averse. One of the keys to stepping out in faith is to have the right view of success.

What is your view of success? Is it better to try and fail than not to try at all? My view of success is to act upon what God has put on your heart. My view of failure is not to act. I am not saying that we should be reckless and the Proverbs are clear that we need to pay heed to wise counsel. But I think it is tragic when churches fail to act for fear that something might not take off.

What is it that we are afraid of? Are we scared that the nay-sayers who prophesied that something wouldn't work will say 'I told you so'? If that is the case then get over it. Such fear is the fear of man (or woman) rather than the fear of God. Are we scared that we will be bad stewards who wasted money, time and effort on something that proved unpopular? Remember that we are ultimately accountable to God and I don't believe that he will be grieved if we step out in faith and don't achieve all that we had hoped for. But he will be grieved if we are too scared to act.

So let us pray and feel guided, dream big dreams, seek all the counsel you can but make sure to act. Remember that just because something didn't achieve much in the past doesn't mean that it won't work now. Give things a try. Encourage those who are taking risks and praise their courage even if things don't go as planned. Read the book of Acts and see that God is into doing amazing things. Don't be intimidated by the apparent obstacles. Fear God rather than fearing that we might get egg on our face. Step out in faith and just do something.

Amazing blogging!

2012-01-11T20:27:00.001Z

I love to hear accounts of amazing things that God does. So on Monday, as I set off to Irish Preachers' Conference, I asked God to let me hear another such story. My prayer was answered that night.

I got talking to a guy about blogs. He said, 'let me tell you the best blog story.'

His wife was contacted by a second cousin who now lives in Australia. The two women resumed their friendship. They remembered how they had played as children in each others homes when they both lived in Dublin. Their bond was strengthened by the fact that they realised that they had much in common. They also discovered that both had become evangelical Christians despite the fact that neither grew up in an evangelical home. My friend's wife asked her cousin how she come to such a faith.

Three things had iinfluenced her. Questions that she began asking, a local church and primarily a blog that she was reading. She explained that this blog was written by an Irishman. Who was that blogger? The blogger was my friend. Completely unbeknown to herself, from the other side of the world this woman was reading the blog of her second cousin's husband, and God used it in bringing her to faith. Amazing!

Member's Meetings

2012-01-09T10:35:00.001Z

Being new to the Baptist Association I have spent some time pondering the nature of member's meetings. In our church at Limerick we are going to rotate the chairmanship. It is my turn next. So I thought I would get the members to fill in the following questionnaire.

Rate in order of importance your understanding of the priorities for our member's meetings.

-The member's meeting should spend time in prayer and praise.
-The members meeting should give everyone a platform to express their views.
-The member's meeting should hold the pastor, elders and deacons to account.
-The member's meeting should spend time thinking about the church's vision.
-The member's meeting should spend time celebrating what God has done in the last few months.
-The member's meeting should decide how we spend money and decorate the building.
-The member's meeting should decide what events we undertake as a church.
-The member's meeting should give expression to our sense of being a church family.

Question: What would encourage more people in our church to become members?

It is better to be full of fear than to be afraid (1 Kings 18:7-19)

2011-12-28T17:14:00.001Z

I am off to Irish Preacher's Conference in a couple of weeks. We all have to prepare something on given passages. Here is mine.

Jerry Bridges writes a book entitled The Joy of Fearing God. Other than those adrenalin-junkies that get their kicks by confronting their fears there are not many in our society who would associate fear with joy. The Bible speaks of fear both positively and negatively. There is a fear that spurs the Christian towards joyful obedience and there is a fear that leaves us paralysed. This passage helps us to move from disabling fear to empowering fear.

Fear of people stops us acting in faith (7-14)

We are first introduced to Obadiah at the beginning of the chapter. There we read that he feared the LORD greatly (3b). One writer explains that the fear of God is ‘reverent submission that leads to obedience’. Such fear had spurred Obadiah to act courageously and hide God’s faithful prophets from the persecuting Queen Jezebel.

But such godly fear is not what defines Obadiah now. When Elijah gives him a command Obadiah protests. ‘If I arrange a rendezvous between you and King Ahab and you don’t turn up he I will be a dead man.’ The fear of a person has replaced the fear of God. When that happens we feel unable to act for God. Obadiah could be described by the book title, ‘When People are Big and God is Small.’

God’s promises are the antidote to the fear of people (15-16)

Obadiah isn't just someone with a fear of a person, he is also an example of someone who fears death. The person he fears has the power of life and death over him. He has fearfully exclaimed, 'Ahab will kill me.'

So what is Elijah's antidote for Obadiah’s paralysing fear? Elijah gives him a promise rooted in the character of God. “As the LORD of hosts lives, before whom I stand, I will surely show myself to him today.” Obadiah’s fear of a man is dispelled, his fear of God is reinvigorated and now he steps out in faith going to meet Ahab.

The same principle can work in our lives. God's champion has commissioned us to go with his message. But he gives us promises to remove paralysing fear. He promises that we are special to the Father and that he himself will be with us to the very end of the age (Matthew 28:20). As for the fear of death, our champion has dealt with this ultimate fear. As the writer to the Hebrews explains, Jesus passed through death that he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery (Hebrews 2:14-15).

People need to be told to fear God rather than people (17-19)

The third person we encounter in our passage is King Ahab. Ahab seems to be someone who has no fear of God. He fails to see the trouble that he has brought the people of Israel; he opposes God’s champion; he ignores God’s commands and he replaces worship of God with devotion to god-substitutes. We might not think of our non-believing friends and family as being like this terrible man but the Bible says there is a similarity. After all it is of humanity in general that the apostle Paul writes, 'there is no fear of God before their eyes' (Rom. 3:18).

I know people who look down their noses at those who seek to provoke fear in their presentation of the gospel. But Jesus was blunt. When he sent out the seventy-two on mission he told them not to fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul but rather to fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28). That is a reality which Obadiah. Ahab, our friends and we ourselves need to hear.

Conclusion
It is better to be full of fear than to be afraid. Think of the many commands in the Bible telling us not to be anxious or afraid of anything. We are not to be afraid of people, circumstances, or even death itself. But the fear of God is ‘reverent submission that leads to obedience’ and the ‘person who fears God will fear nothing else’ (Ed Welch). So let’s ponder the promises that are the antidote to paralysing fear and be spurred on in godly fear to joyfully act for God as we swim against the tide.

Another little thing I like

2011-12-27T12:28:00.001Z

I hope that the following is in no way disrespectful. I enjoyed it and hope you do too.

Random thoughts

2011-12-23T10:03:00.000Z

I have struggled to write blogs recently. I don't know why. After all I have been learning stuff that has fascinated me. Anyway, this morning I thought I would just write down some random musings.

1. I am not a fan of five year plans, is that wrong? They seem so impersonal. I suppose I see ministry primarily in terms of people being used by God to impact other people in personal encounters. It doesn't take a five year plan to tell a church they need to love one another and welcome the stranger. I don't see how a five year plan will motivate me to show kindness to my neighbour or seek opportunities to share my faith with my friends. Yes, there is much that we should do together as a church. But I think the best events are more spontaneous than those planned five years in advance. The best corporate ministry is when people see an immediate need and come up with a vision of how to meet it. Besides how can we know what ministry opportunities await us in five years? There are some things that need a lot of advance planning (e.g. building projects) but I think they are a minority of the ministry we are called to.

What I would prefer is that as a church we would focus on what our core values are. I have been thinking about this for LBC. At the induction service in September I listened to the preacher (John Samuel) and others who led and asked myself, 'if you were visiting this church what would you think these people are about?' John emphasised the place of the Bible as the reliable word of God. There was also a great sense of community that day. Since then I have been thinking of the blessing it is to have people from different nations as part of our fellowship. I am also inspired by people in our church who are passionate about sharing their faith. These are some of the ingredients that will form our core values. As opportunities arise that fit these core values we should grasp them and we should also seek to create opportunities that reflect them.

2. Word and Spirit. I have really enjoyed reading some charismatic writers (e.g. Mark Stibbe and R.T. Kendal). I love their expectation for God to intervene in people's lives today. Sometimes I have been disillusioned when claims of charismatic utterances have seemed unconvincing or where an enthusiasm on charismatic gifts has not been matched with a desire to study the Bible. May God cause us to be a people who are passionate to encounter God's living word, the Bible, and who are open to all his interventions in our lives.

3. A few books.

Anything by Jerry Bridges. I love his obsession with the gospel of grace. I really enjoyed The Gospel for Real Life.

Randy Newman (not the musician) writes very interesting books on evangelism. In particular Questioning Evangelism. In a similar vein is Doug Pollock's God Space.

I think Tim Keller's King's Cross is the favourite book I read this year. It is an intelligent articulation of the evangelical gospel and a great book to give to people who might be interested in learning what we believe. Another book to share is Max Lucado 3:16.

I am also really enjoying working through Ken Bailey's Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes.

I like this!

2011-12-16T16:27:00.001Z

This has been the longest I have gone without posting for a good while. However, I have been enjoying reading. I recommend Mark Stibbe's I am Your Father, R. T. Kendall's The Anointing and Max Lucado's 3:16. My soul needed refreshing this week and the Lucado book really helped. It is a meditation of John 3:16. It would be a good gift for a friend who is thinking about Christianity, although they would need to be convinced of the historical reliability of the events surrounding Jesus as it makes no effort to give proofs.

I am still without inspiration but noticed that Jason MacFarland liked this on Facebook. I like this (although Ken Bailey suggests that the wise men probably did not turn up until a year or so later).

Marriage and love

2011-12-01T09:55:00.001Z

I received an email from my friend David Blevins with the following musical tribute to Ruth Graham. It prompted me to go to YouTube and see Billy Graham's wife's funeral. I found his words very moving. Marriage can indeed be a most beautiful thing and the faithful love seen in a lifetime of devotion to promises made is wonderful. Add to that the Christian satisfaction in a life lived for Christ and the Christian hope in life beyond death.

Good Communication

2011-11-30T09:17:00.001Z

I am looking through the chapter on 'Good Communication' in Strengthening Your Marriage (Wayne Mack). I thought I would post my thoughts.

'To a large extent, a married couple's experience of genuine oneness will be determined by the health of their communication system.' 'Wherever you find marital failure, you will find a breakdown in real communication. Wherever you find marital success, you will find a good communication system.'

1. One of the basic requirements of good communication is openness and honesty.

Speaking of the church the apostle Paul writes, 'Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbour, for we are members of one body' (Ephesians 4:25). 'I cannot really know my wife; she cannot really know me; unless we are open and honest with each other.' '... unless I am relating to what she is in her heart, I am relating to a phantom, an image, a mirage, and not the real person.' So in a marriage counselling session a husband or wife may exclaim, 'I didn't realise that you felt that way', 'I didn't know that hurt/annoyed you,' or 'I didn't know you wanted me to do that.'

So how do we deal with those things where our partner annoys us? We surely don't want to be picky and fussy. Certainly there are plenty of times when we simply need to let a thing go or forgiving and ignoring a fault they have. After all the Bible tells us to love cover a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8) and that 'love covers over all wrongs' (Proverbs 10:12). We need to decide where we need to be more patient and where a pattern of behaviour needs to be confronted (because persisting in it will damage our marriage and the witness of our spouse, including the example they set for the children).

Here are some questions we might ask ourselves before we talk to our spouse about something they are doing which is frustrating us.

-Is it a good time to broach this issue ('how good is a timely word', Prov. 15:23)?
-Is my attitude right ('Do everything in love', 1 Cor. 16:14)?
-Have I prayed about the matter and am I trusting God to help me (before addressing such an issue why not pray, 'may the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be pleasing in you sight, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer', Ps. 19:14?)?

Of course course it is not just in matters where they annoy us that we will need to communicate. Good communication is not just problem-solving. When we first found ourselves romantically interested in them we delighted to simply spend time with them learning about what they have in their heart. We should be spending time simply delighting to learn more about them. Showing that we care with our ears and our time.

Santa

2011-11-28T11:49:00.001Z

I am not a big fan of the whole Santa thing. I don't want to be a kill-joy but it makes me uncomfortable when the kids ask direct questions about him. Besides why should he take all the credit for the gifts that we buy!

Nevertheless, on Saturday morning the whole thing took a terrible theological turn. We were enjoying something of a lie-in when Anya came into the room complaining. 'Ronan says that Marvelle (a girl in his school) is not a Christian because she doesn't believe in Santa.'

Marvelle's parents are fine Christians who have decided to be honest about Santa. Anyway I left the explanation to Caroline, who tries to frame explanations about Santa in a less deceitful way, and who told Anya to assure Ronan that you can be a Christian even if you don't believe in Mr. Clause.

How do we know we love someone?

2011-11-23T09:55:00.001Z

How do we know we love someone? Of course I am not talking here about romantic love. I am talking about the love people are to experience in the church.

Many years ago I was involved in a church where two people had a history of hatred towards each other. However, I was told not to go there. They had learned to get along. Problem was they had only learned how to live with their dislike of each other. They could put up with each other. 'It's dealt with,' they would have said. But the silent hostility was there for all to see. Love has to be better than this.

So how do we know we love someone? Is it being able to shake their hand before sharing in the Lord's Supper? It must include that, but surely must be more. Of course you would ring for the emergency services if you saw them bleeding at the side of the road, you might not want them dead, but you would rather that they were as far away from you as possible.

They say that you don't have to like someone but you do have to love them. That is true, they may have a sense of humour that gets on your nerves, they may be insensitive and harsh in how they talk to you, but you do have to love them. But I think it is dangerous to say 'well, I don't like them, but I do love them.' Make sure that you don't think that loving someone is something easier to achieve than liking them. That would be too shallow a view of love. Similarly it is very unhelpful to think about why you don't like someone, it is much more healthy to think of reasons why you might be tempted to like them.

When I was in theological college my pastoral care lecturer, Heather Morris, told us that it is very hard not to love someone you are regularly praying for. What good advice! After all Jesus said, 'pray for those who persecute you.' Of course our prayers for them need to be sincere, often and deep for this to be helpful.

Let's make this practical. It can be hard to tell where love is present but it can be obvious where love is absent. If we can't talk to people over a cup of coffee then love is absent. If we talk about them in a manner that aims to show others why they should also dislike them then love is absent. If we won't go to a party because they are there then love is absent. If we would not have them over for a meal (why not prove your willingness by doing so) then love is absent.

Another thought. Author, Randy Newman (not the singer), says that we do a disservice to our understanding of family when we talk of them as being 'disfunctional.' You see that suggests that the aim for families is to be functional. But we are called to something far greater than simply being a functional community. The same is to be true for the church. Our church is to be a family of ever increasing love. Jesus' call to be perfect ... as your heavenly Father is perfect is set in the context of loving people who are difficult to love (Matthew 5:48).

A man asked Jesus, 'What is the greatest command?' He replied, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' Then Jesus added another. 'The second is this, 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these. So let's prove our love for God as we obey his many commands to love all people, and especially to love his people who are our sisters and brothers in Christ.

Dad

2011-11-15T12:02:00.001Z

My dad turned eighty on 23rd October. We had a party for him the night before in Killarney. This is what I said about him.

There were the perks being the son of an obstetrician/gynaecologist.

We used to get fizzy drinks at the Ernville on Christmas day. I must admit that I felt shy about meeting the other doctors’ kids, but it was a found-less fear because we were always first and we were off to church before any of the others arrived.

It was nice having people telling you that your father was a gentleman and people pointing out that your dad delivered them

Then there was blowing your nose in surgical hats. Dad brought them home to use as tissues.

I remember getting my rugby ball repaired with surgical thread.

We rarely went to a doctor because we had one at home. Dad always dismissed our illnesses assuring that we would be alright. At times I longed to prove him wrong by being really ill. Before Spike Milligan did it, I would have had written on my gravestone, ‘I told you I was ill.’

But perhaps the most enjoyable moment related to having dad being an obstetrician was sitting in a Café in Cardiff, on the day of Munster’s Heineken Cup final against Toulouse, in conversation with a guy who happened to be a rugby commentator for Sky Sports, and pointing out that here was the man who delivered Peter Stringer.

Dad is a great story-teller. When we had guests mum would warm them up and then hand over to dad to tell his jokes. I loved watching him in full swing. He could even tell dreadful stories well. For example, I would never tell the one about the man with the pipe who threw the dog out the window of the train. It is not that funny but he could pull it off!

I remember one journey to Dublin when Joy asked mum and dad to tell us their life stories. Dad told us of the three boys digging their trench in a manse garden; of his times as a boarder in Wesley; of rugby in Wesley and Trinity; and of course the most exciting part was Biafra—where he met Jean Kingston and stayed on in the war.

Stories that stand out for me from dad’s life: marking Tony O’Reilly in a Leinster schools’ trial, getting a tooth knocked out by some guy who resented the fact that he played for Trinity rather than Old Wesley, and the following three medical stories.

As a young doctor dad was called out with a colleague to deliver a baby in a rough part of Glasgow. The woman was so grateful that she decided that she wanted to call the child after him. Dad thought of what might lie ahead for this boy if he got the name Edgar. So he kindly suggested that the child be named after his colleague.

As a senior doctor dad took some of the trainee doctors on his rounds. They came to the bed of an elderly woman and dad asked one of the students to comment upon her condition. The young medic didn’t hold back. Assuming that this woman couldn’t hear what he said the student must have described her in a way that had her close to death. When he was finished a voice come from the bed. ‘You’re no spring chicken yourself.’

I am thankful to dad for many things but I am thankful to him for two things more than anything. Firstly, for the marriage he has with mum. The mutual respect and affection the two of them share is an example to each of the next generations. Secondly, and most of all, there is his faith. Dad has showed that the Christian faith is something that both shapes your life and delights the mind.

Small Groups

2011-11-09T14:32:00.000Z

I have been doing a little thinking about the concept of small groups. I have to admit that I like them, but I have some concerns. In the last two churches I have been in the small groups have struggled. I wonder is there ways that we can tweak them so that they can be more effective.

I once heard Erwin McManus say that he thought that you would have to be mad to open your heart before a small group. I thought he was being cynical. However, I think he has a point. If our small groups are a random collection of people who happen to live in an area and be free to meet on a certain evening, then it is unreasonable to expect that will have the required personal chemistry needed for genuine intimacy. I think that pairs, or triplets, of people meeting together have a better chance of delivering the intimacy that people often hope to experience in their small groups.

Our churches struggle with the burden of busyness. I don't want people to think that they have to attend yet another meeting in the church. I don't want a church community that doesn't give people the time to spend with their families or developing meaningful relationships with those who are not yet Christians.

Then there is the fact that small groups can encourage fragmentation. I like the idea of the church coming together regularly to pray. The traditional prayer meeting has some things going for it. Although in truth the numbers who attend traditional prayer-meetings tend to be minimal.

There is the need to have the right material. Small groups can end up having directionless conversations if they are not focused on good material and the discussion is not well led. I also think that prayer needs to be a central part of small groups and that it is a pity that so few groups spend time in praise.

But one of my biggest worries about small groups is that they tend to be inward-looking. A small group should have a sense of mission. A small group should not simply be pre-occupied with the immediate needs of those present. The first place that small groups should show their concern for the wider world is in their praying. But I think there should be more than that. I like the concept that Mark Stibbe talks about of MSCs (mission-shaped communities). Perhaps small groups could take upon themselves the task of running a Christianity Explored course, taking on a ministry in the church community or volunteering in the local community.

So here are my suggestions for tweaking small groups:

1. Have realistic expectations of what small groups can deliver. We shouldn't seek to manufacture an intimacy that might simply not be there.

2. Stop making attendance at small groups a guilt related issue. Some people may find that they find mutual encouragement and up-building in other ways, such as meeting regularly to pray with one or two other Christians. Similarly, some people will better spend their time at home with their families or developing meaningful relationships with with non-Christians. However, if you say that you don't have time but happen to spend hours in front of the television then you may need to rethink your priorities.

3. Make prayer a priority for your small group. Also praise should be a part of what we do together when we meet.

4. Turn your small group into a mission-shaped community. Maybe you could meet together one week and volunteer with a charity the alternative week etc.

5. On a regular basis small groups should not be on and the whole congregation should devote extra time that week to united prayer.

What about religious hypocrites?

2011-11-03T17:55:00.000Z

My friend Mucky was in the U.V.F., before he became a Christian. That terrorist organisation may have claimed that they were fighting 'for God and Ulster' but God had very little to do with it. Indeed, those above him were unimpressed about his conversion, and his new found faith led him to renounce violence. A lot of people claim that there is a link between religion and hatred, and cite Northern Ireland as part of their case. The truth is more complex. I believe that the 'troubles' were more about tribalism than alternative understandings of the Reformation.

That is not to say that there haven't been acts of evil committed by those who are sincere in their religious beliefs. I am sure there have been fanatics who believed that they were acting in line with God's will as they blew up abortion clinics. However, I think such people are mistaken in their logic. Similarly, I have met people who claim to be Christians yet whose attitude towards other groups was marked by an underlying bigotry.

Christianity and terrorism are incompatible. I do not want to deny that there are difficult texts in the Old Testament where God instructs his people to carry out acts of war. But it is important to note where we are in God's direction of his people. God's people are no longer associated with a holy nation and a holy land. God's people are no longer commanded to carry out his judicial sentence on evil nations. Christians are called to be subject to the states in which they find themselves resident (Romans 13). The case of when a nation is justified in going to war is more complicated. However, the church is never called to ‘holy war’.

What about the Crusades? Yes, they are a terrible indictment on organised religion. I don't know enough about them to judge the sincerity of those who ordered them. Perhaps they were driven more by political and economic ambition than devotion to Christ. Unfortunately they are a blemish on the name of Christianity.

There are some things worth keeping in mind.

