John-Stevens.com

Celebrating Fathers' Day: How Should We Respond to the Crisis of Fatherhood in the UK Today?

2013-06-13T20:55:00.000+01:00

This Sunday(16^th June) is Fathers’ Day in the UK. Earlier this week a report produced by the Centre for Social Justice revealed the extent of the crisis of fatherhood in modern Britain. More than 1 million children are currently growing up without fathers in their lives. This statistic is shocking enough, but the truth is likely to be far worse when you bear in mind that the report defined “having a father in their lives” as seeing their father twice in a year. The report also found that lone parent families are increasing by 20,000 a year, so that they will have topped 2m by 2015. In 236 pockets in towns in England more than 50% of homes with dependent children are headed by a lone parent (usually a mother), and in one area of Liverpool there is no father in 65% of homes with children.

These statistics, which ought to cause us to grieve and pray, reveal the root cause of many of the social problems in our contemporary society. Family breakdown is the largest cause of child poverty, and the absence of fathers a major contributory factor to male juvenile delinquency and criminality.

How have we reached this terrible situation? The answer is surely that we have, as a culture, abandoned the biblical teaching on men, women, marriage and families which reflect the way that God created the world to be, and therefore how it works best. In large measure this goes back to the triumph of militant feminism. This originated as a movement of women who did not wish to have to live under the perceived restrains of marriage and motherhood, and who therefore set out to deconstruct the distinct gender roles of men and women altogether and subvert the traditional family. Women were encouraged to achieve liberation by rejecting their traditional roles as wives, mothers and homemakers and to seek fulfilment and value by taking on traditionally male roles. The result was to render men functionally redundant and to prompt a crisis of masculine identity and role. The State then shaped the law and welfare system so as to make it possible for women to live without men, and to make fathers economically unnecessary in practice to their families. Easy divorce, cohabitation and a welfare system that favours single parenthood all have their part to play. This has taken place against a background of a general feminisation of society and the workplace, with a decline in the traditional male manufacturing industries that required brute strength and a rise in service industries which tend to require empathetic and relational skills.

Today even those fathers who do live with their families feel unclear as to what their role and purpose is.

Despite the rhetoric most child care is not shared equally between mothers and fathers but falls to mothers, who are naturally better at it. Where mothers are also the primary breadwinners then the father is often left feeling incompetent and unnecessary. This sense of dispensability is inculcated from the very beginning of pregnancy. I remember visiting hospital for antenatal scans and appointment with my wife and the staff directed everything solely to her. It was clear that it was “mother's” baby alone, and I had no rights whatsoever, and was treated accordingly. The insignificance of fathers is epitomised by the fact that abortion is regarded as a decision for the mother alone. The father has no say.

In a culture in which there is a general antipathy towards having to care for young children, which is inevitably a fairly menial, messy and exhausting task, fathers instinctively feel guilty that it is their wives who have to bear the brunt of this burden. They feel they forfeit all moral right to lead and make decisions when it is their wives who have taken the career break and have to cope with the frustrations of feeding, changing and caring.

In a culture in which fatherhood is under-appreciated, and in which there is such confusion about gender roles, it is vital that the church honours and models a biblical view of fatherhood. Too often this is neglected, but the statistics show that it is vital. As we approach Fathers’ Day here are some reminders of what we might do:

1. Proclaim the Loving Fatherhood of God

At the heart of the Christian faith is the revelation that God is our Father. The perfect model of true fatherhood is therefore God himself. This is not something to be embarrassed about, as if it needs to be downplayed to avoid the sensitivities of a post-feminist society, but something we ought to rejoice in. All human fathers inevitably fall short of what a father should be to a greater or lesser degree, but God is the perfect father. We learn from God that a father is a faithful loving head, who leads, provides, protects, serves, teaches, trains, disciplines and supremely gives himself for the best good of his children. He is the father that we all need, and the father that we all long for.

2. Teach Biblical Gender Roles

In contrast to our culture, which regards male and female gender roles as nothing but a human cultural construct, the Bible affirms not just different genders, but ascribes different primary role to those genders. This goes right back to the creation of men and women. Humanity was created both male and female in the image of God (Genesis 1v26). This establishes the absolutely equal ontological value of men and women.

However they were assigned different roles, which complement each other, and can only accomplish God’s purpose as they work together in harmonious cooperation. The man was given the mission of filling and subduing the earth, meaning that he was to populate the earth and cultivate it, bringing it into useful production. The man was unable to accomplish this task on his own (which is why God said it was “not good for the man to be alone” Gen 2v18) and so God created the woman from him be his “helper”. The different specific roles in the accomplishment of God’s purposes for creation assigned to men and women are reflected in the curses which are pronounced upon the man and the woman for their disobedience in eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The man experiences pain and toil in his work of cultivating the earth (Gen 3v17-19). The woman experiences pain and toil in the work of bearing children (Gen 3v14-15).

These basic primary distinct gender roles of men and women are reiterated in the New Testament. Husbands/Fathers are commanded to provide for their wives and children (Ephesians 5v28-29 & 6v4) and Wives/Mothers women are called to care for their husbands and children (eg Titus 2v4-5). The different roles of father and mothers in relation to children are reflected in Paul’s defence of his own ministry in 1 Thessalonians 2v7-11, which assumes as key to the argument that mothers and fathers participate in the upbringing of their children in different ways. In 1 Timothy 5v14 Paul urges young widows to marry and care for children, perhaps the children they have with their new husbands or the children of his previous marriage, since “young widows” includes all widows who are under 60 years of age, and hence many who are past the age of child-bearing.

The Bible does not therefore support the contemporary view that the tasks of mothers and fathers are interchangeable, but rather teaches that each have a distinct and different contribution to make to family and child rearing. It is only the advance of technology, such as contraception or formula milk, that have made the apparent erosion of these differences possible. We must teach the reality of these distinctions, which are generally evident in most successful families, albeit unacknowledged or even denied. Fathers need to know that their primary role is to protect and provide for their family, and that this is honourable and valuable. They need to be liberated from the false guilt of not being like mothers.

We need to exercise caution because the specific gender roles assigned by God to men and to women have often been twisted in human history by sin and selfishness. The Bible does not teach that women cannot work and pursue careers, nor that their access to the very best education should be restricted. The sketch of the wife of noble character in Proverbs 31v10-31 provides a very rounded vision of a wife working and pursuing her successful business interests alongside her care for her family. However, even in this marriage the wife/mother and the husband/father have different, though overlapping and interlocking, roles (cf Proverbs 31v23).

Nor is it the case that marriage and parenthood is essential to human identity and fulfilment. The Bible honours the value of singleness, and those who remain single have opportunities and freedoms that are no longer appropriate or open to those who are married and have children (1 Corinthans 7v32-35). However we mustn’t buy into the contemporary ideology which assumes that those who have children can live as if they were virtually still single, and that society should organise itself to enable them to do so.

3. Honour Motherhood Highly

It follows that fathers will only be properly honoured and respected for their distinct role if motherhood is also highly honoured, as it should be. The present crisis is in part a reaction to the failure of men in the past to give proper honour to their wives and the mothers of their children and to act as if they were in some way superior and more important. The current cultural crisis of fatherhood is a long-term consequence of male arrogance and selfishness.

However our churches ought to value and honour the role of mothers in nursing and nurturing their children. Girls growing up within the Christian community need to be given a vision for marriage and motherhood as a high calling in itself, and not simply to see motherhood and children as an inconvenient career interruption. Girls should be encouraged to excel in education to the highest level because this will be a blessing to their husbands and children, not just because it will open lucrative career opportunity. Such teaching and envisioning is a vital role of the gifted older women in the church (Titus 2v3-5)

4. Teach Mothers and Children to Honour Fathers

In a context in which motherhood is given appropriate honour, then both wives and children can be taught to give proper honour to fathers for what they do. It is all too easy for fathers to be derided by both their wives (who may think them incompetent in child care) and their children. In the absence of honour for what they do it is not surprising that so many men abandon their responsibility and become either idle or absent. Fathers need to be honoured for their work of protecting and providing, which is often more invisible in modern family life. Children may see the direct contribution of their mother caring for them, but they need to be taught by their mothers to see and appreciate the contribution that their fathers make. Money often arrives in the bank account automatically, and there is no obvious connection between the father’s labour and the families’ food, which is bought not grown. A culture of thankfulness for how God provides for the family through work will establish the dignity and worth of fathers.

5. Appoint Church Leaders who Model Fatherhood

It is not enough for church leaders to simply teach what the Bible has to say about distinct gender roles and fatherhood, but they must model it to the congregation. The New Testament qualifications for church leadership stress the importance of family life. Elders are required to manage (i.e. to lead/rule) their households (1 Timothy 3v4 & 5v17; Titus 1v6-7). They are to be fathers of their families who then father the family of the church. Men who are single, for whatever reason, need to be demonstrating that they have a “father-like” character in other aspects of their lives if they are to serve as church leaders. The mere ability to teach is an insufficient qualification for church leadership.

Church leaders ought therefore to be “fathers” who are honoured by the church family, and if such leaders are appointed for this reason then they will inevitably inculcate a model of appropriate honour for fathers in congregational life. It seems to me that where the Biblical principles of male eldership are rejected in favour of an egalitarian view of church leadership one unintended consequence may be to contribute to the on-going crisis of fatherhood

6. Disciple Men to Be Biblical Fathers

We need to make sure that we are training men in the church to be the kind of fathers that they ought to be. This starts by the way that we train boys to become men, encouraging them to assume responsibility and to prepare to be providers and protectors. We are to teach and model self-control rather than self-indulgence (Titus 2v1), encouraging a right seriousness. The crisis of extended adolescence is an inevitable by-product of the up-stream crisis in fatherhood. The nature of fatherhood ought also to be an integral component of all our pre-marriage preparation for engaged couples. How couples set out at the beginning of their marriage, especially in today’s culture where they may wait many years before even trying for children, will often determine how they will have to live when they have children. Patterns of relating and provision may be established which make it virtually impossible for the husband to assume his responsibility as a father. For example, if couples adopt a lifestyle which is dependent upon a double income, or reflects the higher earning capacity of the wife, then this will have inevitable implications for the decisions they can made if and when they are blessed with children.

It can also be immensely helpful to gather fathers in the church together so that they can be taught and encouraged to fulfil their responsibilities. This may be urgently needed when they have deeply imbibed of the culture and when they are feeling their own inadequacy in the role. In may be helpful to get fathers together to read, share, and pray on a regular basis, and work through a book like Tony Payne’s excellent Fatherhood: What It Is And What It’s For? Investing in the discipleship of fathers is investing in the future health of the church family, in the witness of the gospel to a dysfunctional society, and indirectly a way of training church leaders for the future.

6. Care for the Fatherless

Nothing that I have said is intended to stigmatise one-parent families. In many cases single-parent families will be the innocent victims of male irresponsibility. Rather than stigmatising such victims the Bible teaches that we are to have a special concern for the fatherless, because God himself has a heart for the fatherless (eg Deuteronomy 10v17-18; Ps 68v4-6).Those who are fatherless are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, and so need defence and protection. They lack provision and so there is a responsibility to provide for them. Most of the fatherless in the past would have been orphans, or the children of widows. Today they are more likely to have been abandoned by relationship break-up.

The church needs to be a welcoming family for the fatherless. Christian men need to be prepared to marry converted single mothers, and those who have been divorced or widowed, and to become fathers to their children. In a spiritual sense we were all by nature fatherless, but God adopted us into his family and became our Father. We need to be prepared to model the gospel by reflecting this dynamic in the life of the church. We need to be willing to welcome others to share our family life, so that they can participate in the blessings we enjoy. Many youth leaders and Sunday school teachers have been surrogate fathers to the children they serve. We need to love and support those who find that they are unable to have children.

The crisis in fatherhood is a massive social problem, but is ultimately reflective of the great spiritual need of our nation. Christians have a great opportunity to help lost people see that God is the Father they need, and to commend his gospel by reflecting his fatherhood in the life of our churches. Perhaps that is what we need to commit to do on Sunday. If you have the chance it is well worth reading Douglas Wilson’s excellent book Father Hunger: Why God Calls Men to Love and Lead Their Families.

Implications of Gay Marriage: The Church of England Will Inevitably Have to Choose Between Retaining Establishment and Accepting Same Sex Marriage

2013-06-11T16:18:00.001+01:00

Yesterday the Church of England formally gave up the fight against the introduction of gay marriage in England. Rather than continuing to oppose it as a matter of principle, they will instead seek to amend the legislation to provide greater protection for conscientious objectors, and to ensure that some of the traditional aspects of marriage, such as the concept of adultery, are retained. This might simply be thought to be accepting the inevitable. However it might be questioned whether many bishops of the Church of England really fought wholeheartedly against gay marriage in the first place. They were clearly divided amongst themselves, with the Bishop of Salisbury and others openly supporting the redefinition of marriage, and they collectively failed to register their opposition to gay marriage through their vote in Parliament.

One of the quirks of the British Constitution, and the formal position of the Church of England as the State Church, is that its bishops sit as members of the House of Lords. The “Lord’s Spiritual” are entitled to speak in debates and vote on legislation. Whilst some might question the right of unelected church leaders to sit as members of the second chamber of our legislature, it is in fact no more indefensible than the fact that the House of Lords almost entirely comprises appointees, drawn from the political establishment or from the “great and the good” - with the exception of a small number elected from the historic hereditary peerage. Whatever the Secular Society say, it is no less appropriate that Church of England bishops sit in the House of Lords than it is that, say, Lord Archer, Baroness Bakewell, Lord Browne of Madingley, Lord Bragg, Lord Dannatt,Lord Sugar, or Baroness Warsi are members of the second chamber.

The greater problem is rather that, as the House of Lords is configured at the moment, there is a lack of formal representation of the major faith groups in the UK within Parliament, with the result that the Church of England partially justifies its continued privileged position by assuming to speak on behalf of all Christians, and indeed all faiths. 26 Church of England bishops have the automatic right to sit in the Lords whereas, for example, Steve Clifford, the Executive Director of the Evangelical Alliance, does not, even though he represents a much larger swathe of the UK religious community than any individual Church of England Bishop.

My local unelected faith representative in the House of Lords is therefore the Bishop of Leicester, Tim Stevens (no relation!), who also happens to be the convener of the bishops in the House of Lords. Despite the fact that the official position of the Church of England (as stated on their web site) is one of opposition to the redefinition of marriage, and that he agreed with the comments of “the most reverend Primate” (The Archbishop of Canterbury) who voted against the Bill, he clearly felt so strongly about the importance of the issue, was so determined that the position of his church should prevail, was so aware of his responsibility to represent the many faith communities in the UK that had firmly voiced their opposition to gay marriage, that he abstained in the vote (you can read is speech and statement here).

His failure to support even the position of his own church in Parliament is symptomatic of the failure of the bishops to collectively stand up for Biblical teaching on this issue. Only 14 of the 25 bishops able to attend the debate in the House of Lords did so (John Sentamu was unable to attend because he was being treated for cancer). Of the 14 who did attend, 9 voted against the Bill, and 5 chose to abstain. This means that only just over a third of Anglican bishops entitled to vote against the introduction of gay marriage did so.

In many ways this is unsurprising. But the failure of so many bishops to mark their alleged opposition to the redefinition of marriage gives a pretty clear indication of where things are headed. Once gay marriage has been introduced, and some Anglican clergy already in civil partnerships have converted them into “marriages” and others have entered gay marriages conducted outside the Church of England (perhaps by the Unitarians or Quakers), will the Church of England be able to continue to hold to the principle it affirms at present? Will married gay clergy face discipline for entering into a legal status that their church opposes, and which it is legally prohibited from conferring? Will the Church of England bishops advocate the inclusion of the traditional concept of consummation into gay marriage at the committee stage of the Bill, which would remove the possibility of any pretence of celibacy if gay clergy get married? It is almost inevitable that something like a Church of Scotland style of compromise, which notionally affirms the traditional position but allows individual parishes to depart from it, will have to be adopted in the end.

A year ago Tim Stevens was warning that the introduction of gay marriage was the greatest threat to the establishment of the church since the time of Henry VIII, because the church would have to choose between continued establishment status and changing canon law on the meaning of marriage. I think this remains the case. It is inconceivable that a state church, which currently has the duty to marry all citizens, will be able to hold out against offering gay marriages to parishioners who want them, and still retain its privileged position. What would the church do if Prince Harry, Princess Eugene or Princess Beatrice decided that they wanted to marry a same-sex partner? What would the church do if the heir to the throne was in a gay marriage? Would the church be able to conduct the coronation, administer the coronation oath requiring the monarch to uphold the Protestant Reformed faith, and accept him or her as Supreme Governor of the church?

It is already being suggested that St Mary’s Undercroft at the Palace of Westminster will have to cease to be a “royal peculiar,” and thereby part of the Church of England, so as to permit the gay marriages in the Houses of Parliament. What will the Church of England do when Oxbridge Colleges, Public Schools and other such institutions wish to allow their chapels to be used to conduct gay marriages for their alumni? More significantly, will gay spouses be welcomed and accepted as communicant members of the church, and will the church offer to baptise the children of same-sex marriages? Unless it is willing to become a gathered church exercising biblical discipline, rather than a national territorial church open to all, there will inevitably be a creeping de facto acceptance of gay marriage that will make the statutory prohibition on conducting same-sex weddings ridiculous. It may take some years, but in the end this prohibition will come under pressure.

So the introduction of gay marriage will, of necessity I fear, lead to a choice between forfeiting established status or accepting and conducting gay marriages. As Michael Portillo has shrewdly commented, the real division is within the church itself. This battle has already begun and the direction of travel seems clear. The newly appointed Bishop of Manchester has been quick to voice his support for gay marriage, and to make clear that he would not have voted against it in the Lords.

The Church of England has continued to enjoy its established status, even in a multi-faith plural society, in part because it has enjoyed the tacit support of many non-conformists, and those of other religions, who have assumed that it will represent their interests and defend their religious liberties. The vote on gay marriage demonstrates that this is a misplaced hope. When it came to the crunch the Church of England Bishops failed to stand up for the views of the vast majority of religious believers in the UK, who oppose gay marriage and believe that its introduction is wrong and a significant threat to the good of society as a whole and their liberties .

It won’t surprise anyone that, as a non-conformist by conviction, I don’t feel any strong attachment to the established status of the Church of England. I don’t find the arguments of establishment advocates such as David Holloway or Peter Mullens convincing. However this is not because I am anti-Anglican, or merely envious of their current privileges. It is because I think there might be benefits to disestablishment both for the church and the nation.

As a matter of theological and biblical principle, and as a pragmatic necessity in a plural society, I think there ought to be a separation between church and state. This is in fact the normal situation for evangelical believers around the world, including in countries where the gospel is currently bearing much fruit. It is difficult to object to restrictive Islamic states and theocracies around the world when we ourselves adopt a model of state religion. In the long run the protection of religious liberties is most likely to be served by means of a formal written constitution enshrining religious freedoms for all, rather than by relying on a state church which will always be tempted to compromise with the secular establishment to maintain its privileged place at the table. It would potentially be helpful to evangelism to end the pantomime of empty public religious rituals that are almost invariably accompanied by bland platitudes rather than the powerful preaching of the gospel, and which either put people off religion, or give them a false reassurance that they are already Christian in some cultural sense .

