Unity

John 17v20-23:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

I've been listening to a fascinating sermon series from The Meeting House in Canada over the past few weeks. It's called 'One Church' and each week, for the last 8 or 9 weeks, they have invited leaders from different denominations to their own to come and explain the basic beliefs of that denomination and to preach a short message in The Meeting House. So far I've listened to talks from the perspective of the Anglican Church, The Brethren in Christ (which is the denomination of the Meeting House, not to be confused with the Brethren), the Salvation Army, Presbyterians, Catholics, Pentecostals, the United Church of Canada, and Harvest Bible Chapel. There was a sermon by Philip Yancey in the middle there too.

In addition to that, the pastors of The Meeting House do a separate podcast called the 'Round Table' in which they delve deeper into some of the issues raised in the Sunday sermons. I've listened to a few of those too. Highly recommended.

The aim of the series, as expressed many times in the podcasts, is to try and learn from 'other parts of the body of Christ'. They say that there is unity in the body of Christ, even though it is split into many denominations.

And yet, when you listen to the discussions between the various denominations, it is clear that several of them (perhaps not all) have the underlying viewpoint that 'we are right and you are wrong, and your way of being Christians is fundamentally flawed'. In other words, they speak of unity, and yet it is clearly not there in any real or tangible way.

Last week, they read the passage quoted above, where Jesus prays for unity among all believers. It had never really occurred to me before, but now it seems clear to me that here we have an example of a prayer that Jesus prayed which simply, in the past two thousand years, has not been answered.

Sure, parts of the church have shown unity at various times in history, but the history of the church is largely one of schism and disunity, not one of communion and unity.

The disunity in the church has always bothered me. But I'd never noticed before that the disunity is evidence that God didn't answer Jesus's prayer. The implications of that are huge. And I think I'll leave it until another post before I unpack that one...

Speaking the truth in love...

Inspired by last week's sermon from The Meeting House... It was a good one, why not download it?

Ephesians 4v14-16

[14] Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. [15] Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. [16] From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

[Back in June I commented on the verses immediately preceding these. I'm not that slow a reader to just be getting to this now...]

What does it mean to "speak the truth in love"?

So often I've come across folk who're prepared to use that verse as a justification for pointing out the errors of others: "Brother I love you, so its my place to point out that your behaviour in this area of life is not good, and you need to change your ways..."

That's speaking the truth in love, isn't it?

But how does that fit with Jesus's words in Matthew 7v3-5?

[3] "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? [4] How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? [5] You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Here, speaking the truth would involve the admission that "I've got a whopping big log in my eye". In other words, my problems are bigger than yours, I can't claim the moral high ground. And the 'in love' bit only comes into it because I'll only speak the truth about me in the context of a love relationship where I know I won't get abused because of it...

Also, how about James 5v16?

Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

That's more speaking of truth in love. Wow. Does anybody do this in church these days? Not confessing your sins to the priest in the confessional, but to each other.

That's speaking the truth, in love.

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...

The Apostolic Miracle

I've been listening to the current sermon series on Acts from the Meeting House. One of the points they've made a couple of times so far in the series is that there is a difference between the miracles and healings that the 1st generation apostles performed, from anything that has been or is possible for subsequent generations of believers since the first century.

They assert that the healings and miracles of the first Apostles were clear and unambiguous - everyone, even sceptics, could not deny that a miraculous event had occurred. For example, the healing of the cripple at the gates of the temple in Acts 3. Even the Sanhedrin could not deny that the cripple had been healed.

However, they go further and assert that this is not possible today. They state that such 'healings' and 'miracles' which apparently occur today tend to be ambiguous, with the sceptics left with plenty of room not to believe them at all.

I'm guessing that this is a derived theology, I can't see this teaching in the bible. But I can see where it could come from - big obvious miracles happened back then, smaller, less obvious 'miracles' (if any) seem to happen these days. Anyone got any insight here?

I also guess that they don't believe in apostolic succession. That is, that after the first generation of Apostles, there were no further apostles.

The thing is, from observation of the way the world appears to be, this seems like perfectly sensible reasoning to me. But its not the way I want the world to be. I want it to be possible for the big miracles still to happen. I want apostles to be walking among us.

Discuss.

"When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth..."

That's Matthew 19v22, in case you don't know. The story of the 'rich, young ruler'. Obviously it doesn't apply to me, cos I'm not rich...