Firstly, not all who claim the name of Christ are actually Christian (Matthew 7:21-23). There will be some people who are fanatical for a 'religious cause' who are not ‘born of the Spirit’. They may claim allegiance to Christ but they neither have the desire or ability to truly follow him. Those whose lives are marked by hatred, bitterness and unforgiveness should not be confident about the coming Day of Judgement.

Secondly, some people do evil knowing that the evil they do is inconsistent with the faith they protest. Take a priest who engages in child-abuse. Such an act is evil and inexcusable. But surely most of those who did these things knew that they were acting against the faith they professed. Again those who claim to be Christians but whose lifestyle is inconsistent with the rule of Christ have no reason to be confident of their standing before him.

Thirdly there is the problem of ignorance. Take those who justified a system of racially-segregated churches. The argument simply does not stand up to the teaching of Scripture, which tells us that all are made in the image of God and that believers are a part of one new family (Gen. 1, Gal. 3 and Eph. 2). Some might point to past ignorance and say that we need to be careful about being dogmatic about what we believe. I see it slightly differently. We need to ensure that we rigorously examine what we believe in the belief that truth matters and that error can distort the witness of the faith.

All evil points to our need of Christ. The Christian should be the first person who acknowledges that evil is not simply a problem of other people, but that we all have failed to live up to even our own standards (yet alone God’s perfect standards). Sin is not just the preserve of religious hypocrites. Some of the most awful atrocities were committed by anti-religious regimes like those of Stalin, Mao and Pol-Pot. The Bible’s diagnosis is that sin is something that all people are guilty of. All people need forgiveness and Christ took upon himself human guilt that people can be forgiven.

Yes, Christians shouldn’t be creeps. When we handed our lives over to Christ he gave us his Holy Spirit and is transforming us into the likeness of his perfect self. As has been pointed out, if a person claims to be a Christian but doesn’t show any evidence of change, or ignores Christ’s way of love, then it is doubtful that actually have been born again. But the Christian also knows that they are not perfect. We are works in progress. We are being transformed. We still battle the sinful nature and often fail. But we delight that God continues to forgive us. No Christian should claim to be without sin.

So my final plea to those who see my hypocrisy, and a difference between what I ought to be and what I am, is to ask you to look away from my imperfections and look to the one I say I follow. Please don’t write off the perfect person of Jesus because he shows such patience with imperfect people like me. Please see that he is willing to forgive your hypocrisy as well as the hypocrisy you see in others.

Wee wee walls

2011-10-29T11:55:00.002+01:00

Was just helping Sian (2) on the toilet. There was a sound for the cistern or a pipe in the walls. I asked her, 'is that you?' She explained, 'no, it's a wall doing a wee wee.'

Reasoning with Atheists (part 3) 'Has Science disproved the existence of God?'

2011-10-26T17:23:00.001+01:00

A numbers of years ago a girl told me about her younger brother. He had gone to his parents and said, ‘you know the way you told me about the tooth-fairy, and it was you; you told me about Santa and it was you; are you God?’

Professor Richard Dawkins suggests that belief in God is similar to belief in the tooth-fairy and Santa. It is merely a childish thing that should be left behind by people who are capable of evidence-based thinking. In 2003 he said, on BBC radio four’s Thought for the Day, humanity ‘can leave the cry-baby phase, and finally come of age.’

A man called Alister McGrath disagrees. He traces his belief in the opposite direction to that Dawkins suggests should be the case. He went from being an atheist to believing Christianity. Having gained a doctorate in molecular biology in Oxford, and intending to spend his life in scientific research, he changed direction and is now Professor of Historical Theology in Oxford. The American scientist Professor Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, has received numerous awards and honours. He also went from an atheistic world-view to a Christian one.

In his debate with John Lennox, Richard Dawkins says that, ‘it has to be admitted that science grew out of a religious tradition.’ As one friend pointed out to me, ‘science arose in the West, shortly after the Reformation, when a Christian world-view was widely accepted—the reasoning seemed to be, if this world is made by God, and I am made by God, then my mind ought to be able to some extent to examine His world and discover something of its order and mechanism.’ It is interesting that probably the greatest scientist who ever lived, Sir Isaac Newton, said, ‘a little knowledge leads away from God, but much knowledge leads towards him.’

Science has its limits. To start with, science is limited to what we might call the material world. But God is not contained in the material world. The Bible says that God is spirit (John 4:24a). He is not found in physical form. This means that we can’t bring him into a laboratory and measure him. Science can’t prove that a non-material divine being doesn’t exist

Take the miracle of Jesus being raised from the dead. Each of the gospels says that the tomb was empty, and the Apostle Paul says that the risen Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people (1 Cor. 15:6). A scientist could observe that this does not normally happen. But only if the scientist makes the assumption that God does not exist and never does extra-ordinary things can it be said that this could not have happened. But science can’t prove that God does not exist. So if the New Testament is a reliable source (a topic for another occasion) there is no definitive reason for discounting its claims.

Science can not prove that God does not exist, but Christians believe that it does show God in action. We believe in a God who upholds and sustains creation. He is involved in every movement in the universe. Because the Bible clearly points to a God of order and faithfulness, rather than one of chaos, it comes as no surprise that science shows so many pictures of regular predictable action—what might be called the laws of nature.

John Polkinghorne was formerly Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge. He resigned his chair to become an Anglican minister. He believes that science compliments a belief in God, claiming that as scientists study the universe it becomes evident that there needed to be an intricate and delicate balance for the emergence of life. A balance that can’t just be attributed to chance!

Answers in Genesis - Reasoning with atheists (part 2)

2011-10-25T13:18:00.004+01:00

When I was just starting out as a Methodist Minister my superintendent asked me to lead an Alpha Course. This was not an easy task as the person in whose home this was taking place was a vocal sceptic. It was also difficult because the other person helping with the course was a Christian whose opinions on Genesis differed than mine.

I believe that Genesis is a part of God’s Word. Therefore it is trustworthy and true. However, I am not convinced that the opening chapters need to be read as a historical description of six literal days of creation. My friend in the Alpha course was very certain that the opening chapter of Genesis did recount 144 hours of activity. What resulted was that those on the course had to witness the two of us debating something that is not at the core of the gospel.

My current position on the beginning of Genesis is somewhat that of an agnostic. Perhaps God did create over a short period on time in recent history, although the general scientific opinion would disagree; or maybe God created over a long period of time a very long time ago in history.

Two things I would say to Christians. Firstly, don’t assume that just because someone believes in six-day creationism means that they are not intellectually credible. Scientist and Methodist minster David Wilkinson (while not a six-day creationist) explains that there is a tendency amongst scientists and theologians to ascribe young earth creationism to a small group of fundamentalists who refuse to open their minds. He points out that this is not the case, given that the American Institute for Creation Research and the smaller British Creation Resources Trust have a number of powerful scientists among their numbers. Secondly, it should not be assumed that those who do not ascribe to six-day creationism have no respect for the Bible—conservative evangelicals like Tim Keller and J. I. Packer believe that God’s creation involved certain processes of evolution.

While believing that there are symbolic elements in the accounts found in the early chapters of Genesis, I do think that there was a historic Adam and Eve. The reason for this is because of the Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans. Such an opinion does not need to ne incompatible with contemporary scientific theory. As John Stott highlights, ‘All human beings share the same anatomy, physiology and chemistry, and the same genes ... This homogeneity of the human species is best explained by positing our descent from a common ancestor.’ ‘Genetic evidence indicates’, writes Dr. Christopher Stringer of London's Natural History Museum, ‘that all living people are closely related and share a recent common ancestor.’

Genesis does teach the fact that there was a beginning—Aristotelian thought hypothesised an eternal cosmos. (Richard Dawkins is not too impressed with the fact that the Bible gets this right, given that there were only two options). Genesis also points to the fact that the cosmos is created with order—Whitehead's thesis states ‘that human beings become scientific because they expected law in nature; and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.’ Thirdly, Genesis gives a credible explanation for the nature of humankind—that we are both noble, being created ‘in the image of God’ and fallen, and so prone to doing what is evil.

Reasoning with Atheists (part 1)

2011-10-24T10:49:00.001+01:00

In September 2011 a number of people from our church went to Lisdownvarna for the annual match-making festival. We were not there to find partners but to do some street evangelism. I must admit I have very limited experience in this form of outreach. When we arrived some people from Ennis Christian Fellowship had set up a sketch-board. A couple of the more competent evangelists spoke using the board whereas most of the rest of us handed out tracts.

Amongst the various reactions we received were some people who have clearly being influenced by the thinking of the ‘new-atheists’. There is a vocal atheism led by such public figures as Richard Dawkins. One person made a passing reference to Santa clause. I think his point was that what we believed was as ridiculous, immature and naïve as believing in Santa. It is assumed by such people that a little bit of education would clear up any lingering beliefs. It throws such people when they find out that many Christians actually have thought through some of the issues they would raise.

I was frustrated that the opportunity to respond was so brief in street work. As someone gives you just a second of their attention what could you say in response? I was left flat-footed. Perhaps it would be somewhat naff, but maybe a quick response would be to point out that it takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. After-all the atheist looks the vastness of the cosmos and has to believe that there is no creator; they have to look at the beauty of a nature and believe there is no designer; and they have to look at the complexity of the human body and believe that no mind stands behind its design.

Apparently there are different concepts about the term ‘faith’. The word translated ‘faith’ in the New Testament is one that can also be translated ‘belief’ or ‘trust’, and does not imply a lack of reason for believing. Another understanding of faith comes from Immanuel Kant and involves suspending reason. Atheists often assume that Christians are people who have taken a blind leap in the dark. Yet they are the ones who have a system of belief that seems to involve giving no explanation for the origin of matter. On the other hand John Lennox (Professor of Mathematics at Oxford) declares

'My faith in God and Christ as the Son of God is no delusion. It is rational and evidence-based. Part of the evidence is objective, some of it comes from science, some comes from history; and, some is subjective, coming from experience.'

It is always assumed that Christians are the ones who have to be on the defensive. There are questions that we will be asked, and we should seek to give reasonable answers. But when it comes to our conversations with atheists there are questions that we can ask. Perhaps we need to spend more time thinking of leading questions to ask friends who are atheists and seeking to get them to give justifications for their belief!

Understanding Mormonism

2011-10-20T17:22:00.000+01:00

Some time ago I was stuck in traffic on O’Connell Street in Limerick. As I looked out at the people on the pavement I noticed two well-dressed young men approaching people looking to talk with them. A little further down the street I lowered my window to hear what they were saying. They were Americans, and they were bravely continuing in their work despite the fact that everyone they approached ignored them. No doubt they were Mormons.

All I knew about the Mormons was that their church is called The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints; they had a book called The Book of Mormon, which they claim supplements the Bible; and, there was some strange notion about God coming from another planet.

Can I say from the outset that there is much to be admired about this group of people? They encourage family values and their missionary zeal is to be admired. Mormons have a history of being persecuted for their beliefs and I would not want to write anything that would contribute towards treating them disrespectfully.

In this blog I want to look at Mormon belief so that we will be better equipped for sharing our faith with Mormons.

The origins of Mormonism

Joseph Smith junior (1805-1844) claimed that when he was fourteen he had a vision in which the Father and the Son appeared to him. He asked them which denomination he should join and they told him to join none of the existing denominations as they were all wrong and corrupt.

Smith claimed that when he was seventeen, he saw an angel called Moroni at his bedside. Moroni apparently told him about a book written on golden plates by former inhabitants of the American continent. Four years later Smith dug up the plates and began translating their ‘Reformed Egyptian.’ Interestingly, Mormons claim that the 'stick of Joseph', in Ezekiel 37, is the Book of Mormon. However, the context (verse 22) shows that the sticks of this chapter or the Old Testament nations of Israel and Judah.

The Book of Mormon covers the history of two civilisations, the most important of which arrived in America from the Middle East around 600 BC. These Jewish people are reported to have become two great nations, the Nephites and the Lamanites. It is claimed that most of the Book of Mormon was put down on gold plates by Mormon, commander and chief of the Nephites. The Book of Mormon also contains an account of a visit Jesus Christ is said to have made to America following his death and resurrection. The Book of Mormon claims to be have been originally completed around A.D. 400, yet it contains large sections of the King James Version, which was translated in 1611.

According to the Book of Mormon the Nephite and the Lamanite nations that had huge populations and lived in large fortified cities, apparently the warring between these nations culminated in a conflict in A.D. 385 at Hill Cumorah in which hundred of thousands of people were killed. Mormon was the man who wrote down the histories of these people, and his son became the angel who delivered this book to Joseph Smith. The Smithsonian Institute states that ‘Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book [of Mormon].’

As well as The Book of Mormon Smith claimed to receive further revelations in the 1830s and 1840s which were published under the title The Book of Commandments (later being released as Doctrines and Covenants).

A fourth scripture, the Pearl of Great Price, was translated (in part) from papyri fragments, which Smith bought from a travelling lecturer in 1835. He claimed that the Egyptian hieroglyphics on the parchment were a record of writings of Abraham. The 'Book of Abraham' became a part of the Pearl of Great Price. These papyri fragments turned up in 1967 and were given to the church. However, Egyptologists showed that the papyri contained nothing more than an Egyptian funeral text with instructions to embalmers.

Not only do Mormons hold to these added Scriptures, they also believe that the presidents/prophets of the church give infallible revelations to the church right up to this day.

Smith and his followers were treated dreadfully by certain non-Mormons. They were driven into Illinois, where Smith established the thriving city of Nauvoo. It was here that he came up with his ideas on polygamy, the origin and destiny of the human race and the sacred temple ordinances. Smith claimed that John the Baptist descended from heaven in a cloud of light and ordained him and an early convert, Oliver Cowdery, to the Aaronic priesthood. Later he claims that the apostles Peter, James and John came to ordain them to the Melchizedek priesthood.

Tensions between Mormons and non-Mormons increased when The Nauvoo Expositor published stories concerning the Mormon practice of polygamy. As mayor of Nauvoo, Smith ordered the destruction of the newspaper. He ended up in jail in nearby Carthage, Illinois, awaiting trial. A crowd of two hundred attacked the building and a battle ensued. Smith died in this battle.

The Mormon Understanding of God

According to Mormon teaching, God the Father, once lived on another planet, and had many wives. He himself had a father. Eventually, he, his wives, and his children died and were subsequently resurrected. He progressed to where he reached godhood. He was then given the space to create his own heaven, where he and his wives would sexually procreate children in spirit-form. The first born was Jesus. The second born was Lucifer. All people who have ever inhabited the earth were first born in spirit form in heaven. In other words they believe that the devil was Jesus' brother, and both of them are our older brothers.

Mormons teach that ‘Jehovah’ (Yahweh, LORD) in the Old Testament is exclusively referring to Jesus. It is taught that Jesus was conceived by an act of physical sex between God the Father and Mary. It is believed that Jesus was married to both Mary and Martha. Mormons believe that they also were, in their pre-mortal existence, are spirit children of God the Father and Mary. Unlike everybody else, Jesus is considered to have been a god before talking on a mortal body—even though the Book of Mormon (Abraham 3:25) says that taking on a physical body is a prerequisite to eternal progression.

The Mormon Understanding of Humanity

According to Mormonism God the Father and his wives sexually procreate children in spirit-form. Therefore all people who live pre-existed. When the Father chose Jesus to be the Saviour of the World his brother Lucifer was angered and rebelled. There was a war in heaven. Those who joined with the devil remain merely spiritual beings. Those who sided with God were allowed to be physically born. So the fact that we exist on this earth shows that we got it right in our previous existence. However there is a racist tone at this point, it is believed that people are born black because they fought less valiantly in the war in heaven..

The Mormon Understanding of Salvation
Not only do Mormons believe that there are many gods, they also believe that we can become gods. They limit the work of the cross to that of enabling people to have a resurrected body. A resurrected body is needed so that people can continue there journey to godhood after this life. Mormonism opposes the doctrine of justification by grace through faith. It is essentially a religion of good works.

Linked to this life of religious works is a restored priesthood and temple. Mormons believe that in May 1829 Joseph Smith and his friend Oliver Cowdery were conferred into the priesthood of Aaron at the instruction of John the Baptist. However, this is not possible given that the Aaronic priesthood was limited to descendants of Aaron (cf. Hebrews 7:14). Smith claims that some time later Peter, James and John conferred the Melchizedek priesthood on him. The Book of Hebrews (chapters 5-8) relates the Melchizedek priesthood to Christ alone. The point is simply that, like Melchizedek, Jesus combined the role of priest and king. The Book of Hebrews points out that those things seen in the priesthood were fulfilled in Jesus. Therefore there is no longer a need for a set aside priesthood. Indeed, you will not find any reference to a special category of priests (apart from the priesthood of all believers) in the New Testament. It is worth asking Mormons why, if they have a restored temple and priesthood, are the functions and practices of these so different to those seen in the Old Testament.

Mormon Heavens

Mormons believe in three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial and celestial and that while most of humankind will enter one of these levels of heaven eternal life in celestial heaven is for Mormons only. Interestingly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints taught that no-one can attain the fullness of the blessings of the celestial heaven if they are not married. Mormons have two forms of marriage, there are those that end at death and there are those preformed in the temple that go on for eternity.

Some of the more unusual teachings of the Mormons

In the Journal of Discourses (July 24^th, 1870) Brigham Young said that the sun and moon were inhabited.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints doesn't deny that there have been changes to the book of Mormon (there have been over 3,900 changes). Their magazine Ensign defends these changes saying that most of them are related to such things as grammar, misspellings or style. However, the History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that after Smith had finished translating the Book of Mormon he heard a voice that told him the translation was correct. Example of changes include 1 Nephi 11:21, 11:32 and 13:40 where the person described has been changed from a description of the Father to the Son, and Mosiah 21:28 the name of King Benjamin has been changed to King Mosiah (this is related to the fact that from the chronology of the Book of Mormon king Benjamin would have been dead at this time).

Mormons believe that prior to the fall Adam and Eve were unable to have children. Therefore the Fall is actually seen as a good thing because spirit-children need bodies before they can progress towards godhood.

Mormons abstain from tea, coffee and alcohol.

Mormons believe that Jesus was married to both Mary and Martha.

It is claimed that such total apostasy occurred some time after the death of the apostles and that the church was then restored at the time of Joseph Smith. This would seem to contradict the promises of Jesus - who said that he would build his church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 28:20) and that he would be with his disciples to the very end of the age (Matthew 28:20). Similarly, the apostle Paul speaks of the glory of Jesus in the church throughout all generations (Ephesians 3:21).

Mormons claim that the Bible has been thoroughly corrupted.

In History of the Church we are told that Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States government would be overthrown in the 1800s.

Sharing you faith with Mormons

Because Mormons believe that the Bible is corrupted conversation could be frustrating. For example we could point out that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit rather than the Father (Matthew 1:18) but they believe that this verse hase been altered

Be aware that Mormons will appeal to some of the most confusing verses of the Bible to back up their claims. For example they practice 'baptism of the dead' for ansestor who were not Mormons, because the process of good works and rituals goes beyond this life. 1 Corinthians 15 refers to this baptism of the dead, and while scholars have apparently offered many explantations for what it is, no evangelical would understand it as a Mormon does. There is no harm when facing a question that you are unsure about in saying, 'I don't have an answer to that now, but will you let me go away and look into it and come back to you?'

It is good to be certain of some of the centralities of our faith. For example, we can point the Mormon to the uniqueness of God (e.g. Isaiah 45), the truth of justification by grace through faith (e.g. Romans 1-5, Ephesians 2:1-8) and the fact that the Bible only speaks of two destinations for those who have died.

As in sharing your faith with anyone, remember the importance of prayer and the fact that people are only put on the defensive if you are in any way agressive. The apostle Peter tells us to give an account of what we believe with gentlesness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).

Some verses from the Book of Mormon to highlight
Remember that the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints believes that its presidents/apostles have a revelatory authority on a par with Scripture. Therefore there is a credibility problem with the whole Mormon belief system when it can be shown that there is disagreement between the church's current teaching and that found in The Book of Mormon.

Mormons believe that there is a plurality of gods. However, in The Book of Morman a man called Amulek, who says that he cannot say anything contray to God's Spirit claims that there is not more than one God (Alma 11:28-29).

Moriah 7:45 sounds as if Joseph Smith lifted in directly from the King James Version of 1 Cor. 13:4.

Elder Bruce McConkie explains that 'as each of these persons is a God [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] it is evident, from that standpoint alone that a plurality of Gods exists.' Yet 2 Nephi speaks of the 'Father' 'Son' and 'Holy Ghost' 'which is one God, without end.'

Some verses of Scripture to point out to Mormons
Former President, Spencer W. Kimball, made the following comment to a group: 'Brethern 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods.' But in Isaiah 43:10 God states, 'Before me no god was formed [Mormons believe that God the Father had a father, who had a father etc.], nor will there be one after me [Mormons believe that there was a time when the Son did not exist, and that faithful Mormons may become gods].'

'Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Yahweh/Jehovah, who the Mormons wrongly exclusively associate with the Son] our God [Elohim, who the Mormons wrongly associate exclusively with the Father], the LORD is one' (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Mormonism is basically a work-based religion. So it is important to be clear on such passages as Ephesians 2:1-10.

Mormons believe that the Father impregnated Mary, but Luke (1:34-35) teaches that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Mormons teach that the path towards ultimate salvation continues after this life, and that the dead can be initiated by baptism for the dead. However, the author of Hebrews teaches, 'man is destined to die once, and after that face judgement' (Hebrews 9:27).

Cahirdaven Mass

2011-10-16T17:08:00.000+01:00

Yesterday evening myself and John Tuttlebee went to the evening Mass in Cahirdaven. We wanted to see what it was like. While I am not an ecumenical person, firmly believing that there are fundamental differences between an evangelical understanding of the Christian faith and that held by the Catholic church, I was actually pleasantly surprised.