Most importantly, disestablishment could pave the way for a more consistently evangelical Anglicanism in the UK, truer to its founding formularies. I wonder how many liberals would bother to join the Church of England in the future if it no longer enjoyed a privileged status in our national life? Just as in some non-conformist denominations over the last century, liberalism within a disestablished Anglicanism might experience dramatic decline. There would be far more opportunity for liberals to change the world as a social worker, or a political activist, than as a church leader.

Please be clear. My criticism is not at all directed towards those conservative evangelicals within the Church of England who courageously stand firm for the truth, fight for biblical authority, and preach the true apostolic gospel to great effect. I pray for them, deeply respect them, and hope that they will prevail in their battles. My criticism is of the institutional church and its hierarchy. The reality is that protestant reformed Anglicanism is not dependent upon establishment. Around the world thoroughly evangelical Anglican churches are thriving and growing, even though they are not established, and are bringing the good news of salvation in the name of the lord Jesus Christ to millions of people. Disestablishment in the UK might conceivably result in a smaller, less prominent, but more biblically faithful, Anglicanism here. This could be a blessing to the nation.

Whatever happens, therefore, the introduction of gay marriage will have profound consequences for our nation, either marking the beginning of the unwinding of the UK constitution as we know it, or the beginning of the abandonment of the biblical understanding of marriage by the national church. The bishops’ failure to nail their colours to the mast in the House of Lords vote sadly suggests that, when faced with such a choice, they are likely to choose to compromise to maintain established status.

We need to pray urgently for God’s mercy and reviving work in our nation and our national church. The Church of England may have given up the battle against the introduction of gay marriage, but the battle within the church itself is only likely to intensify.

The Law in Deuteronomy: How Does the Law Apply to Christians Today?

2013-06-10T18:21:00.000+01:00

One of the most difficult, complex and important questions facing Christians is how to understand and apply the Old Testament Law today. This is of vital practical and apologetic importance. Unless Christians understand how the law is relevant to them they will struggle to profit when they read the detailed legislation of the Pentateuch. The specific statutes, precepts and commands will seem alien, irrelevant and boring. In some cases they may even seem offensive and immoral, for example the commands regarding the conquest of the Promised Land.

The apparent immorality of some Old Testament laws in the view of contemporary society, and the seemingly inconsistent way Christians apply them (for example disregarding food laws today but insisting that gay sex is prohibited), are exploited by contemporary atheists as reasons for refusing to believe in the existence of the God of the Bible. One evangelist, who has recently undertaken two university missions, told me that at every meeting he was challenged by members of the LGBT society about the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy regarding homosexuality. He said that these opponents often knew their Bibles better than the Christians, who did not always know how to respond to their objections.

It is therefore vital that we know how to understand and apply the Law today. For this reason we are following a series in our church Homegroups looking at the Law in Deuteronomy. We have chosen to study the law thematically, looking at what God’s commands have to say to us about key areas of our lives. I have written a series of notes to help our Homegroup Leaders prepare studies on these themes and to help us to appreciate how the Law teaches us to live a holy life that is pleasing to God.

These notes are the general introduction to the series and set out how we will approach the law.

The Problem of the Law

Over the summer our Homegroups will be studying the Law in Deuteronomy. Hopefully we will discover that the Law is practical and relevant to our Christian lives. However it can easily seem intimidating to study this material because we are not sure how the Old Testament Law applies to Christians. We are aware that some parts of the Law do not apply to Christians any more, for example the rules about kosher food, skin diseases and the uncleanness of menstruating women, but it is difficult to determine which parts of the Law apply and which do not. We often lack an appropriate framework to determine how the law applies today. As a consequence many Christians try to apply the law very simplistically and directly to themselves and to others. Christians disagree as to how the Law is related to the Christian life. There are broadly two historic positions:

(1) The Law is not relevant to Christians

Some Christians regard the Law as irrelevant. They draw a sharp distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament, between Law and Grace, between Law and Love. They tend to think that the Law in the Old Testament was given to provide a way of salvation through the performance of works. In their view the Law has failed and it is not a guide to living the Christian life. Instead they believe that Jesus teaches a new and superior ethic which replaces the Law (eg the Sermon on the Mount and his moral teaching). On this understanding the main guides to the Christian life are the example of the life of Jesus and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

(2) Parts of the Law are Relevant to Christians

Other Christians have taken the view that some parts of the Law remain directly relevant to Christians. This requires the Law to be divided between those parts which are of abiding significance and those which have become obsolete. Calvin divided the Law into three sections:

· the Ceremonial Law

· the Civil Law

· the Moral Law

Whilst the ‘Ceremonial Law,’ which included the religious rules about worship, sacrifice, and cleanliness, had been fulfilled by Christ and is therefore no longer binding for Christians, he believed that the ‘Moral Law’ revealed the character of God and his will for Christians. For this reason the 10 Commandments would continue to apply to Christians. The ‘Civil Law’ concerned the state of Israel, and regulated issues such as land ownership, inheritance, government and the administration of justice. Some Christians consider that the ‘Civil Law’ is not directly binding because Christians do not live in a theocratic state. Others take the view that the Civil Law is a model for contemporary government. However some Christians (Reconstructionists) advocated a more extreme view that the modern state should seek to implement the Old Testament Law in detail, especially the criminal law and its associated penalties. In this sense they are not unlike Islamic fundamentalists who want to see the Sharia Law adopted by modern states.

To evaluate these different views and to determine how the Law is relevant to Christians it is vital to consider the teaching of the Bible itself.

The Law in the Old Testament

The Old Testament makes clear that the Law was not given to provide a way of salvation. It was not a system of religious rituals and works which needed to be performed in order to earn salvation, although this was how the Law came to be misunderstood by some Pharisees and Teachers of the Law at the time of Jesus. However, as Paul makes clear in his letters, salvation was made available as God’s free gift even before the Law was given. Abraham was justified by faith before the Law (eg Galatians 3v6-18). The people of Israel were redeemed from their slavery in Egypt before the Law was given at Mt Sinai. The Law was given to those who were already God’s People, who had been chosen by him and saved by him. The Law was given to show God’s People how they should live as his People, so that they could be Holy. The Law was given to enable the People of God to enjoy the blessing of living under his rule in the Promised Land. It was given to shown them how to live holy lives, and what justice would require in practice. The Law already contained in-built provisions for failure, through the sacrificial system which could provide forgiveness and cleansing. Psalms 1 and 119 pre-eminently show how Old Testament believers were expected to delight and meditate on the Law so as to live righteous and godly lives.

As we think about the Law from a Christian perspective, we need to constantly remember that it was given to God’s People to show them how to live. This means that its prime application will be to Christians and the Christian community of the church. There is a great danger of thinking that the Law applies directly to non-Christians, telling them how they should live and what the state/government should do. In the Old Testament it is clear that obedience to the Law is always predicated upon a covenant relationship with God. A covenant relationship is not established by obedience.

The Law in the New Testament

Jesus and the writers of the New Testament spend a great deal of time teaching about the Law and how it applies to Christians. A number of key points can be noted.

(1) The Law is not abolished by Jesus

Jesus made clear that he had not come to abolish the Law. In Matthew 5v18 he said: ‘I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, nor the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.’ This means that we cannot treat the Law as irrelevant. It has important things to teach Christians. For this reason the authors of the New Testament epistles regularly quote the Old Testament Law and allude to it when they are instructing Christians how to live. When Paul, for example, writes that ‘all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness’ (2 Tim 3v15), he is referring to the Old Testament.

(2) The Law embodies love in action

Jesus made clear that the requirements of the Law were simply the demands of love in action. When he was asked what the greatest commandments were he replied ‘Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’ and ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ (Matthew 22v37-9). He then went on to say ‘All the Law and the prophets hand on these two commands’ (Matthew 22v40). The Law is concerned with the conduct of loving relationships, both our relationship with God and with others. We need to remember this even when we find that at first sight the Law appears to be harsh. The Biblical concept of love is not sentimental and wishy-washy. Love sometimes requires tough action to be taken for the sake of individuals and the community.

(3) The Law pointed ahead to Jesus

One of the main reasons why the Law is not irrelevant is because it had the function of pointing ahead to Jesus. The Law shows us who Jesus is and what he came to do. In Luke 24v25-27 Jesus explained to the disciples on the road to Emmaus ‘what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.’ He began with Moses, i.e.. with the Law. The Law points forwards to Jesus is several ways. In some instances it includes direct prophesies about Jesus (eg Deuteronomy 18v14-22). More usually it alludes to Jesus and what he accomplished on the cross, or establishes types which point ahead to what Jesus will accomplish (eg Hebrews 10v1). The ministry and work of Jesus cannot be understood without the background of the Law.

(4) The Law was fulfilled by Jesus

Although the Law was not abolished by Jesus, his life, death and resurrection had the effect of fulfilling the Law. As Jesus said in Matthew 5v17: ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.’ Jesus was the only man who has every lived a perfectly obedient life under the Law. Whilst the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law regularly accusing him of breaking the Law, for example over the Sabbath or ritual washing, Jesus was at pains to show that they had misunderstood the Law, or added their human traditions to it, and that he was obeying it as intended. He is the only man who has ever lived perfectly under the Law. However the fact that the Law has been fulfilled by him means that it is no longer relevant to Christians in the same way that it was relevant to the people of Israel. For example, Christians no longer need to keep the food laws, or observe the Jewish festivals, or be circumcised. The other New Testament writers go on to explain that the Law was always intended to be temporary until the Messiah had come (eg Galatians 2v19-25).

(5) Christians do not live under the Law

As we saw repeatedly during our series in Romans, because the Law has been fulfilled by Christ, Christians do not live under the Old Testament Law. As Paul explains in Romans 6v14, the Law belongs to the old age whilst Christians belong to the new age. They are ‘not under law but under grace.’ Rather than living under the Law they are led by the Spirit. As Paul writes in Romans 7v6: ‘we have been released from the Law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.’ However this does not mean that Paul regarded the Law as irrelevant. Rather he used the law to provide guidance to Christians as to how they should live. For example, in Romans Paul cites various commands to show that Christians should love each other (Romans 13v8-10). In Ephesians he cites the Ten Commandments to instruct children to obey their parents (Ephesians 6v1-2).

(6) The Law reveals sin

Rather than being given to enable people to earn salvation by achieving righteousness for themselves, Paul explains that the Law was given to reveal sin and our need for grace. Thus in Romans 3v20 he writes that ‘through the Law we become conscious of sin’ (cf also 7v7). The Law transforms ‘sin’ into ‘transgression’ (eg Romans 4v15). It reveals the fact that we are falling short of God's glorious perfection by turning our unconscious failings into crossings of a known boundary.

Understanding the Law Today: A Salvation-Historical Approach

It should be evident from this brief summary of New Testament teaching that the two alternative approaches to the law outlined at the beginning of this Introduction are inadequate. Instead Christians need to understand the Law from a salvation-historical perspective, in the light of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, since this is the way that the New Testament approaches the Law. Only as we see how the Law fitted into God’s purposes can we begin to see how it might apply to us.

In essence the Law reveals what God required from his people at a particular time and in a particular context. The Law is not automatically absolute, and therefore directly valid for all people at all times in all places, but was given to a specific people, at a specific time, in a specific place, to serve a specific role in God’s purposes. Christians are not in exactly the same situation as those who received the Law, either geographically, culturally or in respect of salvation-history.

However the God who gave the Law to his People remains the same because his character is unchanging. Thus we need to look primarily to the way in which the Law reveals the character of God. Both Old Testament believers and New Testament Christians are called to ‘Be holy because I am holy’ (1 Peter 1v15, quoting Leviticus 11v44, 45, 19v2, 20v7) but the demands of holiness alter with their different situations and place in salvation history. The individual commands of the Law reveal what the character of God required in specific circumstances. We need to go behind the specific requirements to learn about God’s character, and then to see how the demands of God’s character might work out in our different situation. In some cases we might find that the Law would apply almost directly, as for example with the command ‘you shall not murder’. In other cases the command might not apply at all. For example, commands about clean and unclean food no longer apply directly, but they remind us that God demands that we live holy and separated lives.

The key questions that we need to ask about the specific laws we study are:

· what do they reveal about God and his character?

· how have they been fulfilled in Christ?

Once we have answered these questions we can move to think how they might apply to our situation.

Applying the Law Today

Since the Law was given to God’s People, its prime application is to Christians. The Law helps Christians to work out how they should relate and behave in ways which reflect the character of God. It should be remembered that the Old Testament promise of a new heart is a promise that the Law will be written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31v33; Ezekeil 36v26-27) For example, many of the Old Testament Laws designed for the protection of the poor are to be put into practice in the church, so that poor believers are cared for by those who have greater wealth. The New Testament provides many examples where the law is recontextualised and applied to Christians, and these are a great help in learning how to apply other laws which are not specifically mentioned.

The Law may also be used to expose the sin of those who are not Christians, and the sin of society. It demonstrates how far short we fall of God’s standards. However it should never be forgotten that the Law was not given simply to promote morality or to improve the world. It was given for those who have a living relationship with the living God. The Law may be used to expose sin, but always with the purpose of leading to repentance and faith in Christ.

The key questions that we need to ask when we applying the Law are:

· how should Christians live today so as to reflect the character of God revealed in this law?

· how does this law expose the sin and failings of Christians/non-Christians/Society?

Background to Deuteronomy

The Book of Deuteronomy records Moses’ final sermon to the Israelites, which he gave just before he died and they went up to enter the Promised Land. He reminds them of how the previous generation died in the wilderness because they had disobeyed the LORD and turned aside to other gods. His purpose is to warn the current generation not to make the same mistake after they have entered the Land. When they enter the Land the people are to live under the rule of God, obeying him and keeping his decrees and laws (Deuteronomy 4v1-2). Obedience to the LORD and his laws is the way to enjoy the blessing (i.e. happiness and contentment) of their promised inheritance. With this in mind, Moses reminds the people of the Law that was given to the previous generation at Mt Sinai, so that they will know what is required of them. In Chapters 5v6-21 he reminds them of the Ten Commandments. In Chapters 12-26 he reminds of them of the detailed commands of God, which expound how the requirements of the Ten Commandments apply in the very practical circumstances of everyday life. Chapter 11 introduces this section with a reminder that love for the LORD is displayed by obedience to his commands (11v1), a theme which continues into the New Testament (1 John 5v2).

Having reminded the people of the requirements of the Law, Moses ends by setting out the consequences of obedience and disobedience. Obedience will lead to blessing (Chapter 28v1-14) but disobedience will lead to cursing and expulsion from the land (Chapter 28v15-68). Moses concludes by urging the people to choose the way of obedience and blessing, which is the way of life (Chapter 30v11-20). The people do so and the covenant is renewed.

The laws set out in Chapters 12-26 cover every aspect of life. This should immediately remind us that every aspect of our lives is to be lived under the rule of God. There is to be no division between spiritual and secular, between church and work, between our Christian lives and our ordinary lives. The laws are given to ensure that justice is observed in every area. Righteousness is the practice of justice, meaning not just the punishment of wrongdoing but also the positive doing of what is right. Rather than being an abstract concept of fairness, in the Law the idea of justice is primarily relational. The Law shows how God’s people are to relate rightly to him and to others. In particular the Law makes provision for the protection of the vulnerable who might otherwise be exploited by the powerful in society (eg women, slaves, the poor).

As Christians we need to be aware that the Law does not apply directly to us. The Old Testament Law is concerned with the life of the people of Israel, who were living at a particular stage of salvation history. For us it has been fulfilled by Jesus (Matthew 5v17). However the law does reveal the character of God to us, so we can see his concerns and what justice means in practice for his people. In studying the Law in Deuteronomy we are going to be looking to see:

· how the law reveals the character of God

· how the law points ahead to Jesus

· how the law has been fulfilled by Jesus

In the light of this we will be able to consider how the law might guide us to live godly lives, and how the law reveals our sinfulness and the sinfulness of non-Christian society. In 2 Timothy 3v16 Paul writes that ‘all Scripture is useful for teaching , rebuking correcting and training in righteousness.’ He was speaking especially of the Old Testament, as the New Testament had yet to be completed and made available to the early Christians. We will be taking particular notice of the way in which the New Testament understands and applies the Law.

FIEC News: Growth & Diversity - 5 New Churches Joining the Fellowship

2013-06-06T09:42:00.001+01:00

One of the real encouragements for FIEC at the moment is that a steady stream of churches are choosing to join the Fellowship because they want to contribute to our gospel vision for the nation, and also to give expression to the biblical principle that independent local churches should be in relationships of mutual interdependence with each other rather than remain isolated.

A couple of weeks ago the National Recognition Team met to consider recent applications, and as a result 5 new churches have affiliated. Once again they reflect the broad diversity of the FIEC family. Interestingly they are all church plants. Some have been in existence for many years, whereas others are more recent. Some are ministering in student cities, whereas others are serving the gospel in non-student contexts. Some are medium sized, whereas others are quite small. Some are in middle class communities, whereas others are in working class areas and council estates. Each of them will make a significant contribution to the work of the Fellowship and extend our national coverage.

(1) Christchurch Southampton

Christchurch Southampton was started 6 years ago, and was already a member of Affinity. It meets close to the campus of Southampton University. Two years ago Orlando Saer was appointed as pastor. The church has a thriving and rapidly growing ministry, with a morning congregation of 150 and 52 members. Some 70 UK undergraduates attend the church and 40 undergraduate and postgraduate international students. There are Bible study meetings during the week for Mums and “20s and postgraduates”, and a youth group on Sunday evenings for those aged 11+. The church belongs to the Solen Gospel Partnership, the Southampton Christian Network and Church Student Ministries.

The reasons that they gave for joining FIEC were:

“(1) In a changing and secular and theological scene we recognise the importance of establishing closer links with other gospel-driven churches that hold distinctively biblical views; (2) Opportunity for our pastor to receive support and to encourage others; (3) Support offered thorough FIEC on legal and social issues; (4) A voice speaking into the public arena on our behalf; (5) Our experience of planting a church over the past six years could be helpful to others.”

I was delighted to be able make an affiliation visit and meet with the elders last autumn, and to hear how the Lord is blessing the church and their exciting vision for the future. Their reasons for joining show that they have clearly understood the vision and purpose of the FIEC. Affiliation will bring direct benefits to the church, but they have a desire to serve the cause of the gospel more widely and bless others.