Or am I?

www.globalrichlist.com is a bit of an eye opener. I put in my annual salary and this is what it told me:

Quite shocking, really.

I listened to last week's sermon from The Meeting House yesterday. It was about money. One statement that stayed with me was that some sociologist somewhere did a study on people's money and happiness levels, and concluded that the adage 'money can't buy you happiness' was true in almost all instances. The two exceptions to this were (a) the very, very poor and (b) people who are sick.

The speaker pointed out that this meant that your money can't increase your happiness, but your money can increase somebody else's happiness. So give it away. Generously.

Philosophy of hell

I listened to an interesting interview the other day. Bruxy Cavey (from the Meeting House) was interviewing science-journalist, author and devout Catholic Denyse O'Leary about her latest book "The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul" [on Amazon.co.uk]. Sounds like a very interesting book and I intend on reading it once it comes out in paperback.
But one of the things she said, which really caught my attention, was her reasoning that hell must be a real place. The reasoning went like this:

1. We know the soul is immortal
2. We know we have freewill
3. Thus, it must be possible for someone to choose to have the worst eternity possible, therefore there must be a hell.
4. Of course, it may be that nobody has ever gone there or ever will, but it must exist.

She was absolutely emphatic on this one and presented it as totally obvious and absolutely cut and dried.

Her reasoning seemed a bit simplistic to me. For a start, while I believe that we do indeed have freewill, I don't know that for certain. The belief can only be inferred from the bible, it isn't explicitly in there.

Furthermore, Jesus (in Matthew 10v28) says explicitly that there is one (assumed to be God) who can destroy the soul and body in hell. If the soul can be destroyed, it can't be immortal. Of course, Jesus asserts the existence of hell in this verse (and others) but the reasoning above can't be used to prove it.

Secrets and lies

I've been listening to the current sermon series from The Meeting House in Canada on the life of David. Its been very good. I recommend it [download here].

However, one thing (that I'd never noticed before) keeps jumping out of the story, again and again. David, Samuel and other 'good' characters in the story frequently lie or bear false witness - and this is seen as quite acceptable, possibly even the honourable thing to do in some cases.

For example, in I Samuel 16v1-3, the Lord appears to instruct Samuel to make up a cover story:

The LORD said to Samuel, "How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king."
But Samuel said, "How can I go? Saul will hear about it and kill me."
The LORD said, "Take a heifer with you and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.' Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate."

The text never indicates that the sacrifice was carried out. It appears to be simply a cover story to deceive Saul. And this is at God's command!

In chapter 19, David's wife Michal lies to Saul's soldiers and then to Saul himself when they come looking for David. This appears to be presented as a good thing she was doing.

In chapter 21, when David goes to the high priest Ahimilech, he lies in order to get food and a sword. Later that chapter when he is before the king of Gath he pretends to be mad - another instance of bearing false witness.

In chapter 22, Ahimilech lies to Saul when questioned about David, and this results in the death of lots of innocent priests. But it is presented as if Ahimilech is in the right here.

And so on.

The thing is, at no point in the story are any of these characters condemned for breaking one of the big 10 commandments. In fact, the story seems to commend these people for their use of subterfuge.

In other words, it is perfectly acceptable to lie if the situation requires it.

Even when David lied to the priest - which wasn't a matter of life or death for anyone - he isn't presented as being in the wrong. Perhaps he was lying in this instance to try and keep the priest out of it (if so, that didn't work!), but it was still lying.

How may times have I heard Christian preachers explaining that there is no such thing as a 'white lie'? Yet, apparently there is.

And it should be noted that, unlike most of the characters in the old testament, both David and Samuel are explicitly described as having the Spirit of God remaining with them - in other words, they are effectively new covenant people in old covenant times. They are, in many ways, a pattern for us to follow.

Honest.

Old Covenant vs. New Covenant

Hebrews 8v8-13 (quoting Jer 31v31-34)
"The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

This is the covenant I will establish with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

No longer will they teach their neighbors, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

'Obsolete' is a very strong word. I've looked into it and the Greek word used here is also a strong word which kind of suggests 'redundant through old age'. The word translated 'outdated' here has more or less the same connotations. By using both words together, the author of Hebrews is really pushing his point home - the Old Covenant is no more, you are not bound by it, you do not need it.