The round 1970's building was dimly lit inside, creating a relaxed atmosphere. There were probably 200 or more people in a building that could take around 500 or 600. The liturgy had just one mention of asking Mary and the saints to pray for us, there was a small group of singers who were very pleasant to listen to, and the seven minute homily stuck to the text and encouraged people to think of the eternal perspective. There was a reading from the Old Testament, a gospel and an epistle.

Maybe what saddens me is what was not said rather than what was said. There is no assurance of sins forgiven. There is no confident proclamation that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). No understanding that like the tax-collector in Luke 18:9-14 we can go home 'justified', by simply turning to God and sincerely crying out in repentance 'God have mercy on me the sinner.'

Clumsy Evangelism

2011-10-10T09:41:00.000+01:00

Last Thursday evening I went for a sauna at our local leisure centre. I had been reading a book on evangelism, so I brought it with me. I opened the door of the sauna, sat down, and immediately a man asked me 'what's the book about?'

'It is a Christian book about sharing what you believe.'

'That's a good thing to read, I believe in God myself', he responded.

A great conversation ensued. There was Robert (who asked me the question), his friend Shirley, and another man whose name I did not get. Indeed I apologised to this other man for getting more than he bargained for from his time in the sauna. He replied, 'don't worry, I am listening intently.'

Robert was so keen to talk that when he went for a break from the sauna he asked me to come with him so that we could continue talking. I was able to leave my calling card and a couple of tracts for him to collect at reception.

Now please don't imagine that I am a natural evangelist. I know how important it is to share the good news, but I have often missed the opportunity to speak. While my friend John Ryan is always looking for openings to speak the gospel I have to force myself even to ask God for such openings. It is through gritted teeth that I go into the leisure centre and say 'Lord, let me talk to someone about you (but if you just want me to have a relaxing time to myself that is good with me).'

Anyway, an amazing thing happened the next day. I was visiting friends in another part of the city when the man of the house pulls up in his car. He had two people with him. Guess who one of them was: 'Robert'. So I am asking you to pray for Robert because it seems something of a God-incidence that I would happen to meet this guy the day after talking to him in the sauna.

Here is an idea. It's called 'clumsy evangelism.' Clumsy evangelism simply seeks to invite people into conversations about the Christian faith. It's clumsy because you open the door for a conversation with no idea where it is going to head. For example, supposing one of the ladies in the church takes a good book from the bookstall (we are promoting Christian biographies this month). Then she brings it with her to the hairdressers. Someone waiting there with her says, 'what's that book about?' To which she replies, 'it's a book about a person who experienced God do amazing things in their life.' Now leave that comment hanging. You don't have to force the issue. They might not want to take the conversation any further and change the subject, that's their responsibility. But who knows, perhaps they will want to ask more questions. How would you do clumsy evangelism?

Lennox verses Dawkins

2011-09-28T20:23:00.001+01:00

I am watching the debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins (both professors in Oxford). I thought that I would post some thoughts.

1. John Lennox states that, 'What divides us is not science, what divides is is particular worldviews.' I realise that among Bible-believing Christians there exists a variety of ways of engaging with science. However, it is ill-informed of atheists to imagine that Christians simply run from science. Indeed there are some notable scientists who are Christians. For example, Francis Collins, of the Human Genome Project. As Dawkins admits, 'it has to be admitted that science grew out of a religious tradition.'

2. Richard Dawkins admits, 'There are still gaps in our understanding. We don't know how the cosmos came into existence in the first place.' Now Christians need to be careful in using such a statement. The fact that science has to admit its limitations in current understanding is significant. Nevertheless, if Christians base their arguments on those things that science has not yet figured out their case will be weakened every time science claims a breakthrough in understanding.

3. John Lennox says, 'Some faith is blind, and blind faith is very dangerous.' 'Faith in the Christian sense is not blind.' 'My faith in God and Christ as the Son of God is no delusion. It is rational and evidence-based. Part of the evidence is objective, some of it comes from science, some comes from history; and, some is subjective, coming from experience.' At the end of the debate he points to the resurrection of Christ as the main objective evidence for his Christian belief.

4. We must not simply equate rationality with science as if every field of study that is not science is not rational.

5. Lennox accuses Dawkins of confusing mechanism and agency. As if finding out how something works does away with the need for something behind the mechanism.

6. Lennox quotes Whitehead's thesis, 'that human beings become scientific because they expected law in nature; and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.'

7. It is clear that Dawkins and Lennox have a different understanding of the nature of faith. Lennox says that Dawkins has been too influenced by Kant in his understanding of 'faith.' For Dawkin's faith is something that is not based on evidence, for Lennox faith is something that is based on evidence.

8. Lennox appeals to the fine tuning of the universe. The fact that the Bible had claimed that there was a beginning before evidence existed of a beginning (put forward in the 1960's). Aristotlian thought had hypothesised an eternal cosmos. However, Dawkins points out that this is not too impressive given that there were only two options.

9. In the God Delusion Dawkins claims that 'the whole argument turns on the question "who made God?"' This is a weak argumentt. For the Bible is clear that God is uncreated. The atheist has the more difficult question to deal with, 'where did original matter come from?'

10. In the God Delusion Dawkins makes reference to Northern Ireland among his references to the evils of religion. I don't think that the conflict in Northern Ireland was primarily religiously driven, it was a ore basic tribalism. In fact coming to a genuine Christian faith made many people move away from terrorism. We could also point to the evils perpetuated by atheistic regimes like that of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

I don't claim that atheism on its own led to such oppression. I think something within the human heart did. Dawkins says that the problem with Stalin was something within him. The question is whether this 'something' exists, to some extent, in all of us. It would seem to me that there is both something moral within humankind and something twisted. The accords with the Biblical view that we are created in the image of God and yet we are corrupted by a sinful nature. Lennox says that 'the very fact that human beings all around the world show a common core of morality is evidence for the biblical claim that we are moral beings made in the image of God.'

The 'r' has arrived and Christian films

2011-09-26T18:11:00.000+01:00

Today I realised that Sian no longer call her brother 'Noney' (Ronan). She has grasped her 'r's and now calls him Roney. Caroline is devastated, and trying to teach Sian to say Noney again.

On Monday afternoons I go to the cinema. This afternoon I first went to the swimming-pool for a sauna and swim. I then went up to the church to collect some cards that David and Ruth had brought down from Richhill (David and Ruth were there for the induction service). I felt sad as I remembered friends in Richhill.

I went to see 'Soul Surfer.' This is one of the few films I have ever seen with an overtly Christian worldview. I would say that it is really a film for teenage girls. It is about a Christian girl who has her arm bitten off by a shark, while surfing. She then overcomes this obstacle to continue her competitive surfing. I actually cried during it (probably because I was exhausted and emotional having read the Richhill cards, I don't cry very oftn).

I thought that I should buy this film for Anya when it comes out on DVD. This got me thinking. Is it brainwashing kids to push Christian worldview movies on them? I wonder if the brainwashing actually occurs the other way around. Think about it. Most films make little or no positive representation of Christianity or Christians. America is a country with a significant evangelical population. Yet if your assessment of America was based on movie representation you would assume that there are little if any Christian population in that country.

An interesting film for a Christian to watch is The Apostle (starring Robert Duval). A film that portrays Christians in a positive light is The Blindside. Interestingly Sandra Bullock initially was hesitant to play the lead in The Blindside because she was uncomfortable playing the role of a Christian.

My next wedding sermon

2011-09-23T11:52:00.002+01:00

Over the years I have conducted a fair number of weddings. However, I only have two basic marriage sermons, which I rotate. Yesterday I came up with the concept for a third. I will call the couple John and Jane (although I have just made up those names).

Today you move from a relationship built upon attraction to one built on commitment. You see it is not attraction that will hold your marriage together, but the commitment to the promises you have just made. With these words that you have spoken, and later when this marriage is consummated, a covenant is formed. It is a covenant that is binding for as long as your spouse is alive, and you will only be freed from it if they are unfaithful.

Dating someone is built upon attraction. Presumably as you got to know each other you realised that there was a spark between you. You found yourselves thinking about each other and looking forward until the next time you met. If, during this time of going out with each other, you lost that spark you were free to break the relationship off. If, during this time of dating, you had met a suitable person you were more attracted to, you had the option of ending this relationship and pursuing them instead.

John, Jane will not be the last woman that you are attracted to. Jane, John will not be the last man that you will be attracted to. However, as you marry you are foregoing your right to pursue anyone else. You have made your bed, now lie in it. If you leave your marriage for someone you find more attractive it is adultery.

There is a fundamental difference between attraction and commitment. Attraction is about what the other person offers me, commitment is about what I give the other person. I want to suggest that the model of a relationship built on commitment rather than attraction is found in the love that God offers to each one of us.

You see we have done many things that make us unattractive to God. Yes, he has made humankind with value. We are made in the image of God. But each one of us has rejected him. The Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23); and that all have, like sheep, gone astray and turned to their own ways (Is. 53:6). The Bible even says that we have become worthless (Rom. 3:12). So God is not interested in us because of what we have to offer him. His love is built upon his commitment to us rather than our attractiveness.

While we have given God many reasons not to love us he loves us with a passion. He invites us to experience a loving relationship with him. He offers to accept us as adopted children with the full right of heirs. So deep is this commitment that he gave his one and only Son, to die for our guilt, that we could experience his pardon. Amazingly, as he washes away our guilt and clothes us with the righteousness of Christ we become a 'masterpeice' (Eph. 2:10). How foolish we would be to refuse to let Christ be our king and so miss out on enjoying such love!

John and Jane, you are now entering a relationship built on commitment rather than attraction. I hope that you will always be attracted to each other, indeed I hope that your attraction towards each other will grow as the years go by and your love matures. But more importantly, I hope that with God's help you will remain faithful to the promises you have made here today. Promises to love and to cherish, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death seperates you.

Let me finish by telling you about a man who took his wedding vows seriously. Robertson McQuilkin was the president of the Columbia Bible College. Unfortunately his wife, Muriel, suffered from Alzheimer's disease. In March 1990 Dr. McQuilkin announced his resignation in a letter with these words:

My dear wife, Muriel, has been in failing mental health for about eight years. So far I have been able to carry both her ever-growing needs and my leadership responsibilities at CBC. But recently it has become apparent that Muriel is contented most of the time she is with me and almost none of the time I am away from her. It is not just "discontent." She is filled with fear - even terror - that she has lost me and always goes in search of me when I leave home. Then she may be full of anger when she cannot get to me. So it is clear to me that she needs me now, full time.

Perhaps it would help you to understand if I shared with you what I shared at the time of the announcement of my resignation in chapel. The decision was made, in a way, 42 years ago when I promised to care for Muriel "in sickness and in health ... till death do us part." So, as I told the students and faculty, as a man of my word, integrity has something to do with it. But so does fairness. She has cared for me fully and sacrificially all these years; if I cared for her for the next 40 years I would not be out of debt. Duty, however, can be grim and stoic. But there is more; I love Muriel. She is a delight to me - her childlike dependence and confidence in me, her warm love, occasional flashes of wit I used to relish so, her happy spirit and tough resilience in the face of her continual distressing frustration. I do not have to care for her, I get to! It is a high honor to care for so wonderful a person.

A friend visited the McQuilkin's a month later. They witnessed his 'gentle, loving way with his dear wife, who understood little of what was going on' and later wrote, 'The memory of our visit is one of lingering beauty. Such beautiful Christlike love did not just happen! It came from the inner resolve of a young husband who had determined forty-two years before ...'

Listen to Roberston McQuilkin as he publicly explained his decision to resign from his job and care for his wife.

'He warns us because he loves us'

2011-09-21T10:37:00.000+01:00

This morning I am again looking at the new Christianity Explored course, preparing for doing it with our church in the new year. I have been looking at the third session, on 'sin'. I thought that Rico Tice's words were appropriate to post because I have been thinking about the topic of judgement in recent weeks.

When we hear Jesus' words about Hell we have to ask ourselves, 'Why would he talk like this?' 'Is he trying to manipulate us - trying to scare us, just so that he can gain control over us?' 'Or is he giving us a loving warning?'
For me, as I look at Jesus' life and the way he treated people, I see the most loving man who ever lived. Even people who were rejected by the rest of the world were deeply loved by him. The reason that Jesus warns us about Hell is surely that he loves us and does not want us to go there. He knows that if we reject God throughout our lives then ultimately God will be right to reject us. He knows that our sin, if left undealt with, will take us to a place of unimaginable and unending suffering. He warns us, because he loves us.

Creation proclaims the glory of the Lord

2011-09-20T17:50:00.000+01:00

After Christmas we are going to be doing the new Christianity Explored course. This morning I decided that I would watch a couple of the sessions. In the first Rico Tice speaks of the witness of creation. I have attached the following two clips, from John Piper, on this theme.

God is good and angry

2011-09-14T11:39:00.002+01:00

For a number of reasons I have been contemplating the wrath of God. It is of course a difficult subject, yet I cannot see how we can read the Bible faithfully and avoid it. When I was a young Christian exploring the faith I really struggled to get my head around the fact that our God of love is also the God of righteous anger and vengeance.

On Sunday we looked at Abraham's prayer for the righteous in Sodom (Genesis 18). The righteous were not faultless people. They were failed people who had trusted in God and received his grace (Genesis 15:6, cf. Romans 4). Abraham's desire is that the Judge of the Earth would do what is just. I am left with a few convictions.

The first reason we struggle when it comes to the concept of God's righteous anger is because we fail to realise how holy he is and see things from his viewpoint. We fail to see how he must not tolerate sin and that sin cries out for judgement.

The second reason we struggle when it comes to the anger of God is that we fail to see how awful a thing human rebellion is. While we excuse sin God sees sin as utterly inexcusable. While we refrain from calling things wicked God knows how utterly all human rebellion wicked is.

The third reason we struggle when it comes to the anger of God is that our experience of anger is generally anything but righteous. When we see people being angry (or we are angry ourselves) this anger is generally impatient, selfish and uncontrolled. God's anger is not like this at all.

The fourth reason we struggle with the anger of God is that we know that it is personal. While we may have experienced the rescue from condemnation that comes through the cross we are all aware of loved ones who refuse that grace. It grieves us to think that they remain condemned and that they will receive the awful verdict on the Day of Judgement. The only thing I can say about this is that such grief is commendable. We see it expressed by the apostle Paul (e.g. Romans 9:2), by Jesus (Matthew 23:37-39) and by God (Ezekiel 33:11). As Don Carson writes, 'Any Christian who teaches these things [regarding the anger of God] without tears is betraying Jesus.' Indeed the reality of God's judgement should spur us on to share the good news that Christ died to save sinful people like us.

The final conviction I want to share here about the anger of God is that one day we will see things as God sees them. One day we will see the full holiness of God, and I believe that it will be more splendid and awesome than we have ever realised. One day we will see sin from God's perspective, and I believe that we will see that it is more odious than we had grasped. One day we will realise how truly magnificent the rescue from guilt, that comes from Christ's death on the cross, really is. One day we will marvel at the mercy of God who sent his Son for sinful people. On that day we will see that while salvation is all of God, damnation is all of man (humankind). On that day we will see that God's judgement is just, there will be no place for an appeal court. On the day we will be sure that the judge of the earth has done what is just.

What is the future of the church?

2011-09-08T12:22:00.000+01:00

The Briefing magazine arrived in the post today. It contained the third article by Peter Orr on 'What Jesus is Doing Now?' (Peter, I can't find the second one, I think we may be missing a copy of the Briefing). There is also an interesting article on the future of the church in the UK. It does not make mention of the unique church scene in Northern Ireland. I am looking at it from the perspective of living in the Republic of Ireland. I thought I would offer a couple of reflections.

One shocking thing is the comments on young people. Thirty-nine percent of churches have no-one attending under eleven years of age. Fourty-nine percent of churches have no-one attending between the ages of eleven and fourteen. Fifty-nine percent of churches have no-one attending between the ages of fifteen and nineteen.

I am delighted to be a part of a church that has a healthy age demographic but there can be no room for complacency. One of the challenges that we face is how to give the young people a sense of ownership of the church. Indeed there is one age-group (late teens) where we seem to have small numbers. I wonder if the danger for some churches is that we have youth ministries that are separated from everything else that goes on in the church. Of course young people themselves can be difficult to integrate and get involved.

It is notable that an area of great decline is that of liberal Protestants. He mentions two denominations that are 'in terminable decline.' Now I am not suggesting that people choose their theology for pragmatic reasons, but I wonder if liberal Christianity simply fails to inspire. I also wonder if there is a lesson here for those who are amongst the liberal wing of the emergent movement. Is the problem with mainline liberals their theology or their style? If it is simply that people are tired of a dull formalism then new expressions of church may have a future. If it is because a liberal message lacks power and conviction then simply changing the style of church will be of little long term value.

This article is accompanied by a delightful chart. It divides the evangelical churches into various tribes. Personally I am influenced by people in a few of these groups.

Conservative, non-separatist evangelicals (e.g. Stott and Packer), are growing. But only account for around 8% of evangelicals.
Conservative, separatist evangelicals (11%) (e.g. Banner of Truth, Martyn Lloyd-Jones), are stable.
Pentecostals (23%), are growing.
New churches (12%) are stable.
Charismatic (16%) and declining.
Open/traditional evangelicals (27%) (e.g. NT Wright), are declining.
Emergent (3%) (e.g. Greenbelt, Brian McLaren), are increasing.

Ronan's prayer life

2011-09-04T21:52:00.000+01:00

I was speaking at an all-age service in church this morning. The topic was 'prayer'. I asked the kids what things we can pray to God about. Ronan put up his hand and said, 'you can ask God for a wife'. He is starting early.

As it happens there is a bunch of us going to Lisdoonvarna to do outreach next Saturday. For those in the know, Lisdoonvarna is the town where there is a festival for bachelors to meet their brides. Perhaps Ronan should join us!

Faith

2011-09-01T15:00:00.002+01:00

I believe that God heals, and perhaps we don’t pray enough for healing. But I know that there are times when he chooses not to heal. Elisha was used to raise a person from the dead but later we read that Elisha fell sick of the illness of which he was to die (2 Kings 13:14). Like everyone else godly people get sick and die. Faith is not only praying in the knowledge that God can heal, faith is holding on to God in the illnesses we have to bear.

I believe that God answers prayer, and certainly we don’t pray expectantly enough. But I know that sometimes God says no. Three times the apostle Paul asked for the thorn in his flesh to be removed, and the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness’ (2 Cor. 12:9). Faith does not only believe in prayer, faith accepts when God’s ways are different than our hopes.

I believe that God gives good gifts to his children. But I notice that the New Testament is filled with warning of the dangers of wealth. Faith is not only being thankful for the good things we may have in life, faith involves being content whatever our circumstances. The apostle Paul warned Timothy of the dangers of loving money and then counselled, ‘godliness with contentment is great gain.’

Testimony - Alice Cooper

2011-08-26T17:35:00.000+01:00

I like the song 'Poison', although I haven't paid attention to the lyrics to see if they are wholesome, but other than that I know very little about Alice Cooper. I have always been impressed by him when I have heard him on the radio. I had heard that he is a Christian. In this clip he shares his faith.

Forgiving the inexcusable

2011-08-25T10:40:00.001+01:00

In an essay entitled On Forgiveness C. S. Lewis explains the difference between asking for forgiveness and giving an excuse. He explains that forgiving says "Yes, you have done this thing, but I accept your apology; I will never hold it against you and everything between the two of us will be exactly as it was before", but excusing says "I see that you couldn't help it or didn't mean it; you weren't really to blame."

When someone acts in a way that hurts us it may be helpful to think about why they did what they did. We may see some excuses for their behaviour. But generally those excuses will not provide full justification for what they have done. The remainder we need to forgive. That's what makes forgiveness so difficult.

Lewis writes,

even if he is absolutely fully to blame we still have to forgive him; and even if ninety-nine percent of his apparent guilt can be explained away by really good excuses, the problem of forgiveness begins with the one percent of guilt which is left over. To excuse what can really produce good excuses is not Christian charity, it is only fairness. To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable, because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.

Beyond Doubt

2011-08-18T11:11:00.000+01:00

There is a blog that has the catch line, 'to believe is human, to doubt is divine.' I have to say that I think that is nonsense. Every Christian goes through times of doubt and those times can be deeply painful. The Bible never portrays doubt in a positive light. However we are told to have mercy with those who doubt (Jude 22). I find the following clip from William Lane Craig to be very helpful.

Stott on death and life

2011-08-16T20:27:00.000+01:00

I think that I may have purchased more books by John Stott than any other author (not that I claim to have read them all). He died recently. I was disappointed that the Irish Times didn't seem to mention anything about his death. It suggests that evangelicalism isn't on their radar at all. Stott has had such a leading role in modern evangelicalism. I think that he looks weary in the second of these two clips.

Ronan doesn't get the Sermon on the Mount

2011-08-12T13:41:00.003+01:00

We were having lunch with our friends Jason and Denise when Ronan and Anya barge in crying. I enquire what has happened. 'They [Anya and her friends] were bullying me.'
'Didn't Jesus say that we were not to hit back?' I pointed out.
'I started it,' protested Ronan. So how could it be called hitting back?

Being filled with the Spirit

2011-08-10T18:46:00.000+01:00

I was talking to one of my favourite people on the phone today (hi Rachel). She confessed that she doesn't love Mark Driscoll but does benefit from his teaching. I know what she means. Mark seems to have an opinion on everything and sometimes says things that get him in trouble. Rachel said that he seems to be a bit of a 'man's man'. He is probably too much of an alpha male for my liking. Although, unlike Rachel, I do love him. I think there is something very appealing about him. He certainly is a very gifted teacher.

I have been working very hard over the last few days and have not had the energy to do much reading. However, I have learned that their are lots of good video resources on the web (do we still talk about video?). Anyway, I found the following explanation of being filled with the Spirit very helpful.