(2) Grace Church Quedgeley

Grace Church Quedgeley is located in a growing residential area on the edge of Gloucester, which has four distinct communities with a total population of 55,000. The church was planted in 2002 by people from Trinity Baptist Church who had a heart and vision to reach this new community. The church now has a Sunday congregation of 65, and 34 members. It is led by Pastor Phil Grubb, who was formerly in Bridgend. The church conducts school assemblies on a Tuesday and Wednesday, has a toddlers group, a ladies meeting, and a Friday night youth group.

I met with Phil and his fellow elder for an affiliation visit last month, and was so encouraged to hear their vision for the work. They hope to plant churches in all four of the distinct communities that comprise the area, so that each of them will have a gospel witness. They have just sent out a group to start a work in the second community, and some 25-30 people are now meeting there. It is a real example of what a small church with a large vision can accomplish. They are also very keen to develop relationships with other local churches and to support the work of the gospel more widely. There are relatively few FIEC churches in the Gloucester area, which is probably a reflection of the general weakness of gospel ministry in that part of the South West.

Their reasons for affiliation were:

“We recognise the need to fellowship more widely and to associate and support where possible churches which are like minded. We want to share in the gospel and stand with others for the truth that is so often under attack.”

(3) New Life Church Roehampton

New Life Church Roehampton meets on the Alton Estate in Roehampton in London, which is home to some 15,000 people. It is an inner city estate with significant social problems. The church was planted in 2005 by Duncan Forbes, and has a membership of 16 and a congregation of 45. They have a mid-week bible studies for men and for women.

One of the weaknesses of bible-centred evangelicalism in the UK is that it is overwhelmingly middle-class, and we are making tragically little progress in reaching working class areas and council estates. It is fantastic that Duncan and New Life want to affiliate to the FIEC, as they have much to teach us about how to reach the whole nation for Christ. In coming years we must plant gospel churches into many communities like the Roehampton Estate, and gifted men like Duncan will be able to help us identify, train and support teams and individuals to do this. NLC already has a world class internship programme.

Their reasons for joining the FIEC were:

“To have fellowship with other Bible believing churches. We offer an example of council estate church ministry.”

(4) Tir-y-Berth Community Church

The FIEC is relatively small in Wales, but slowly growing. Tir-y-Berth CC is a small church in a village in a deprived area of the South Wales valleys just north of Caerphilly. There are no other evangelical churches in the village, and the evangelical witness in the area is small and fragmented. The church was planted in 2000, has a membership of 30, and is led by Rev Philip McMullen. They have fellowship groups and a weekly prayer meeting, but at present no activities for young people. The majority of the congregation are 40+.

We very much want to be able to serve and support smaller churches like Tir-y-Berth, which are crucial if a gospel witness is to be established in every community of the country. We must make sure that the good news about Jesus is preached and modelled everywhere. Whilst cities and student communities are strategically significant, we must not abandon villages and estates. The people of communities such as Tir-y-Berth have just as much need to hear the gospel, and we have just as much responsibility to take it to them. That is one of the reasons why independent churches have to work together.

We also want to be able to serve the cause of the gospel as effectively as we can in Wales, and for a number of years have had the aspiration to appoint a full or part-time FIEC Director for Wales - if the Welsh churches felt that this would help them to advance the gospel. The more churches in Wales that choose to affiliate to the FIEC the more viable it will be for us to take such a step.

The reasons Tir-y-Berth CC gave for joining FIEC were:

“We want a visible expression of wider commitment to the body of Christ. We have experience of long term ministry in working class areas.”

(5) York Evangelical Church

Finally York Evangelical Church is a well-established church with a thriving student ministry. It was planted in 1982 and has a congregation of 130+ and a membership of 101. It meets in a school and has a full programme of mid-week activities. Their pastor is Mark Troughton. The church is already a member of Affinity and connected to the Yorkshire Gospel Partnership. I have personally benefited in the past from the ministry of YEC, as one of the Ministry Trainees at my former church in Birmingham had been a member of the church when he was studying for a postgraduate degree at York University.

In many ways YEC is a classic church that did not “need” to join the FIEC. It has thrived as an independent church over the years. However they have come to the conviction that affiliation to the FIEC will enable them to serve the gospel more effectively in the nation as a whole. Mark and others attended the FIEC Leaders Conference last year, and this gave them a chance to hear more of the vision of FIEC, and to understand how they might contribute to fostering vibrant biblical independency.

Their reasons for joining the FIEC were:

“We believe that as an independent church we will be able to better fulfil the Great Commission if we are working together with like-minded churches. We are persuaded FIEC will help us to do that more effectively and look forward to discovering ways in which we can help and be helped to make our Lord and Saviour Jesus more widely known.”

I would love every church that belongs to FIEC to see their membership as a means to advance the gospel. The more churches that join us because they share this vision the more effective we will be in achieving it.

More Men Joining the Pastors’ Network

As well as affiliating these churches, the NRT was delighted to be able to welcome 10 new men into the FIEC Pastors’ Network. This exists to provide external accreditation for ministers, to uphold biblical standards of pastoral ministry and to provide support and encouragement for pastors through our Pastoral Director and Pastoral Support Team. This brings the total number of PN members up to 445.

I am very encouraged that a number of other churches have already applied for affiliation, and that others that are considering the possibility of affiliating. If you would like more information about affiliation, or about becoming a member of the Pastors’ Network, please do contact the FIEC at admin@fiec.org.uk. You would also be very welcome to come and join us for our Leaders Conference this autumn (November 4^th-7^th), which is a great way to find out what FIEC is all about, and whether you should consider joining us as well.

Lessons from the 2011 Census: Christianity is in Rapid Decline In Britain Because the Church has Capitulated to the Culture

2013-06-04T17:45:00.001+01:00

Recent analysis of the figures from 2011 census by the Office of National Statistics has shown what we all know to be the case: Christianity is in rapid decline in the UK. The decline is 50% faster than was thought, and the true extent of decline amongst the indigenous population has been masked by the inward migration of 1.2m Christians born overseas. Christianity is predominantly a religion of the old, with the majority of those identifying as Christians aged over 60, and 25% over 65. Less than 50% of young people identify themselves as Christian. It is estimated that self-identified Christians will be a minority in the UK by 2018.

The reality, of course, is that most of those who self-identify as Christians are not genuine born again believers in the Lord Jesus. The nation would be utterly different if the 33.2m people who self-identify as Christians had anything approximating to a true biblical faith. The decline is very largely a result of the growing collapse of social church-going and cultural association with Christianity. However the statistics point to a future in which, unless something dramatic changes, Christianity will find itself increasingly marginalised from the cultural mainstream and national life. In contrast the Muslim population is rapidly growing, and now accounts for 5% of the total population. Islam is also a youthful religion, with 50% of Muslims aged 25 or under.

Whilst there are many social and cultural factors which can help to explain the dramatic decline in Christianity, one of the most significant is surely the failure of the church to uphold and preach the true biblical gospel. Last week I stumbled across an excellent podcast from the Daily Telegraph with Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali and Damian Thompson discussing the reasons for the decline of Christianity. If you have a spare 30 minutes it is really well worth listening to. Their central thesis is that the church has capitulated to secularism rather than standing firmly for the biblical message.

Damian Thomson criticises the leadership of the bishops, both Anglican and Catholic:

“Most bishops are middle-managers who care more about climate change than salvation.”

He makes the compelling point that neither Rowan Williams nor Vincent Nicholls have ever said anything memorable which promotes the gospel message and advocates the necessity of belief in the Lord Jesus.

This capitulation is tragically all too apparent at the moment. It is evident in the ludicrous proposal made at the Church of Scotland General Assembly last week to affirm the traditional biblical teaching on marriage and human sexuality, but to allow individual churches to depart from this teaching and appoint practising gay clergy if they choose. It is evident in the letter to the Telegraph last week from the Bishop of Salisbury supporting the introduction of gay marriage, which displayed spectacular ignorance (in claiming that the Bible has nothing to say against loving committed same-sex relationships), intolerance (in comparing those who oppose gay marriage to people who supported slavery and apartheid) and inconsistency (in welcoming the “quadruple lock” in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill that forbids the Church of England from performing gay weddings thereby enshrining the very discrimination that he regards as equivalent to apartheid).

It is perhaps especially evident in the response of the Church of England spokesman Rev Arun Arora to these latest statistics on Christian decline. He said:

“These results confirm that we remain a ‘faithful nation’. England remains a country where the majority of the nation actively identifies the role that faith plays in their life. When all faiths are taken together, people of faith account for two-thirds of the nation – two in every three people identify themselves as having a faith.”

When the church takes comfort from the growth of other religions, and defines “faithful” as having some kind of religious belief rather than saving faith in the resurrected Lord Jesus, then you know it has lost the plot. His comment suggests that the Church of England would be happy to count Saudi Arabia, or Iran, as a “faithful nation.” Would the UK still be a "faithful nation" if the majority of the population were Muslim? If so we might as well give up evangelism and world mission and rejoice when people say they have a “faith,” no matter what it may be. Jesus would, I'm sure, have something to say about that (John 14v6 to start with!)

We need to pray that our churches will return uncompromisingly to the biblical gospel of eternal salvation from the coming wrath of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that this is what leaders in the public eye will proclaim at every opportunity. If we continue to capitulate to the culture we will have only ourselves to blame if the result is swift decline.

So do listen to the podcast. You won’t agree with everything, but you will find it stimulating as well as depressing, and it should drive you to prayer for our nation and for the revival and renewal of the church in our land so that it is “not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1v16). We urgently need the church to identify and train bold preachers of this gospel, not mere “climate ambassadors.”

Christchurch Market Harborough: 26th May 2013 - Practising the Foolish Wisdom of the Cross

2013-06-03T16:39:00.000+01:00

Last Sunday I was delighted to be back with my home church family at Christchurch Market Harborough. It was the first time I had been at church at home since Easter Sunday. I hadn't planned to be away so many weeks, but having accepted some regular FIEC preaching engagements I was subsequently invited to speak at a number of special services that filled the Sundays I had meant to be in Harborough. I do love and miss my local church when I am away. God’s purpose is for us to be part of local churches where we can know and be known, spur one another on to love and good deeds, and develop a deeper love and care for each other than is possible when you are just visiting a fellowship. It was good for me to be back home.

Having been away for a number of Sundays it was very encouraging to find the church in good heart and to see some new faces. It was the bank holiday weekend so some families were away, but there were still a good number present. The early days when we worried whether there would be a viable congregation each Sunday feel some time ago. Over the past few months we have been blessed by a number of newcomers joining the congregation. Two younger couples are moving to Harborough, and two older couples who live in the town have started to worship with us. We now have around 50 adults and 26 children who are regular members of the congregation. It is always a joy to realise that people who were coming occasionally are now with us pretty much every week. It’s also exciting that there is another baby on the way amongst the church family.

One of the greatest encouragements for us at the moment is that we are running Christianity Explored groups for a couple of people who are interested in finding out more about the Christian faith. This is the first time that we have needed to run a CE group since the church started. We long to see conversions and to be more effective in evangelism, and this is just a beginning. We are making plans to take part in the A Passion for Life mission in 2014, and to make use of the training DVD “A Passion to Witness” in the autumn.

The new group we started for older children in the Sunday school, which gives them a mix of Bible study, listening to a sermon in the service, and serving in the life of the church, seems to be going well, and the older children are going away for a camping weekend in June. My daughter is very keen to join this group when she moves up to senior school in September. Our homegroups have also started a new series of thematic studies of the law in Deuteronomy. Many Christians find it very hard to know how to apply the law to their lives, particularly when it seems to consist of rules and rituals that have no obvious cultural relevance today, and which even seem embarrassing or offensive. So we want to see how the law teaches God’s people what it means in practice to love him and love our neighbours, and to see how it might applies to us today in the light of the fact that Christ has fulfilled it.

We finished a series in the second half of the book of Exodus just before Easter, and are now preaching through 1 Corinthians. I first heard this letter preached some 25 years ago, when the main controversy was over the application of Chapters 12-14 and the issue of spiritual gifts in the life of the church. The rapid changes in UK society since then mean that it is now the rest of the letter that seems amazingly relevant to the church today. In 21^st century Britain we find ourselves in the midst of a secular, liberal and celebrity culture very like that of the 1^st Century Roman Empire. There is immense confusion in society about sex and relationships, and those who are converted from a non-Christian background are increasingly likely to have been cohabiting, or divorced, or to have a partner who is not yet a Christian. This makes 1 Corinthians 7 of great practical importance.

If the church is doing its job and reaching the lost with the gospel then the problems that afflicted the church at Corinth are bound to come into the life of the church today. It is perhaps a sign of evangelistic health, rather than weakness, that a church has to grapple with these issues again and again. People who are saved from liberal secularism and join churches will inevitably come deeply immersed in the wisdom of the world, and transformation does not happen overnight. It takes time for the gospel message of the cross to re-orientate our whole life and thinking so that we are guided by the mind of Christ through the Holy Spirit. A truly growing church never arrives at a point of total maturity, but is a constant work in progress as new believers join. The work of disciple-making is never completed.

1 Corinthians 5v9-13 is especially important in helping the church to relate to the surrounding culture. We are not called to judge the world and keep our distance from those who are unbelievers because of their sinful lifestyles, but we are called to exercise discipline within the church against those who profess to be believers in Christ but who refuse to repent of sin. All too often the church gets this completely the wrong way round, and is wrongly judgemental of the world but forgiving of those who are within the church.

I was preaching on 1 Corinthians 3v18-4v5, which is Paul’s summary at the end of the first section of the letter, where he has been dealing with the problem of the divisions within the church. These have been caused because members of the congregation were identifying with various “celebrity” leaders, and judging Paul because of his apparent lack of impressive rhetoric and social status. This has always been a problem in local churches when the pastor and elders are compared with, and evaluated in comparison to, other more famous preachers and leaders. It has been greatly exacerbated by the ready accessibility of world-renowned preachers on the internet. Ordinary local church leaders will never be able to match up to those who gain millions of downloads a year, and nor should we expect them to be able to do so. We need to have confidence that God gives the church enough gifted men to serve as pastor-teachers in every local congregation, who will preach the gospel, love the people and teach them God’s word so as to bring them to maturity and eternal salvation in the presence of Christ. To functionally behave as if this is not the case, whether by building celebrity ministries, establishing campus churches with video-linked preaching rather than physically present preachers of the word, or treating internet preaching as if it were a substitute for our local church, seems to be a denial of the generosity of Christ and what he has accomplished for his church through his death, resurrection and ascension (Ephesians 4v7-13).

Paul gives the Corinthians three commands which are vital for the health of churches today:

Stop being foolish (3v18-20) – because those who live by the wisdom of this present age will be judged by God (the purpose of the quotes from Job 5v13 & Ps 94v11)

Stop boasting in your leaders (3v21-25) – because they all belong to you in Christ already

Stop judging faithful gospel ministers (4v1-5) – because judgement belongs to the Lord alone and you don’t know the motives of their hearts

I was especially struck by the warning against judging leaders in 4v1-5, because I am aware of how I have done this in the past. Paul is not at all saying we must never judge leaders and hold them accountable, and much of the rest of the letter is taken up with urging the Corinthians to make right judgements, for example about whether to remain single or marry. However Paul was being judged by some of the Corinthians for entirely the wrong external reasons, even though he was faithfully preaching the gospel that had been entrusted to him. He was being judged because his speech was not sophisticated, because did not use impressive showy rhetoric, and because he did not seek social status for himself by submitting to the patronage of the rich and noble members of the church. As a result his motives were questioned and he was maligned (as was also the case in Thessalonica – cf 1 Thessalonians 2v1-12). 1 Corinthians 4v1-5 challenges us not to judge those who are clearly serving the gospel faithfully, by preaching and living the foolish message of the cross, by mere externals such as these. Only God has the right to judge his servants, and we cannot know the true motives of others' hearts so as to judge them fairly.

I am very pleased that, after such a string of weeks away, I will be at Christchurch for 8 out of the next 12 Sunday mornings. I'm looking forward to being home.

It's Not Over Until the Queen Signs: Responding to Andrew Evans' Critique of the C4M Campaign Against Same-Sex Marriage

2013-05-25T19:48:00.000+01:00

Last Thursday my friend and fellow FIEC pastor Andrew Evans published a thoughtful and stimulating post on his blog critiquing the Coalition for Marriage campaign against the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples. You can read his full post here.

It is well known that Andrew and I disagree about this. I have made clear my support for C4M (which is shared by the FIEC Trust Board) and urged others to sign their petition on my blog. Andrew has explained why he does not support the petition. Whilst I have my own reservations about some of the ways in which the campaign has been conducted, and the messages communicated by it, I am grateful that C4M has taken a clear public stand against same-sex marriage and been a voice for many who would not otherwise have been heard. For all its weaknesses I am not convinced that Andrew has presented a compelling alternative.

These are my reasons for disagreeing with Andrew:

1. I don’t think it is the right time to start this discussion

Whilst is seems almost inevitable that the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill will be approved by the House of Lords and receive the Royal Assent, the campaign to prevent the redefinition of marriage, or to introduce substantial additional safeguards for those who in conscience cannot accept the validity of gay marriages, is not yet over. C4M’s claim that there is still “everything to play for” seems optimistic given the votes in the House of Commons, but a vigorous campaign of protest against these proposals is justified right down to the wire. The House of Lord may yet surprise.

There will come a time when it is important to review strategy and message, but not before the passage of the legislation is completed. I am very grateful for the immense hard work of a small number of staff and volunteers who have served the campaign tirelessly over the months, and who will be giving their all until the bitter end. Their dedication deserves our respect and appreciation.

2. I do think that the campaign has achieved something worthwhile already

Whilst the C4M campaign has not yet prevented the redefinition of marriage, I think it has at least made clear that a very substantial section of the population do not acquiesce with the idea of same sex marriage. It is a significant achievement to have gained 660,873 signatures opposing the redefinition. The campaign has surely contributed to the fact that 60% of Conservative MPs failed to support their own leader, and that 30% of all MPs who voted on the third reading of the Bill voted against. Other campaigns were minute in comparison. Keep Marriage Special managed to gather 2,779 signatures and RealMarriage 1031. In the absence of C4M you might have gained the impression that there was virtually no opposition to same-sex marriage.

One of the major reasons why the campaign against same-sex marriage has not been more successful is because so many allegedly evangelical believers have failed to back it. If the supposed 8.8% of evangelicals in the UK (Operation World figure) had signed the petition it would have garnered 5.5m signatures. Some will have shared Andrew’s principled objections to the campaign, but many will either have been apathetic or unwilling to put their head above the parapet. Whatever the deficiencies of C4M it was the only show in town when the sole realistic hope of preventing the legislation was a petition of millions. We have ourselves to blame that we have not managed this. Where has been the leadership on this issue from Nicky Gumble, HTB and Alpha? New Wine? New Frontiers?

If there is a proper time for “I told you so” after gay marriage is introduced, I sadly fear that it will be when Christians begin to experience discrimination in the work place and feel aggrieved as a result, or when evangelical churches find themselves barred from public premises such as schools because of what they believe and teach about homosexuality and traditional marriage.