So why do we have the Old Testament in our bibles today? A couple of times in the teaching from 'The Meeting House' (who I may have mentioned before) they assert that the story of the Old Testament is kind of like a history of what doesn't work. Its (apparently) a bit like an alcoholics anonymous programme, where before you get to discussing the things that do work, very often the group discusses all the things they've tried that don't work. So we need the Old Testament as a warning, showing us the sort of thinking and lifestyle and decisions that do not work.

But, we are not bound by it. The laws in there do not apply to us. We live by grace, not by law.

When we become part of the New Covenant, God writes his 'laws' on our hearts, so we no longer need the rule book.

So, does that mean we can do what we want? Fundamentally yes! If our hearts are right, having been written on by God, we won't want wrong things.

If only it were that easy though, 'what about our "sinful nature"?' I hear you cry. We're not perfect yet. OK, yes, things aren't that straightforward, but that doesn't need we need to return to law-based living. We have been freed from that 'burden'.

If you think about the amazing statement from Hebrews (and Jeremiah) above, and then look at the teaching and attitudes of much of the church, you'll realise that we are not living as God intended. There's still an awful lot of law in our Church. Sometimes it looks as if someone decided 'we no longer need those laws, what we really need are these new laws...'

No! Jesus died 'once for all' to get rid of all that!

A quick aside: The clearest example of the legalist mentality in the church in my experience came when I was 13. It was Christmas 1983 and the present that 13 year-old boys most wanted was the Sinclair ZX Spectrum. Stocks were limited, most of us that wanted them didn't actually get them in time for Christmas (mine arrived in January), but one of my friends (from a good, well respected, Christian family) got one on Christmas day. A Sunday. The sabbath. The day on which any form of TV watching was forbidden in his house. And in those days you needed to plug the Spectrum into a TV to use it. So he was given the thing he most wanted in the world, and then was told he had to wait until the following day to use it, because of the rules. Law, not grace. You could give and recieve presents on the sabbath and play with them - unless they involved switching on a TV...

So what's the deal with the old laws? Why did God give them?

Well, this is an imperfect analogy, but its the best I can offer...

I have a 6 year old daughter. I have imposed two 'laws' on her with regard to sleeping. She is to go to bed before 8pm and is not to get up until after 7am. The reason I have done this is that I know (although she does not) that if she doesn't have about 11 hours of sleep at night, she'll be too tired to get the most out of the day that follows and will often get grumpy and upset - with no apparent cause. Now, there is nothing special or magical about 8pm or 7am, but those are just the best times that fit our household lifestyle. Furthermore, these 'laws' will undoubtedly change as she gets older (and needs less sleep), and ultimately I hope she will learn the value of sleep and will begin to self-regulate her sleeping, such that no laws from me are needed anymore. It will take time and growth in maturity for her to internalise the principle, but she will get there one day.

In general terms, I see the same in the Old Covenant laws. There are a great many principles that the people of God need to internalise, but once we have - once they're written on our hearts - then we no longer need the laws, many of which draw lines in the sand that do not correlate to 'special' or 'magical' standards.

For example, there are laws in the OT clearly prohibiting inter-racial marriage. Not only would we reject that today (OK, not everyone would), but even in the context of the OT we see grace rather than law at work there - look at Rahab, look at Ruth, notice how they both feature in the genealogy of King David and ultimately in the genealogy of Jesus. The principal was there for a purpose - to preserve the uniqueness of the people of God - but sometimes the law needed broken (or disregarded) in God's plan. Even Moses - the law giver - had a non-Jewish wife!

So, once you've internalised the essence of the law, you can disregard the written law and even, in some instances, do the opposite of what it actually says because you realise that it doesn't apply in this situation. Don't work on the sabbath, but if you're a doctor and you see someone injured on the sabbath the right thing would be to attend to their needs, and disregard the law.

And we have internalised some of the principles, but we (by which I mean Christians) still have laws that are supplemental to the laws of the countries in which we live. We still haven't fully got it.

So, many of us are free and easy with sabbath observance (yes, we take a day off at least one day in seven, but I did drive about 20 miles in total yesterday (Sunday) and I did go to a supermarket and buy food for dinner. Most of us are dismissive of dietary laws (many of which were quite sensible before fridges and freezers were invented, but are obsolete now) and laws regarding what we wear. But we are still rigidly adherent to the letter of the law on some issues, particularly with regard to sexuality. That was the point of my last post, and I'll re-address the issue in another one soon.

