Quote / Misquote

Ephesians 4v7-13

But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says:

"When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men."

(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

We looked at this passage in housegroup this week. I've read it before, but don't think I'd ever checked back to the OT passage that Paul quotes here. This time I did and found it says this:

Psalm 68v18

When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train; you received gifts from men, even from the rebellious—that you, O LORD God, might dwell there.

Now hang on! Paul says that God gave gifts to men, but the original says that God received gifts from men. This is really bad. If I heard a preacher making such a mistake today I wouldn't rate them very highly! Paul has a point to make about God giving gifts, but he can't find an OT verse to support his claim, so he misquotes one... entirely changing the sense of the verse.

Oh, and there is nothing in the original passage about descending either. The image is of the triumph of a conquering king receiving tribute from his enemies.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm bamboozled.

Homosexuality in the clergy (again)

Several years ago the issue of (practicing) homosexual clergy threatened to tear the Anglican church apart. I blogged about it at the time. Now the same issue has landed in the Church of Scotland (the denomination I grew up in) and is similarly threatening to tear that church apart.

Having just re-read what I wrote nearly four years ago, I find myself more-or-less in agreement with what I wrote back then.

There are two camps here:

First there is the 'Conservative' camp who say "homosexual practice is a sin, it is condemned in the Bible, therefore we should not allow practicing homosexual clergy". Of course, many of this group eat pork and wear mixed fabrics and somehow justify doing these things - which are also listed as sin and condemned in the bible.

Then there is the 'Liberal' camp who say "some people are made gay, God wouldn't make them that way and then bar them from Christian ministry". Of course, the same reasoning would not apply to folk who were naturally inclined towards lying, stealing or psychopathic behaviour.

So what have the Church of Scotland done? Well, they've done something interesting. First of all, they voted in favour of the appointment of one, specific, practicing homosexual minister. Then they resolved not to appoint any other (known, practicing) homosexual ministers for at least two years, in which time a committee would look into the issue and write a report.

I almost approve of this plan of action.

But I have two questions, one for each camp.

To the liberal camp I must ask: "Why are you not pressing for homosexual marriage?" The bible is quite clear: sex outside of a loving, committed, monogamous, married relationship is not what God intended. So if God did create some people gay and intends for them to be that way, then the message the church should be sending out to homosexuals is twofold - abstain from sex until you find the right person for you, and don't have sexual relations with that person until you are married. Promoting any other message regarding sexuality is creating an inequality with heterosexuals.

To the conservative camp I must ask: "Why would homosexual practice (within the confines of a gay marriage) be a sin?" Basically, as I see it, there are things condemned as sin in the bible that are no longer considered sin today. Could this not be one of them? I don't believe that God creates arbitrary rules for no reason. Therefore, if homosexual practice is a sin, there must be a good reason for this - it must be bad for the individual, for society, or for our communion with God.

[Slight digression] I tend to favour the implied beliefs of C.S. Lewis with regard to 'forbidden fruit', as expressed allegorically in 'Perelandra'. There the 'Adam and Eve' characters were forbidden from doing a certain thing and, unlike Adam & Eve, they managed to abstain from it. Later, they were commended for their actions and given permission to do the forbidden thing. There was nothing wrong with the action, God was merely testing their obedience.

What if 'that was then, this is now' is a valid argument? When the original commandments were given, ensuring the growth, continuity and racial purity of the Israelites was a high priority. Mixed marriages with other races were forbidden, failure to produce offspring was frowned upon. In that context, of course, a homosexual relationship would be seen as a bad thing. It would not serve the continuity of the race. But our priorities have changed since then. We don't frown upon childless couples.

The original biblical principal is this: "It is not good for [a] man to be alone." (Genesis 2v18) - I wonder if it is less bad for a man to be with another man (within the confines of a committed gay marriage) than for a man to be on his own.

What is more important here, gender or relationship?

Some would argue from the point of view of design 'it is obvious [biologically speaking] that God made man to go with woman...' but that doesn't take orientation into account. To the homosexually oriented person it is obvious that they should be with another man.

I still don't know. I hear what both sides are saying, and I think they're both wrong - at least in part.

I doubt this will be the last post on this subject...

Grace and peace.

Lessons from Emmaus

Luke 24:13-35 [NIV]

13 Now that same day two of them [Jesus's disciples] were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, "What are you discussing together as you walk along?"

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, "Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?"

19 "What things?" he asked.

"About Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see."

25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"

33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

There are some stories in the bible that just make you want to scream at the characters in them.