3. The C4M campaign was always going to involve compromises

One of the difficulties with mounting a united campaign in defence of traditional marriage is that people will oppose a redefinition to include same-sex couples for a variety of different reasons. C4M was always a coalition, and the prime organising groups (The Christian Institute, CARE, Evangelical Alliance, and Christian Concern) do not necessarily share exactly the same perspective themselves. Those opposing the redefinition of marriage do so for a whole spectrum of reasons including:

(a) Gay marriage is sinful and ought to be opposed in principle

(b) Britain is a constitutionally Christian state that ought to legislate for Christian morality

(d) Marriage is the bedrock of society and any change will cause harm to families and children

(e) Introducing same-sex marriage will inevitably undermine religious liberties

The campaign rightly sought to include not just Christians, but those from other religions and even those of no religion. This compromise inevitably required a general message of opposition to same-sex marriage. I suspect that Andrew’s proposal would have attracted the support of a tiny minority of principled pluralist non-conformists. Whilst perfectly valid as a position, that would have made no difference in practice.

4. I don’t think Andrew has presented a genuinely viable alternative

Andrew’s alternative to campaigning to retain the current definition of marriage is to have campaigned for the state to “get out of the business of marriage” altogether, leaving civil partnerships to regulate property rights and responsibilities. I don’t see that this would have had any traction at all in the debate. Whether we like it or not, the state is already in the business of regulating relationships, and underwriting the institution of marriage for society as whole. Marriage has for centuries been the only form of state-recognised partnership. Until the introduction of “civil partnerships” for gay couples it was merely a question of whether a marriage was solemnised by civil ceremony or by the church. In many other European countries a marriage can only be solemnised by the state and the church has no formal power to marry. A model of civil partnership for all would be novel, contrary to history and people’s preferences. No country in the world has sought to solve the problem of reconciling differences over the legal status of homosexual relationships by abolishing the legal concept of marriage altogether.

5. I don’t think Andrew’s proposal would have been perceived as any less homophobic than opposing the redefinition of marriage

Andrew believes that a campaign to get the state out of marriage would have avoided the impression of homophobia. I am afraid I think that exactly the opposite would have been the case. Imagine how the argument would have gone:

Gay couples are demanding the right to marry because they believe that this will ensure full equality with heterosexual couples. Rather than allowing some 6000 gay couples a year to marry, Christians are so opposed to the idea of gay marriage that they would prefer the government to abolish marriage altogether for everyone! Their antipathy to homosexuals is such that they would rather abandon the institution of marriage for millions than see gay couples share in it. They hate homosexuals so much that they would rather wreck marriage, which has been the stable bed-rock of society for generations.

You can see the gay rights movement having a field day with such an argument.

It seems to me that the cultural environment today means that evangelical Christians will inevitably be regarded as homophobic, not matter what they say, nor how loudly they insist that this is not the case. Just as we will no longer be able to insist on a definition of marriage as exclusively heterosexual, we are unable to define what ought to be meant by “homophobia”. To the wider community, and especially the gay rights lobby and the media, merely to believe that homosexuality is sinful is itself homophobic. The fact that evangelical churches, such as Christchurch Liverpool and the other 509 churches in the FIEC, preach that practising homosexuality is contrary to the word of God, and that a practising homosexual would not be admitted as a member of the church or appointed to serve as the pastor, will inevitably be seen as homophobic. To our culture any attitude which refuses to regard a homosexual relationship as exactly equivalent in moral quality and entitlements as a heterosexual relationship will be branded as homophobic.

The perception that Bible-believing Christians are intrinsically homophobic is compounded by the fact that some churches, Christians and self-identifying evangelicals proclaim that the traditional Christian attitude towards homosexuality is indeed guilty of homophobia as charged. The reasoning employed by Steve Chalke, Bishop James Jones, Rob Bell and others to support loving, committed, monogamous same-sex relationships assumes that any other position is the result of ignorance or homophobic prejudice.

The reality is that we are dealing with a fundamental clash of two irreconcilable world-views. I was unexpectedly encouraged to hear, at a seminar I attended at New Word Alive, that not even the greatest contemporary Christian apologists have found a way to make the Biblical position on homosexuality winning and palatable to our culture. It made me feel slightly better about my own inadequacy. Our arguments will inevitably be lambasted as homophobic, and we had better get used to this. However nothing is more likely to make evangelicals seem homophobic than a redefinition of marriage which will force them into the position of denying that gay couples are truly married. It will put them on the wrong side of the law, the state and the culture.

6. I don’t think that Andrew has put forward a workable philosophical basis for balancing the competing rights of different communities in society

Andrew’s justification for his alternative approach is the principle that there ought to be a general freedom to live according to conscience for all. Whilst this sounds laudable, and I agree that too often Christians are only concerned to campaign when it is our freedoms that that are affected, it seems to me that it is also ultimately unworkable. It assumes that you can have a truly neutral state that does not take a position.

In fact this is impossible. Every government will inevitably take some kind of stand on what is right and wrong. It may allow a degree of tolerance for those who reject its principles (eg freedom of worship rather than conformity to the state religion) but it cannot allow everyone to live according to their own personal conscience. It might allow different communities to be governed by entirely different systems of law in some areas (eg Muslims to have their family law determined by Sharia, and Jews by Jewish law). Untrammelled freedom of conscience would involve allowing some people to practice polygamy, or others to practice consensual incest. It would mean allowing some people or groups to use drugs, whether recreationally or as part of their worship. It would mean allowing some restaurants, pubs and private clubs to choose to allow smoking. In the past it would have meant allowing some people to continue to practice slave ownership, or to discriminate against others on the basis of their colour.

In the end “freedom to love according to conscience for all” is a chimera that cannot be achieved and is unworkable. Every society circumscribes freedom of conscience in some ways in the interests of the common good. European human rights jurisprudence recognises that specific rights (eg freedom of worship) are not absolute, but have to be balanced against the wider common good or the rights and interests of others (egt he right to a private or family life). It is not, therefore, illogical to argue against the redefinition of marriage but also for greater restriction on divorce, provided that this is consistent with your fundamental values.

So the real issues concern the foundational convictions that determine how a society balances the incompatible freedoms demanded by individuals' consciences. What we have witnessed in the UK over the past 40 years is a change in the foundational convictions and values held by the state, which inevitably shape its policies. The prevailing “absolute” of our contemporary culture is not Christianity, nor even freedom of conscience, but the mantra of “equality” and deference to the demands of those who are perceived to be victims of oppression.

7. Keep praying and sign the petition

So whilst I agree that the campaign was not perfect, and that there are lessons to be learnt for the future, I am not convinced that there was a viable alternative that could have been mounted within the time–frame available, and that would have attracted widespread and broad-based support. That is why I was, and am, very happy to support C4M, and to pray that this legislation might yet be rejected by the House of Lords. Even if it is not, I am glad that I have stood up and been counted and made known my opposition to any redefinition of marriage. I would urge others to do so before it is to late for your voice to be heard.

PS: Lest anyone should think that I am seeking to precipitate an unseemly disagreement with Andrew on the blogosphere, I want to make clear that we are both are happy to engage with each other with respect. It is also helpful to model the fact that evangelical brothers, who are absolutely agreed on the core doctrines of the faith and work as partners in ministry, do not have a monolithic view on every issue. I sent my draft post to Andrew in advance, and he was happy for me to publish it.

An Eye for an Eye? Comparing the Radically Different Teaching of Jesus

2013-05-24T12:43:00.002+01:00

It is an inescapable conclusion that the appalling, horrific and utterly unjustifiable murder of Drummer Lee Rigby on Wednesday was committed by two men acting in the name of their God. As Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale cruelly murdered their victim, one shouted “Allahu akbar”. As they defended their actions while awaiting the arrival of the police Michael Adebolajo quoted a religious text: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We won’t stop fighting you until you leave us alone.” This barbaric crime will doubtless cause many to conclude yet again that religion itself is the problem. They will agree with the late Christopher Hitchens’ polemic against all religion, “God is not Great.”

There is no doubt that appalling things have been done down the centuries in the name of God and religion, but it does not logically follow that religion itself is the problem. It all depends what a specific religion teaches. Sometimes believers act contrary to the tenets and teaching of their faith in quite blatant ways. Sometimes people claim the cloak of religion when they are clearly not believers at all.

As Christians in the UK today we face two very different challenges. On the one hand we live in an increasingly secular society which regards religion as inherently dangerous, and therefore wishes to confine religious belief and discourse to the private sphere. On the other hand we live in a world where many non-Christians regard what they see and experience of Western secular democracy, and Western culture more broadly, as synonymous with “Christianity”. As we face these different challenges there are two things we need to do.

First, for the sake of world mission, we need to make it clear that that the UK is not in any meaningful sense a “Christian Country.” Empirically this is no longer the case in any event, but culturally the values and lifestyle of modern Britain reflect little of the teaching and example of Jesus. Western liberal secular democracy is not synonymous with true Biblical Christianity, nor is Western foreign policy the foreign policy of Jesus and his church. A right separation between church and state is needed, rather than a meaningless formal connection which leads to the inevitable assumption that the state and its policy is a manifestation of Christianity.

Second we need to counter the naïve assumption that all religions are basically the same by proclaiming and living the radically different teaching of Jesus and his apostles. The Old Testament does indeed enunciate the principle of “an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21v24; Leviticus 24v20; Deuteronomy 19v21). In the context this was a means of restraining a cycle of escalating violence and revenge by insisting on strict and proportionate justice rather than retaliatory action. It was to prevent the sinful desire for excessive vengeance, such as that of Lamech who boasted to his wives:

“I have killed a man for wounding me, a younger man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times then Lamech seventy-seven times” (Genesis 4v23-24)

However the teaching of Jesus goes even further. He refuses to countenance the taking of personal revenge at all. He insists that we love and bless our enemies. He refused to fight to resist arrest, but went willingly to a shameful and ignominious death on the cross. His apostles taught his earliest followers that they were to respond to abuse and oppression by silent acceptance, trusting that they would be vindicated by the ultimate justice and judgement of God.

These are some of the key passages we should reflect on:

Matthew 5v38-47

“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 anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them 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 neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children 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 own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

”

Luke 6v27-36

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 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. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”

Luke 22v47-50

“While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.”

Romans 12v17-21

“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

1 Peter 2v19-23

“For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”

1 Peter 4v12-19

“Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And, “If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.”

Christians need to ensure that they walk in the way of their Lord and Saviour. Amongst others this must encompass the way that we relate to the Muslim community, the homosexual community as we face the near inevitable introduction of same-sex marriage, and the secular opponents and critics of our faith.

However the claim that “God is not Great” because of all the wickedness done in the name of religion cannot be answered in the abstract or by generality. It can only be answered by considering the character and teaching of specific religions and their “Gods”. I don’t think there is anything comparable to the remarkable and radical teaching of Jesus to love our enemies in any other world religion, nor for that matter in atheism or secular democracy. Is it not supremely attractive, good and even great? It is so radical that people can only begin to live this way if they come to faith in Christ, experience new birth, receive a new heart and know the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit to empower them to obey.

Local Church: Cheam Baptist Church - Cheered by Gospel Growth and the Compelling Evidence for Jesus

2013-05-23T10:25:00.000+01:00

Whilst the vote of the House of Commons to approve the third reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Relationships) Bill is a stark reminder of the collapse of a Christian public culture in the UK, I don't consider that this is a moment for despair and despondency. At the same time that our political and cultural elites are revealing their true colours, and the inherent and irreconcilable tensions within traditional denominations are being exposed, it seems to me that on the ground faithful gospel churches are in a healthier state than they have been for many years. Yes growth is often painfully slow, and our impact on our society and communities is small, but my impression is that Bible-centred evangelical churches are stronger and more confident than at any time since I became a Christian 25 years ago. They have proved by experience that word ministry is not passé and ineffective, and they have become more culturally engaged and missional in focus.

A couple of weeks ago I was delighted to preach at Cheam Baptist Church, located near Sutton in South London. The church was planted by C H Spurgeon in 1862, and more than a century-and-a-half later is a thriving and growing FIEC church. Cheam BC is one of our more recently affiliated churches, having joined the Fellowship in 2011. It has a membership of 348 and a Sunday congregation of 350+. They have an excellent building, with multiple rooms and two main halls. They have been full on a Sunday morning, so have decided to switch to two morning services, the first at 9.30am which is repeated at 11.15am. I was preaching on only the second Sunday after the two services had been introduced, and it seemed to be working really well. Coffee is available between the two services, and the additional space freed up will both encourage and enable further growth. All the evidence suggests that churches stop growing when their meeting space is 80% full or more, so moving to two services is one creative way of facilitating more gospel growth.

The church is led by Tim Saunders, who was formerly at Worthing Tabernacle and Barton Evangelical Church in Canterbury, with Nigel Butcher as Associate Pastor and Jayne Williams as Communities Worker. There are a wide range of groups for children and young people, and ministries for every age group. There are few students in the area, but it was very encouraging to see so many teenagers in church, most of who will go on to be students around the country. One challenge for the church is the high cost of local housing, which makes it harder for new graduates and young families to move into the area. A special blessing for me was that one member of the congregation told me that he had become a Christians when he was on a CYFA camp I led in the mid-1990s. He is now married with two children and serving in the life of the church. It was such an encouragement to discover the long-term fruit of past gospel ministry.

In the morning I preached on John 5v31-39. I really enjoyed preparing and preaching on this passage because it addresses the key issue that seems to prevent many people in our contemporary society from believing in Jesus: “Is there any compelling evidence to support the claims of Jesus?” You can listen to my sermon here. Our culture assumes that scientific claims and theories are “evidence based,” but that religious truth claims are simply matters of “faith” and not founded on meaningful evidence. This has perhaps been compounded by the reluctance of evangelicals in recent years to make use of evidential apologetics, preferring presuppositionalism because it seems to resonate with a post-modern environment. I suspect that as post-modernism is waning evidential apologetics will become both more relevant and more necessary.

The supposed antithesis between evidence and faith is spurious. It is true that Christianity cannot be subjected to repeated experimental investigation, as it is founded on unique and unrepeatable events that took place in history. By their very nature historical events are verified by evidence of a different kind, namely eye-witness testimony to what took place. This is what we have in John’s gospel.

In this passage Jesus declares that there are a variety of witnesses who give reliable testimony that he is indeed God’s Son, and the long promised Messiah-King who will save and rescue God’s people. First there is the human witness of John the Baptist, who gave public testimony that Jesus was “God’s Chosen One,” something that had been revealed to him by God himself (John 1v32-34). Secondly, and more significantly, there is the direct divine witness of God the Father. He testifies to Jesus through the works that Jesus is performing, which reveal his divine nature, and in the words of Scripture that he has spoken over the centuries (5v36-39). Today we have the added witness of the New Testament itself, which is the testimony of the apostolic eye-witnesses who saw the risen Lord Jesus in all his glory (cf John 20v30-31; 21v24-25), and the on-going witness of the church community, which testifies to Jesus by the love that believers have for each other (John 13v34-35).

Christianity is, in this regard, utterly different from all other religions. Buddhism is not really a religion at all, but a philosophy of life derived from the personal experience of the Buddha, who claimed to have achieved enlightenment. Hinduism is based on metaphysical speculation and myths that have no historical basis, and which no one believes really took place. Islam is based on the claim of Mohammed to be a prophet of God, yet he performed no works to substantiate his claims and the Koran is filled with factual errors about the events recorded in the Bible which took place hundreds of years before he burst onto the scene. These discrepancies, including the claim that Jesus never died on the cross, have to be explained away by the unconvincing assertion that the Bible has been deliberately and systematically altered so as to hide the truth. The claim that Jesus did not die on the cross is preposterous, given the indisputable evidence of both the New Testament and secular historians of the period. Would you take someone seriously who claimed that Anne Boleyn had not been beheaded after all, and who says that all the historical records of the Tudor period had been deliberately falsified to cover this up?

Given the weight of testimony for Jesus, why is it that people refuse to believe and trust in him? Most non-Christians are not, in fact, convinced atheists, but seek refuge in an agnosticism that claims it is impossible to know. The answer that Jesus gives here is simple. It is not that there is insufficient evidence for people to believe, but rather they refuse to believe despite the evidence. They refuse to come to Jesus because what they really want in life is the “praise of men” (5v41-44). They want the approval and acceptance of other people. They therefore deliberately ignore or reject the evidence because it suits them to do so (cf also Romans 1v18 for the way that people deliberately supress the evidence for the existence of God). They may even read their Bibles diligently, but they do not want to hear what God has to say in his word.

The implication for us is that we have to keep on declaring and proclaiming the apostolic gospel, and presenting the compelling evidence for Jesus. We do not lack confidence or change our method simply because many fail to believe. We need to preach clearly and passionately, and to call people to decide whether they will believe or reject the evidence, knowing that only the Holy Spirit can give the new birth that will cause them to believe. I had a really stimulating long conversation on the door after the service with a young lady who was asking me about the historical reliability of the Bible, the New Testament manuscripts, the Canon and the accuracy of modern translations.

In the evening I preached from Matthew 24v14-30 on the Parable of the Talents. I used an illustration drawn from The Apprentice and discovered afterwards that the son of a couple in the congregation had been a contestant on the show. Always remember that people you don’t know may have been connected with your illustrations! It was an extremely encouraging day and the fact that there are so many faithful gospel churches like Cheam BC around the country ought to give us great hope for the future.

One elderly member of the congregation had sadly died in the week before I visited. During the Second World War he had been a merchant seamen serving on the Arctic convoys. For nearly 70 years the men who so heroically plied the Arctic sea to supply Russia had not been honoured. Just before he died he received the campaign medal that was recently issued to put right this shameful neglect. It was a reminder to me that our gospel service and ministry will usually be unnoticed and unsung in this world, but we can be confident that we will be honoured and rewarded by the Lord Jesus when he returns to establish his kingdom.

Three Assemblies Debating Gay Marriage: We Need to Stand Up for Biblical Truth in Church and State

2013-05-20T11:05:00.000+01:00

There is no doubt that the major battleground for Bible-believing evangelical Christians in the UK today revolves around the issue of homosexuality. This is not the battleground that we would have chosen, nor the issue that we regard as the most important. Issues such as child poverty caused by marriage and family breakdown, abortion which sees more than 250,000 babies murdered in the UK every year, and the appalling lack of care for the elderly and vulnerable, are objectively more important in terms of the harm they cause. However the issue of homosexuality has been forced upon us, both by the State and in the church, by the inexorable rise of the gay-rights movement, and we have no option but to respond. You cannot always choose where you want to take a stand.

The cultural tide of the Western world is running against us at the moment. On Saturday Francoise Hollande, the French President, signed gay marriage into law, making France the 14^th country in the world and the 9^th in Europe to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. Anyone watching the Swedish intermission entertainment during the Eurovision Song Contest will have seen gay marriage proudly celebrated as one of the contributions of Sweden to the world. I doubt, however, that some of the Islamic states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, not to mention Turkey, will be quick to follow their example. The global picture is very different from the UK and Western European consensus.