In one of his books Driscoll explains how he prepares to preach. He spends as much time as possible researching the subject or passage. Then he preaches from what he has learned, without notes (as far as I remember). Of course the problem with not having notes is that you end up repeating yourself. I feel he is not as concise as he could be in this clip. Nevertheless it is very good!

Justified

2011-08-08T13:14:00.000+01:00

And all God's people said 'Amen!'

Mark Driscoll on the Gospel

2011-08-06T11:27:00.000+01:00

Prosperity Gospel

2011-08-03T18:35:00.002+01:00

What should we make of the prosperity gospel? Rather than argue against this myself I decided to see what a few of my favorite preachers says about it.

Tongues and being filled with the Spirit

2011-08-03T14:54:00.001+01:00

Some people thing that speaking in tongues is an essential part of being filled with the Spirit. I disagree!

Now I do believe that the gift of tongues is for today. But I do not believe that tongues is necessary evidence of being filled with the Spirit. I believe that you can be filled with the Spirit and not speak in tongues and I believe that you can speak in tongues and remain a very carnal believer.

The Evidence from Acts

There are a couple of things that need to be borne in mind when reading the book of Acts. Firstly, we need to think about what in the story is descriptive (what actually happened) and what is proscriptive (what we are being told to do). Secondly, we need to be aware that certain events recorded there are a part of the unique unfolding redemptive-historical plan. Thirdly, we need to realise that Pentecost introduces a new age of which we are a part.

On the day of Pentecost we read of believers who are filled with the Spirit and speak in tongues. Does this mean that every time someone is filled with the Spirit they will speak in tongues? The text does not say so. What we have is primarily description of a unique moment in God's unfolding redemptive-historical plan (like the events at Calvary are a unique moment). The day of Pentecost was part of bringing in the new age in which we live. From this time forward every believer has the indwelling Holy Spirit and now we live in an age that should experience prophecy.

One fatal objection to those who say that Pentecost teaches that being filled with the Spirit is always accompanied by tongues is the nature of tongues that were spoken on that day. These were not the angelic utterances that so many claim to speak today but actual languages that people gathered in Jerusalem from other parts could recognise. Another objection is the fact that Luke records many instances where people or said to be filled with the Spirit or full of the Spirit and there is no mention of speaking in tongues (Acts 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5; 7:55; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9, 52).

The Evidence from 1 Corinthians 12-14

In 1 Corinthians 12-14 the apostle Paul addresses the issue of spiritual gifts. It appears that some Christians were creating divisions over these. There were those who thought that their gifts made them superior and others who wanted an end the use of certain gifts. It may be argued that the use is tongues in Corinth was both xenoglossia (the speaking of known languages) and glossalalia (verbal pattern that cannot be recognised as human languages).

Tongues is listed among the gifts mentioned in chapter 12. The apostle Paul explains that the Holy Spirit gives gifts to each one individually as he wills. This does not give the impression that tongues is meant for all, in fact the opposite might be inferred. 'Paul's aim is ... to prevent them from making any one gift the sine qua non, the sign without which one might legitimately call in question whether the Holy Spirit was present and active' (Carson). When Paul asks the rhetorical question 'do all speak with tongues?' the implication is that tongues is not for all.

What about Paul's desire that all would speak in tongues (14:5)? Firstly, this is not teaching that tongues is a necessary sign of being filled in the Spirit - nothing in these chapters makes such a connection. Secondly, it simply means that he sees tongues as a good thing (in 7:7 he speaks of his desire for all to be celibate, because he sees it as a good thing, but concedes it is not for all).

Pastoral reflections

I am not opposed to tongue-speaking. I do object to tongues being used in the public assembly when there is no one with an interpretation (1 Cor. 14:27); I do not see tongues as a gift that every believer can expect (1 Cor. 12:11); and I believe that tongues can be practiced by those who are loveless in faith (1 Cor. 13:1). Therefore I see no good reason to think that tongues is a sign of being filled with the Spirit.

Enjoy the Cross-Centred Life

2011-08-02T15:48:00.000+01:00

I have started a new blog. It is entitled 'Enjoy the Cross-Centred life.' It aims to be more focused than this blog and in particular to help those who might be interested in exploring the Christian faith. I will continue to post on this blog and there will be a lot of overlap between the two blogs. The following is the blogs explanation of itself.

'God created man for nothing else but happiness' (Jonathan Edwards, 1703-58). Does that sound strange to you? What about Jesus' call to take up our cross (Mark 8:34)? Jesus calls us to deny ourselves so that in giving him control of our lives we might know life in relationship with him. That is life in all its fullness (John 10:10). He calls people to the joy of obedience, to live for a cause greater than ourselves and to know that he is with us even in our sorrows.

Sam Storms explains that 'Christianity forbids no pleasure save those that lead to temporal misery and eternal woe ... God has forbidden you nothing that is conducive to your ultimate satisfaction and delight.' He then explains that, 'Sin is the misguided and selfish determination to seek happiness in places where ultimately only emptiness and disillusionment are found.' Similarly C. S. Lewis spoke of how, in living for sinful pleasures rather than enjoying God, we are 'like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea.'
This blog aims to point you in the direction of enjoyment in God. It is only then that you will truly give him the glory that he deserves.

How can God forgive wicked people (like me)?

2011-07-30T22:58:00.002+01:00

My friend Mary has a question. ‘How could Myra Hindley be forgiven?’ Do you remember Hinley? She was involved in the terrible Moors’ murders. She was found guilty of despicable crimes. Yet there were claims that she has found God. If that is true then she is a sister of every other believer. How do we feel about that?

What about Andres Breivik in Norway? Supposing he arrived into court one day and said, ‘I am sorry for what I have done, I have asked God to accept and forgive me, and I want to give thanks for his love’? How would the people in Norway feel?

This was the problem Jonah was struggling with (see the book of Jonah). The city of Nineveh was a feared and hated place. Its people were responsible for all kinds of atrocities. As one preacher says, ‘Nineveh had been keeping undertakers in Israel busy for years’. Now God calls Jonah to speak to these people. Jonah knows what God is at. In God’s warnings there is mercy. God’s threats of judgement are kindness. He is telling them what he will do if they do not repent. In so doing is calling them to turn to him and experience his forgiveness. Jonah does not want these wicked people to have their sin forgiven (Jonah 4:2).

So how can God forgive wicked people like Myra Hindley? How could God desire the salvation of Andres Breivik (2 Peter 3:9)? How could God invite a wicked city like Nineveh to experience his forgiveness? The question is actually more personal. How could God forgive sinful people like us? After all, the Bible tells us that there is none who has not sinned (1 Kings 8); that we all turned our backs on God on gone astray like sheep (Isaiah 53), and that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3). I love the realism of the old spiritual hymn that goes ‘were you there when they crucified my Lord?’ Don’t think that we would not have been amongst the crowd shouting ‘crucify’. Yet later on the cross Jesus looked at those who despised him and prayed ‘Father, forgive them.’

If we were only to see how utterly holy God is, and how abhorrent he sees our sin to be, then we would realise the question becomes ‘How could God forgive me?’ The undeserved forgiveness that Myra Hindley needed, the unmerited forgiveness that the people of Nineveh would experience, is the same unearned forgiveness that each of us has been offered.

God forgives wicked people like us because of the cross. The whole of the Bible points to the cross. On the cross God demonstrates that he is both just and the one who justifies (Rom. 3:26). There we see that God has not turned a blind eye to sin. His forgiveness does not mean that he thinks that the crime does not matter. But he has dealt with the demands of justice by taking the divine penalty of guilt upon himself. Justice is done. Now he has the right to forgive anyone he wishes as he moves people to turn their lives back to him.

Norway

2011-07-23T20:42:00.002+01:00

We were on our way home from Connemara when I heard of the full extent of the atrocity in Norway. My father-in-law and mother-in-law met us at our pre-arranged meeting point, Bridget's Garden outside Galway. Hilary described the killer as a 'Christian-fundamentalist.' My heart sank. As a conservative-evangelical I could be described as a 'Christian-fundamentalist'. I wondered 'what spin will the press put on this?' I think it was after the terrible events of Waco, Texas when one Sunday newspaper published a list of churches in Ireland that they felt 'could be' dodgy (including at least two that I knew to be very sound).

Presumably this guy in Norway has significant mental-health issues. Certainly he has not read his Bible completely. The designation 'Christian-fundamentalist' may simply mean that he is a white-fascist with a loose Christian link. He is certainly not someone who can be accused of taking Christianity too seriously. After all I believe that the Bible is infallible. I believe that there is a correct way that it is to be understood. I believe that it moves in a direction and is to be understood in light of its overall teaching. I believe that the attitude that Christians are to have towards anyone that we might be tempted to think of as an enemy is that of love and good deeds. I don't believe that anyone who understands what it means to be a true Christian fundamentalist would engage in any such militant terroristt actions.

I was pleased to see that the Irish Times's profile of this man did not highlight 'Christian findamentalism'.

Arriving home I turned on the Internet to read of Amy Winehouse's death. When she first came on the scene I used to get frustrated with her because she always seemed to be in the news for reasons other than her music. Then I started to become more compassionate towards her. This may have been influenced by thinking of Jesus' attitude towards the troubled and those with bad reputations. I bought one of her CD's and was blown away by her voice. Unfortunately I found some of the lyrics in her music to be inappropriate but she had awesome talent.

As we drove home I did think 'I would love to be going back to Richhill'. But when we arrived in Silver Brook I knew 'it is right to be here.' I look forward to catching up with my new friends at LBC in the morning.

Postscript: Ed Stetzer has this article on Andres Behring Breivek (the Norwegian killer). Another link shows that while this man may be a fundamentalist he is certainly not an 'evangelical' fundamentalist'. I don't know of any of us 'evaneglical fundamentalists' who support a collective return to the Roman Catholic church or have admiration of for the Freemasons. I note his un-evangelical use of the term 'priests', his contempt of those of us who have concerns about how the Palestinians have been treated, and his distaste of low church dress and architecture. This is no 'conservative evangelical.'

Washed and Waiting

2011-07-17T15:46:00.000+01:00

Having had a great time in New Wine we are now in Connemara, five miles from Clifton. We are staying in Caz's granny's cottage. She bought it for £100 in the 1960's. It is very primitive, and because her folks won't let us put toilet paper down the loo (there is a problem with the water supply) I have ventured into town to a local hotel (her parents are burning the used loo paper in the fire). I am also availing of the hotel's wi-fi.

At New Wine there was a great seminar taken by a guy called Jonathan Berry, from New Freedom Trust. Jonathan is a man who has struggled with homosexual desires since he was eight. He was living with his partner when he ventured into a church and was converted. He believes the traditional (and I believe biblical) view that sex is to be restricted to heterosexual marriage. Jonathan could speak with an authority and insight that I, as a happily married heterosexual, could not.

I also purchased a book entitled Washed and Waiting by Wesley Hill. Hill is also a homosexual Christian who seeks to honour God by living a celibate lifestyle. The book is thoughtful and is helping me see the pain that such faithful people go through in their desire to please God. It is also a challenge to develop supportive communities who can help people with all sorts of struggles.

Why I believe!

2011-07-09T17:17:00.000+01:00

When I was doing probation studies as a Methodist minister we were given a very interesting talk by Pete Rollins. Pete has since become a pin-up boy for the emerging church and tours America. Pete's blog has the subtitle 'to believe is human, to doubt is divine.' When he talked to us he was enthusiastic, kind-of deep, and confusing. Apparently he is a very nice bloke, although we come from opposite ends of the theological spectrum.

Pete began his talk asking us why we believed. I guess that he thought that we had based our belief on subjective grounds. I suppose it is not surprising that he has gone on to be an advocate for doubt. I did find his question challenging and I have often pondered it. What follows are some uncompleted thoughts on the grounds for faith.

1. I believe that God is the author of belief. Ultimately I think that I believe because God has revealed himself to me. I believe that he opens people's eyes to see the truth. I believe that he rescues us from our spiritual ignorance. Any other grounds for belief are really variations on this theme (or the means of how God achieved this end).

2. I believe because I have seen him in others. My parents are believers. As a child I could see that they were different from other adults. They had an integrity that was real. These were intelligent, thoughtful people who had a solid and transforming belief in the God of the Bible.

3. I believe because it makes sense. When I went to college in Dublin I wanted to find out more about the Christian faith. I joined the Christian Union and met some very intelligent Christians. I know that God does not choose many who are wise by this world's standards (1 Cor. 1:26-27) but I am glad for the wise ones he has chosen. These intelligent Christians comfort me in the fact that they have thought through the questions raised by faith and are comfortable with their belief.

One of the areas where Christianity really makes sense to me is in its explanation of the human condition. In humanity I see unmistakable greatness and an clear inner bent towards doing the wrong thing. In other words I see that eternity has been placed in our hearts and that we battle against a sinful nature.

4. I believe because their is objective evidence. Before I went to theological college a liberal clergyman said that my naivety about the Bible would be knocked out of me with some further study. Now I can not claim to be an expert on such things as textual criticism but it seemed to me that the detractions of liberal scholars revealed more about their presuppositions than it did about the biblical texts supposed lack of trustworthiness. I believe that there are solid grounds for accepting the Bible to be true. In particular I am impressed by the manuscript evidence for the New Testament. I think that the transformation that occurred in the disciples lives, and that of Saul from Tarsus, is a strong testimony to the resurrection. I think that while there is much debate about the nature of creation something cannot come from nothing and the existence of something, particularly a beautiful something, points to a creator.

5. I believe because I believe. I am always uncomfortable when someone says 'I just beleive'. I think that we shouldn't separate belief from reason. Yet every Christian points to an inner sense of belief. This seems to be the witness of the Holy Spirit because these things are true.

6. I believe because God is still at work today. I have been thinking through the issue of 'signs and wonders'. I am not sure how much these function as authenticating belief. What I do know is that is that there are many credible evidences of God's intervention in people's lives today (you can click on to the label 'amazing things God does' for some examples).

Limerick

2011-07-08T16:43:00.001+01:00

Well it's the end of the first week in Limerick. It has been some week. While we still miss Richhill it is exciting to make new friends in our new home city and church. I would tell you about all the people I have met but that would be an inappropriate thing for a pastor to do (confidentiality and all that), and it might give away the fact that I have not done as much visiting as I had hoped. Much of this week has been spent setting up bank accounts, trying to get the cars registered etc. It is only in the last hour that we have finally got broadband set up,

Perhaps the highlight of the week was heading up with Louise Lyons to the Moy Ross housing estate. We had an evening of craic, spiritual talk and Bible study with some McCarthys. Pa (junior) came to know the Lord through watching the God Channel. He does a great gospel rap, that I intend to post on this blog soon.

I sorted out my books in the church study. It made me realise how many I own that I have not read. The next year I intend read books rather than simply buy books.

By the way I have been assigned a personal assistant (hi Barbara). Poor Barbara is going to have to put up with how disorganised I am.

The Wisdom of Ronan

2011-07-02T18:30:00.003+01:00

It was a tearful farewell. Some of the neighbours waved us off and we went to David and Ruth’s for lunch. Then time came to leave. Ronan came with me. As I turned on to the New Line I took a glance up Main Street. Sentiment got the better of me and I drove up by the church. Ronan cottoned on to what I was doing. His voice came from the back street, ‘a last look at the beautiful world of Richhill.’ It totally summed up what I was thinking.

Of course he was less profound as we drove in to Hamiltonsbawn. ‘I am glad we are going to Limerick, it won’t be smelly like Richhill—the farmers won’t be spraying things.’

As we entered the suburbs of Limerick he was back to being profound. ‘Which is more beautiful,’ he asked, ‘Richhill or Limerick?’ My loyalties were divided. I love Richhill but Limerick is now our new home. He answered his own question. ‘I reckon Richhill is more beautiful, but soon we will forget Richhill and think that Limerick is.’

A friendly kid called Callum took the initiative to play with our guys. Caroline overheard Ronan ask if he knew where Brentwood Park is. Pity the world isn’t that small.

Thanks to Richhill Methodist

2011-06-25T10:51:00.000+01:00

Tomorrow is our last Sunday in Richhill. After church there will be a presentation and then we are heading off to Loughgall Park. Here is what I want to say as thanks to Richhill Methodist.

I am aware that there are times I have let you down. I have focused attention on me rather simply pointing to God. I have not prayed for you the way I ought. There are have been times when I have not reflected the compassion that shines out of Jesus, when we read those beautiful words ‘and his heart went out to them’. Worse still there have been times that my words have been foolish or insensitive.

The word that comes to mind when I think of you is kindness. I have never enjoyed a church as much as this. Not every church could show such understanding when their pastor had to take time off because he struggled with mental illness. Not every church allows their pastor be honest about his struggles, many pastors have to pretend they have no weaknesses. Not every pastor feels encouraged and loved by the congregations they serve with. Thank you!

I want to ask that you might do something. Love Nick and Leslie. Nearly two years ago someone told me that Nick was likely to be available the year we were moving. I have prayed that he would be the person that would follow me. I liked him from the first time I remember meeting him. I trust his character and faith. He is warm and charming and has a great sense of humour. He is loved by the churches he is leaving. Be patient with him as you have been patient with me. Accommodate his weaknesses the way you accommodated mine. You have been so kind in the way you have loved us as a family. We have felt that our children were precious to you. Let Leslie, Becky and Jack know that they are precious to you. You never viewed us as outsiders sent here to do a job but have accepted as one of your own. Take the McKnights close to your hearts. Pray for them.

Are we at the very end?

2011-06-18T20:52:00.000+01:00

We have all met them. The enthusiasts in church who believe the Lord's return is coming very soon. They will point to the news and say that we have evidence of 'the signs of the times.' I have usually responded with a 'maybe', and then given the rather patronising observation that every generation has had such 'signs of the times', and that in fact there were other moments in history where it might have seemed more likely that the Lord was just about to return.

I am reading Mike Bickle's book entitled, Growing in the Prophetic. I am finding it fascinating. It is full of good practical advice on how prophetic ministries should function. But Mike believes that we are in the very end period of the last days. I am not fully convinced. Yet I have found myself convicted of the fact that I have not lived with an expectation of the Lord's return. I am guilty of not contemplating the possibility that it could be soon. I have not let the fact that it could be sooner than I expect affect the way I live.

Listening to God 4: 'Voices from Heaven'

2011-06-15T16:01:00.000+01:00

Francis Schaeffer was one of the most respected and admired evangelicals of the twentieth century. The following is a story his wife, Edith, recounted of a remarkable happening that took place early in his ministry.

Francis and his young family faced a crisis, they needed temporary accommodation during a transition time but had very little money. While Francis was praying about this, he said to God, "Where can we live, Lord? Please show us." Immediately, in response to his question, he heard an audible voice. It wasn't simply a voice within his mind, it was as if another person had spoken. It simply said, "Uncle Harrison's house."

Uncle Harrison had never given the Schaeffer family anything, and they reckoned that it would be very unlikely he would offer his house to live in. Yet because the voice had been so startling and direct he felt that he had better obey it and ask his uncle.

He wrote to his uncle, asking him what he intended to do with his house for the next year. To his astonishment he uncle replied that he planned to live with his brother for the next year and would like to offer the Schaeffer's free of rent for a year. This proved to be a turning point in the Schaeffer's lives, and later Edith would say the clarity of that voice helped them through one of their most difficult years.

Now I must point out that even those who believe that God speaks to people in such ways today admit that such occurrences are rare. But they do happen!

When Peter stands up and explains what had just happened on Pentecost he begins, ‘In the last days …’ Bible commentator F. F. Bruce explains that the last days are the days between Jesus’ first coming and his second coming. So we are in the last days. What happens in those last days? ‘Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dreams dreams … I will pour out my Spirit in those days and they will prophesy’ (Acts 2:17-18).

Prophecy, visions and dreams are a part of the Christian life in these last days. We should be open to the idea that God may speak to us in these ways.

One encouraging thing to mention! There are many reports coming from the Muslim world of people who are meeting Jesus in their dreams. Missionaries are finding that when they share the gospel with Muslims the way has been prepared by Christ.

Listening to God 3: 'God speaking through Spiritual Gifts'

2011-06-13T09:14:00.002+01:00

[For those who would read arguements in favour of the continuation of revelatory gifts for today I would recomment Don Carson's Showing the Spirit or to read here.]

Some people do not believe that all of the gifts mentioned in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians are for today. They fear that gifts that involve a revelation a revelation from God might compete with God’s word in the Bible if they were practiced now. They believe that those gifts were only for the time of the apostles and that they ceased when the apostles died. If you don’t agree with that position, I plead with you not to look down on those who do. Just because someone believes certain gifts stopped with the apostles does not make them unspiritual. For example, I am reading a book by an American called Charles Swindoll, who believes that prophecy is no longer available to the church. But it is clear from his writings that Charles is a man who loves the Lord deeply and I believe is filled with the Holy Spirit.

Another person who did not believe that gifts such as prophecy were available today was the great Baptist preacher Chares Spurgeon. Yet if I were to give an example of the gifts in operation I could hardly give a better example that the following incident from his life.

While preaching at Exeter Hall, he once broke off his sermon and pointed in a certain direction, declaring: “Young man, those gloves you are wearing have not been paid for: you have stolen them from your employer.” After the service, an obviously pale and agitated young man approached Spurgeon and begged to speak to him privately. He placed a pair of gloves on the table and said, “It’s the first time I have robbed my master, and I will never do it again. You won’t expose me, sir, will you? It would kill my mother if she heard I had become a thief…” (Sam Storms)

Perhaps this is what Paul calls a ‘message of knowledge’. Other gifts that involve the impartation of revelation from God are ‘a message of wisdom’, ‘tongues with an interpretation’, ‘prophecy’, and what is simply called ‘a revelation’. It is not always clear what the distinction between each of these is.