How stupid are these people?

I mean, they were steeped in the Torah, probably from birth, they had followed Jesus around and heard his teaching, they had seen what he went through, they had heard that the tomb was empty, they had heard that angels - yes, angels - had said that Jesus was alive, they even felt in their hearts that something amazing was going on... and yet they did not believe. They did not understand.

Hang on. These guys hadn't merely read their bibles regularly and been part of a church. They could probably recite entire books of the Torah (OK, I'm reading this in to the fact that they lived 7 miles away from Jerusalem; only serious Jews would live that close to the temple) and had spent time with Jesus himself. Talked with him. Heard his teaching. Eaten meals with him. Seen him heal the sick. Observed his life.

And yet they didn't understand the bible.

And they didn't really know who Jesus was.

They followed him. They believed in him.

But they didn't get it.

Blimey. If it was possible for them to know Jesus and still misunderstand what he was all about, how much more likely is it that we don't get it either?

How many Christians in our churches don't actually get it? They read the bible, they follow Jesus, they have a personal relationship with him, but they still don't get it?

What if I don't get it?

What if you don't get it?

I bet those guys were sure of what they believed. They knew the bible. They knew Jesus. But they were still wrong.

I'm sure you're sure of what you believe in too. Have you ever considered you might have misunderstood Jesus?

What if you haven't got him yet?

Are you sure your preconceptions are right? I'm not sure about mine.

Jesus Wants to Save Christians

Just finished 'Jesus Wants to Save Christians' by Rob Bell and Don Golden.

Its good. Basically it has only one point to make, but its an important point that many, many people in churches need to hear. And it makes that point well.

Its quite a short read - it feels more like an extended sermon than a book - and Rob Bell's writing style gets a bit irritating occasionally.

You see,

when he wants

to emphasise

a point

he spreads

one line of text

over about

ten

paragraphs,

which can be just a bit

annoying.

But anyway. The point is this: the western church of today (specifically in the USA, but mostly applicable to the UK too) has forgotten what it was like to be oppressed. And as a consequence we don't do the 'good news to the poor' bit of the gospel anymore. We preach at them, from a distance, but don't get alongside the poor, care for them and meet their needs. And we need to if we want to truly be followers of Christ - because that is what he did.

Of course, the book says that with a lot more bible quotes, stories and theology in there, but that's the main point.

Recommended, if you want a short but challenging read.

Premillennial

A few people I know are in the process of planting a church. They're doing this under the banner of an American church-planting organisation (I hadn't realised that such things even existed), and I'm totally supportive of the plant. But I had a read through of the 'statement of faith' of the parent organisation (on their website) and it managed to include the word 'pre-millennial'...

Why?

I'm not an expert on the theology of Revelation, but as I understand it, there are four reasonably common interpretations of the text (see below), two of which include the 'pre-millennial' return of Christ. However, the text isn't totally clear. Any of the four readings of the text(s) are plausible.

For what its worth, on the basis of this graphic presentation of the four options, I'd probably fall into the 'amillennialism' camp. But that's not really the point here.

The point is, why make this statement?

By specifying 'premillennial' in the basis of faith, the organisation is drawing a line in the sand that I do not believe has to be there. By making that statement they are -effectively- saying "only certain types of Christians get to be part of our church". And by making the statement they are acknowledging that there is another opinion; and rejecting it.

There are certain things that should be part of a statement of faith. "Jesus is Lord" is kind of central in all streams of Christianity, the bible is unambiguous on that. But why should a church take a definite stance on one side of an issue on which the bible is ambiguous?

Can we not have the grace to say "we don't know" on certain issues? Can we not graciously allow differences of opinion on non-central issues to exist within our churches? Can we not be a bit less dogmatic on our statements of faith?

Somewhere in the light greys...

In the article I posted last week called "The skeptical position and the apparent miracle" I probably gave the impression that I had concluded that the healer guy who came to our church was a fraud.

Let me just state for the record that I did not come to that conclusion. It was one of the possibilities which I considered, but is certainly not the belief that I finally landed on.

At present, and unless further relevant information presents itself, I believe that he was doing what he was doing out of an honest and God-inclined heart. And people were healed.

Of course, I still have questions, and some of those questions are big ones, but it would appear that people have been genuinely healed through this guy, so I'm unable to conclude that he is a fraud. Quite the opposite.

This news story on a BBC web page was one of the factors (see also the YouTube clip below, which the story refers to), and the dramatic improvement in eyesight of someone I know who was prayed for was another.