As Christians we believe that homosexual relationships are sinful and fall short of God’s command, and purpose in creation, that sexual intimacy is only appropriate for heterosexual marriage. We do not believe that is it uniquely wicked, but that it stands together with sex outside of marriage, adultery, consensual incest and all the other sexual behaviour which the Bible makes clear is contrary to the place of marriage as the unique context for sex. We believe that homosexual practice, together with all forms of sexual sin, stands under the just condemnation and judgement of God, and that homosexual desires are a temptation that ought to be resisted rather than celebrated and indulged. We believe that Jesus came to save and rescue sinners, which includes those who have engaged in homosexual practice, and that full forgiveness is available to all those who repent of their sin. Those who are born again and put their faith and trust in Jesus receive the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit, who will help and empower them to resist temptation and live in obedience to God’s commands. This has been the historic teaching of the Christian Church for centuries. No doubt today we will be characterised as “swivel-eyed loons” for still believing, but we must honour the enduring Word of God over the trendy and self-serving opinions of men.

Today the issue of homosexuality will be debated in three very different assemblies. We need to pray for them, as much is at stake for the future of our nation.

(1) The Same Sex Marriage Bill

Today the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill returns to the House of Commons. I have already written extensively about how this Bill, if introduced, may lead to significant discrimination against Christians in the future. It does not achieve equality, fundamentally redefines marriage for everyone (by removing the requirement for sexual consummation and abolishing divorce on the grounds of adultery), and provides inadequate legal safeguard for churches and religious groups who never wish to be required to perform gay marriages. The committee stage of the legislative process has utterly failed to address these defects in the legislation.

Today I have signed a letter, together with 16 other church leaders, that has been published in the Daily

Telegraph highlighting these deficiencies and dangers. The reality is that it is likely to be future generations of believers who feel the impact of these changes, and who will to face discrimination and marginalisation. I suspect that in the long run the charitable status of churches and Christians charities who take the Biblical view of marriage will be called into question. No doubt we ought to expect to face some degree of persecution as the cost of following Christ, but that is no reason not to fight for our historic liberties, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. We ought to be grateful and thankful for Christian MPs such as David Burrowes, who have been willing to speak clearly about these issues, opposing the introduction of gay-marriage at the cost of their own political advancement.

Despite all the attempts to demonstrate that the legislation is unnecessary and flawed, it seems highly likely that it will be passed, and at most greater safeguards might be introduced. This should not surprise us. We live in a secular and unbelieving country. Little more than 2.9% of the population are truly born again believers in the Lord Jesus. We are a small minority and it is unsurprising that our politicians and the media do not reflect our beliefs and values. Our greatest need is to reach lost and needy people with the good news of the gospel. Only when there is true spiritual growth, we pray even revival, will the public culture of our nation be transformed. Despite our long Christian cultural heritage, the reality is that our situation today is very like that of the early church in the pagan Roman Empire.

The Bible equips us to live faithfully in such times. 1 Peter, 1 Corinthians and Revelation are especially relevant to our current exilic experience. We need to reflect deeply on 1 Corinthians 5v9-13 & 6v7-11. It is not our task to judge the world. We ought to expect pagan unbelievers to lives as pagan unbelievers. Our task is to preach the good news of Christ and him crucified, which is alone able to save and rescue men and women from sin, and to change their thinking and living. The church in Corinth had many members who had formerly been in practicing homosexual relationships, but who had been changed and transformed by the grace of God, so that Paul could say “and that is what some of you were.” (1 Corinthians 6v9 & 11)

(2) The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland

Whilst it is not surprising that the UK Parliament is considering legislating for the introduction of gay marriage, the greater shock ought to be that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will be considering this week whether to formally permit practising homosexuals to be ordained as ministers. A lengthy report has been prepared, setting out both sides of the argument (you can read it here). A practising homosexual in a civil-partnership has already been appointed as a minister in Aberdeen, and after four years the church will finally have to consider what its position should be.

I have no idea what the outcome will be, though I would pray that Biblical orthodoxy might be maintained, or at the very least that there would be a clear decision and not a further delay or fudge. However it is a sign of the serious state of the denominations in our land that this debate needs to take place at all, with a very substantial body (potentially a majority) of church opinion supporting the appointment of practising homosexual ministers and unable to comprehend why this should not be the case.

If 1 Corinthians 5v12 teaches that we should not judge the world, then 1 Corinthians 5v1-13 teach quite clearly that we must exercise judgement and discipline against those within the church (i.e. who profess to believe in Jesus as Lord) who practice sexual immorality and are unrepentant. Such judgement, which ought to lead to expulsion from the church, is essential both for the spiritual good and ultimate salvation of the person expelled (1 Corinthians 5v4) and to protect the church as a whole from the spread of sin (1 Corinthians 5v6-8).

However it is not merely those who engage in sexual immorality themselves who ought to be subject to this church discipline, but also those false teachers who promote and advocate sexual immorality, and who teach that it is not sinful. The church must refuse to give any position, platform, credibility or approval to false teachers who undermine and question the doctrines of the faith or who advocate sinful living. Paul makes clear in 1 Timothy 1v20 and 2 Timothy 2v17 that such false teachers must be put out of the church.

The Protestant Reformers taught that one of the marks of a true church is that it exercises Biblical discipline. This is exactly what many mainstream denominations have utterly failed to do. They have failed to uphold their own confessional standards, and have allowed clergy, ministers, bishops and theological teachers to hold and promulgate views that undermine the true doctrines of the gospel. For generations those who reject the authority and inerrancy of the Bible, deny the substitutionary atonement of the death of Christ and dismiss the reality of God’s judgement of sin, have been allowed to retain their office and influence opinion. The issue of practising homosexuality is just the tip of an iceberg that has emerged well after the ship has been holed below the waterline.

In all the debates on whether or not the church should permit practising

homosexual clergy, or conduct same-sex weddings, there seems to be no call for those who advocate that same-sex relationships are acceptable to God to be disciplined and expelled from ministry. It remains a scandal that Jeffrey John is a respected member of the Anglican hierarchy, touted as a potential Bishop of Durham, despite his views on homosexual relationships, and that the Bishops of Liverpool (James Jones) and Buckingham (Alan Wilson) openly advocate gay marriage and blessing civil partnerships in church contrary to stated church policy. It is similarly as scandal that, as far as I know, Steve Chalke is still a Baptist Union minister, despite his advocacy of gay marriage, and that his charity the Oasis Trust is still part of the Evangelical Alliance. It is a scandal that evangelicals continue to invite Rob Bell to speak and hold conferences, and commend and recommend his subversive books. As long as such teaching is tolerated the battle is lost in the long run, no matter what is decided on the matter of practising gay church leaders.

(3) The FIEC Trust Board

It so happens that for the next 24 hours the FIEC Trust Board is meeting. I fully realise that this is not an event of the same order as a debate in the House of Commons of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. One of the items on the agenda for discussion is a draft Statement on Homosexuality, which will be presented to the churches for approval at an Annual Assembly in due course. In the past we have not felt it necessary to adopt any formal position on homosexual relationships, because we have assumed that our commitment to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture in our Doctrinal Basis makes clear that we regard such relationships as sinful and contrary to the will of God. However the rise of a number of supposed evangelicals arguing that the Bible does not rule out loving committed same-sex relationships means that we can no longer take this for granted, either within the Christian community more widely, nor if and when the courts have to determine the nature of Christian beliefs in any future litigation over discrimination or charitable status. In order to make our position clear beyond doubt, and to protect against legal challenges, we need as a matter of urgency to state clearly and unequivocally that we regard same-sex sexual relationships as contrary to God’s Word, and that churches which advocate such relationships cannot remain part of the Fellowship. We also advise all our churches to adopt a clear position on same-sex relationships for their own long term protection.

A couple of months ago, when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill had its first reading in the Commons, I wrote to all MPs urging them not to support the redefinition of marriage. I was both shocked and concerned to receive a letter from an elder of an FIEC church, objecting to my letter, and arguing that the Bible only condemns promiscuous homosexuality, or people who do not have a homosexual orientation entering a gay relationship against their nature. These are classic liberal arguments for same-sex sexual relationships, which have absolutely no credible Biblical basis, and are rightly rejected by more sophisticated same-sex advocates such as Steve Chalke. However the fact that such views have gained even the tiniest foothold within the FIEC, means that we have an urgent need to make our position clear.

So whilst same-sex relationships are not where we would have chosen to fight for the gospel, it is where we are forced to fight by the state of our country, culture and the church. Please do pray earnestly for God’s will to be done in Parliament, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and by the FIEC Trust Board. Pray especially for those who seek to speak the truth in love in a hostile environment, that they might do so in a way that that brings glory and honour to the Lord Jesus. Pray that they would fear him more than they fear men. And pray that we would all know how to respond Biblically if the various votes that are being held go against the clear teaching of Scripture.

The Dambusters 70th Anniversary: Faith in Christ Gives Us Different Heroes

2013-05-16T20:43:00.000+01:00

As a young a young boy in the early 1970s I was brought up on a diet of “Commando” Comics and stirring British war films. The vast majority of men aged 50 or above had served in the Second War World, and my parents had grown up during it. My scout leader, for example, had been a radar operator flying in a Lancaster bomber. I loved aircraft and lost count of the number of times I spent a Saturday afternoon watching The Dambusters film. I had a book about the raid which I read repeatedly.

Today is exactly 70 years since the 19 Lancasters of 617 Squadron took off from RAF Scampton heading for the Ruhr, the heart of the German industrial complex. They were an extraordinarily brave and professional group of men, who accomplished an astonishing success. The Dambusters raid has all the ingredients of a classic British triumph, evoking the essence of our national charter. An audacious attack on a seemingly impregnable target, dreamed up by a scientific “boffin” catapulting marbles across a tin bath in his garden (Barnes Wallis). A squadron commanded by a dashing young leader who epitomised the British grit (Wing Commander Guy Gibson - aged just 25). The extraordinary skill required to fly to the target at treetop height in pitch darkness. The stubborn persistence of crews who made repeated runs into heavy anti-aircraft fire to drop their bombs (George “Johnny” Johnson insisted on making 10 diving passes before finally releasing his bomb onto the Sorpe dam). The ultimate triumph of breaching two of the three dams attacked. The tragically high casualties suffered by the crews (53 men killed out of 133). The much debated impact of the raid and whether it had any significant effect on the German war effort, let alone shortening the war. However at a time when the Germans still appeared to be technically and militarily superior, and the invasion of Europe was a long way off, it was an immense boost to morale and brought confidence that victory might be achieved in the end.

Every significant anniversary of this raid brings back vivid memories of my childhood. These are a few of my reflections:

(1) Be thankful for the relative peace we have enjoyed

In many ways it seems almost unbelievable that a mere 70 years ago Europe was convulsed in a war of unprecedented proportions which cost some 60 million lives. Since the end of the Second World War we have enjoyed, in the main, a remarkable period of peace. Yes there have been conflicts, and tragically there is still on-going fighting in Afghanistan, where young British servicemen continue to show extraordinary bravery and sacrifice their lives - often without the public recognition and honour that they warrant. It seems to me that Christians are often prone to be pessimistic about the present and to look back with nostalgia to a mythical previous age, assuming that everything has got worse. In the UK we have enjoyed unprecedented peace and prosperity. The fact that the heroes of our contemporary culture are vastly overpaid entertainers (whether footballers, sports stars, pop stars, actors, TV personalities, comics etc) might seem tawdry in comparison with the heroics of the men who participated in the Dambusters raid, but it is also indicative of the peace and security that we so take for granted.

(2) Be thankful for the judgement of God in history which restrains evil

The Dambusters raid was codenamed “Operation Chastise.” It is an encouragement to know that the sovereign judgement of God in history means that tyrants and wicked oppressors are inevitably brought to an end. I was reading Isaiah 40 the other morning in my quiet time. The fact that “all men are like grass” is, in the context, a great encouragement and comfort to God’s suffering people. It means that the wicked rulers who are oppressing them are not eternal: their reign will not last and their power will be taken away by death. The judgement of God limiting the human lifespan (eg Ps 90v10) is a mercy that restrains wickedness and evil. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others have all been swept away by death, and their empires with them. We may wonder why God did not judge them more swiftly, and allowed them to perpetrate so much evil and cause so much suffering, but the sweep of history seems to teach that evil does not triumph in the end. God’s judgement makes sure that it will never win.

(3) Be thankful for the lessons we have learnt from past suffering

It must seem deeply hypocritical to many nations in the world today to be lectured by the West on human rights, and held accountable for abuses that were being perpetrated by Western nations on a massive scale just a generation ago. Over 1200 civilians and slave workers were killed by the Dambusters raid. However it is all too easy to make retrospective judgements out of context. At the same time as the raid the RAF was embarking on large scale area bombing of German cities, which would cost many more civilian lives, and the Germans were slaughtering millions on the Eastern front and implementing the Final Solution. The development of a greater concern for the protection of human rights, the avoidance of civilian casualties and the prosecution of war crimes, has been borne out of bitter experience. The use of poison gas in World War I produced revulsion that has caused the use of such chemical “weapons of mass destruction” to be outlawed as a war crime, and they were not used on the battlefield in WWII. The bombing campaigns undertaken by both sides in World War II produced public intolerance of indiscriminate civilian casualties, and led thereby to more restrained precision use of air power that was not possible at the time. The horror of the effects of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki stopped countries ever daring to use nuclear weapons. Whereas in the 19^th Century Clausewitz regarded war as “merely the continuance of politics by other means” there is now a general renunciation of war as state policy. Media coverage of the reality of war, and the suffering it inflicts on combatants and civilians alike, has led to a less jingoistic climate. In the main we do not glorify war in the way we did, but regard it as a tragic necessity in extreme circumstances. The majority of the horrific conflicts of the second half of the twentieth century have been civil wars rather than inter-state conflicts. Today the European Convention on Human Rights is regularly criticised, increasingly by Christians who feel that their religious rights have been subordinated to those of the homosexual community, but it is important to remember that it was an essentially Christian initiative to restrain human depravity and abuse.

(3) Be thankful for the rejection of casual racist prejudice

Remembering the Dambusters Raid also reminds me of the way in which have changed our attitudes towards race, and have rightly rejected the casual racism that was prevalent in the past. The code-word for the successful breaching of the Mohne dam was “Nigger” - the name of Gibson’s black dog (which was killed by a car on the same day as the raid). When plans were revealed to remake the Dambusters’ movie back in 2005 it was hotly debated whether the “N-word” should appear in the new film (as it had in the classic 1951 version), or whether it should be changed (for example to “Trigger”). For reasons of historical accuracy I think it ought to be retained. Many of the attitudes, and much of the language, of history would now be regarded as offensive and ought not to be airbrushed out of the record retrospectively However it is a tremendous advance that such language would be utterly unacceptable today, and no right thinking person would give their dog this name. Not all “political correctness” is bad. The rejection of casually demeaning language is essential to confronting the attitudes that underlie it.

(4) Be thankful that we have the eye witness testimony to Jesus in the Gospels

After 70 years there are now just three veterans of the Dambusters raid still alive to tell the tale. The dams themselves were rapidly rebuilt, leaving little physical trace of the effect of the bombs. The events of that night are soon to pass into recorded history rather than living memory. The events of the past are only ever known to subsequent generations by means of faithful eye witness testimony, recorded and passed down. In our culture we have the benefit of technology which enables direct sound and images to be preserved in a way that was impossible in previous generations. Subsequent generations will be able to see footage of the raid and its aftermath, and watch interviews with participants and victims. In comparison with this wealth of archive material the evidence for the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus seems paltry. In reality it is of exactly the same quality in principle, and extremely comprehensive and compelling in comparison with the evidence for many historical events of the same era. The gospel accounts are the testimony of the eye witnesses to these events, written down so that they could be passed on to subsequent generations, and published within the lifetime of many who lived through them and could either verify or challenge them. Acts and the New Testament epistles are, at the very least, evidence of the beliefs and practices of the very earliest Christians, revealing their understanding of the significance of these events just a few short years after they happened. The entire Christian faith stands or falls on the veracity of the testimony of these eye witnesses to Jesus. Christianity is not a mystical religion. We do not come to know Christ by means of an unmediated encounter with him. We come to know him, and through him God the Father, through the apostolic word of testimony to him (eg John 1v14; 20v31; Luke 1v2; 1 Corinthians 15v3-8; 2 Peter 1v16). This is what we need to preach and proclaim with confidence so that others might come to know him.

(5) Be thankful for Biblical hymns and songs that help us celebrate the victory of Jesus

One of the reasons why the Dambusters raid has entered the British consciousness to such a degree is because it has been celebrated in music by the wonderfully evocative march composed by Eric Coates. It is impossible not to hear the Dambusters March and feel the sinews stiffen to some degree. Music has the ability to make truth enter our hearts and grip our emotions. In the Bible the great victories of God, which save and deliver his people from their enemies, are celebrated in song. In Exodus 15 the Israelites celebrate their deliverance from Egypt and the destruction of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea in song. We are called to sing “a new song” to celebrate our salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ (eg Revelation 5v9; 14v3). Songs are ways of remembering victories, and conveying the emotion of victory, to subsequent generations who were not there when it happened. This is why corporate singing is such a central aspect of the Christian life. We need great hymns and songs that declare the truth in ways that stirs our emotions. Theological truth sung to stirring music affects the heart in a powerful way, and is usually remembered more readily. That is why it is so important that what we sing is Biblically faithful. If it is not, then we will fill our minds with dangerous nonsense. Care in picking the songs for our services is just as important as care in preparing our sermons. Our songs should reinforce our preaching. I tend to prefer to have a significant section of singing in response to the sermon, reinforcing and responding appropriately to what God has said to us. Richard Bewes has done us a great service by setting Psalm 46 to the tune of the Dambusters march. It certainly helps me remember that “God is our strength and refuge”.

(6) Be thankful for the heroes of the faith

As a small boy it was quite natural that men like Guy Gibson were my heroes. Their exploits were celebrated, and they embodied British identity. As a child my mother took us to church because she thought that Sunday School was a good thing, even though she wasn't a believer and told us that the Bible was just a book made up by clever men. We went to a liberal URC church. I remember her outrage when she discovered that the minister had been a conscientious objector in the Second World War. As far as she was concerned that was nothing other than a sign of his cowardice and moral failure. Having become a Christian many years later one consequence was that I discovered that my heroes had changed. My models were now the faithful men and women of the Bible (Hebrews 11), great Christians from church history, and the faithful gospel ministers from whom I learned so much. I discovered that John Stott had himself been a conscientious objector during the Second World War, and rather than considering this weak or cowardly appreciated what a brave and difficult decision it must have been, especially since his father was a decorated war hero. Supremely of course our model and hero has to be the Lord Jesus Christ (eg Hebrews 12vv2-3; 1 Peter2v21-24), who willingly went to the cross for us and gave himself as a sacrifice for our sins. Whilst we can appreciate the qualities of bravery and professionalism displayed by our war heroes, as Christians our true hero must always be the one who was willing to bear the chastisement of the wrath of God on the cross on our behalf. This is foolishness to the world, but the true wisdom and the power of God. When we come to Christ we inevitably have to change our heroes. For today’s children that is more likely to mean dethroning the entertainers who are their heroes, rather than the war heroes that loomed large in my youth. Have you changed your heroes yet?