Feel free to say 'yes, but...' now:

Turn the other cheek

In a comment on the previous posting, my nephew Matt made the following statement: "i don't think i've ever heard anyone preach a satisfying sermon on the "turn the other cheek" passage". The thing is, I've heard (and read) at least two satisfying takes on that passage so far this year.
So here is a condensed version of what I heard/read, which I am in good agreement with, based on sermon podcasts from The Meeting House in Canada, the book 'The End of Religion' by Bruxy Cavey and the book 'The Lost Message of Jesus' by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann.

I think the basic problem people have with this passage is that they implicitly assume that Jesus can't have actually meant what he appears to say. Surely he doesn't mean that if someone hits us, we don't merely stand there and take it, we actually make it easier for them to hit us again? Ridiculous, right? So what did Jesus say:

Luke 6v27-31
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

In this passage, Jesus doesn't start with the 'turn the other cheek' bit, he builds up to it. Why is someone striking you on the cheek? Maybe they cursed you first? Maybe they hated you before that? Maybe they were your enemy from the outset?

What if you had actively loved them before they made any negative move towards you, when they were merely your enemy? Not 'what if you'd not-hated them' at the start, but what if you'd shown your love for them? 'Love your enemies' means going out of your way to serve them, to help them and to generally be a blessing to them. Maybe if you did this they'd never get to the stage of striking you?

But if simply loving them didn't work, you move on to doing good for them, to blessing them, to praying for them. Basically the call is to 'be like Jesus' to them. To return hate with love, to return cursing with blessing, to return violence with the opposite of violence.

Seriously, it does mean if someone hits you then you should not fight back. If someone wants to hit you then you offer yourself for further hitting. Remember the 'living sacrifice' bit? Sacrifice hurts. Jesus demonstrated this to the ultimate degree, he didn't merely turn the other cheek, he offered his back for whipping, his head for piercing and his hands and feet for nailing to a cross. The man who demonstrated that he could heal wounds, walk on water, etc. could certainly have got down from the cross if he wanted to. But he chose not to - to show us the ultimate way. Jesus didn't merely teach us the way, he showed us the way. As John has it, he is the way.

Jesus lived the way he taught. Turning the other cheek was just the start. After watching Jesus take everything that was thrown at him, and seeing the way he died, only then did the centurion declare "Surely this man was the Son of God!" (Mark 15v39).

What good does it do to not fight back? Well, maybe you have to go the whole way to death before people will see God in you. Surely that's worth dying for?


That's the way Luke presents the story, but Matthew has a slightly different spin on the teaching:

Matthew 5 v 38-48
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Its basically the same teaching arranged in a slightly different order (its reasonable to assume that Jesus actually preached on this subject in a number of different times and places and may have said it in different ways each time), but there is one minor detail in Matthew that isn't in Luke. Jesus says "if someone strikes you on the right cheek..." - why specify which cheek? Is there a message in there?

Culturally at the time, people did different things with their left hand from their right. Nobody was left-handed, it would have been trained out of any natural lefties at an early age. Everyone (unless they simply had a non-functioning right hand) used their right hand for noble purposes - such as greeting others - and their left for ignoble purposes - such as toilet related activities. Culturally, fighting was actually a noble purpose, so the right hand would be used.

If someone strikes you with their right hand on your right cheek, this must be a slap with the back of the hand - a dismissive strike as a master would give to a servant. If you offer the other cheek - the left cheek - then they (using their right hand) would have to slap you with the palm of their hand. This kind of slap is not a master-servant slap, but a slap used between equals.

So turning the other cheek is actually a subversive non-violent response, it really says 'you can strike me again, but if you do, you must acknowledge me as your equal'.

The other teaching of Jesus in these verses follows a similar non-violent yet subversive approach. If someone wants to sue you for your tunic, give him your cloak as well - in a culture where people only wore two items of clothing (no underwear) that was quite a statement. If someone wants some of your clothes, give him them all. That would really put the other to shame. And Roman soldiers were within their rights to demand that a Jew carry their stuff for about a mile, but Roman law limited the distance. In the first mile the relationship is oppressor to oppressed, in the second mile the relationship is different, the person carrying the stuff is doing it because he chooses to, not out of obligation. The first mile is slavery, the second is freedom. And that second mile gives you even more opportunity to evangelise the oppressor.

The message is this, return hate with love, cursing with blessing, violence with non-violence and oppression with free choice.

Do not use the methods of your enemy, but simply love them.