One thing that needs to be remembered is that the apostle Paul says that such revelations are imperfect in the New Testament. For example, he says that prophecy is to be weighed (1 Cor. 14:29). It is not then same as happens with certain prophets like Isaiah in the Old Testament who could confidently declare, ‘Thus says the Lord’, and whatever followed was taken as being an oracle direct from God. The concept of weighing New Testament revelation implies that it is of mixed content, that it is imperfect in character, and that the wheat needs to be separated from the chaff.

So our practice in Café church is that if anyone feels they have been given a prophetic word, David or I will first listen to it, to see if we can perceive anything that might counteract Scripture and then invite them to share it with everyone else. As a congregation we then listen to it, knowing that it imperfect in character, and seeing if these words might comfort or challenge us in any way.

Supposing someone fears such words are not necessary now that we have the completed Bible. Sam Storms explains

Scripture never claims to supply us with all possible information necessary to make every conceivable decision. Scripture may tell us to preach the gospel to all people, but it does not tell a new missionary in 2005 that God desires his service in Albania rather than Australia. The potential for God speaking beyond Scripture, whether for guidance, exhortation, encouragement, or conviction of sin, poses no threat to the sufficiency that Scripture claims for itself.

Hearing God 2: 'When God gives us a burden'

2011-06-09T11:26:00.000+01:00

Do you ever think that if you want to do something then it could not possibly be God’s will for you? Elizabeth Elliot writes

For a long time I took the view that whatever I might want to do could not possibly be what God wanted me to do … A better understanding of Scripture has shown me that even I, chief of miserable offenders that I know myself to be, may now and then actually want what God wants. This is likely to be the case more and more as I practice obedience …

One of the blessings of the New Covenant which Jesus has established is to do with our desires. In Ezekiel (36:26-27) we read, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you … I will put Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. Of course we have to be on our guard for we know that of sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit (Gal. 5:17). We have to learn which desires are implanted in us by God and which reflect such things as our selfish ambitions. But godly desires can be one of the means that God prompts us to move in a certain direction.

Related to this is what might be called ‘a burden.’ Brother Andrew describes a burden as, ‘something we become deeply motivated to pray about or act on, some part of history that God’s Spirit invites us to influence through our prayers..’ Another author explains ‘there will be grace within us that drives us to reach out to those for whom God has burdened us.’

Biblical examples of such burdens include Nehemiah’s desire to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. He describes a moment where“… I had not told anyone what my God had put on my heart to do for Jerusalem …” (Neh. 2:12). Similarly, the apostle Paul told the church at Corinth of how God put into the heart of Titus the same concern that I have for you (2 Cor. 8:16). The Holy Spirit ‘does wonderfully incline the hearts of believers in various directions.’

There is one word of caution. A burden for some course of action is not always God’s green light to proceed. King David had it on his heart to build the temple, and God commended him for this desire in his heart, but nevertheless it was not God’s will that David would build the temple (2 Chronicles 6:8-9). A burden should at least get us praying about things and may be God’s prompting to step out in faith.

Hearing God 1: 'When a Text Comes to Mind'

2011-06-01T14:51:00.002+01:00

Over the next few days I am going to look at those means, that go beyond the plain reading of the Bible, whereby we might hear God.

1. A text that comes to mind

Haddon Robinson complains about those who turn the Bible into a book of magic. For example, a person might open their Bible randomly and imagine that the first verse they set their eyes on is God’s particular word to their situation.

So the joke is told of the young man who was into flipping his Bible open at random passages to see what God’s will for him was. One day the Bible opened Matthew 27:5 (… Then Judas went away and hanged himself). Not happy with that word he flipped his Bible open to another text, his eyes descended on Luke 10:37 (… Jesus told him, ‘Go and do likewise'). He was even more disturbed and so he flipped the Bible open one more time, it fell at John 13:27 (Jesus said, “What you are about to do, do quickly").

I heard a woman give her testimony, which included talking about God’s direction for her life. She was trying to make a decision between living in the south of the island or in the border counties. She said she received a word from Isaiah who was told to go to the north and speak. She felt that God was telling her to go north. But such reasoning ignores the context of the Scriptures. The verse she looked at was a specific word for Isaiah. If it was taken to be a general principle beyond him then we should all travel north.

The truth is if we are going to take random verses of Scripture, ripped out of context, we might as well turn to the newspaper for such guidance. We might as well say, as we drive along in our car, ‘whatever the next billboard tells me to do, I will do!’ That being said, we should not be too hard on people who tell such stories of guidance. John Stott states, ‘I cannot deny that occasionally God seems to have guided individuals through a specific verse wrenched out of its context. But I must add that he has done it only in condescension to our weakness.’

But there is something that sounds familiar but is entirely different. I believe that sometimes the Lord will bring a text to mind. That text, giving respect to its meaning and context, may be a special encouragement to us or others. For example, Elizabeth Elliot writes, ‘I have never heard any voices or seen any visions from heaven … I have been reminded “out of the blue” on more occasions than I can count, of some word from the Bible which exactly suited my need.’ Similarly Storms explains

I’ve had several incidents where I was praying for someone, often a student of mine, and a single biblical text would suddenly come to mind. I would then quote it in the prayer and try to make application of it to their need. Afterwards, I would look up and find them in tears, asking: “How did you know that I had been meditating on that one verse before I walked in here? I was asking God to confirm his will to me through that verse and suddenly you spoke it into my life.”

The Bible precedent for this is found in John 16:13-15 (… when he, the Spirit of truth, comes he will guide you into all truth … the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you). Jim Elliff notes that while these verses were initially given to the Apostles, and had to do with their writing of down of what we know of the New Testament, there is a secondary application of these words to every true believer.

Of course the great thing about texts that pop into our mind is that if their context is properly taken into account any verse that comes to us has something to say to us—whether it came from our own imagining or was especially placed their by the Holy Spirit.

Love God and Do as You Please!

2011-05-27T14:33:00.004+01:00

I am doing a dissertation of the theme of Guidance. In fact I have just sent the first draft to my supervisor. If you were to ask me what I thought was the most helpful thing I have read on this topic I would probably point you to an essay by Tozer, entitled, 'How the Lord Leads,' in the book 'The Set of the Sail.'

Tozer claims that the ‘man or woman who is wholly and joyously surrendered to Christ cannot make a wrong choice. Any choice will be the right one.’ What freedom that gives! Our major role is simply to seek to please God and leave the rest to him.

However, Tozer's words come with a challenge as well as comfort. In fact Tozer talks of making decisions exercising sanctified preferences. If we want to make decisions that are pleasing to God then we need to be pursing holiness. As James Petty explains, ‘the first step in seeking guidance from God is to ask him to test and search our hearts for any areas of our life, beliefs, or motives that are not given over to him.’

Is Passion a Good Measure of Spiritual Health?

2011-05-22T20:37:00.000+01:00

I do not believe that passion is an adequate measure of spiritual health. Now I need to be careful here, for I am not the most passionate person when it comes to singing. When we have a time of praise I prefer to sit and close my eyes than stand and raise my hands. I could probably do with getting more involved at such moments. I am not advocating a passionless faith. I am arguing for passion plus more than passion. Three texts come to mind.

Firstly, there is the parable of the sower. You might remember the shallow soil. It greeted the news of the gospel with great enthusiasm. Yet when the going got tough these people did not persevere. Enthusiasm is clearly not enough. If I had to make a judgement about the reality of someone's faith I wouldn't be overly concerned about how passionately they sing. That just might be an issue of temperament. Obedience is a better indicator of spiritual reality than passion. After all Jesus said, 'if you love me you will obey my commands.' Rather than how passionate they appear I would want to find out if those who know them best can see the difference Jesus is making in their attitudes.

Secondly, there are the Pharisees. They had zeal but no love. They fasted twice a week, even though the Old Testament law only proscribed one fast a year. There was nothing wrong with their extra fasting, but there was something wrong with the attitude that accompanied it. They looked down on those who did not share their passion. They measured spiritual strength by whether people went along with their man-made rules. So in the past I would have got worked up about the poor attendance at certain Sunday evening services or mid-week events. But whoever said that we need to be at church twice on a Sunday and attend any amount of weekday activities? If I judge people's spiritual strength on the basis of attendance at meetings I may be acting like those Pharisees.

Thirdly, there are the super-spiritual tongue-speakers in Corinth. Now I believe that tongue-speaking is a gift for today. But the problem for these people in Corinth is that they looked down on those that did not share their gift. They were spiritual snobs. Having, one gift does not make you more spiritual than people who have been given any other gift. Paul addresses the situation with that wonderful passage on love in 1 Corinthians 13. Again here were people with a wrong measure for spiritual strength. They thought that they were strong, but they lacked love and so were more than weak. I once heard of a woman (I hope this is not true) who divorced her husband because he was not spiritual enough for her. I worry about people who will leave their church because they don't think the rest of the congregation is as spiritual as them.

Whether you raise your hands or sit on them, whether you only attend on Sunday mornings or go to every meeting you can get to, these are not the measures of spiritual reality. Passion can be superficial. I am advocating passion plus. Passion plus obedience, for our obedience is a real measure of our love for God. Passion plus transformation, for the Holy Spirit wills to produce his fruit in us. Most importantly, passion plus a love, for without a love for our brothers and sisters in Christ our passion is in vain.

Biblical perspectives in tension

2011-05-19T13:44:00.001+01:00

The relationship between God's sovereignty and human responsibility is one that I have struggled to get my head around. I imagine it is a theological tension that I will simply have to live with. I have read some of Don Carson's Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: biblical perspectives in tension. Here are a few snippets.

'Perhaps no area of doctrine has been more consistently debated throughout the twenty centuries of Christianity's life than that of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.'

'The pre-exilic prophets unite in presenting Yahweh as the one who finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked, who pleads with men to return to him and avoid the otherwise inevitable and horrible consequences of their own rebellion ... Even when all due allowance is made for anthropomorphisms, the necessary conclusion is that men are viewed as responsible creatures whose rebellion Yahweh is enduring with merciful forbearance, and punishing with reluctant wrath.'

'It is clear in both Mark and John that those condemned are in any case condemned justly condemned, i.e. they are rightly accountable for their unbelief ... they are not forced into an unbelief they do not themselves want.'

'Both in the Old Testament and in the forth Gospel, not to say elsewhere, God is sometimes presented as the one who seeks lost men out, loves a lost world, declares his yearning for their repentance, and the like. This "will" of God is his disposition; it is not necessarily his decree. But precisely how both operate in one sovereign God is extremely difficult to understand.'

God save her ...

2011-05-17T22:55:00.002+01:00

What an historic day! The Queen visits Dublin, and only a hundred people protest. Most people seem glad that she is here. It seems that we are moving to a more mature relationship with 'the old enemy.'

What an historic moment! In the Garden of Remembrance she bows her head in respect to men who fought for Irish Independence. I am still trying to process the significance of that. It is a great acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the Irish state. It recognises aspirations of those who fought. However, I have never quite felt at ease about the events leading up to independence, given the apostle Paul's injunction to respect the civil authorities (Romans 13). I regret the loss of life of both sides. I also wonder if independence might have come more peacefully without the events of 1916.

I think today has been a good day for the Republic. David Blevins will have an interesting few days reporting this with Sky. I look forward to hearing his stories when he returns to Richhill.

Till Death do us part

2011-05-13T22:00:00.002+01:00

Dr. Robertson McQuilkin was the president of the Columbia Bible College. Unfortunately his wife, Muriel, suffered from Alzheimer's disease. In March 1990 Dr. McQuilkin announced his resignation in a letter with these words:

My dear wife, Muriel, has been in failing mental health for about eight years. So far I have been able to carry both her ever-growing needs and my leadership responsibilities at CBC. But recently it has become apparent that Muriel is contented most of the time she is with me and almost none of the time I am away from her. It is not just "discontent." She is filled with fear - even terror - that she has lost me and always goes in search of me when I leave home. Then she may be full of anger when she cannot get to me. So it is clear to me that she needs me now, full time.
Perhaps it would help you to understand if I shared with you what I shared at the time of the announcement of my resignation in chapel. The decision was made, in a way, 42 years ago when I promised to care for Muriel "in sickness and in health ... till death do us part." So, as I told the students and faculty, as a man of my word, integrity has something to do with it. But so does fairness. She has cared for me fully and sacrificially all these years; if I cared for her for the next 40 years I would not be out of debt. Duty, however, can be grim and stoic. But there is more; I love Muriel. She is a delight to me - her childlike dependence and confidence in me, her warm love, occasional flashes of wit I used to relish so, her happy spirit and tough resilience in the face of her continual distressing frustration. I do not have to care for her, I get to! It is a high honor to care for so wonderful a person.

Kent Hughes, who includes this letter in his book The Disciplines of a Godly Man writes:

The following month Barbara and I had a brief visit with the McQuilkins and witnessed Dr. McQuilkin's gentle, loving way with his dear wife, who understood little of what was going on. The memory of our visit is one of lingering beauty.
Such beautiful Christlike love did not just happen! It came from the inner resolve of a young husband who had determined forty-two years before to live under the authority of God's directives regarding how a godly man must love his wife - as spelled out in Ephesians 5. They are directives every Christian man ought to be familiar with, must understand, and, I think, even commit to memory - as I myself have. They are the foundational discipline of marriage - the bases for holy matrimonial sweat.

And God Changed His Mind ...

2011-05-11T11:00:00.000+01:00

On Monday I picked up a second-hand copy of the book And God Changed His Mind ... because his people prayed, by Brother Andrew. I remember reading Brother Andrew's book God Smuggler when I was much younger (about smuggling Bible's into Soviet Russia). He is an inspiring person and author. I have been deeply challenged about my lack of faith and my prayerlessness as I have read this book.

I should also say that there are points in this book where I put a question mark beside the text, because I was in disagreement with a conclusion or two that he reached. Nevertheless, this book has done me good. He tells the following story:

A good friend of mine, Geoffrey Bull, who along with George Patterson was the last remaining missionary in Tibet when the Communists took over, was imprisoned for three years in a horrible prison. He was so tortured and shattered mentally by his captors that finally he could not think anymore. He told me that when his mind at last grew so paralyzed that he could not even pray coherent prayers, he said to God, "Lord, if I can somehow stand up in the centre of my cell, will You accept that as an act of worship?" Each day thereafter until he was released, Geoff managed to pull himself to his feet in the centre of his cell, silent and yielded before God. That was his prayer and his worship.

Weekend Away

2011-05-08T20:02:00.000+01:00

Just back from weekend away with Limerick Baptist Church. Had a great time, they are a great bunch of people. It's a strange feeling. On one hand I am in no rush to leave Richhill. Richhill Methodist has been my happiest experience of church and I love the people dearly. On the other hand I am looking forward to getting to know those in Limerick better. I suppose the thing to do is cherish these last days in Richhill in the knowledge that I hope to have many days ahead with those in LBC.

Meanwhile, the Northern Ireland elections were refreshingly boring and normal.

I have discovered that Claire and Geoff's wedding is on the day of both the Magner's league and Champions' league finals (poor Ramyie, father of the bride, who is a big Man U fan - it will be even worse for him if Ulster make the final). Don't worry I know that the wedding is far more important (even if Munster make it to a Thomond match).

...it is a well-known law of the spiritual life that our love for God will spring up and flourish just as our knowledge of Him increases. To know Him is to love Him, and to know Him better is to love Him more (A. W. Tozer).

It's time to vote!

2011-05-04T22:39:00.000+01:00

I love elections. I enjoy voting. I also appreciate the fact that my vote is private, so I don't have to tell you, or anybody else, who I gave my first preference to. I think democracy is a good idea in general, but it is not without its flaws.

For example, often we exercise our vote in ignorance. We vote for people who we barely know about and who have manifestos we have not read. Democracy can be an exercise in collective ignorance!

Then there is the fact that a lot of nonsense is spouted about democracy. Democracy is not the answer to the world's woes. It is not democracy that countries need it is good government. Democracy does not always guarantee that. Why should we be surprised when a whole lot of half-informed sinful people (including ourselves) end up making a bad choice? Has no-one ever looked at those they have elected and regretted their vote?

I am also a believer in people's right not to vote and even to spoil their vote. Rather than encouraging everybody to get out and vote we might be better asking them, and ourselves, how wise and informed our voting is (if we prove to be ignorant to the issues we might be better to stay at home). I also think that the spoiled vote is a valuable part of democracy: if you look down the list and see no-one you want to vote for you have the right to return a spoiled vote indicating that 'none of the above' (anyone remember Brewster's Millions?) represent you (by the way I will not be spoiling my vote tomorrow).

Pride (In the name of love)

2011-04-30T21:21:00.002+01:00

Pride is a deceiver. It presents the half-truth of a carefully presented image. It delights to tell you of strength but resents any mention of weakness. It is keen to supply references, provided only by selected admirers. It ponders achievement, but hides mention of failure. Pride is like the singer who only allowed one side of his face to be photographed, it gives an incomplete portrait. The proud are condemned to never really been known. I write this because I found myself concerned with my 'image.'

Pride is a lover. When I was in school I was passionately in love. The problem was that I was the object of this passion. Pride is concerned with what people think of 'me.' It seeks my glory. It puts me on the throne. The proud is condemned to live in a very small world, a world that orbits around planet 'me.' How can pride love a gospel that centres on another?

The gospel is the answer to our pride. The truth of the gospel dispels the myths. It helps us see ourselves as we really are, and the picture ain't all pretty. It tells us that our abilities are actually gifts, and even our righteous deeds are stained with selfishness. The grace of the gospel says 'It is safe to be real.' We can be weak, and accepted. We have failed, and yet are loved. God knows us better than we know ourselves, and is willing to embrace us. The glory of the gospel, can break our self-obsession. It centres on Christ, not on us. It depends on his achievements, he who died that we might be forgiven, and puts our's in place. It ought to foster gratefulness, which focuses away from self, as we ponder all that he has done.

A big-godder or a little-godder?

2011-04-25T14:32:00.000+01:00

I am really enjoying Charles Swindoll's reflections on Romans. I found the following illustration inspiring.

Robert Dick Wilson is mostly remembered for his outstanding achievements in linguistics at Princeton Theological Seminary. He learned more than forty-five ancient languages in his quest to understand the Scriptures more accurately. But his students remember him more for his unique approach to evaluating their preaching. He did not critique their ability to parse verbs or dissect ancient turns of phase, and he did not analyse their scholarship or pay attention to their charisma. Instead, he listened for another, more crucial quality. After hearing one particular student preach the professor remarked, "I am glad that you are a big-godder. When my boys come back, I come to see if they are big-godders or little-godders, and then I know what their ministry will be."

How big is your God? Are you tossed about on the waves of circumstance in a sea of chaos? Or do you understand that God has every matter under His divine control and that He has a purpose for every event you encounter?

Do you accept the finality of impossibilities, or do you allow God to have the final say in those mattes?

When you pray, do you shy away from asking God to accomplish big things, or do you trust that He is not only able, but likely willing to dramatically and supernaturally act on your behalf?

The size of your God has everything to do with your answers. Who is directing your future, no matter what your age? Is it a puny god with no imagination and little power? Or do you serve an infinitely creative, immensely powerful, immeasurably gigantic God?

Let me challenge you to become a "big-godder." Begin by committing yourself to knowing Him as He is.

The Mystery of the Cross

2011-04-19T22:14:00.002+01:00

I miss Rachel Scoley (now Steiner). She used to live in Richhill and attend RMC,but now she is in beautiful Switzerland. I asked her to write a short reflection on the cross.
Reflection on the cross.

The cross is a mystery. It is a mystery to me. There are moments when I see it in the crystal clear clarity and simplicity of my childhood, and others when it makes absolutely no sense at all. A lot of times I'm ashamed of my lack of reaction to it. I can sing songs, read verses, hear stories and feel........nothing.

And yet without it, I would have nothing.

The whole Gospel doesn't seem like something a human could have thought up, it's not really our style. When Peter got wind of the cross he couldn't believe his ears, “Heaven forbid, Lord,” he said. “This will never happen to you!” (Matthew 16 v 22). Jesus rebuked him strongly, telling him he was seeing things from people's perspective, not God's. It's hard for us to see things from God's perspective. It's not simple. I love how C.S Lewis thinks:

“It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are not simple. They look simple, but they are not. The table I am sitting at looks simple: but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of – all the atoms and how the light waves rebound from them...................and of course, you find that what we call “seeing a table” lands you in mysteries and complications which you can hardly get to the end of.
….Besides being complicated, reality, in my experience, is usually odd. It is not neat, not obvious, not what you expect.
…....Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed" (Mere Christianity).

Of course all our discussions, studies, debates, songs, sermons about the cross are important, and they have their place. But if I really want to see what it actually meant that Jesus died then I look at the lives of the people who live it out.

The ones who are filled with hope in the face of tragedy
The ones who risk their lives to tell others about Jesus
The ones who are selfless in their love for others
The ones who aren't afraid to die
The ones who pick themselves up and try again when they have fallen
The ones who forgive the unforgivable.

The cross has completely altered our eternal future. But I pray that even when it is a mystery to me, the reality of the cross will completely alter the way I live today. And that the people around me would see it's power at work in me.

Marriage advice (for Geoff and Claire)

2011-04-17T16:36:00.002+01:00

This afternoon Geoff (Miller) and Claire (Walker) are calling over to get some advice about marriage. They are getting married in May. I thought I would post the thoughts Caroline and I share with them, and some of the things that arise in the conversation.

Love is as much to do with the will as the emotions. You won't always wake up and think, 'Wow! isn't she (he) beautiful.' You have to choose to love them. You need to focus on their strengths. You need to remember that you are not perfect either. Sometimes feelings come in response to actions as much as actions can be the product of feelings.

Marriage is what you make of it. Many couples who have enjoyed going out, and have had a wonderful beginning to their marriage, run dry.

If you want a godly marriage you have to take personal responsibility to be godly yourself.

Marriage will expose your sin in a way that you have been able to hide it from others (and yourself).

Be prepared to alter your social life.

Let your gentleness be evident to all.