Expository Thoughts: Matthew 25v31-46 - Serve Jesus by Caring for Suffering Gospel Workers

2013-05-15T08:51:00.000+01:00

The last parable that we are going to be considering is our series is the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25v31-46. This passage is amongst the most commonly misunderstood and misapplied in the whole Bible. At first glance it appears to be teaching that the way to gain entrance into the eternal glory of the Kingdom of God is by caring for the poor and needy in general, and that when we do this we are in some way serving the Lord Jesus himself. The parable is then taken to teach salvation by works of love and charity, and that Jesus is to be discovered and met incarnated in the lives of the poor and needy.

However the context of the passage, and the wider teaching of the New Testament, indicate that this is not the meaning of this passage. Whilst Christians have a duty to care for the poor and do good (cf Galatians 6v10) this passage emphasises the special obligation of Christians to care for their needy brothers and sisters in Christ, and even more specifically their obligation to meet the needs of those who are set apart for the work of the gospel and who suffer as a result. The passage teaches that the sign of being a true disciple of Jesus, waiting faithfully for his return, is that we care for those who are ministering the gospel on his behalf and act to alleviate their suffering.

In the first place this passage is not really a parable at all. Although it uses the illustration of a separation of sheep from goats in a mixed flock, it does not follow the usual form of a parable. Instead the passage is a depiction of the final judgement which will take place at the end of the age when Jesus returns. It is the climax of the long section starting at Matthew 24v1, in which Jesus has been teaching his disciples that he will not establish his Kingdom on earth immediately, but will first return to be with his Father in heaven. During this time they will continue his work on earth, after which he will return in glory to bring this present age to an end and to establish his eternal Kingdom. The sequence of parables in Matthew 24v36-30 has taught the disciples that they must be ready to wait for a long time for his return, and that in the meantime they must serve him faithfully. Jesus has already taught them that this faithful service includes caring for each other (cf Matthew 24v45-51). Our passage is the final conclusion to this whole section, and in it Jesus contrast the glorious future that awaits those who have served him faithfully with the terrible judgement that awaits those who have not. The point of the passage is to encourage the disciples to serve Jesus faithfully, by caring for each other, until he returns, when they will enter into the eternal glory of the new age.

The passage starts with the Son of Man returning from heaven in all his glory (v31). It pictures what takes place immediately after Jesus’ Second Coming. It teaches a number of key truths about the judgement to come.

First it teaches that there will indeed be a judgement for everyone. In v32 the whole of humanity is gathered for judgement. This clearly anticipates a time after the Great Commission of Matthew 28v16-20 has been fulfilled, and the gospel has been preached to “all nations”.

Second it teaches that Jesus himself will be the judge. In v31 Jesus uses his preferred title for himself “Son of Man”, which emphasises his divine nature and universal authority (cf Daniel 7v13). In v34 he describes himself as “King.” The fact that Jesus will come as judge is taught throughout the New Testament (cf Acts 17v31). Many people wrongly assume that judgement is inconsistent with Jesus’ loving character, but the New Testament asserts that Jesus has come first to save, but will return to judge. Without judgement to eradicate sin and evil the Kingdom of God/Heaven cannot be established.

Third it teaches that there will be an eternal judgement. The judgement takes the form of a separation of all people into two groups, the sheep and the goats. These two groups are then sent by the judge to experience two utterly different eternal destinies. The sheep are invited to come and enjoy the kingdom that has been prepared for them (v34). The enjoyment of this kingdom is what is meant by “eternal life” (v46), and is a blessing that will last for ever. The kingdom that they enjoy was prepared for them by God in eternity (v34) and will therefore last into eternity. This is what was pictured in the preceding parables by the virgins entering the wedding banquet (25v10) and the servants entering their master’s joy (25v23).

The key blessing of eternal life is to be in the presence of the king himself. In contrast the goats are excluded from the eternal kingdom and are sent out of the presence of the king (“Depart from me” v41) to “eternal punishment”. This punishment equates to the destiny of the unfaithful servants in the preceding parables, where the abusive servant was cut into pieces and cast into the place where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (24v51), the five virgins were shut out (25v11-12) and the servant with the one talent was thrown “outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (25v30).

The passage thus makes clear that the punishment after the final judgement will be eternal in duration, since it will be exactly equivalent to the “eternal life” enjoyed by the sheep. It is a horrific picture of the consequences of rejecting the king. In v41 he describes them as “cursed” and they are sent into “eternal fire”. We dare not soften or explain away the words of Jesus. He consistently warned of the danger of an eternal hell of conscious suffering, torment, and regret for those who reject him as king. The same truth was taught by the apostles (cf 2 Thessalonians 1v8-9). Jesus’ teaching in this parable rules out any possibility that the eternal destiny of those who reject Jesus is mere annihilation (i.e. ceasing to exist), and gives absolutely no grounds for the idea that there is any second chance to repent and be saved after death. It is a sad irony that those who are most adamant that this passage teaches that Christians ought to be engaged in social action and care for the poor and needy in general often equally adamantly reject the idea that Jesus is a judge who will condemn people to an eternity in hell. The reality of this coming judgement should, of course, be an incentive to passionate evangelism. While we wait for the Lord Jesus to return it is still the “day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6v1-2) and therefore we must urgently urge people to come to Christ and be reconciled to God. It is not too late for goats to become sheep, and to enter the kingdom rather than eternal judgement.

Within this contextual framework of the judgement that will take place when Jesus returns, the central question that the parable asks is: “What will be the basis of the judgement?” The answer that the parable gives is not quite the direct one we might expect (i.e. trust in Jesus). The difference between the sheep and the goats is that the sheep have cared for Jesus and have met his needs, whereas the goats have ignored Jesus and have not met his needs.

In v35 the King (who is clearly Jesus) explains that the sheep have fed him when he was hungry, given him something to drink when he was thirsty (v35), shown him hospitality when he was a stranger (v35 – the idea is of being a traveller who has nowhere to stay – cf the Middle Eastern cultural obligation to show hospitality to strangers in Genesis 18v1-15 & the failure of Sodom to do so in Genesis 19v1-4) provided clothes when he was naked (v36), cared for him when he was sick (v36) and visited him in prison (v36 – in the context it is important to remember that prison was not a place of punishment but where people were held either before trial or before their punishment was carried out – to visit them was not just a form of social support as in contemporary prisons, but involved meeting their needs for food, and would have meant identifying with the prisoner and risked being seen as a supporter or participant in his crimes).

The sheep are aware that they have performed these actions of love and care, but they are unaware that they have done them personally to the king himself (v37-38 – note the repetition “when…you…”). Jesus’ answer is that they did these things for the king personally and directly when they did them for “one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine” (v40). The meaning of this phrase is the absolute key to the understanding and application of the parable. Rather than referring to the poor and needy in general (with the idea that all “the poor” are Jesus “brothers” because he himself became poor) it refers to those who are the disciples of Jesus, and perhaps especially to those who are in gospel service on his behalf and have sacrificed home, income and security to preach the gospel, for which they experience persecution and suffering. The language of “brothers” suggests fellow disciples (cf 12v48-49; 28v10), but the term “least of” makes it absolutely clear that this is who Jesus is referring to. The word literally means “little ones,” and is used throughout Matthew’s gospel to refer to those who are Jesus’ disciples (cf 10v42; 18v6; 18v10; 18v14). The New Testament more generally teaches that Jesus is so identified with his people, because he is united to them and they are his body, that what is done to his disciples is done to Jesus himself. This when the risen Lord Jesus confronts Saul on the road to Damascus he can challenge him “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9v4).

The basis of the judgement is thus not that the “sheep” perform good works of care for the poor, but that they demonstrating that they are true servants of the king by caring for the fellow citizens of the kingdom, especially as they experience suffering and deprivation as a result of the fact that they are living in a hostile world. This care for impoverished and persecuted disciples is exactly what we find the faithful women followers of Jesus doing as they meet his needs and the needs of his disciples, who have left everything to follow him (cf Luke 8v3 & Mark 10v29-31). It is also a major theme of the New Testament letters. The church in Antioch gave generously to care for their brothers and sisters in Christ in Jerusalem who were affected by a famine (Acts 11v27-30), and Paul organised a collection from the richer Gentile churches for the poorer Jewish church ( 2 Corinthians 8-9). Paul taught that apostles and itinerant gospel workers were entitled to receive financial support from their work to meet their needs (1 Corinthians 9v1-12). The church in Philippi sent Paul a financial gift when he was imprisoned in Rome to help meet his needs, and also sent their representative Epaphroditus to visit him (cf Philippians 2v25-26 & 4v12-19). The letter to the Hebrews encourages Christians to show hospitality to believes they do not know, and also to show concern for those in prison because they are being persecuted for their faith (Hebrews 13v1-3). In sharp contrast 2 John urges Christians not to show hospitality to those who come teaching a false gospel (2 John 10). Galatians commands Christians to make it a priority to do good to fellow believers (Galatians 6v10).

In contrast the “goats” have shown that they do not know the king at all, and have never really been his servants, because they have failed to alleviate his suffering by caring for his subjects. They have done nothing to meet the needs of the suffering disciples of Jesus (v45), and have not fed, watered, sheltered, clothed, cared or visited them. The goats represent both those who are actively hostile towards Jesus and his disciples, persecuting them and causing the very needs that are mentioned, and those who are indifferent to their suffering and who do nothing for them. The goats may even claim to be faithful servants of the king, but their failure shows that they are not. Like the abusive servant in 24v51 they are “hypocrites” who masquerade as faithful servants when they are not.

The point of the parable is thus to teach us that the mark of being a true disciple who trusts Jesus as Lord, and who will be welcomed into the Kingdom at the judgement, is caring for the needs of fellow disciples, especially those who are suffering through persecution or in need because of the sacrifices they have made to serve in gospel ministry. This ought to be our priority, and if it is not it suggests that we do not know the King at all.

The parable does not therefore teach salvation by works. Implicit in the parable is the grace that has been shown to the sheep. Jesus’ whole ministry has been to call sinners to repentance and faith and to follow him, in other words to cease being rebels against God and to become “little ones.” Jesus is about to go to the cross, where he will be rejected, persecuted and condemned by the whole of humanity, who treat him directly and personally just like the goats. However through his willingness to bear this rejection and suffering he is able to forgive even those who have put him to death. The sign that they have truly received his forgiveness and become sheep rather than goats, is that they have a deep love for their fellow sheep, and are willing to care for their needs, knowing that as they do so it is as if they are serving the Lord Jesus himself. This is what faithful discipleship will look like as we are waiting for Jesus to return, judge and establish his kingdom. Those who refuse to identify with Jesus’ suffering disciples, or who use their wealth to indulge their own pleasures whilst neglecting their brothers’ suffering, thereby show that they are really “goats,” and that their faith is a false profession.

Bible by the Beach: A Glorious Weekend in Eastbourne Looking Forward to Christ's Return

2013-05-13T22:12:00.002+01:00

Last weekend I had the great privilege of speaking at Bible by the Beach. This conference (really a mini-convention) is held in Eastbourne, and was originally the vision of Bishop Wallace Benn. It has been running for 5 years, and this was the first time that I had been.

The event is held over the May bank holiday weekend, starting on the Friday evening and ending on the Sunday afternoon. There is a packed programme, including 3 main Bible-Readings, 4 celebrations, a wide range of seminar options, and a full programme for youth and children. It is held in the Congress Theatre and Winter Gardens, and there is an exhibition area and cafe at which a good number of mission organisations were represented. The event was attended by some 800+ people.

I had always assumed that the event was just for the local churches, and they were certainly well represented. I hadn't fully appreciated, though, that the vision is to serve Bible-centred churches in the South East more widely. Some individuals and churches had come from much further afield than that. We were delighted to catch up with friends from West Bromwich, and to make new friends from Northamptonshire and the Bedford area. The timing of the event, over a long weekend, and the relatively low cost, make it attractive to church groups who might not be able to afford a longer event.

(1) Great Gospel Unity

One of the blessings of events like Bible by the Beach is that they embody gospel unity between different church streams that hold the same fundamental gospel convictions in common. The preponderance of delegates appeared to come from Anglican churches, but there has been a real desire to work together with the strong local New Frontiers churches. There were a reasonable number of FIEC churches represented. I met people from Christchurch Haywards Heath; Hurstpierpoint EC; Cowplain EC; Emmanuel Church Canterbury; Grace Community Church Bedford; Market Overton EC; Selhurst EC; Causeway Free Church (Potters Bar) - and we were representing Christchurch Market Harborough. Nick McQuaker, from Christchurch Haywards Heath, has just become a trustee of the event, and it could certainly be a blessing to FIEC churches more widely in the South East. There are plenty of accommodation options available, including hotels, caravans and camping, to suit all budgets, and which would work for either individuals or church groups.

(2) Great Bible Ministry

The theme this year was “Living and Longing” and all main teaching was all focused on the Second Coming. The Bible teaching was excellent, as you might expect. The main Bible-Readings were given by Hugh Palmer from 2 Peter. I was struck by three things he brought out in particular: (1) We don’t need to hear something new but to remember the truths that the apostles taught – there is a real danger of a craving for novelty; (2) The church will have to face the problem of false teachers in every generation – we need to be on our guard because we never achieve utopian perfection this side of the return of Jesus; (3) We ought to live to “make God’s day” on the “last day” – we need to fear God and live holy lives.

Unfortunately I missed Richard Coekin at the first evening celebration because we were delayed by an accident and traffic on the M25. Adrian Holloway from Christchurch London gave an excellent evangelistic talk on Sunday evening, explaining from Acts 17 that we need to repent of our idolatry, and powerfully illustrating how Jesus died in our place to take the punishment for sin we deserve, so that we can be clothed in the perfect righteousness of Christ, with the help of a few singed t-shirts. He told plenty of highly engaging stories, often self-deprecatingly at his own expense, and called us to repent and believe in Christ. Adrian has been set apart by his church to serve the gospel more widely and is a regular speaker at university missions. He very kindly told me that he would be delighted to serve churches during the A Passion for Life Mission in 2014. You can read Adrian’s own blog on the event here. On the final afternoon Peter Maiden, the International Director of OM, brought an inspiring and challenging message from 2 Corinthians 5-6, urging us to make the most of the opportunity of the “day of salvation” to urge people to be reconciled to God through Christ. No one could have left these bible Readings and celebrations anything other than refreshed and reminded of the challenge to live wholeheartedly for Christ as we wait for his return. I was delighted to preach on Saturday night from Matthew 24v29-51 on the return of Christ to judge and remake the cosmos, and how we should live as a result.

A wide range of seminars were offered during the event, addressing theological, practical, cultural, and ministry issues relevant to individuals and churches:

Dave Fenton – Small Group Working
Emma & Glenn Scrivener – A New Name: Our True Identity in Christ
Kate Benjamin – Imagine: Whole-Life Discipleship
Mike Ovey – New Heaven, New Earth
Richard Coekin – The Shape of Mission in the 21^st Century
Rory Bell – Teaching to Connect with Children
Peter Maiden - World Mission: God so Loved the World
Hugh Palmer – Issues of Leadership
Andrew Wilson – This Light Momentary Affliction: Persecution & Our Eternal Hope
Ruth Valerio: Biblical Approach to Environmental Issues
Wallace Benn: Heaven and Hell

I also gave two seminars titled “The State We’re In: Confronting the Challenge of Contemporary Britain.”

(3) Great Encouragement

A particular highlight of the event and interview with Dr Helen Roseveare. It was humbling to hear her testimony to the goodness of God despite severe suffering and persecution. She was asked what she would say to someone who was not yet a Christian and answered “You don’t know what your missing.” Her evident and infectious love for Christ, and closeness to him, was moving, challenging and encouraging. You can buy CD, DVDs or downloads of the talks, seminars and interviews from the event media shop here.

The worship in the main celebration was led superbly, as ever, by Stuart Townend. We learnt a number of new songs, including "Never Once” by Matt Redman, which reminds us that God has been with us at all times, whether our “mountain top” experiences or our spiritual battles, and will continue to be with us because he is faithful.

On Sunday morning the guests were encouraged to go to one of the local churches in Eastbourne, where speakers from the event are preaching. I was delighted to preach at the two morning services at Victoria Baptist Church, which is a thriving Baptist Union church with a congregation of 350 or so.

Given the location it is not surprising that a more senior age group was well represented at the event. I found it a wonderful blessing to be amongst older saints who are able to testify to the grace and goodness of the Lord over many years, and it is encouragement and spur to me to keep running the race. An elderly man I met at Victoria Baptist Church shared how he had been converted by a Billy Graham sermon he heard in 1954 on Radio Luxembourg on Matthew 25v30: “And throw that unprofitable servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” He had gone on to serve as a missionary in Brazil and a pastor in England. We sat next to two sisters when we were having a coffee between conference sessions, who had been born in Birmingham but brought up in Cornwall by their grandparents after their mother had died. They had both been converted through CSSM, married and gone out to serve as missionaries in Africa and the Philippines. We live in a culture that is obsessed with the cult of youth, whereas as Christians we need to learn from the wisdom and testimony of those who have so much more experience of knowing and serving the Lord.

(4) Great for the Family

My children had a great time in their groups, with fun activities and faithful biblical teaching from 2 Peter. My oldest daughter came home saying that it had been the “best holiday we have ever had.” I suspect this is because she made a couple of good friends in her group. The value of events like Bible by the Beach is often that our children meet other kids from Christian families, which helps them feel less isolated and odd when they return to school, where there are so few other Christians. There was an evangelistic meeting (“Curious?”) for the older children and youth on Saturday night, which my daughter really enjoyed.

(5) Great Value

The event is very competitively priced. An adult ticket costs £90, a school age child £12, and pre-school child £6. Adult prices are discounted to £70 if you book early, or as low as £65 if you book as a group of 10 or more. The cost is heavily subsidised by generous giving, as the real cost of holding the event is £50 more per person. The prices make it a great value for a family or church group.

It was a joy to be involved in the event, and we had a wonderful time as a family. I hope that many more people will be encouraged to come next year. The theme for 2014 (2nd-4th May) will be “True Humanity: Made in God’s Image & Remade in the Likeness of Christ”, and the main speaker is Christopher Ash..