---

Update: two further comments

Above I have presented the teaching of others, which I agree with and hope to be able to live out. But there are two issues which are either not addressed in the teaching I have heard or I remain uncertain of, despite the clear teaching of those I refer to above.

1. Jesus teaching on 'turning the other cheek' is very individualistic. That is, "if someone hits you, your response should be..." - this offers no guidance in the scenario where someone threatens violence against a friend or family member. I hope I'd be willing to let someone hit me if they wanted to - according to the teaching of Jesus, but I'm really not sure if it would be right to let someone hit, for example, my daughter. If, in that scenario, I could take her place, I would. But what if that is not an option - surely I should not be passive but take action to save her? But here there is no teaching from Jesus.
   
   
2. The use of violence by 'the authorities'. The teaching from 'The Meeting House' is clear on this one - rulers and authorities have the God given right to use violence and the threat of violence. This is taken from the first few verses of Romans 13. They go from here to basically deduce that it is inappropriate for a Christ-follower to hold political power, especially a position where the choice to use violence (through war, etc.) is an option. While I accept the validity of the deduction - it probably is inappropriate for a Christ-follower to be in such a position of power - I'm not sure about the first bit. Are all governments agents of God? Was Saddam? Was Hitler? Or even in Paul's day, was Nero or Herod? Was the slaugher of the innocents by any or all of these rulers ordained by God? Not by the God I know. I still have to wrestle with this issue.
   

The Westminster Confession of Faith

I was raised in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This and a few other denominations hold the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) as their basis. I just read through the thing online. Its longer than I remember from my youth.

And I certainly don't base my faith on it anymore.

I went to the document with an agenda. I have been listening a lot lately to teaching from The Meeting House church in Canada. They are an Anabaptist church and consider themselves neither Catholic nor Protestant. They have a different perspective. And I must say, the more I hear, the more closely aligned to my perspective their views seem (except the actual baptism issue, but maybe we'll get there in the end). Anyway, they as Christians point primarily to the teachings of Christ as a basis for faith and lifestyle. They had previously pointed out (and I blogged about) that many of the Creeds of the church jump straight from the (virgin) birth of Jesus directly to his death and resurrection, completely missing the things that he said during his ministry. I wanted to see if the WCoF did the same thing.

It does. As far as this confession of faith is concerned, Jesus may as well not have had a ministry at all. His only role on this planet was to die.

I can't subscribe to that. The message of the gospels is that the one eternal God somehow incarnated himself as a man and walked among us for years. He had a 'gospel' to share - good news for all men.

Wow. Just think about that. This wasn't some prophet bringing the message of God to us second-hand. This was God himself speaking. And we have four different accounts of the things he said and did - a pretty good account of his teaching. Should we not listen primarily to what he had to say? Apparently not, for many who claim to follow him, his words have become something secondary. Indeed, if the WCoF is to be taken at face value then the words of Paul carry so much more weight than the words of Jesus - the majority of citations in there are from the epistles, not from the gospels.

A Christian should follow Christ... right? That's what the word means. So why don't we follow his teachings?

There were plenty of other issues raied by my reading of the WCoF, but I'll hold the rest back for another posting. That's enough for now.

"God's laws were made to be broken"

That controversial statement above was made in the sermon I listened to on the train today (on my iPod, it wasn't broadcast on the train or anything like that...).

The sermon "Snakes on a Plain" [mp3|notes|quotes] was another from the Meeting House in Canada, preached by Bruxy Cavey, part of the 'Unbelievable' series. It was based on Numbers 21v4-9, the incident with the bronze snake.

To deal with the problem of an infestation of poisonous snakes, God commanded Moses to "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." - So, in essence, only a relatively short time after the 10 commandments were given, God commanded Moses to break the 2nd commandment "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." (Exodus 20v4)

Huh? God commanded Moses to break one of the main commandments? What's going on?

What about the others? Well, it can be seen that Jesus himself breaks the 4th and the 5th commandments at points in the Gospels (he heals folk on the sabbath, breaking the command not to work on the sabbath and he completely ignores his mother when he was teaching and folk come and say 'your mother and brothers are here').

Does that mean I can covet my neighbour's ox and commit adultery then?

Well, no. But the point is that it is not the laws and the actions they prohibit which are important, but rather the message behind the laws and how you 'internalise' it - so that your heart is changed and becomes more in tune with God's heart.... y'see?

Thought provoking stuff.