Love covers a multitude of sins.

If your belief is that the husband should lead (accepting that people may have varying opinions on this issue) then you have to accept that sometimes they will get the decision wrong.

If your belief is that the husband should lead, then it must be recognised that this leading is not to be self-serving.

'Sorry' is one of the most important words in marriage.

Learn from the weaknesses and strengths of your parents' marriage.

It can be difficult losing your space. Having someone live with you is not easy. It is a great blessing to have their company, but you can not act as if your home is your personal castle.

Your wife (husband) will not be the last person that you will be attracted to. Don't buy into the whole attitude of 'it's okay to look as long as you don't touch.' Deal with the temptation, of people you are attracted too, right at its root. Watch that you don't spend too much time with them etc. Your marriage is in trouble if you start comparing your spouse with other people's spouses or other women/men. Find someone to keep you accountable. Remember you don't have to get into bed with someone to betray your marriage partner.

Related to that is something I heard at Mandate. 'You don't lose your love for your spouse, you give it away.' When you stop working on it, you give it away. When you start focusing on someone else, you give it away. When your hobbies/work matter more to you than they do, you give it away.

Learn your marriage partner's love language (do they long for touch, time, gifts, service or affirmation).

Don't expect too much from the honeymoon night (although make physical intimacy something that you practice regularly, and that you work at). Just because you have to fight the urge to jump into bed before you are married doesn't mean that you will be constantly in the mood for sex once you are married. See sex as a means of serving your spouse. See sex as a part of communicating with your spouse.

Paul Tripp says something like, 'if you are struggling in your marriage your problem is you' (ie. deal with your own sin rather than simply focusing the blame on your spouse).

Share out the tasks around. It really helped our marriage to sit down and talk about our expectations as to who should do what. NEVER EVER RE-STACK THE DISHWASHER!!!

Serving your spouse is a part of serving God. Don't think that you are pleasing God if you are spending all your time at Church-meetings but neglecting time at home.

You cannot simply make up for quantity time with quality time. You need to have both quantity time and quality time.

Don't let the sun go down on your anger. This does not mean you have to analyse everything before you go to sleep. It is your anger that you are responsible for, sometimes you simply have to be willing to let things go.

Pray together. This requires discipline.

As I review this advice I am conscious of sounding a hypocrite. I have not always practiced what I am preaching here. If anyone out there has any further advice I would appreciate it!

The Cross brings change

2011-04-15T09:08:00.000+01:00

Ruth Kingston was on the first TOM team that resided in Richhill. She is also my second cousin. I asked her to write a reflection on the cross.

I’ve heard it said that the Bible is the ultimate love story, this being the case Jesus’ death on the cross is a complete and full sign of God’s love for humanity. The cross restores a broken and hopeless people to what they were meant to be.

I remember when I was small I attended almost every Bible club going. I loved it and I’m not quite sure where I’d be today without such opportunities for growth. But I remember far too many times leaving camp feeling like this time I’ll be different; I’ll be worthy of the name Christian. And about an hour later I’d arrive home to a hair pulling competition with my sister. Feeling like a complete failure, with something like Matthew 5 ‘Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’ going around in my head, I’d tell myself the next day I’ll act more like Jesus. But that’s just it, I’ll never measure up to God’s standard of utter perfection and holiness.

The cross is where God’s demand for absolute perfection and absolute grace meet. 2 Cor. 5 v21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Scott McKnight said that Good Friday deals with the cracks in each person, Easter morning renews us to walk again and Pentecost empowers us to be a kingdom community. Although I constantly mess up I know that because of God’s grace I’m forgiven and that God’s spirit helps me walk closely with him. Rom 7 v6 but now by dying to what once bound us; we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit. Praise God that he doesn’t just leave us in the mess that we are in, but dusts us off and sets us on the right track again.

The Cross as a Demonstration of God's Love

2011-04-11T19:05:00.000+01:00

Aian Ferguson is, as we would say in Cork, 'a sound man.' He is both sound in his warm disposition and sound in his good theology. He is a friend and a Methodist Minister (he was even was President of the denomination for a year). I asked him to write a reflection on the cross, and he sent me a sermon (on Isaiah 53) to take from. This is the third point.

The motivation of Jesus Christ’s Suffering as our substitute is uniquely revealed in verse 10: Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush Him and cause Him to suffer. The death of the Servant was not the fruit of human initiative and design; it was God’s plan, God’s purpose, God’s will.

In the same month that Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ was released in 2004, Newsweek magazine filled its front cover with a close-up of actor Jim Caviezel as the bloodied and battered Christ, plus the blaring headline, 'Who really killed Jesus?' Isaiah gives us the answer: God did!

God the Father was ultimately responsible for the death of His Son. God has told us, 'I purposefully determined to crush My Son with my wrath, in love for your sins as your substitute.' Why God? 'Because I love you,' is the answer. When you are tempted to doubt God’s love for you, stand before the cross and look at the wounded, disfigured, crucified Saviour and realise why He was there.

God would whisper to us: 'Isn’t that sufficient? I have not spared my own son. I deformed, disfigured and crushed Him for YOU. What more could I do to persuade you that I love YOU? The Cross of Jesus Christ is HOW far God’s love goes for YOU and ME.

Listen to Scottish theologian Sinclair Ferguson on the staggering implications of the crucifixion: 'When we think of Christ dying on the cross we are shown the lengths to which God’s love goes in order to win us back to Himself. We should almost think that God loved us more than He loves His son. We cannot measure His love by any other standard. He is saying to us, “I love you this much.” The cross is the heart of the gospel; it makes the gospel good news. Christ died for us; He has stood in our place before God’s judgement seat; He has borne our sins. God has done something on the cross which we could never do for ourselves. But God does something to us as well as for us through the cross. He persuades us that He loves us.'

Are YOU persuaded? If not … What more could Almighty God possibly do to persuade you that He loves you? If you recognize your need to become more overwhelmed by God’s love as revealed in the gospel, I implore you to keep reflecting near and at the cross. I long for us people called Methodists to have a new and real passion for this gospel - Christ died for our sins. May we never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Townend and Getty got it right when they wrote and would have us sing:

I will not boast in anything

No gifts, no power, no wisdom

But I will boast in Jesus Christ

His death and resurrection

Why should I gain from His reward?

I cannot give an answer

But this I know with all my heart

His wounds have paid my ransom.

Where was God?

2011-04-07T20:32:00.006+01:00

Yesterday I picked up a copy of Edwin Lutzer's Where was God? ('Answers to tough questions about God and natural disasters'). I have found it compulsive reading and have decided that I will finish it today and blog some thoughts (plus share these thoughts at Sunday night's communion meal).

Not all of these thoughts are from Lutzer's book. These are my thoughts that came to me as I read. All the quotations are Lutzer's, unless otherwise stated.

1. We must not ignore the horror of tragedies. Natural disasters make me feel uncomfortable because they raise difficult questions that can shake my faith. But it would be ignorant to turn off the telly and ignore the reality in order to preserve my belief. We must have a faith stronger than that. Neither should be hide from the devastation and human sorrow associated with such disasters. Lutzer says, 'Many of us are better at trying to explain natural disasters than we are at weeping over them.'

2. Our first response should be to pray and give rather than explain. Jesus sets us an example of one who was moved to action by people's suffering. It may be of more value to pray for those effected, and give to those helping, than simply to speak in God's defense. 'We should be willing to help those who are in distress even at great personal risk.' 'Jesus was touched by the plight that the curse of sin brought to this world.' One woman surveyed the repairs done on her home by relief workers after Hurricane Katrina and commented, 'If it weren't for the Christians, we would have no hope here in the Gulf Coast. We needed them, and they showed up.' If only that was always the case!

3. Natural disasters remind us about what is really important. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, author Max Lucado said, "No one laments a lost plasma television or submerged SUV. No one runs through the streets yelling, 'My cordless drill is missing' or 'My golf clubs have washed away.' If they mourn, it is for people lost. If they rejoice, it is for people found."

4. We live in a world characterised by death. The apostle Paul explains how death is related to the rebellion of humankind (Romans 5:12).

The question is not so much 'why did that person die?' but 'why did they die in that way?' Why do some people die in their sleep after a long and peaceful life, while others die painfully in their youth? We are told that all will die, but we are not told why people die in the way that they do.

Indeed, natural disasters are a wake-up call regarding our own mortality. C. S. Lewis pointed out that war does not really increase death; even without war, the victims would still have to die eventually.

Lutzer writes,

In natural disasters, God intensifies the curse that is already upon nature and, for that matter, upon us. When we look at it this way, we realize that natural disasters happen every day as thousands of people die from disease, accidents, and tragedies of various kinds. Natural disasters only catch our attention when they are of great magnitude with many simultaneous deaths and unbelievable devastation to property. These disasters are really only a dramatic acceleration of what is happening all the time.

5. We can't explain away the involvement of God.

Sometimes people try to get God off the hook by saying that he merely 'permitted' a disaster, rather than ordaining it. This hair-splitting will not do! If God is in control of this universe then he had the power to stop it. Jesus calmed a storm with a word (Mark 4:39). At the word of Christ, the tsunami in Southeast Asia would have ended before it began. The Bible pictures God as ruling over nature: he who ... calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the face of the land - the LORD is his name (Amos 9:6).

Satan may have afflicted Job, including using the natural elements of lightening (to kill his sheep and servants)and a windstorm (to kill his ten children). 'Here, is proof, if proof is needed, that satanic powers might indeed be connected to the natural disasters that afflict our planet.' But Job knows that God remained in control, declaring, 'The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away' (Job 1:21). In that story we can see that Satan acted with God's permission and God set the boundaries around what Satan could do.

God sent the flood (Gen. 6-9), the plagues (Exodus 1-15) and the storm that pursued Jonah. God is in control of his creation. We also read God claim, I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the LORD, do all these things (Is. 45:7); and Amos declare, When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? (Amos 3:6).

6. We should not think that we can offer a complete explanation.

'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts' (Is 55:8-9). After the earthquake in Turkey, John Piper says, '[God] has hundreds of thousands of purposes, most of which will remain hidden to us until we are able to grasp them at the end of the age.' Lutzer writes,

After years of studying the problem of reconciling the suffering of the world with God's mercy, I have concluded that there is no solution that will completely satisfy our minds, much less the minds of a sceptic. God's was are "past finding out." He has simply not chosen to reveal all the pieces of the puzzle. God is more inscrutable than we care to admit.

'The New Testament faces realistically the pain and evil of this world, but assures us that the future will make sense of the past.' 'It is not necessary for us to know God's purposes before we bow before His authority. And the fact that we trust God even though He has not revealed the details is exactly the kind of faith that delights His heart.'

When we are not sure what to say to people the best rule is to say nothing. 'I am well aware that little or nothing can be said to ease the pain of those who mourn the loss of loved ones ... Glib answers can be hurtful not helpful.'

7. When we are confused about what we cannot know trust the one we can know.
Martin Luther urges us to 'flee from the hidden God and run to Christ.' While natural disasters may raise questions that baffle us and present us with mysteries we cannot answer we can still be sure that God is good. We know that God is good because he has shown such beauty in the person of Jesus and demonstrated such wonderful love through the cross of Christ.

8. We must avoid speculating. On November 1, 1755, an earthquake hit Lisbon killing 30-60,000 and reducing three-quarters of the city to rubble. Protestants were inclined to say that it was a judgement against the Jesuits (who had founded the city) and the Jesuits responded that it was because the Inquisition had become too lax. Tele-evangelist, Pat Robertson, suggested that the stroke which ended Ariel Sharon's rule in Israel was God's judgement for having divided 'God's land.' Such explanations are mere speculations and can be a source of embarrassment for Christians.

Luke 13 (1-4) should put an end to claims that natural disasters and accidents are personal acts of judgement. There people ask Jesus about two talking points of that day. One involved a tower falling and killing a group of people. The question was asked, 'those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them - do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?' Jesus replied, 'I tell you, no!' But unless you repent, you too will all perish.'

'Tragedies separate people into two camps - the dead and the living - but not the saved and the damned, not the religious and irreligious.' Yes, natural disasters could be an act of specific judgement. But we are not given the information that would enable us to say whether they are or not. So we would be wise not to speculate.

9. Natural disasters drive people in one of two directions. This is merely an observation. People either run to God or run from God when disaster strikes. Lutzer comments, 'The Lisbon earthquake split Europe between earth and heaven. On the one hand, the tragedy stimulated interest in the comforts of religion, especially the Christian faith, Church attendance increased and people were more likely to be attentive to eternity, and loyal to the church and God. But it also spurred the development and the growth of the secular Enlightenment.'

10. The Cross is the ultimate answer to suffering. All death reminds us to repent. Did you notice Jesus' warning? 'Unless you repent, you too will all perish.' Those who heard of those tragedies were reminded of their own need to repent. I can't figure out what to think about what one person wrote to World Magazine:

We owe a great debt to those affected by Hurricane Katrina. They received just a small taste of the wrath of God as a warning to us all that unless we repent, we will likewise perish.

'Earthquakes and the tsunamis they sometimes generate are the voice of God shouting to an unrepentant planet.'

Jesus would point to these daily reminders of the fragility of life and warns us to repent. Unless we repent we will perish - we will face a fate more dreadful than any earthquake - as we take the punishment for our sin. If we repent, turning from our sin and enthroning Jesus as our king, we will see that he has taken our punishment on the cross. He has removed the sting from death and he is bringing us to a new creation where suffering and death no longer can touch us.

Let your gentleness be evident to all

2011-04-06T10:17:00.003+01:00

Let your gentleness be evident to all (Phil. 4:5)

What makes Billy Graham and John Stott so special?

Well, I have never met either of them. I have a load of John Stott books and have read a couple of Billy Graham's (his autobiography, which I thought spent too much time on US Presidents, and his very good book on the Holy Spirit). I suppose you could say that Stott had a great brain and that Billy Graham was granted great 'unction' (his impact on an audience went beyond his capabilities as a preacher).

But I like to think that the thing what made them great was their godliness. It's only a hunch, but I believe that these two had time for people. I suspect that had you approached either of them with a worry they would have been willing to stop with you. As someone who struggles with anxiety I am glad for friends who have shown such gentleness and patience with me.

I love the fact that Jesus was approachable and that he had time for people. I love the fact that children could approach him (in an age where they weren't molly-coddled as they are now) (Luke 18:16). I love the fact that when Jesus encountered the grieving widow at Nain 'his heart went out to her' (Luke 7:13). I love the fact that when a crowd disturbed his plans to get some solitary time 'he had compassion on them and healed their sick' (Matthew 14:14). I love the fact that he had compassion of them when they got hungry (Matthew 15:32). I love the fact that he looked down from the cross and made provisions for his mother (John 19:26). I love the fact that when he saw a leaderless crowd 'he had compassion of them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd' (Matthew 9:36). I love the fact that he told a story about the compassionate father (Luke 15:20). I love the fact that when he contemplated the judgement that was to come upon Jerusalem he was moved with sorrow and quoted those gracious words 'how often I have longed to gather you up as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing (Matthew 23:37).

A bruised reed he will not break (Matthew 12:20). Jesus' gentleness was evident to all. May ours be too!

Sad times

2011-04-02T21:45:00.001+01:00

What sadness to watch the news and see that a young police officer has been murdered. How terrible that people would take upon themselves to do such a callous thing. Even if they had popular support or a democratic mandate, neither of which they do, there would be no justification for this taking of life. His family will be in our prayers as meet together for church in the morning. Such awful pain for his mother to endure this mothering Sunday.

Then there is the folly of Pastor Jones in Florida. With no thought of the consequences of his actions he insists on offending Muslims. Of course the actions of those rioters in Afghanistan cannot be justified. But what does Jones think he is at? Surely those of us who care for the gospel of Christ want to build bridges and engage with Muslims so that they might experience the grace of God in Christ.

A Difficult Truth

2011-03-31T09:49:00.000+01:00

Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins, has ruffled a few feathers. I haven't read it so I can only make limited comment. He has got people wound-up because he has challenged the orthodox position of issues related to the afterlife.

When I was eighteen I started to take my Christian faith more seriously. As I looked into what the Bible taught I was disturbed by the concept of hell. But I could not deny that it was there. Of course I still find it a disturbing. Who wouldn't, when we think that people we love may end up there? Yet I agree with the words of C. S. Lewis, in the 'Problem of Pain'

There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this [the doctrine of hell], if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord's own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason.

I came across the following in Grudem's Systematic Theology

It is hard - and should be hard - for us to think of this doctrine today. If our hearts are never moved with deep sorrow when we contemplate this doctrine, then there is a serious deficiency in our spiritual and emotional sensibilities. When Paul thinks of the lostness of his kinsmen the Jews, he says, "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart" (Rom. 9:2). This is consistent with what God tells us of his own sorrow for the death of the wicked: "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ezek. 33:11). And Jesus' agony is evident as he cries out, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often I would have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate" (Matt. 23:37-38; cf. Luke 19:41-42).

The reason it is hard for us to think of the doctrine of hell is because God has put in our hearts a portion of his own love for people created in his image, even his love for sinners who rebel against him. As long as we are in this life, and as long as we see and think about others who need to hear the gospel and trust in Christ for salvation, it should cause us great distress and agony of spirit to think about eternal punishment. Yet we must also realise that whatever God in his wisdom has ordained and taught in Scripture is right. Therefore we must be careful that we do not hate this doctrine or rebel against it, but rather we should seek, insofar as we are able, to come to the point where we acknowledge that eternal punishment is good and right, because in God there is no unrighteousness at all.

Grace wins

2011-03-27T21:03:00.000+01:00

... where sin increased, grace increased all the more (Romans 5:20).

I remember being surprised a number of years ago to read, in his commentary on Romans, that John Stott believed that the number of people who would be saved would be greater than the number that will be lost. He argued for this by referring to the 'super-abundance' of grace that is spoken of in the above verse. Another popular commentator, F. F. Bruce, shared this view in his commentary on Romans.

In his commentary Charles Hodge writes,

That the benefits of redemption shall far outweigh the evils of the fall, is here clearly asserted. This we can in a measure comprehend, because:

1. The number of the saved shall doubtless greatly exceed the number of the lost. Since the half of mankind die in infancy, and, according to the Protestant doctrine, are heirs of salvation; and since in the future state of the Church the knowledge of the Lord is to cover the earth, we have reason to believe that the lost shall bear to the saved no greater proportion than the inmates of a prison do to the mass of the community.

2. Because the eternal Son of God, by his incarnation and mediation, exalts his people to a far higher state of being than our race, if unfallen, could ever have attained

3. Because the benefits of redemption are not to be confined to the human race. Christ is to be admired in his saints. It is through the Church that the manifold wisdom of God is to be revealed, throughout all ages, to principalities and powers. The redemption of man is to be the great source of knowledge and blessedness to the intelligent universe.

Similarly, John Calvin himself, held this view saying that grace 'belongs to a greater number than the condemnation contracted by the first.'

But before we get carried away, Calvin knew that there were people who disagreed with him on this and that the case against such opponents could not be proved. So, I am left with the following conclusions: I don't know how the 'few-ness' texts of the Bible (when Jesus said 'few' find the narrow path was he saying that this would always be the case? What about 'many are called and few are choosen'? etc.) fit with the 'many-ness' texts of the Bible (do the great crowds of Revelation 7 necessarily exceed those that are not among their number? etc.); but I do know that grace wins! It super-abounds.

Even if the number of lost exceeds the number of saved grace still super-abounds. It super-abounds because what grace gives is so magnificent. What is lost as humanity fell is more than restored as humans are redeemed. The spiritually-dead are not simply raised to life, they are raised to life in all its fullness. They are not simply restored to Eden but to something beyond Eden.

Through sin there was loss, but that loss is more than offset in the super-abundance of grace. Grace wins!

Heart Theology

2011-03-25T17:09:00.002Z

I hope that you will allow me express some views on ecumenism, and that these thoughts will be accepted as incomplete pondering shaped in an attitude that is open to dialogue.

1. I fear that some in the ecumenical movement don't value enough some of the things that I think are precious. There can be a naive tendency to think that theological differences don't matter that much (I realise some may contest this, I am sorry if this perception is unfair). I want to unapologetically preach justification by grace through faith. I am also saddened when people put Mary in the place of Christ (as co-redemptrist and intercessor). Though I need to be clear, there can be an inconsistency amongst evangelicals who notice the differences between ourselves and the teachings of Rome but fail to realise that on some issues we have a lot more in common with Rome than we do with certain strains of liberal Protestantism. Also, some who promote ecumenism have said things that might worry conservatives of all stripes: I have heard more than one ecumenical advocate promote a religious pluralism that might rob all forms of Christianity of its uniqueness (although not all people in the ecumenical camp are guilty of this).

2. Just as many non-ecumenical people can be mean-spirited so too can some of the most ecumenically-minded people. For example, a person told me about a conversation they observed at Edgehill (which prides itself on its ecumenical outlook). In this conversation Presbyterians (who were viewed as narrow) were being slagged off. The person related to me how it struck them that no one would have dared speak of practicing Catholics the way that these people were speaking about Presbyterians. Just look at some of the conversations going on in the blogosphere: many uncharitable and patronising things are said about conservative-evangelicals, some of whom are simply seeking to be consistent with their beliefs (and uncharitable things are said by conservative-evangelicals). There can be a great intolerance towards people whose views are deemed to be intolerant.

But there are issues that conservative-evangelicals need to grapple with. For example, most evangelicals I know will admit that there are people in non-evangelical churches who truly know and love the Lord. If we feel that it is right to be cautious about official ecclesiastical relations, how are we to express our sister/brotherhood with such people?