The clip in itself proves nothing, that sort of visible effect can be faked. But the testimony of the healed person two weeks later (as recorded on the BBC web page and the embedded audio clip) is far more compelling.

There were also testimonies of healing at our church last week. And I hope there will be more. I still haven't heard if either of those folk who had a visible leg inequality before they were prayed for have now got balanced legs or not. Will let you know.

---

Update: The younger of the two folk who had a visible leg inequality (more than 2cm, it was really quite obvious) now has, since being prayed for a week past on Sunday, two legs the same length. Awesome. In all senses of the word.

The 'if' doubts about healing end here.

The 'how', 'why' and 'when' questions continue, as well as the big 'why not's...

Bluegrass Worship

Listening to "Bluegrass Worship" on Spotify. Its excellent. Really uplifting.
And if you don't have Spotify, you can get it on Amazon.

What would I have become?

Where do you go when you've lost the keys
When all is dark and you're on your knees?
And in a world where it's love betrays
There is a light that will save the day
Don't go away
What would I have done if it wasn't for Jesus?
What would I have become if it wasn't for Jesus?

"What would I have done" by Delirious?

Following on from my previous post, I found myself questioning what sort of person would become a fake faith healer. And I realised, it could have been me.

What would have I become, if...?

I can't remember if I've ever given my full testimony on this blog, but here's a potted version of it:

I used to be a fake Christian.

From the age of 11 to the week before my 18th Birthday, I appeared (to some observers) to be a Christian, but I wasn't. I spoke Christianese fluently, I could pray in prayer meetings, I could lead bible studies, I could discuss most issues relevant to Christian life, I said the right things, went to the right meetings, read the right books, but I wasn't a Christian.

You see, I was raised in a Christian home, went to church every week, and believed the right stuff. If you'd asked me (aged 10) if I was a Christian, I wouldn't have really understood you. What else was there to be? But then, at an Easter holiday houseparty (run by the organisation that is now 'Action Partners') in 1981 I realised, for the first time, that there was such a thing as 'conversion', and furthermore that I hadn't done it. I realised that Christianity was not about believing certain things, but about making the choice to act on those beliefs. While I did believe that Jesus was the son of God, I had not made the choice to follow Him.

Things came to a head on the second last day of that houseparty. Someone preached an evangelical message and loads of the kids there made the decision to follow Christ.

Now there were quite a few kids who were Christians already, and these kids (in a very mature way for kids ranging in age from 10 to 13) took the new converts back to the dorms and prayed with them. I can't really remember how it happened but I ended up being back at the dorm with two established Christian kids and three who had just made the decision. So I joined in the prayer group. It seemed the thing to do at the time. But obviously, I didn't join as a 'new convert' I was playing the part of the established Christian. And then someone asked me "So when did you become a Christian?" and I made the choice, there and then, to lie. "A couple of years ago" seemed a good answer as nobody there had known me for that long. Furthermore, I made the choice to let that lie stick. I also made (for the first time) the choice not to follow Christ.

From then on I lived a double life. In certain groups (i.e. family, church, SU groups, etc.) I played the part of a Christian, made the right noises and did the right stuff. I did it really well. I was very good at faking Christianity. In other groups, of course, I was a regular secular kid who listened to quite unchristian rock music and traded dubious magazines with his friends. For years it was easy, as the two groups did not overlap at all.

It only really got problematic in my final year at school. The two groups began to have slight overlaps. As the only sixth year in the school Christian group, I was expected to take on the leadership of the group. I managed to avoid that (just) and dumped the responsibility onto one of the 5th years (sorry Ewan). But as the year went on, the 6th years were expected to be involved in all these community events and when church based events came along it got increasingly hard to wriggle out of them, especially as one group of people I knew expected that I would be part of them. Actually, once I had to wriggle so hard to avoid doing a reading at a 'World day of prayer' meeting that a rumour was started that I was a satanist!

So, 6th year was crunch time and over the course of the year I realised that I had to make my choice and just be one thing or the other. It was an impossible choice, but I had to make it. And eventually I did. But the reasons I made the choice for Christ will have to come in another post.

The point here is that I was a fake Christian for 6 years. And played the part very convincingly.

But, I was a fake Christian in a very conservative evangelical setting. Raising hands in worship was frowned on. Nobody talked about healings, miracles or the like happening today. That was all considered as being in the past. Biblical teaching, right living and prayer. That was all that it was about.

But. What would I have become, as a fake Christian, if I'd been in a church where people raised hands in worship, spoke in tongues, prayed for healings, expected miracles, and the like?