Interfaith Dialogue on Death & Dying: Rejocie in the Glory of the Gospel and Don't Think that All Religions Are the Same

2013-05-10T09:59:00.002+01:00

A couple of weeks ago I was delighted to be invited to present a Christian perspective on death and dying at an academic workshop hosted by the School of Law at the University of Leicester. I was invited to participate by a former colleague of mine from the University of Birmingham. The title of the workshop was “Issues of Faith and Belief at the End of Life” and the participants were largely legal academics working in the fields of Medical Law, Medical Ethics and Human Rights. They had invited representatives of a number of different faith communities to present their perspective on issues around the end of life, and so I was joined by a Sikh Theologian, a Muslim Hospital Chaplin and a Jewish Legal Academic. Unfortunately I had missed the Buddhist presentation, which had been given the day before. It was clear that the members of the workshop had a genuine desire to understand the views and concerns of the different religions represented, and we were heard with respect and interest, and good questions were asked afterwards.

In order to prepare I had read John Wyatt’s book Matters of Life & Death. I had never read it before, but I found it absolutely excellent. John Wyatt, who is Professor of Ethics and Perinatology at University College Hospital London, writes for ordinary Christians with the benefit of great professional expertise, personal experience and theological acumen. Reading his book brought home to me the complexity of issues that are routinely oversimplified by the mainstream media, the difficult challenges facing Christian doctors and health care workers on a daily basis, and the extent to which our society has abandoned the essentially Christian worldview that has shaped our culture and moral values. I am not given to crying, but I found myself weeping at one or two points as I read while flying to Glasgow. I would recommend that all Christians read it, so they are equipped and prepared to engage with these issues, especially given the growing clamour and campaign for the introduction of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia in our country.

Over the years I have rarely been involved in any kind of interfaith dialogue, but what struck me most from the experience was how utterly different the Christian gospel is from any of the other major world religions that were represented. It was fascinating that the four speakers were united in their commitment to the sanctity and uniqueness of human life, and in their rejection of assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia. They were all concerned to ensure that the dignity of patients was respected, that their care was holistic and not just medical, and that they be given the opportunity to have a “good death” according to their beliefs. Superficially it might have appeared that all the religions represented essentially believe the same thing, and in terms of policy outcomes in this specific area they would differ little. This is why it is often possible for those of different faiths to work together as co-belligerents in the public square on moral issues.

However the naïve assumption that all religions are the same fails to pay sufficient attention to their theological beliefs and their understandings of salvation, which are utterly different. Their common convictions about the unique value of human life conceal deep differences in their understanding of death, what lies beyond it, and the means of achieving salvation. As I listened to what my co-contributors had to say it was very evident that their respective religions at heart teach that salvation is achieved by works, rituals and legal observance. Without any wilful intent to misrepresent them, this is what the contributors said:

Sikhism: The lady presenting the Sikh perspective explained that Sikhs believe that life is a gift from God and therefore sacred. Pain and suffering are God’s will and are the result of an individual’s past actions in a previous life. People are therefore called to bear their suffering with fortitude through prayer. Suffering has the positive effect of bringing people closer to God, with the result that “suffering is medicine and pleasure is disease”. The ultimate aim is to gain union with God and liberation from the cycle of reincarnation and karma. In order to attain this liberation it is necessary to strive to be freed from reincarnation, which is difficult to achieve, by living a good life according to Sikh teachings. A person will have gone through 8.4 million life stages before they reach the human life stage, which is the highest form and the only one from which union with God can be achieved, and is hence the only chance to escape the cycle. The soul of a person who fails to achieve liberation may be reborn a human or animal. Since the timing of death is God’s prerogative, a person who chooses to end their life through assisted suicide of voluntary euthanasia will experience hardship in their next life. Such action will not just affect the karma of the person who dies, but also that of their carers.

Islam: The Muslim Hospital Chaplin explained that essence of Islam is to believe the fundamental doctrines (Allah is the only God; Mohammed is His Prophet; the Koran is his Holy Book; to believe in the angels, judgement and life after death) and to perform the duties of daily prayer, fasting, charity and pilgrimage. His major concern was therefore to ensure that Muslims who were dying in hospital were able to continue to perform their duties and to make their final confession of faith reaffirming their belief as a Muslim. This includes the provision of Halal food, prayer rooms and ritual washing facilities. In the life after death we get what we deserve because of what we had done in this life. It would be best to die on pilgrimage, or on a special day such as a Friday. Illness is a purification for sins and a preparation for repentance. Patients’ beds ought to be angled so that the head of the patient is facing in the direction of Mecca and the Holy Ka’ba (which in the UK is conveniently also the direction of all Sky satellite dishes). The body of a deceased Muslim ought to be released quickly so that relatives can fulfil their obligations in the Koran to organise the funeral. There are 24-hour Muslim funeral directors available to make this possible.

Judaism: The Jewish contributor was a legal academic rather than a rabbi, and concentrated on the way that the Israeli legal system had sought to reflect orthodox Jewish teaching in legislation regulating the treatment of dying patients. The Jewish understanding of the unique value of human life created in the image of God, and of the sovereignty of God over the time of death, is identical to the Christian view (which is not surprising since Christianity regards itself as the fulfilment of Judaism and the Old Testament promises). There was no mention of life after death or salvation, but rather the focus was on how to obey the commands and duties of the OT Law, and the requirements of the Halakha, the Jewish common law. He said that Jewish Law has no rights but only duties. Whilst the sanctity of life is to be observed, this does not mean that there is always a duty to prolong life. The autonomy of the patient is not a main principle, as we do not have ownership over our bodies, but a patient should be asked if they want to receive life-prolonging treatment, and their decision must be respected. There is a duty to alleviate pain and suffering and a duty to rescue your neighbour and heal the sick. The result is that Israeli law refuses to allow doctors to withdraw treatment that meets basic needs (such as nutrition, hydration, and oxygen) and to continue life-sustaining treatment (such as insulin for diabetes). However there is not a duty to provide treatment for a main disease which may prove fatal (for example cancer) if the patient chooses to refuse treatment. A particular issue has arisen in relation to the use of ventilators. Under the majority view, it is forbidden to switch off a patient’s ventilator, because it is regarded as essential for living and is attached to the body. However a ventilator has recently been designed which has an automatic timed cut-out, so that doctors can periodically ask the patient if they wish to continue to have their life sustained. If they do the doctor will restart the ventilator, but if they do not they will be permitted to die. The result is that the law is not broken because the doctor has not acted to switch the ventilator off. I was reminded of the Sabbath lifts in the hotel I once stayed in on business in Tel Aviv, which stop at every floor so that guests do not have to press the button.

As I said, in the light of these presentations I was reminded afresh just how different the gospel of Jesus Christ is. In all these other religions salvation, whatever that might mean, appears to be achieved by good works, the performance of external religious rituals and the observance (even somewhat casuistically) of divine law. In contrast the gospel is the good news of what Jesus has done for us. We cannot be saved by living a good life, since our life can never be good enough and will always fall short of God’s perfect Holy standards. We can never attain to union with God by our own efforts, and our life will always deserve an eternal judgement of separation from him in Hell. We can only be saved by trusting Jesus, God's Son, who lived a perfect life of total obedience and submission to his Heavenly Father, and who died on the cross as our substitute and representative to bear the judgement that we deserve.

These other religions seem unable to offer any hope of a death-bed conversion that will lead to eternal salvation. The wicked man or women has no chance to escape karma and the cycle of reincarnation if they only come to their senses shortly before death, nor would they be able to fulfil the duties and obligations of Islam. Only Christianity can offer the sure and certain hope of eternal glory to those who trust in Jesus, because it depends solely on what he has done for them, which has been demonstrated to be acceptable to God through his resurrection and ascension.

Only Christianity, therefore, can offer the possibility of salvation through death-bed conversion. The thief on the cross is the paradigm here. In the very last hours of his life, as he was being justly executed for his crimes as a rebel and a terrorist, he acknowledged his guilt, recognised Jesus as King, repented of how he had insulted him, asked to be accepted, and testified about him to others. Jesus assured him that because of his last-moment faith “Truly, I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23v43). Although such deathbed conversion might be rare, and sometimes might be viewed with scepticism, in Christianity it is at least a very real possibility. The elderly father of a member of my local church died recently, and he had wonderfully come to real faith in his last days through the witness of his sons. The moment a person turns to Christ in faith the perfect righteousness of Christ is credited them, and in God's eyes they are treated as having lived his sinless life. This is both the glory, and in the eyes of the world the scandal, of the gospel. The death of a Christian does not need to be accompanied by rituals to gain entrance into the presence of God, though these may bring comfort to the dying. What matters is simple faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

It was enjoyable to be back in an academic environment for a short while - thought I don’t have any desire to go back to my former career. It was a great opportunity to be able to share the Bible’s understanding of the uniqueness of man created in the image of God, death as the judgement for sin, the cross as the means of forgiveness and salvation, and the resurrection as the hope of the believer. I was encouraged that one participant left saying that she wanted to go back and read the Bible again. It was good to be able to engage in respectful dialogue with those of other faiths, so as to be able to understand them better. However whilst we were all agreed that society should not permit assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, it was very evident to those with ears to hear that all religions are not the same, and that they cannot all lead to God and salvation. To lump all religions together is both intellectually flawed and ultimately disrespectful of their respective truth-claims.

I found it wonderfully encouraging to be reminded of just how good the gospel is when it is seen in such sharp contrast with the alternatives of various systems of works-salvation. As Christians we ought not to be afraid of dialogue with other religions. As we understand them, and see the bondage to rules and rituals they demand, and their inability to bring confident hope and assurance of eternal life with God, we rejoice in the greater glory of the gospel. Not to forget, of course, the fact that the gospel is genuinely true, founded on the historical events of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, not mere metaphysical speculation nor prophetic claims.

Expository Thoughts: Matthew 25v14-30 - Is Jesus Really the Belligerent Boss of the Universe?

2013-05-08T10:42:00.000+01:00

The new series of The Apprentice has just started, with Lord Alan Sugar reprising his routine as “Britain’s most belligerent boss,” firing each week the candidate who fails to deliver him the profit he expects. It’s just reality TV for the middle-classes, but it does prompt the question “Is Jesus the belligerent boss of the universe?” who will fire us from his kingdom if we fail to come up to scratch and do enough for him? Many Christians reading the Parable of the Talents have a sneaking suspicion that he might be. After all, does he not confirm that he is indeed a “hard man”:

“So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed?” (v28)

As we read the parable it seems that many Christians’ natural sympathies lie with the third servant who merely kept his talent safe. We feel that he was harshly treated, unjustly labelled as “lazy”, “wicked” and “worthless”, and wrongly condemned. Where is grace? Is salvation by works after all? We fear that God might treat us in the same way when we stand before him in judgement and our work on his behalf is held up to scrutiny. Might we be thrown out into eternal darkness because we have failed to turn a profit for our master? However when we read the parable carefully we find that exactly the opposite is true. The master is in fact a loving, kind, generous and caring master, who longs to commend, reward and welcome his servants. The third servant shows by his actions and excuses that he does not really know the master at all.

Together with the parable of the Ten Virgins we studied last week, the Parable of the Talents is one of the sequence of parables Jesus told his disciples to teach them what they should do during the period between his ascension and return in glory. These parables teach two key truths: (1) that the disciples are to serve faithfully, continuing Jesus ministry and mission as his stewards and representatives in his absence; (2) that there may be a long delay before he returns, so they need to be ready to watch and wait for his coming for a long time.

The parable of the Ten Virgins emphasised the need to be ready for a long wait. This parable focuses on the need to serve faithfully during this time, and builds on the image of the faithful servant/steward in Matthew 24v45-51. These parables do not spell out exactly what the disciples are called to do during Jesus’ absence, but it clear from the Great Commission in Matthew 28v16-20 that they are to “make disciples” until the end of the age. All the parables have elements in common. In each case there is the promise of reward for those who are faithful. In each case there is also a warning of eternal judgement for those who show that they were never true servants in the first place, either because they have not persevered until the end, or because they have not served faithfully as required. The Parable of the Talents has often been misunderstood because of a failure to understand the meaning and significance of a “talent” and because of what, on a superficial reading, it seems to teach about the character of Jesus.

It is important to understand that a “talent” is not an ability or skill. We use the word this way, but the parable is not about making the most of our natural aptitudes. A talent was a sum of money, roughly equivalent in today’s terms to £600,000. Thus even the servant who was entrusted with just 1 talent was given a considerable sum, and the servant with 5 talents was give responsibility for £3.3m of his masters' money.

The parable tells the story of a master who entrusts his servants with his wealth while he is away (v14), and he expects them to put his money to use, investing it in profitable business, so that he will be even wealthier when he returns. The parable is a picture of the Kingdom of Heaven/God (note the “again” in v14 – looking back to 25v1). Jesus is pictured as entrusting the wealth of his kingdom to his disciples as stewards who are to invest it on his behalf. The talents represent the gifts of the Spirit that Jesus has given to his disciples to do the work of the kingdom (cf 1 Corinthians 12-14; 1 Peter 4; Romans 12), the message of the gospel that has been entrusted to them and the gospel opportunities that present themselves. The gifts were given by Jesus as a result of his death, resurrection and ascension (cf Ephesians 4v7-13) and Paul regularly uses the language of “stewardship” to describe his ministry and responsibility to preach the gospel (eg Colossians 1v24-27). The parable thus pictures our individual and corporate responsibility to use the gospel gifts, preach the gospel message and make the most of the gospel opportunities we have been given to invest and grow the kingdom on Jesus’ behalf.

The first two servants exercise their responsibility faithfully. They use the wealth that has been entrusted to them to increase the wealth of the master. They are enthusiastic servants who “at once” (v16) put the money to work. Note that as “stewards” they are working on behalf of the master, to increase his wealth, rather than for their own personal gain.The implication is that they used the money to invest in business ventures that would generate a return. Each managed to double the master’s initial sum, though the extent of the increase achieved is not the main point of the parable. The parable shows that we are not to wait for the return of Jesus passively, but we are to work on his behalf. Both of these servants are commended and rewarded when the master returns, He is pleased with them and what they have done on his behalf. They both receive identical praise (“Well done good and faithful servant!” – v21 & v23) and are both entrusted with even greater responsibility. They are both invited to share their master’s "happiness". The language is literally that they are invited to share their master’s “joy,” which is an expression that can mean to share their master's “banquet”. This would fit with the context, where the Kingdom of God is described as a great wedding banquet (cf 25v1-13). These disciples are clearly the model we are to follow.

However the focus of the remainder of the parable is on the third servant who was given a single talent. Unlike the other two servants he failed to put his master’s money to work, but merely hid it to keep it safe. The reason he did nothing was because of his fear. When called to account to makes excuses and blames the master for his failure (rather like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden – Genesis 3v11-13) He thought that the master was a harsh and demanding master who would judge him if he took a risk which failed. However the whole point is that the master is not a harsh and demanding master. This servant shows that he does not really know the master at all. The master has shown himself to be loving, kind and generous. This is seen in the way that he commends and rewards the first two servants. He has not required them to produce a return that would require “harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed.” The care of the master is also seen in the fact that he entrusted the servants with talents “each according to his ability” (v15). That hardly fits with the picture painted by the third servant of his master. The master only entrusted him with one talent because he knew that his ability would only enable him to manage one talent. The master would also have been satisfied with even the most modest return that could have been obtained by putting the money on deposit with the bank (v27).

The point of the third servant is to teach us that it is not enough simply to keep the gospel safe, and to ensure that it is not corrupted by false teaching or distortion It is meant to be put to work, as we use our gifts and take our opportunities. God looks for us to step out in faith and to take risks to grow his kingdom.

The parable ends with the third servant being thrown into the judgement of Hell (this is what is pictured by the “outside”, “darkness,” “weeping” and “gnashing of teeth” – pain, separation, regret, hopelessness). He is castigated as a “worthless” servant. He has shown that he is really no servant at all. He does not really know the master, distorts and misunderstands his character, and insults and dishonours him by failing to serve him faithfully.

The parable thus illustrates that those who are faithful in gospel service prove that they are true servants, and they will be rewarded by their master, whereas those who prove unfaithful show that they were never truly servants at all, and even what they have enjoyed of knowledge of the gospel will be taken from them. The purpose of the parable is not to make us feel guilty, or to fear God as a harsh and demanding master who might cast us into Hell if our performance is not up to scratch, but rather to warn us not to do nothing. We need to put to use the gifts that we have been given and take the opportunities that we are granted. Only as we do this will the kingdom grow. Whilst we need to be willing to take risks and work hard on Jesus’ behalf, he will not ask us to do more than we are capable of, and he will be pleased if we have tried to do something (cf v27).

FIEC News: Communications, Practical Services & Fund Raising - An Encouraging Day in the Life of the National Director

2013-05-07T19:56:00.001+01:00

The past week has been incredibly busy (hence the lack of new posts) but also tremendously encouraging. Last Sunday I was preaching at Charlotte Chapel in Edinburgh from Acts 11v19-30 about the vital importance of interconnection between churches to the spread of the gospel. I am delighted that the elders there are recommending that the church affiliate to FIEC, which they will put to the members meeting in June. On Monday and Tuesday we hosted a 24 hour consultation with 44 younger ministers to help the Directors understand how we can best serve them and the gospel over the coming 10-20 years. I have already blogged my reflections on this very important time together over on the FIEC web site. You can read my post here.

On Wednesday I had a succession of FIEC meetings, which started at 9am and finished when I got home at midnight. It was a long but profitable day, and it brought home to me just how much progress we have made over the last two years, and also how much we hope to be able to do in the next twelve months.

(1) Media & Communications

Wednesday started with a review meeting with my Media & Communications team. It seems almost incredible that two years ago we didn’t employ a dedicated communications team at FIEC. However, since they joined FIEC, Sarah Simpkin (Communications Officer) and Jonathan Bennett (Digital Strategist) have begun to revolutionise our communications with our churches and the wider world, and to develop a strategy for on-going development and improvement

Just over a year ago we launched our new website, which hosts an increasing range of stimulating articles, news and reports, and offers a much improved “find a church” facility. FIEC is now on Facebook and Twitter ,and my personal blog has attracted just over 372,000 page views since I started it 15 months ago. Together magazine has been refreshed and restyled, showcasing some of the exciting and innovative ministry within the FIEC family, and explaining something of the work of FIEC for the benefit of congregation members. The latest edition has just been printed and will be sent to churches soon, so please make sure that you get a copy. I have contributed a short article explaining what “Independency” is all about, and dispelling some common misconceptions.

We talked about our next steps, and we are planning to increase the range of resources available on the web site and to introduce some short (2 minute) videos from our churches around the country. We hope that churches might use these to encourage their congregations about the work of the Fellowship and as a basis for prayer. We aim to introduce a specific site that will provide news of FIEC church plants and their progress. We are investing in a new database that will enable churches to provide us with much more information and update their own details, so that we can be more responsive to their needs. The new database will also enable us to provide an improved service to churches looking for pastors and potential pastors seeking a church.

Finally we are very conscious of the need for conservative evangelical Christians to be represented well in the national and local media. All too often we are misrepresented by those who are not reflective of mainstream evangelical opinion. A couple of weeks ago Sarah organised some excellent media training for the Directors, which was provided by Andrew Graystone of The Church and Media Network. We discovered how much hard work, message clarity and unflappability are essential for media engagement. We hope to find more ways in which we can become a voice for our churches and also for biblical evangelicalism more widely.