Then there is the issue that prompted me to write this blog. It strikes me that a person's 'heart theology' may be different from their 'ecclesiatical theology', and even their 'head theology.' A person may attend a church where people like myself would fear that salvation is too intertwined with certain sacraments (I admit that there is a very long history of such sacramentalism and that when we read church history we esteem some whose views we would oppose if they lived today). People attending such a church may subscribe to teaching and catechisms that place an emphasis on acts of penance (rather than simple dependence on grace). Nevertheless, some of these people may have an attitude that simply cries out to a holy and gracious God 'have mercy on me a sinner' (Luke 18:13). They might not say that they depend completely on God's grace to save them, but their heart betrays that profession.

Just as the ecumenically-minded person may dream of one all-embracing church where people of all stripes worship together, so the conservative-evangelical, like myself, might long for a situation in which all those who are born anew attend churches which are 'sound.' But life is more messy than this. Our faith is lived out in imperfect settings. For the ecumenically-minded person the truth is that even if there was some great ecclesiastical unity people might still nurse personal bitterness and division. For the conservative-evangelical we have to figure out how to love brothers and sisters in the Lord who we may feel stubbornly remain attached to ecclesiastical institutions we disapprove of.

How can we display a generous orthodoxy? (A Community Called Atonement)

2011-03-23T21:22:00.002Z

A few years ago we had Erwin McManus at Junior Ministers' Convention (a retreat for Methodist ministers in their first ten years of minsitry). I was really taken with what he said to us. I think it was at this time that I began to hear of some new leaders that seemed to have interesting things to say. So I came home and ordered a couple of books from Brian McLaren. It was with excitment that I sat on the toilet one day and began to read his book A Generous Orthodoxy.

But I was soon frustrated. I felt that it didn't say much. I was irritated with his redefining of labels, but more irritated about how he sidestepped tricky issues like 'Hell'. I am not sure if I have read two-thirds or only a half of this book but I doubt that I will ever finish it. Since then I have heard people describe McLaren as neither orthodox or generous. Although I am told that he is a really nice guy.

Now I make no bones about the fact that I sit in the 'conservative' evangelical camp. Although I need you to realise that I do not see 'conservative evangelical' as being about cultural conservatism (I don't want to dress up for church), silly issues (like the idea that the King James Version is special) or being non-charismatic (Carson's Showing the Spirit does a great job of demonstrating that all the spiritual gifts are for today). To me being a 'conservative evangelical' primarily means that I believe that the Bible is totally reliable and the re-discovery of justification by grace through faith is the brilliant legacy of the reformation.

One further thing that I need to clarify. I did not grow up in Northern Ireland and so I have had very few encounters with the cultural/political conservative fundamentalists that so many people here seem to have had bad experiences with. There is no problem with the 'right' that tempts me to the 'left'. To be fair I should say that the cultural/political conservative fundamentalists I have met have not left me with a negative impression. When I worked in Dungannon as a lay-assistent I occasionally did some hospital chaplaincy and if I saw 'Free Presybertain' on the list my southern prejudice expected to encounter a bigot, yet I have not yet met a Free P that I did not find to be a decent person.

Of course I am not coming at theology without my own baggage. I am an insecure person who longs for certainty. If you wanted to explain away my attachment to a conservative theological stance you might begin there. But there are other reasons that I feel have led me to this position - like the simple fact that it makes sense to me.

Anyway, I have disgressed from the reason why I am writing this post. How can we be both generous and orthodox? I recongise that in the New Testament there is both warning of those who distort the truth and examples of confrontation with those whose teaching endangers the community of faith. At times I have despaired that some church leaders have said things that seemed, to me, to fly in the face of what the Bible teaches and yet no-one challenged them. But, I confess, I have not been able to fully figure-out where the boundary lines are to be drawn. I struggle to know which issues are open for reasoned debate and which should get our blood boiling. I also haven't figured out when to dialogue with people and when there isn't enough common ground to work from. I want to be 'friends of all and enemies of none' but I am also warned that we need to beware when all people speak well of us.

The reason for these ramblings is that Virtual Methodist has inspired me to read Scott McKnight's A Community Called Atonement. I have only just begun, so I can't yet say that I endorse this book. From what I have read about McKnight I will not agree with everything he will say. Indeed I have already come across at least two, very minor, issues on which I disagree with him. I also have to say that this is an intelligent book, and not being overly bright I may be missing the gist of some of the things that he is saying. Perhaps it is full of heresy and I have simply failed to see it.

But for me this book at least feels like it might be the generous orthodoxy that can help me. I have no doubt that conservative evangelicalism has blindspots (in how it has been taught) that our friends need to point out. As a conservative evangelical I despair that some people's theology is so focused on life in this world that they seem to forget that will will spend far more time in the next; I am saddened that some seem embarrased by a God who is both good and angry; and I am bemused by definitions of the kingdom of God that fail to mention that we don't enter that kingdom unless we are born anew. However, as a conservative evangelical, I love the fact that McKnight has already challenged me to see the local congreation of believers as a community of the atonement and an outpost of the kingdom of God, that he reminds me that God wants to recreat the cracked 'image of God' in his people, and that he is highlighting the sharing and love that should characterise God's people. Of course none of these things should in any way at varience with the beliefs held by my fellow conservative evangelicals (although, at times, we have been guilty of failing to emphasise the present transformation that should be seen in and through the redeemed people fo God).

I will finish with a few quotes (I have only read the first four chapters):

The gospel we preach shapes the kind of churches we create. The kind of church we have shapes the gospel we preach.

The kingdom of God ... is what God is doing through the community of faith for the redemptive plans of God - including what he is doing through you and me.

Any atonement theory that thinks exclusively of the earth is inadequate, just as any theory that shifts to thinking too much of eternity is also inadequate.

To be forgiven, to be atoned for, to be reconciled ... is to be granted a mission to become a reciprical performer of the same: to forgive, to work atonement, and to be an agent of reconciliation.

He took my place

2011-03-23T12:37:00.000Z

The following reflection on the cross has been contributed by David Blevins (part-time pastoral assistant to Richhill Methodist and reporter with Sky News).

If anyone understood the cross, the late Bob Maginn from Portadown did. Some years ago, he asked his son Aubrey to drive him to Stranocum in County Antrim. Bob had been in the Maritime Royal Artillery. Throughout World War II, he served alongside a man called Jimmy McKinley. When Jimmy became ill and had to leave the ship temporarily, a comrade – Daniel Holmes – offered to cover Bob’s post so that the friends could remain together. Within hours of them disembarking, the ship was torpedoed. There were no survivors. When they reached Stranocum that day, Bob pointed to the name of Daniel Holmes on the war memorial. His words were few. “He took my place.” That was Bob Maginn’s testimony. He would often say, “Two men died for me: Daniel Holmes and Jesus Christ.” ‘He took my place.’ Could there be a better description of the cross?

Consider Jesus’ own words:

The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected…and He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life again.

The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.

The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.

I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?

Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter His glory?

From these six examples alone, we can draw three conclusions: that suffering and death were His destiny; that He had resolved to fulfil that destiny voluntarily; and that He learned His destiny from Scripture. So what were these Scriptures? We could turn to Leviticus and consider the whole sacrificial system. We could turn to Exodus and consider the blood of the Passover lamb. We could turn to Psalm 22, a prophecy quoted by Christ on the cross. There is however, one prophecy that stands head and shoulders above the others. It is the Old Testament Scripture quoted most often in the New (12 times): Isaiah 53.

Isaiah speaks of the ‘Servant’ (52:13). Who is the Servant? Turn to the New Testament and ask Philip! In Acts 8, he finds the Ethiopian eunuch reading this passage from Isaiah. “Then Philip began with that very passage and told him the good news about Jesus.” Jesus is the servant.

Isaiah speaks of the ‘suffering’ (53:4-6). We read the pronouns “our”, “we” and “us” 10 times. It could not be clearer. The Servant is suffering for us. Our part in this drama is sin. His part is suffering. He took our place. He served our sentence. He paid our debt.

Isaiah speaks of the ‘sacrifice’ (53:10-12). We were guilty. The Lord made his life a guilt offering. Justice had to be done. He died to justify many by bearing their iniquities. God is so holy He cannot ignore sin but so gracious He sacrificed His Son to set us free.

Words of comfort for a troubled conscience

2011-03-23T12:28:00.016Z

As I have already mentioned, I have, at times, been troubled by the warning passages found in the book of Hebrews. I also have met other people who have suffered from such fears. I find Calvin's comments helpful.

Calvin writes the following with regards to the warning found in Hebrews 6:4-6:

... the Apostle speaks not here of theft, or perjury, or murder, or drunkenness, or adultery; but he refers to a total defection or falling away from the Gospel, when a sinner offends not God in some one thing, but entirely renounces his grace
To renew them again into repentance, etc. Though this seems hard, yet there is no reason to charge God with cruelty when any one suffers only the punishment of his own defection; nor is this inconsistent with other parts of Scripture, where God’s mercy is offered to sinners as soon as they sigh for it, (Ezekiel 18:27;) for repentance is required, which he never truly feels who has once wholly fallen away from the Gospel; for such are deprived, as they deserve, of God’s Spirit and given up to a reprobate mind, so that being the slaves of the devil they rush headlong into destruction.

Calvin's words remind us that the falling away that the author to the Hebrews has in mind is the result of a hardened heart. Such a hardened heart would never again be brought to a place of true repentance. This is in line with the pastoral advice offered by Roger Nicole, who writes about these verses:

In as much as there are some sensitive souls who torment themselves with the thought that they have committed this sin, it may be wise to point out that their concern about this indicates that they are not immune to the grace of God and impervious to repentance. Those who have committed the unpardonable sin are very probably unconcerned about it.

Craig Keener also writes about these verses

The point here is not that God does not accept the repentant, but that some hearts become too hard to consider repenting, because they refuse to acknowledge Christ, the only means of repentance.

The ESV Study Bible explains

... it is wise pastoral advice to encourage a person who is worried that he may have committed such a deep sin, that the very desire to repent and to be restored in fellowship with the Christian community is evidence that he has not "fallen away" in the permanent, irrevocable way described in this verse ...

Matthew Henry puts it this way

The humbled sinner who pleads guilty, and cries for mercy, can have no ground from this passage to be discouraged, whatever his conscience may accuse him of ... Neither is he speaking of partial declinings or backslidings. Nor are such sins meant, as Christians fall into through the strength of temptations, or the power of some worldly or fleshly lust. But the falling away here mentioned, is an open and avowed renouncing of Christ, from enmity of heart against him, his cause, and people, by men approving in their minds the deeds of his murderers, and all this after they have received the knowledge of the truth, and tasted some of its comforts. Of these it is said, that it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. Not because the blood of Christ is not sufficient to obtain pardon for this sin; but this sin, in its very nature, is opposite to repentance and every thing that leads to it ... We should ourselves beware, and caution others, of every approach near to a gulf so awful as apostacy; yet in doing this we should keep close to the word of God, and be careful not to wound and terrify the weak, or discourage the fallen and penitent.

F. F. Bruce

God has pledged himself to pardon allow who truly repent, but Scripture and experience alike suggest that it is possible for human beings to arrive at a state of heart and life where they can no longer repent.

The Dictionary of Hard Saying says

The issue is not whether God would forgive them if they repented, but if there is any way to bring them to repent at all ... People can so harden themselves against God that nothing will keep them from hell.

David Gooding

He does not say that it is impossible for God to forgive them. God will forgive anyone who truly repents and believes. But these people will not repent; and there can be no forgiveness without repentance.
Now whatever else is involved in repentance, its basic element is what the Greek word for 'repentance' means: a change of mind. So what the writer is saying is that you will never get these people to change their minds again.

As for the related issue of the 'unforgiveable sin'

Ed Welch writes:

God forgives those who come to him. Whenever there is turning to Christ in repentance, there is always forgiveness. There is no account in Scripture of someone who felt godly sorrow and repented, but was not forgiven. None. Not one.

Donald Guthrie points out:

Some have been deeply troubled lest they have committed such a sin, but no-one with a state of mind so hardened as to hold up the Son of God to contempt would ever be concerned about a question like that. The concern itself is evidence that the Holy Spirit is still active.

The Pains He Endured

2011-03-21T09:22:00.000Z

My friend John Tuttlebee is a retired ECM missionary and is secretary of Limerick Baptist Church. He has contributed the following reflection on the cross.

I have just been discharged from hospital after major lung surgery. After a long night I wake up, and feel the pain again.

My thoughts turn to Jesus as he died. He knew pain much worse than mine - the pain of the thorns on his head, the nails in his wrists and ankles, the thirst, and the slow suffocation that crucifixion brought.

Why was he there? Judas had betrayed him; the religious leaders had twisted the evidence; the Roman governor lacked the courage of his convictions.

But behind the human actors was a Divine plan : this had to happen “to fulfil the Scriptures”. Jesus was God’s Chosen Deliverer, come not to save the Jews from the Romans, but to deliver all mankind from the tyranny of sin. God’s Messiah must die in the place of the people He had made: people who could betray their friends, hunt down those they hated, and be unready to stand for right: people who treated one another like that because they had lost respect for their Creator.

In my pain I am making careful calculation – when is the next pain-killer due? Yet Jesus refused the drugged wine offered to dull his pain – he would endure the full punishment of our human rebellion. He faced the physical pain; but above all the spiritual pain of separation from His Father as he bore our sin.
'The pains that he endured, our salvation have procured' (C14th hymn).

Listen to St Paul:
While we were powerless to help ourselves Christ died for sinful people. In human experience it is a rare thing for one man to give his life for another, even if the latter be a good man. Yet the proof of God’s amazing love is this: it was while we were sinners that Christ died for us (Rom 5.6-8 J B Phillips translation).

I am so grateful to those who pointed me to passages like these in the New Testament, so that as a young man I turned from my own ways, thanked Christ for his sacrifice and gave my life to him.

Can anyone help me with Latin?

2011-03-18T21:08:00.000Z

I was always useless at languages. I had the most amazing Greek teacher in Edgehill but I still struggled with it. Anyway, it is the following Latin that I need help with. Cranfield is commenting on Mark 14:36 ( ... take this cup from me ...). The concept of the 'cup' has its roots in the Old Testament (e.g. 'the cup of God's fury' in Isaiah 51:22-23). Cranfield writes, 'any discussion of the Cross which leaves out of account Christ's bearing of the wrath of God is surely open to the charge: nondum considerasti quanti ponderis sit peccatum. What? Answers on a postcard!

More on Propitiation

2011-03-18T11:18:00.000Z

If anyone is still reading these posts on the Cross, 'Thank You.' They have really been designed to help me process the issues involved. I make no claim to be an expert on these things. In this post I want to look a little bit more at the issue of 'propitiation'.

Roger Nicole says the term 'to propitiate' "reveals that sin awakens on the part of God a displeasure or anger which must be set aside, before God can and will deal with the sinner without taking judicial cognizance of his sin. Sin kindles the divine wrath, and God's favour, such as is vouchsafed to the unblemished, needs a special act of grace in order to be restored."

The big question is whether 'propitiation' is an accurate translation for the Greek 'hilasteron' in Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10.

C. H. Dodd claimed that the biblical use of this term (hilasteron) did not connote the averting of divine wrath. Was he right?

Nicole points out that usual secular connotation of this word was with 'propitiation.' If the writers of the LXX (the Greek version of the Old Testament) and the New Testament had shared Dodd's dislike of the conception of 'propitiation' it is unlikely that they would have chosen to use this term.

In the Old Testament the sacrificial system revealed that the worshipper felt the need of escaping the divine displeasure at sin. As Criag Keener points out, the Old Testament law required bloodshed: something had to die to appease the wrath properly due a person's sin.' Similarly Leon Morris points out that while the modern objection to propitiation 'arises largely from an objection to the wrath of God ... the men of the Old Testament had no such inhibitions.'

Morris also notes that: 'Pardon is not something wrung from an unwilling deity. It is the gracious gift of a God who is eager to forgive.' He also explains that 'the Bible view of propitiation does not depend on this or that specific passage. It is a reflection of the general import of its teaching. "Propitiation" is a reminder that God is implacably opposed to everything that is evil, that his opposition may be properly be described as "wrath", and that this wrath is put away only by the atoning work of Christ.'

Verses to ponder:

Lev. 17:11, ... it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

Ps. 7:11, God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses his wrath every day.

Hebrews 2:17, For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

Satisfaction

2011-03-18T09:38:00.000Z

Demarest writes the entry in the New Dictionary of Theology on 'Satisfaction'. He explains:

Satisfaction pertains to the work Christ accomplished on the cross in bearing that punishment demanded by the law ... In the plan of God, Christ endured the penalty of death on the cross thereby satisfying God's justice and averting his wrath ...
Satisfaction is not strictly a biblical term, although the idea is woven into the fabric of both testaments ... The Heb. koper means a price paid in compensation, i.e. a satisfaction. The entire OT sacrificial system involved the idea of satisfaction. As the victim was slain and its blood sprinkled on the alter, God's wrath against sin was temporarily appeased. In the NT Christ emerges as the fulfilment of the Jewish sacrificial system ...
The principle NT text teaching satisfaction is Rom. 3:21-26 ... The use of hilasterion in 1 Jn. 2:2 and 4:10 indicates that Christ renders God propitious by bearing the punishment of sins not his own. According to 2 Cor. 5:21 God purposed that Christ should take the place of sinners, suffer the penalty of their sins, and so enable them to be made righteous before a just God. Paul makes the same point of satisfaction wrought through penal substitution in Gal. 3:13.

Some texts worth thinking over:

This is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 4:10).

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21).

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree" (Gal. 3:13).

Satisfaction in church history. The '39 Articles' is the historic confession of the Anglican communion. Article XXXI reads:

The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone ...

More from Moo

2011-03-17T19:17:00.000Z

... so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:27).

Moo explains

Paul's point is that God can maintain his righteous character even while he acts to justify sinful people because Christ, in his propitiatory sacrifice, provides full satisfaction of the demands of God's impartial, invariable justice. To be sure, this way of viewing the atonement is out of fashion these days, frequently being dismissed as involving ideas completely foreign to the biblical teaching about God's sovereignty and love. But whatever the mistakes of Anselm of Canterbury, whose famous treatise Cur Deus Homo ("Why God Became Man") is widely regarded as the fountainhead of this approach, his emphasis on the divine character as incapable of dismissing sin lightly is a vital component in the biblical doctrine of God. Those who ignore or minimize the problem inherent in a holy God accepting sinners may well heed Anselm's own warning: "You have not yet considered the weight of sin."

Beware not to harden your heart

2011-03-17T18:30:00.002Z

See that no-one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. Afterwards, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring about no change of mind, though he sought it with rears (Hebrews 12:16-17).

I have a friend who is troubled by the warning passages in Hebrews. I have great sympathy because a number of years ago I went through enormous worry about verses like that above. I have decided to open up a new category in this blog to record helpful comments about such verses.

John Piper says the following about the above verse:

Will Genuine Repentance be Rejected by God? Don't make the mistake of thinking that Esau genuinely repented and was rejected by God. God does not reject genuine repentance. The text says plainly that he found no place for repentance. In other words, he couldn't repent. He was so hardened (see Hebrews 3:8,15; 4:7) that he cried out for things to go better in his life, but inside he would not submit to God's terms. He was, as verse 16 says, "immoral and godless." This is an illustration of what the writer has in mind in Hebrews 6:6 when he says it is impossible to renew this person again to repentance.

Similarly Wiersbe writes

God's grace does not fail, but we can fail to depend on God's grace. Esau is a warning to us not to live for lesser things.

On this passage Donald Guthrie writes

The words he found no chance to repent ... could bear the meaning that there was no opportunity to change his circumstances. In this sense no chance to repent remained, but it is a New Testament principle that an opportunity for spiritual repentance is possible whenever there is a spiritual desire ... Esau was regarded as one of the most striking examples of those who failed to appropriate 'the grace of God'

Marshall on the Atonement

2011-03-17T13:49:00.001Z

I am sorry that I keep harping-on about Penal Substitution. This is not because I think that I am an expert on this topic, rather the opposite - I use this blog simply to process my thoughts, and I have not thought through all the issues that can be raised with this understanding of the atonement.

Here are a couple of quotes from I. Howard Marshall, from his book Aspects of the Atonement

The Father is not persuaded to show mercy by the Son; rather, the Father sent the Son and they act together. There is no conflict between justice and mercy. The Father is dealing with the mystery of evil and its consequences to deliver sinners. The death of Jesus is not a human sacrifice to enable God to forgive, but the action of God himself who, in his mercy, provides the remedy for sin: it cannot be too strongly emphasized that it is God who suffers on the cross.

... the Father and the Son are acting together in the act of atonement; God bears in himself the dire consequences of sin so that sinners, who are totally unable to save themselves, may be delivered from their sin through faith in the Son of God who loved them and gave himself for them (Rom. 5:8). The doctrine of the Trinity is our firm defense against and false suggestion that God the Father had to be appeased by the Son in order to bring about his purpose of redemption.

Stott on Propitiation

2011-03-16T14:54:00.001Z

In his commentary on Romans, John Stott points out that Luther and Calvin believed that hilasterion ('atoning sacrifice') referred to the 'mercy seat' (Lev. 16). However, Stott argues against such a translation.

Stott also argues against Dodd's viewpoint that hilasterion should be translated 'expiate' ('to annul guilt or remove defilment'). He points out that the context suggests otherwise because in 'these verses Paul is describing God's solution to the human predicament, which is not only sin but but God's wrath upon sin.' Therefore, he says that this verse teaches 'propitiation' (the satisfying of God's wrath). 'We should not be shy of using the word "propitiation" in relation to the cross, any more more than we should drop the word "wrath" in relation to God. Instead, we should struggle to reclaim and reinstate this language by showing that the Christian doctrine of propitiation is totally different from pagan and animistic superstitions.'

'First ... Why was propitiation necessary? The pagan answer is because the gods are bad-tempered, subject to moods and fits, and capricious. The Christian answer is because God's holy wrath rests on evil. There is nothing unprincipled, unpredictable or uncontrolled about God's anger; it is aroused by evil alone.'