I'll tell you. Because I know. I would have been very good at faking all that too. Fake speaking in tongues would have been easy. Fake praying for others? No problem.

And I'm reasonably sure I'd have been able to fake some 'miracles' like the leg lengthening trick.

If I could have done it, I know that others could have. And do. And are perpetuating fake Christianity right now.

There are fakes out there who are leaders in the church. There are fakes who are well known preachers, there are fakes who are pastors of big churches and there are fakes doing the rounds as healers.

Occasionally one of the big, high profile televangelist fakes is found out, but they're just the tip of the iceberg.

The thing is, even though I (as a former fake) am generally quite good at spotting other fakes, there is no real way of knowing. You can't always separate the sheep from the goats.

Oh, and just as an aside, there are also people who are or were genuine Christians but who 'backslide' in their faith whilst still maintaining a 'sound' mask. But I'm not talking about them here. I'm talking about those who have never made the choice for Christ and simply play the part of being a Christian, probably - like me - initially for the sake of an easy life, but who then keep it up for personal gain, as an ego-boost, or for other self-centred reasons.

If there are any Christians reading this who have slipped internally, while still maintaining the facade of a good Christian, I recommend you read "Buck Naked Faith" by Eric Sandras - because he was just like you...

The skeptical position and the apparent miracle

I've been meaning to state my skeptical position on this blog for a couple of weeks now, but hadn't found the time to write it down before I was overtaken by events yesterday, and now feel I have to comment on what I saw yesterday, but prefix it with a brief statement of my position.

The Skeptical Position

I've noticed in a few discussions online and in the real world recently, that the idea of taking a 'skeptical' position on an issue is frequently perceived as meaning taking a 'non-believing' stance. But this is not the case.

Suppose that something 'miraculous' happens, or appears to happen. The 'believer' will tend, by default, to see it as an act of God and will dismiss other theories. The 'non-believer' will tend, by default, to see it as a fake and will dismiss all possibility of 'supernatural' activities. One side sees the event as white, the other sees it as black. The true skeptic, however, must remain open to the possibility that either side could be true, or even that there are more possibilities out there. The skeptic should remain agnostic on the issue unless there is good evidence (not necessarily proof) to support one hypothesis over the other(s). The skeptic, therefore, sees the issue not as black or white, but only in shades of grey.

This is where I often find myself. For example, in the discussion on miracles which went on last week [here and here on my blog, and here on Chris's], I find myself stuck in the grey area in between two opinions [within the church!], that of:

1. The Meeting House: "big, obvious miracles and healings, of the kind performed by (or through) the Apostles in the book of Acts, are not possible today." [my paraphrase]
   
2. The 'Modern Evangelical' View: "God has not run out of "miracle-juice", nor has it become watered down over the millennia. He is the same awesome miracle working God today that he was two-thousand years' ago." [quote from Chris's blog]

The grey area I find myself in is that I can see no reason (biblical or otherwise) why opinion 1 should be the case, but I see little or no evidence to support opinion 2. So I remain skeptical of claims of healing, but open minded.

That is my position. Now my experience and observations from yesterday...

"Healing on the streets"

Our church (that's the Almond Vineyard in Edinburgh) were host to a couple of visitors from the Causeway Coast Vineyard in Northern Ireland this weekend. Both have been involved in their 'Healing on the streets' initiative, one of them started the initiative in 2005. Basically, a team from their church goes out onto the high street in their town -every Saturday- and offers prayer for healing to anyone who wants. They say the public response has become quite favourable and the claim to have seen quite a number of people being healed of various ailments.

Now while I am skeptical (as in open minded, but unsure) about what can be achieved through prayer for healing in this way, I am convinced that - at the very least - people can sometimes experience relief from pain, reduction of symptoms and occasional remission through this activity. A few folk from our church are involved in this kind of ministry in Edinburgh on a semi-regular basis, and I support them in this. It is a good thing. I haven't been brave enough to participate yet, but I might in the future.

So, the guy from 'Healing on the streets' preached at our church yesterday, spoke a bit about his experience 'on the streets' and in the church in Northern Ireland, and then offered to pray for healing for people. Several people were ministered to and prayed for. He specifically called for anyone who has 'one leg longer than the other' to come for prayer, and invited 'anyone who wanted to see a miraculous healing' to gather round and watch. I watched. Something appeared to happen.

This left me inclining toward the lighter greys, I have to say. It was convincing.

