Key to the kingdom...?

I've been a Christian for 21 years. Exactly.

If you want the precise details it was about 8:30 in the evening, on Saturday 29th October 1988, somewhere about here:

I was on the Glasgow to Edinburgh train and hadn't quite reached Falkirk... So now you know.

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.

Foundations

Following a challenge by a friend of mine, I've been listening to some sermons by an American theologian whose position is considerably more conservative than mine. On the whole, I've found it to be a reasonably interesting experience and there's surprisingly little I'd disagree with the guy on.

But one thing struck me while listening to the sermons. He is very hard-line on the unchanging nature of God and the infallibility of the bible. Fair enough, many Christians are. You can find my thoughts on the infallibility of the bible in several of my previous blog postings. And while I've previously doubted the unchanging nature of God, I remain reasonably agnostic on the issue.

But the thing that struck me about this guy was not that he stuck to these 'foundations', but rather his reason for sticking to them. He didn't seem to justify them from the bible itself, or from some other first principles. No, his main reason for holding to these two foundations seems to be along the lines of "this must be true, or else we couldn't be certain of anything...".

So its not that he has good reasons for holding to those things, its just that the worldview he has chosen requires them to be true. His whole theology would fall apart if they weren't true. For him they appear to be unquestioned foundations. And he daren't question them, because if they turn out not to be solid foundations, then the world becomes a much more complicated place and everything becomes uncertain.

I can't go along with this line of reasoning. The universe is an uncertain and complicated place.

But what do you lot think?

WWJD(IHHK)?

WWJD? Sometimes it seems so clear cut. Someone is in need of help. WWJD? Help, of course. Here is a poor person in need of a friend. WWJD? Well, be a friend, of course. And so on.

But being a friend to the poor, the needy, the downtrodden is (relatively speaking) easy for a single person to do. But what about when you have kids? What if there's a family at your kids' school who really need some light in their lives?

WWJD? Well, we know.

But What Would Jesus Do If He Had Kids?

In the specific situation I'm thinking about, befriending the family in question might have serious consequences for my kids. The very least of which would be head lice. The very worst of which - assuming even some of the rumours about the father are true - don't even bear thinking about.

WWJDIHHK?

I really don't know. Should we love the oppressed at the expense of our own family?

1 John 3v9

"No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."

Cannot?

Does this verse not fly in the face of almost all Christian experience?

I know I should probably go and read a few commentaries here, but I don't have any for the letters of John, so I'll just ask you lot. How do people reconcile this verse? Everyone sins, right? So nobody is 'born of God'...

Confused.

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?