'Secondly ... Who undertakes to do the propitiating? The pagan answer is that we do. We have offended the gods; so we must appease them. The Christian answer, by contrast, is that we cannot placate the righteous anger of God ... But God in his undeserved love has done for us what we could never do for ourselves.'

'Thirdly ... How is propitiation to be accomplished? ... The pagan answer is that we have to bribe the gods with sweets, vegetable offerings, animals, and even human sacrifices. The Old Testament sacrificial system was entirely different, since it was recognized that God himself has "given" the sacrifices to the people to make atonement. And this is clear beyond doubt in the Christian propitiation, for God gave his own Son to die in our place, and in giving his Son he gave himself.'

Stott quotes, Charles Cranfield: 'God, because in his mercy he willed to forgive sinful men, and being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against his own very Self in the person of his Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved.'

In 'The Cross of Christ' Stott writes, 'When we review so much Old Testament material (the shedding and sprinkling of blood, the sin offering, the Passover, the meaning of "sin-bearing", the scapegoat and Isaiah 53), and consider its New Testament application to the death of Christ, we are obliged to conclude that the cross was a substitutionary sacrifice. Christ died for us. Christ died instead of us.'

'Romans 3:25' - Leon Morris

2011-03-15T22:47:00.001Z

Leon Morris wrote the Pillar commentary on Romans. I decided to look up what he says about Romans 3:25, which he translates, God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement ...

Morris writes, 'There are problems with the ... expression, which the KJV rendered, "a propitiation" ... Part of the trouble is that "propitiation" is neither well-known nor a well-used word today, and translators like to employ something simpler. But the major reason is that propitiation means the removal of God's wrath and ... some commentators find the concept of divine wrath distasteful and unworthy; so they write it out of Scripture ... There are two major reasons for rejecting this approach. One is the meaning of the word Paul uses ... detailed examinations [in a footnote he names a number] ... show that the word means "the removal of wrath". The other is context. Paul has mounted heavy artillery in sections 1:18-3:20 to show that all are sinners and are subject to the wrath of God. But unless the present term means the removal of wrath he has left them there, still under God's wrath.'

He later says that 'it is most important that what God did in Christ averted the divine wrath from sinners.'

Morris disagrees with the idea that the word should be understood as "mercy seat" (see comments by Moo below). In a footnote he mentions Denny who says that "A 'mercy-seat' is not such a self-evident, self-interpreting idea, that the Apostle could lay it at the heart of his gospel without a word of explanation.' Although Moo claims that 'Paul's letters furnish abundant proof that he expected his Gentile readers to be fully conversant with the OT.'

Is Penal Substitution Biblical?

2011-03-15T21:36:00.001Z

I have written an entry for the Methodist church’s Lenten blog. In it I claim that Penal Substitution is a biblical idea. I am aware that such a blanket statement, which I have only backed up with a few references, is bound to be questioned by some. I also realise that I have neither the time nor the ability to mount a fully argued case for this doctrine. So I thought I would answer this question by turning to some people who know there Bibles far better than I do.

Is Penal Substitution biblical?

Don Carson claims that those who criticise Penal Substitution ‘are not listening very carefully to what either Scripture or history says.’

John Frame refers to Penal Substitution a ‘biblical and historical’ doctrine.

Tremper Longman calls it a ‘crucial doctrine.’

I. Howard Marshall defends this doctrine.

Roger Nicole writes, ‘Atonement is the central doctrine of the Christian faith, and penal substitution is the heart of that doctrine.’

Mike Pilavachi calls it a ‘magnificent doctrine.’

Rico Tice says that Penal Substitution is ‘the most reasonable and honest way of making sense of the Bible.’

David Wells says that Penal Substitution is ‘the message of the gospel down the ages because this is the message of the gospel as Scripture reveals it.’

Now of course I realise that there will be those who argue the opposite (that Penal Substitution is not biblical). I suppose one thing that has to be asked is, ‘what presuppositions do people bring with them when they come to reading the text?’ For example if people cannot relate to the biblical teaching on divine wrath they will inevitably reject the doctrine of Penal Substitution.

Further, for those who want to read a defense of this model of the atonement you might enjoy this.

'Propitiation'

2011-03-15T21:27:00.001Z

Apparently Don Carson considers Douglas Moo's commentary on Romans the best in English language (I wonder if he has read any of the Irish or Ulster-Scot's commentaries on Romans). I thought that I would see what Moo says with regards to Romans 5:25, which is central to any arguement about Penal Substitution.

Moo translates this verse, God set forth Jesus as a propitiatory sacrifice through faith, in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness because of passing over of sins committed before hand. The key term that I want to look at 'propitiation'. The word in the Greek is apparently (hilasterion).

Moo writes, 'What Paul means by designating Christ a hilasterion has been the subject of considerable debate. When the use of hilasterion in the Bible is consdiered, a strong case can be made for taking the word as a referance to the OT "mercy seat," the cover over the ark where Yahweh appeared (Lev. 16:2). For this is what the word refers to in its one other NT referance (Heb. 9:5), as well as in 21 of its 27 LXX [the offical Greek translation of the Old Testament of that time] occurances ... To be sure there are objections to taking hilasterion as a referance to the "mercy seat."'

Moo later writes, 'While Deissmann has shown that hilasteron usually means "means of propitiation" in ordinary Greek, C.H Dodd has argued that the word in the LXX means "means of expiation." ... "Propitiation" has referance to the turning away of wrath, and the appeasment of the "wrath of the gods" by various means is a frequent theme in Greek litrature ... The idea conveyed by the word [hilasteron] and its congates is thus, Dodd argues, the "covering," or forgiving, of sins, not the appeasing of God's wrath ... But Dodd is almost certainly wrong on this point. The OT frequently connects the "covering" or forgiving of sins with the removal of God's wrath ... When to the linguistic evidence we add the evidence of the context of Rom. 1-3, where the wrath of God is an overarching theme (1:18; cf. 2:5), the conclusion that hilasterion inludes referance to the turning away of God's wrath is iniscapable.'

Moo explains, 'This propitiation is, of course, altogether different from the pagan notions of propitiation. First ... the biblical conception of the wrath of God is far removed from the pagan picture of a capricious and ofetn vindictive deity. God's wrath is the inevitable and necessary reaction of absolute holiness to sin. ... Second, it is God himself who initiates the propitiatory offering ...'

Moo then says, 'Finally, we must decide whether Paul intends to present this wrath-averting sacrifice of Christ against the background of the typology of the mercy seat ... the lexical data combined with the theological appropraitness of the image, make it likely that Paul intends such an allusion. Christ, Paul implies, now has the place that the "mercy seat" had in Old covenant: the center and focal point of God's provision of atonement for his people. Since this atonement takes place by means of Christ's death as a sacrifice, and the word hilasterion includes referances to propitiation, translations such as "means of propitiation" and "propitiatary sacrifice" are not inacurate. But they may be too restrictive. "Mercy seat" would be all right if the broader theological connotations of the phrase were obvious ... "sacrifice of atonement" is as good as we can do.'

More on the 'Cosmic child-abuse' claim.

2011-03-15T13:28:00.002Z

Those who fear that the doctrine of Penal Substitution lacks a theological base may benefit from reading this. In this article Williams addresses the claim that 'penal substitution' is tantamount to cosmic child-abuse.

The claim appears to be that the infliction of pain on a child by a parent is unjust, and that penal substitution mandates such infliction. There is an immediate problem here with the criticism, namely that when the Lord Jesus Christ died he was a child in the sense that he was a son, but not in the sense that he was a minor. As an adult, he had a mature will and could choose whether or not to co-operate with his Father. So we are in fact looking at a father and an adult son who will together for the father to inflict suffering on the son, as we have seen in our Trinitarian exposition.

Is Penal Substitution an act of 'Cosmic Child-Abuse'?

2011-03-14T21:31:00.000Z

No other understanding of what happened at Calvary seems to get people as worked-up as that of Penal Substitution (that Jesus died in our place taking the punishment we deserve). This may be because it pictures God as being a character of wrath. Yet the wrath of God is a consistent Biblical theme (Leon Morris estimates that more than 630 passages of the Old and New Testament are concerned with this issue).

But what about the claim that this understanding looks like 'cosmic child-abuse'? Roger Nicole writes:

It should be emphasized that the biblical and evangelical view of reconciliation is far removed from the grotesque caricature too frequently made of God the Father: full of vengeful fury against the poor helpless sinner, he desists from his insatiable hatred only because of the interposition and vicarious suffering of a third party, Jesus Christ. Needless to say, it is easy to resent such a God and to call him a 'dirty bully'. The fact is, however, that informed evangelicals have never advocated such a view; it represents, rather, a misrepresentation of the evangelical position by uninformed liberals. Conservatives have always stressed the love of the Triune God as basic to reconciliation: this love is the moving cause rather than the effect or product of Christ's atoning work. This reconciliation, however, is not accomplished in defiance of the eternal perfections of God - his justice, holiness, immutability, sovereignty; rather the fact that these, as well as divine love, are seen in their most challenging expression at the Cross is what constitutes the triumph of the resourcefulness of grace. Furthermore, we must recognize that in Christ we face not a 'third party' who has come to effect peace between warring factions, but God himself, who bears the full burden of man's sin and provides the full cost of the reconciliation he wishes to ensure. To introduce a disjunction between the Father and the Son in this matter is to do violence to the work of Christ and to undermine the significance of the unity of the Godhead in the Trinity.

'Love wins' - a review from someone who has read it!

2011-03-13T19:09:00.000Z

Okay, Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins, has received a lot of criticism from people who have not yet read it. But what does someone who has read an advanced copy think? Here is the review from Tim Challies.

'I believe and teach our doctrines'

2011-03-12T08:09:00.001Z

This coming week I will attend my last Spring Synod as a Methodist minister. During the ministerial session each minister affirms three things: 'I believe and teach our doctrines, I obey the discipline, and I am not in debt.'

Now the debt one is a bit strange because mortgages are excluded. It simply means 'my debts are not out of control.' The discipline one is a bit vague because I am not sure we are all aware of what that discipline entails. But it is that 'I believe and teach our doctrines' that I have had a love/hate relationship with.

During my first year in ministry I had something of a shift in my theological views (as can be seen in my wrestlings on the issue of Calvinism and Arminianism). So I used to say, at the Lakelands synod, 'in asmuch as I am an evangelical Christian I believe and teach our doctrines.' Then before my ordination I wrote a letter to the then Secretary of Conference explaining my position. He arranged a meeting between the two of us and the chairperson of the board of examiners. They affirmed that I could say that 'I believe and teach our doctrines' at my ordination. I am not sure that Wesley would have had me as one of his preachers but they gave me their permission for what its worth.

But every year I look around the room and think of all the ministers around the island promising that they believe and teach our doctrines. I wonder if this promise has any value. I believe in a confessional church but I might draw the lines in slightly different places. But given the spectrum of opinion I have heard from ministers, I think that many interpret what it means to believe and teach our doctrines around whatever their particular belief system is. I am sure that I am not the only person that Wesley would have a problem with. Even on the very first of the four alls ('all need to be saved') there are some who interpret that salvation in a way that is far removed from those who devised that formula. If I was a strict Wesleyan I would be hoping mad at the fact that people interpret the church's doctrine in an individualist manner.

So where would you draw the lines? What would you say should be the essential beliefs of the Methodist Church? For me I would go back to what I believe Methodism was all about: an evangelical revival emphasising the need and availability of personal salvation and assurance of faith (I am aware that some would point our that Wesley explained that it was a movement that was raised up to spread Scriptural holiness, I agree, but then I know there are multiple interpretations on what Scriptural holiness means). Personally I would draw the lines around a statement of evangelical essentials (like the Evangelical Alliance confession of faith). My understanding is that Wesley would have had no problem with such a statement of belief. But then he and I might have fallen out over certain particulars beyond that point.

If I put 'Rob Bell' in the title of this post people will read it!

2011-03-09T21:12:00.002Z

For those who have been reading in the Christian blogosphere there is one name that everyone seems to be talking about: 'Rob Bell.' I have a copy of Velvet Elvis (one of his first books) but never got into it. I don't know much about the man, even though I did feel like I was imitating him when I recently purchased a pair of trendy glasses.

His latest book, 'Love wins,' has not yet been published, but it has already got people hot under the collar. The reason for this is that people say that he will teach universalistic salvation (that everyone goes to heaven in the end). He won't be the first person to teach such universalism: Origen, in the early centuries after Christ, did and so to did William Barclay (who wrote a lot of commentaries, some of which I have).

It is a nice idea but one that I find totally unconvincing. I suspect that it is a view shared by many in the 'emergant' circles. Given some of the other things that Bell has said in recent years, the fact that he holds this position shouldn't have taken many by surprise.

While those in conservative evangelical circles have got bothered about Bell's book, those from a more liberal persuasion have got equally enraged at some of the responses to Bell. For more liberal types the focus of anger is John Piper. Piper apparently tweeted, 'Farewell, Rob Bell.' I am not a tweeter, and don't think this was Piper's finest move. Yet I am saddened when I read people describe Piper as arrogant etc. What I have heard about Piper suggested to me that he is actually a very gracious and humble man.

The whole thing raises some issues for me.

Firstly, there is the place for confrontation. Is it wrong for Piper and co. to challenge Bell and co. about what they believe? Of course not! Look at what Paul does in Galatians when he talks about those whom he believed are threatening the gospel. I don't think that it is necessarily arrogant to have a strong opinion on what constitutes the gospel. (Now I am not defending the way in which Piper has done this on this occasion.)

Secondly, is there a place for deciding who is in and who is out of the evangelical fold? As someone who, at times, calls myself a 'confessional evangelical' I believe there is. While evangelicals don't have a monopoly on such things as 'evangelism' it has to be realised that the term 'evangelical' has been used since the last century to describe people who subscribe to a certain set of beliefs. Used in this way there should be nothing offensive in saying that someone is not an evangelical, providing of course that those people are in agreement that they don't subscribe to evangelical doctrines. If you take the Evangelical Alliance basis of faith as a typical statement of evangelical belief then people who don't subscribe to such things as the infallibility of the Bible, penal substitutionary atonement and the reality of hell are simply not evangelicals in this confessional sense. That is not to say that they aren't evangelical in the sense of wanting to share what they believe to be the good news, etc.

As an aside, I must say that I don't like the term post-evangelical to describe people who hold Bell-like positions. It sort of suggests that some people used to be evangelical but then they grew up. No doubt there will be some who think this is exactly what they have done.

Thirdly, it brings up the issue of connectedness. I have always felt that I have more in common with my fellow evangelicals than with non-evangelicals in my own, or any other, denomination. There is an evangelical unity that surpasses anything known in other forms of ecumenicalism. It is a unity based on shared belief, which still matters even in a post-modern world. I don't want to suggest that all people who don't want to describe themselves as evangelicals disagree with every point on evangelical belief, but sometimes I do wonder if I have any substantial areas of shared faith with some who take a non-evangelical stance. For example, if you and I have a totally different understanding about what took place at the cross and the nature of God's personality are we actually subscribing to the same religion?

Anyway these are some musings. They are just some random, half-thought-through, opinions. Take them or leave them!

The Work of the Spirit (Assurance)

2011-03-05T09:03:00.001Z

John Calvin apparently said that while we are not saved by works we are not saved apart from works. What did he mean? Well, we should know that we do nothing to earn God’s saving grace. We come to the cross with the words of the hymn-writer: ‘nothing in my hands I bring, simply to the cross I cling.’

However, when God converts us – when we are born again – the Holy Spirit indwells us and he brings inevitable change in our lives. True conversion involves a desire to live with Christ as our king and the Holy Spirit enables us to live this life. The change that he brings to our lives offers the evidence that we have been born again.

John speaks of this evidence when he writes, ‘everyone who does what is right has been born of him’ (1 John 2:29). Jerry Bridges explains, ‘John … is not writing of sinlessness, of always doing what is right, but of our normal practice, of the dominant direction of our lives.’ He adds, ‘Sometimes our obedience is marked more by desire than by performance. So we ask ourselves: “Is my life characterized by an earnest desire and a sincere effort to obey God in all he commands?”’

Of course we continue to struggle with the sinful nature and we know what it is to be defeated. As Christians we are aware that sin is awful. So with Godly sorrow we repent. We confess it to God and thank him that he has dealt with it on the cross, and we determine to seek God’s help to overcome. It remains our desire to become more like Jesus.

One writer, Iain Murray, warns that ‘an assurance accompanied by careless living is counterfeit.’ If you think that it doesn’t matter how you live then you have sparse ground for assurance of faith; if you think that the commands of the Bible are negotiable then you have sparse grounds for assurance; if you think that you can nurse bitterness or refuse to forgive then you also have sparse grounds for forgiveness.

Before we wrap up we need to look at one special work of the Holy Spirit that directly relates to this theme of assurance. John writes, ‘we know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers’ (1 John 3:14). What is our attitude towards other Christians? Do we want to meet with them? Are we willing to make their needs our priority? Are we patient, kind, gracious, slow to anger, and ready to forgive them? Of course they can be a struggle; of course some of them will get on our wick; but as we see God giving us a desire to love them more genuinely we are receiving evidence that the Holy Spirit has caused us to be born again!

To wrap up: It is not uncommon for genuine Christians to doubt the reality of their faith; the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit that we are children of God, primarily as he applies the gospel to our lives; we base our assurance not on our merit but on the gracious promises of the gospel; and, as we see the Holy Spirit give us new desires and enable us to become more like Jesus we witness evidence that we are indeed born again.

Finally, Iain Murray says, ‘Assurance and prayerlessness cannot belong together.’ Assurance is a great thing,, the martyr Bishop Latimer said, ‘When I live in a settled and steadfast assurance about the state of my soul then I am as bold as a lion.’ So as we seek a greater assurance we ought to cultivate a deep relationship of communion with God in prayer and seek the Holy Spirit’s strength to walk in vibrant obedience along with his beloved people.

Assurance and the Promises of God

2011-03-04T09:43:00.002Z

‘Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and cost’ (Isaiah 55:1).

‘The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life” (Rev. 22:17).

‘All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away’ (John 6:37).

‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’ (Romans 10:13).

Look at those first two promises. What is the attitude of the person who benefits from their grace? It is the person who has realised that they are spiritually bankrupt! It is the person who realises that they have no money with which to purchase God’s acceptance! It is the person who is spiritually thirsty, longing for a right relationship with God!

The person who understands the gospel realises that God is inapproachably holy; they realise that our sin is inexcusable and unimaginably awful; and they grasp the fact that Christ has dealt with their guilt on the cross. Have we given up on ourselves? Have we stopped trying to justify ourselves before God? Have we cried out “God, have mercy on me a sinner”? When we turn to him in true repentance we can be assured that he will not turn us away!

John Newton, the slave-trader who became the vibrant Christian and writer of such hymns as ‘Amazing Grace’, once counselled a despondent Christian who was struggling to feel a sense of assurance. He said to the person:

‘What you complain of in yourself, comprises the best marks of grace I can offer. A sense of unworthiness and weakness, joined with a hope in the Saviour, constitutes the character of a Christian in the world.’

But remember that we have an enemy whose primary strategy seems to lie in his accusations. What happens when he plants in our minds such thoughts as, how could a person who is a Christian struggle with sin as much as you do?’ What is our defence? It must not be to ignore or minimize the seriousness of our sin. Rather we should look to the cross and see Christ deal with our sins, in all their severity and ugliness, and then realise that because of his sin bearing work ‘there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 8:1).

The Witness of the Spirit

2011-03-03T19:50:00.003Z

On 24th May 1738, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, had an experience at a meeting at Aldersgate Street in London while someone was reading the preface to Martin Luther’s commentary on Romans. Wesley wrote of it in his journal saying:

About quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

However, what is less well known is that the following January this same Wesley would write, ‘I am not a Christian now … I feel this moment I do not love God … Again joy in the Holy Ghost I have not … I am not a Christian.’ Twenty-five years later he expressed this same lack of assurance when he wrote to his brother Charles, the great hymn-writer, saying, ‘I have no direct witness, I do not say I am a child of God.’

Like many Christians Wesley’s sense of assurance was not continuous. There were times he doubted the reality of his faith. Perhaps his problem is that he depended too much on feelings. The reality of our Christian life is not dependant on how we feel. This is not to say that feelings have no role in our sense of assurance. After all, the Apostle Paul writes of the witness of the Spirit.

For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. (Romans 8:15-16).

Jerry Bridges recounts the following story to demonstrate how this witness works:

‘Once I was on my way to speak at a conference on the pursuit of holiness. The trip itself was one of those stressful experiences when I did not exhibit the fruit of the Spirit of love, joy, and peace to airline personnel. I felt like an utter failure (which was true). How could I speak to others about personal holiness when I had been so unholy myself?

Arriving at my hotel room late at night, I opened my Bible to try to find some encouragement. Soon I came to a short phrase in Colossians 2:13: “He forgave us all our sins.” My heart was flooded with joy. The Spirit bore witness to my spirit that my sins of that very day were forgiven, washed away by the blood of Christ. I was emboldened with courage to speak at that conference, not because I was good enough, but because the Holy Spirit bore witness with my spirit that my sins were forgiven.’

Notice that is was the Spirit’s application of the gospel that resulted in the inner witness. It wasn’t that the weather improved or he got some rest, so that he felt better about life and faith. The Spirit assured him through applying the truth of the gospel into his life.

I believe that the Spirit witnesses to every true Christian. He takes God’s promises and applies them to us. But sometimes things get in the way of our knowing this assurance. Sometimes we let our insecurities get the better of us, blocking out this comfort. This may be particularly true of those with depression or clinical anxiety; these insecurities may make it harder for us to know God’s acceptance. Pray that God would enable us to realise the witness of the Holy Spirit, who testifies with our spirit that we are dearly loved children of God.