But then, when the next two people who came for healing, claiming back pain, appeared to also have one leg slightly longer than the other, my inner skeptic alarm bells started ringing. Having one leg longer than the other is not particularly common. If you counted the number of people who apparently had this complaint at church yesterday, it would appear to be about 5-10% of the gathering, but most of them were unaware of this 'complaint' before the healer identified it.

And I began to remember hearing someone talk about 'debunking' a 'leg lengthening miracle' before. The skeptical needle began to incline towards the darker greys.

The 'Leg Lengthening' Scam

Later on I Googled it and was reminded that it was (professional magician and paranormal fraudster debunker) James Randi who I'd heard talking about it. He even discussed the 'scam' at length in his book "The Faith Healers" back in the 1980s.

If done well, the person being 'healed', as well as the audience, are completely unaware of the scam. The trick is, when getting the patient seated and settled, to gently pull the heel of the shoe on the 'longer' leg. Now, when the audience is gathered around, they will clearly see a small difference in the relative positions of the person's two heels. As the healing takes place, the focus of the interest of the audience (and the patient) is on the 'short' leg, so they're not looking at the foot on the long leg as the healer slowly slides the shoe back to its original place, making the 'short' leg apparently grow relative to the long leg.

That is the scam. I'm still not sure if that's what I saw yesterday, but I'm inclining toward believing that that is what was going on.

Its interesting that in all cases, the 'short' leg was made to grow, the 'long' leg was never made to shrink. That would be a harder one to pull off...

What I now find myself wondering is whether it is possible for an entirely genuine person to have stumbled onto a 'technique' which seems to work for people during prayer ministry and remaining entirely unaware that they are perpetuating a fraud. Or is it always a deliberate fraud? In other words, was the guy misguided or a charlatan?

I really don't want to believe the latter, as the guy appreared to be a nice enough guy. And he works in a Church full of good people. But, of course, a good con-artist will never appear to be a con-artist.

There is one way of possible verification, of course. Someone was there yesterday who I know has one leg a bit shorter than the other. She was prayed for by the guy. If her leg did get longer, I'll have to stop being so skeptical. I'll be keeping my eyes open...

Apostolic authority...

Hmmm. In my former post, Theophilus, I wrote about an issue I have with the current teaching from The Meeting House in Canada.

I don't go to that church, I'm on the wrong continent, but ever since I discovered them, over a year ago, I've been really impressed with their teaching, their theology and their overall view of Christian life, the universe and everything. If I lived in Canada I'd certainly have tried going there a few times.

So I'm slightly miffed that they have been emphasising a point recently that I'm not totally in agreement with. Although, having said that, I've still not made up my mind on this issue one way or the other...

Last week's sermon touched on the same points as the previous ones, but went one step further, or actually, two steps further.

The points are:

• There is a difference between miracles and healings carried out by the Apostles in the book of Acts from what is possible for believers today.
• Apostolic miracles were immediate, dramatic and unambiguous. Miracles & healings today are, at best, ambiguous and leave plenty of room for skeptics to remain skeptical.
• The Apostles were those who were directly commissioned by Jesus, there have been no further apostles since the first generation died out.

Chris has pointed out that even Jesus's miracles were sometimes ambiguous and that some were skeptical of those miracles.

I doubted about what Jesus said about future generations of followers doing 'greater things' than him.

Obviously this came up in the house groups at the Meeting House as this was raised in last week's sermon. The two new points raised by the Meeting House are:

1. Looking back over history, there is no evidence of successive generations of Christians doing 'greater' miracles than Jesus did. So either Jesus was lying (which we assume he wasn't) or he didn't mean 'greater' in that sense. Maybe he meant 'greater' in the quantitative sense? More believers = far, far more miracles and healings than one man, even the Son of Man, could have done.
2. What the Apostles had, which we don't have, is authority. They could command a healing or a miracle, we can only ask.

I'm really not sure about point 2!

In 'the great commission' Jesus asserts that he is the one with the authority. He didn't pass it on, he retained it, so that all of the folk who carried out the commission - on his behalf - would be people under authority. If we're still carrying out the same commission, we have the same access to authority as the first generation of disciples did! Sometimes I think we don't see the working of the authority, because we haven't been brave enough to behave like commissioned people.

Having said that, I suspect their reasoning in point 1 is fairly good. We haven't seen Christians doing 'greater' things than Jesus (healing blind, walking on water, raising dead, turning water into wine), indeed we rarely hear of things of that level of greatness and I (for one) am pretty skeptical of some of the semi-great stories I hear.

But the doubting goes on... I still need to wrestle with this a bit longer...