(2) FIEC Practical Services

My media team meeting was followed by a Board Meeting of FIEC Ltd, which operates under the name of FIEC Practical Services. This is the arm of FIEC that provides advice and trust-holding services to churches, and is a crucial part of the way in which we serve and support independent churches. When I first became National Director FIEC Practical Services was facing considerable difficulties. Long serving staff were about to retire, and there was a backlog of work that had accumulated because the needs of churches had far outstretched our ability to deliver. Whilst it had been possible to provide a service for free, or at least very little cost, funded by interest income on investments, this was no longer sustainable, both because of the economic crisis and the need to employ more staff to meet the workload. Following a process of strategic planning I became the Chair of the Board to ensure that there was co-ordination and cooperation between FIEC and FIEC Ltd.

Over the last two years an expert team of highly qualified staff have been recruited, and under the leadership of Gemma Adam (Director of Practical Services) we are able to offer a highly professional service to our churches. Gemma was able to report to the Board on the progress that has been made. There have been many obstacles to overcome, but the last few months have seen very encouraging levels of work accomplished for our churches. We have had to introduce a fair charging structure for the work that we do, which covers our costs, but we ensure that the costs we charge are far lower than churches would have to pay to even the cheapest solicitor, in many cases less than 40% of the cost. Our charging structure means that we are also able to work pro bono for churches that genuinely cannot afford to pay, and all FIEC churches are able to receive 30 minutes free advice from the team. We aim to provide accurate and expert advice on church constitutions, trust matters, charity regulation, tenancies of church premises and the employment of church workers. We have a number of model documents available for churches to purchase, and we hope to be able to produce a pack to help church planters start a church in due course. We trust that in God’s good providence we might be able to offer even more services in the future, considerably more cheaply than they can be obtained elsewhere.

We are currently seeking to recruit two new staff to join the Practical Services team. We need to recruit a new Secretary, preferable with some previous experience in a legal environment. We also hope to recruit an Intern, a role which might suit a law graduate between university and the LPC, or someone between the LPC and starting a training contract.If you know anyone who might be interested in these roles please do point them in our direction (job details can be found by following the highlighted links)

(3) Fund Raising for Training and Planting

Finally in the evening I attended a meeting and dinner with a group of our “Gospel Entrepreneurs” to seek to raise funds to invest in the FIEC Training Fund and in church planting. Trevor Archer and I have gathered a group of businessmen and entrepreneurs from a Free Church background, to ask them to invest in the future of independent ministry in our nation so that we might see the gospel advance. Last year we received around £475,000, which we have been able to invest in training men for ministry and helping churches to employ additional gospel workers. This will make an immense contribution to ensuring that gifted and able men enter independent church ministry, which we believe should be the best possible place from which to minister the gospel in contemporary Britain.

In order to administer the training fund we have established a grant-awarding team, and they have identified at least 10 churches and 12 individuals to support during 2013-14. This includes a number of Assistant Pastor posts, as well as Women’s Worker posts in two churches. Without financial support these appointments may not be possible. We calculate that we need to raise at least £180,000 to be able to do this, and that in the longer term we need at least £250,000 per year donated to the Training Fund to ensure that our support can be sustainable and on-going.

Since last year Andy Paterson has joined the FIEC Directors’ team and we have been able to make progress in church planting, so we were also seeking to raise support for two strategic plants that will be launching in 2013-14: Trinity Church Oxford and City Church Manchester. Peter Comont and Ralph Cunnington, who will be leading these churches, made compelling presentations of their vision, the gospel need in these vital cities, and the inevitable financial needs of such major projects. Together they are looking to raise £304,000 over the next 5 years, as well as seeking investors who might provide equity-share help to purchase suitable housing in Oxford and central Manchester for their workers. Both of these planting projects have been initiated by local FIEC churches or their leaders, and it is inevitable that plants in student centres will come on stream before plants in more difficult areas and gospel “black-holes”. In the long run we aim to have a multifaceted approach to church planting, and in subsequent years want to be supporting plants in a diverse range of communities, especially in places where there is currently no gospel witness and no nearby church from which a plant might take place. However we must start by supporting the exciting projects that are already under-way, and which will contribute massively to the future of independency at a national level as they train and disciple many leaders and church members of the future during their university days.

We have yet to hear how this group of potential donors have responded to the needs presented, but we pray that God might move them to great generosity. I started the Practical Services Board meeting with a short devotional from Luke 16v1-9: The Parable of the Shrewd Manager. The key point of this often misunderstood parable is that we are called to be shrewd by using the wealth with which we have been entrusted in this life to invest in the evangelistic work of building the kingdom. Ultimately nothing of this world will carry over into the new creation other than the people who have been saved by gospel ministry, and we ought therefore to make the most of the limited opportunity we have to use our wasting assets, which will not endure, to gain friends who will be with us in eternity.

However it is unrealistic to expect that the needs of the gospel can be met by a small group of donors, no matter how broad their shoulders may be. If we want to see a future in which the Kingdom of God advances, through the biblical means of thriving independent churches that have a gospel vision, then we can all make a contribution that will make a real difference. An army of small donors, each giving a little, can together achieve a great deal for the gospel. FIEC churches have a total membership in excess of 40,000 people. If just 1000 of those members (i.e. 2.5%) chose to become Personal Partners, donating just £7.50 a month, that would enable us to raise £100,000 a year to invest in training and planting.

A few weeks ago I was preaching at an FIEC church and had left some of our literature out on a table, including our Personal Partner leaflets. In the course of the service I didn't mention the scheme at all, but I was stunned, humbled and delighted when a few days later one of the members of the church had returned the form asking to set up a donation by standing order of £50 per month. He had evidently been so struck by our renewed vision that he felt that investing in the FIEC was a good way to help bring the gospel to our needy nation. Not everyone could afford as much, but surely there are many more who might be able to give something. Is God perhaps laying it on your heart to help us train and equip gospel workers for ministry, and to plant new gospel churches that will reach people for Christ and ensure that there are thriving independent churches in the next generatio?. Could you prayerfully consider whether you might be able to give? If you would like to do so you can find out more information here.

At the end of Wednesday I was exhausted but rejoicing. We have a great God who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine. We have come a long way over the last two years, but have much further that we need to go. God has been incredibly faithful to us and his grace will be sufficient for all that lies ahead.

Expository Thoughts: Matthew 25v1-13 - Be Ready to Serve for the Long Haul

2013-04-30T16:14:00.001+01:00

Last weekend Mo Farah took part in the London Marathon. However he dropped out at around the half-way mark. This was not because he suffered some kind of accident or illness. He had only ever intended to run the first 13 miles of the race. As a 5000 and 10000 metre runner he had not trained and prepared to run the full distance of the marathon. Paula Radcliffe, the women’s marathon world record holder, was somewhat critical of his decision to enter the race when he had no intention of finishing.

Mo Farah’s participation in the London Marathon is surely a warning to us as Christians. The Christian life of discipleship and service is pictured a race, but it is a race that we must finish, no matter how long and hard it may be (cf 2 Timothy 4v7; 1 Corinthians 9v24-27; Hebrews 12v1; Galatians 2v2; 5v7; . We are therefore to set out prepared to run the whole distance. You cannot embark on the Christian life intending only to make it half-way. Nor must we naively underestimate the length of the race that we may have to run, nor the obstacles that we might face. Christians must be ready to keep going for the long haul, and this is the point of this parable. As individuals we must be ready to serve Christ faithfully as his disciples until he comes again or until we die and go to be with him. As the corporate church we must keep serving Christ, preaching the gospel and making disciples, until he returns to judge and establish his eternal kingdom.

This parable comes in the middle of a block of parables (24v36-25v46) in which Jesus is teaching his disciples how they should serve him during the period between his ascension and return to his Father, and his second coming to establish and consummate his kingdom. They follow hot on the heels of Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse in Matthew 24v1-35. Together they subvert the common Jewish expectation that the Messiah would come once and establish his Kingdom. Instead Jesus explains that he has come first to go to the cross to bear the punishment for sin in place for his people, after which he will be resurrected and return to his Father in heaven and leave his disciples to continue his ministry of proclaiming the good news of the coming Kingdom and the need to repent and believe for the forgiveness of sins. He will then come again to bring the final judgement, eliminate all his enemies, and establish the Kingdom of God for ever.

These parables have a number of key themes in common. They stress that Jesus’ disciples will not know the time when Jesus will return. They teach that they are to serve him faithfully as they wait. The parables themselves do not spell out what this faithful service might involve, but this is made clear in the Great Commission Jesus gives his disciples in Matthew 28v16-20. They contrast those who are wise because they serve Jesus (the master/Lord/bridegroom) faithfully and those who are foolish because they do not. They promise that those who are wise and serve faithfully will be rewarded by Jesus when he returns, and enter into the joy of his banquet and celebrate in his presence. They warn that those who are foolish will be cast into justly deserved eternal judgement because they have demonstrated that they were never really his servants in the first place. The parables are applicable to all Christians, to the church as a collective whole, but especially to gospel ministers and workers who have been given authority as stewards over the church, which is the household of God.

The other key element that the parables stress is that Jesus may not return for a long time (cf 24v38; 25v3; 25v10). This is the main point of the parable we are studying this week. Jesus told his disciples the parable of the Ten Virgins to teach them that they needed to be prepared from the very start for the fact that he may not return for a long time. It is a reminder that we have to be ready to persevere to the end, not matter how long that may be.

The parable uses the picture of a Middle Eastern wedding, where the bridegroom comes at night to collect his bride and celebrate the wedding banquet. The Kingdom of God (i.e. the new creation) is often pictured as a great wedding banquet, celebrating the marriage of Jesus to his bride, the church (eg Matthew 22v1-14). However the image is used in a slightly different way here. Jesus is clearly pictured as the bridegroom, but his disciples are pictured as the unmarried young women who have the task of lighting the way of the bridegroom to his bride. This might highlight the role of gospel ministers/evangelists in particular.

There are 10 virgins, and they are identified as either wise or foolish (v2 - cf also 24v45). The key difference is that the wise virgins have come with spare extra oil. They are ready from the beginning for the possibility that the bridegroom may be later than expected. The foolish virgins have brought their lamps (which are more like torches – material soaked in oil) but they have no extra oil.

All 10 virgins fall asleep. Although other passages warn disciples not to stay awake and watch until the Lord returns, there is no moral point being made about falling asleep here. This is not the point of this parable. It highlights how long the bridegroom was in coming. The imminent arrival of the bridegroom is then announced, and the foolishness of the 5 virgins is then exposed. Their lamps have burned out and they have no spare oil, so they are unable to perform their task of lighting the way of the bridegroom to the bride’s house and the waiting wedding banquet. At this point they try to cadge some oil from the wise virgins, but they have none to spare. This is not selfishness but practical reality. It highlights that we cannot rely on the spiritual preparation and perseverance of others. In the end we have to make sure that we are each individually ready for a long wait.

When the bridegroom arrives the wise virgins fulfil their role and enter into the wedding banquet with him and celebrate and enjoy the feast. They are welcomed into God’s Kingdom because they are still ready when the king comes. The foolish virgins arrive too late, after the guests have gone into the banquet and the door has been shut. They demand to be let in, but the bridegroom refuses them admittance. They claim that they recognise him as “Lord” (v11) but the bridegroom responds that he does not know them. The point is not that they have somehow failed to “earn” their way into the kingdom by their works, because they have not done enough, but that they have shown that they were never truly the servants of the bridegroom. In 24v51 the wicked servant who abuses the servants under his authority is judged because he is a “hypocrite”, which means someone who pretends or appears to be something he is not. It is the same with the foolish virgins. They may have deceived themselves that they knew the bridegroom, but their lack of preparation for a long wait showed that they did not. They had not listened to his warnings and need to be ready (cf also Matthew 7v21-23 for those who say “Lord, Lord” but were never known by Jesus).

The point of the parable is thus to teach us that we need to be ready to wait for a long time before Jesus returns to consummate and establish his kingdom. In the same way that we need to count the potential cost involved before following Jesus (eg Luke 14v25-35), we need to start out ready to endure faithfully for the long haul. This way evidently a problem for the early church, as some who had appeared to be disciples gave up their faith in Christ because he did not return as quickly as they had expected, and so they no longer trusted in him (cf 2 Peter 3v1-18 – which would be a good passage to study to help understand what it means in practice to be ready).

What will it mean for us to be ready for the long haul while we wait for Jesus to return? What are the practical equivalents of taking “extra oil”? Well it means being ready to reject the sceptics who claim that the fact that Jesus has not returned already means that we cannot believe and trust his promise to return. It means that we need to be committed to keep trusting the gospel, listening to Jesus voice in the Bible and crying out to him in prayer (cf Luke 18v1-8 which teaches that disciples need to keep praying for justice until Jesus returns). It means being committed to meeting together as believers to encourage one another to keep trusting and serving (Hebrews 10v23-25), which means being committed to the life of the local church and its ministry (Acts 2v42-47). If we are not committed to these things from the start, then it suggests that we are not true disciples but are deceiving ourselves. We have not taken seriously the need to keep going for as long as it may be before the Lord returns. We show that we are true disciples who know the Lord, and are known by him, if we take seriously the warning that we may have to wait a long time before Jesus comes to finally establish his kingdom, and take steps in our lives to ensure that we are ready for that wait.

Local Church: Canterbury & Kinmel Bay - Thriving Gospel Ministries in Very Different Communities

2013-04-24T20:06:00.001+01:00

One of the privileges of my job is the opportunity to visit FIEC churches around the country, and to see how God is at work through them to bring the good news of Jesus Christ to their communities and the nation. I am almost invariably encouraged by what I see and hear. In the past few weeks I visited two churches for the first time, one in Canterbuy the other on the North Wales coast, serving very different communities on opposite sides of the nation. It was a joy to spend time with growing churches that are seeing conversions, and whose leaders are developing a wider vision for the cause of the gospel in their area.

(1) Emmanuel Church Canterbury

A couple of weeks before Easter I preached at Emmanuel Church Canterbury. Canterbury has a population of around 150,000. Emmanuel is a relative new church that was planted just over 3 years ago by three couples, who invited Richard Hagan (formerly Assistant Minister at Christchurch Westbourne) to lead the church. The church was founded with a particular concern to reach students studying in Canterbury, of whom there are over 40,000 in total at the University of Kent and Canterbury Christ Church University. We were delighted that Emmanuel affiliated to the FIEC last year. They meet in a local primary school close to the Cathedral, and have a congregation of about 130 on a Sunday morning.

There are a good number of students and international students coming to the church, but as I discovered myself in Birmingham it is impossible to build a sustainable church on a student congregation alone, especially as number fluctuate and the majority are away during the holidays. It was very encouraging to hear that a significant number of families and older couples have joined the church in recent months, some travelling in from towns and villages around the city because they appreciate the faithful biblical ministry. It was a joy to meet a Chinese international student who had been converted and baptised (I think in a pool in the school car park!) and was heading back home to China, and also to talk to a German student who had just started Christianity Explored and was asking me about the challenges of telling her non-Christian family that she wanted to go to church and find out more about Christianity. There was even a student who lived near Market Harborough, and who may give Christchurch a try when she is back home.

There were a number of features of the service that I really liked, and which owe something to the positive influence of conservative evangelical Anglicanism. There were a couple of short sections of corporate liturgy in the service. Personally I think this can be very helpful, and it is good to be able to declare gospel truths together and to each other in this way. There were thoughtful intercessory prayers, which I often feel is a weaker aspect of many FIEC churches I visit, where there are either no intercessory prayers at all, or the prayers are not especially wide ranging in their scope. I know that many FIEC churches have a prayer meeting before their service, but these are often poorly attended, and I think it is good to bring the whole congregation together to pray, and to teach and model biblical prayers for the church, community, nation and world. They had been carefully prepared, and I think we can too easily make the mistake of assuming that spontaneity is equated with true spirituality.

I loved the fact that Richard prayed for us to hear and understand the word of God before the Bible passage was read. We so easily forget that it is the Bible itself that is the infallible living and active word of God, and not the sermon which expounds it. It was good to read both Old Testament and New Testament passages (as well as a Psalm to open our worship), and again I suspect that in many of our churches we have too little public reading of Scripture. The service included communion, and there was a very helpful printed short explanation of the meaning and significance of the Lord’s Supper on the notice sheet, together with a corporate prayer of preparation. The service was followed by a church lunch, which was a very happy time of fellowship together (and I enjoyed some excellent meringues).

I was able to spend some time with Richard and his wife afterwards, and I was encouraged to hear that he had appreciated and enjoyed the FIEC Leaders Conference last year. The church is developing and appointing leaders, and has a growing concern and vision for the wider area. North Kent is a region of great gospel need, with relatively few bible-centred churches, and it is potentially rather isolated because the churches in the West of Kent tend to look towards London rather than outwards to the rest of the county. There are many towns and villages that need a gospel church or gospel witness established. There are relatively few FIEC churches, and almost no conservative evangelical Anglican churches in the area. I hope that Emanuel and the other larger FIEC churches will be able to work together to provide mutual support and encouragement, and to think strategically about the needs of the region.

The church is also about to appoint an Assistant Minister, which will be a great step forwards. Jonny Moore, who is currently studying at Oak Hill College, and his wife Kathryn, were visiting Emmanuel the same day that I was preaching with a view to serving in this role. I hadn’t known they were going to be there, but it was great to see then. They were former members of City Church in Birmingham, where Kathryn was our first administrator and female student worker. I was delighted to hear later in the week that they had accepted the offer of the job and will be joining the church in September.

Churches like Emmanuel are absolutely essential to the developing national vision of the FIEC. It is precisely because we want to see thriving gospel churches in every kind of community that we need strong gospel churches in student centres, which will help raise up the leaders and gospel-minded church members of the future and initiate, resource and support gospel work in other communities. One of the great encouragements within FIEC over the last 15 years has been an increase in the number of such strategic churches within the Fellowship, either because new churches have been planted or existing churches have joined the FIEC to be able to help contribute to this wider gospel vision. I am excited that two more such plants are currently being planned (Trinity Church Oxford and City Church Manchester) to launch in 2013-14, and that several other such churches have either applied to affiliate, or are considering affiliating, in the near future. Emmanuel Church Canterbury has great potential for the future, and we pray that its ministry will be a blessing to the city, the region, the FIEC more widely and to the nation.

(2) Kinmel Bay Church North Wales

While I was at New Word Alive I took the opportunity to visit Kinmel Bay Church, which is the nearest FIEC church to Prestatyn. I wasn’t preaching, but was able to attend a Sunday evening service on first night of the second NWA event (I had let the pastor know that I was coming!). A number of the congregation had attended NWA as day visitors and heard me preach on 1 Peter the previous night, so I was not as inconspicuous as I had expected.

Kinmel Bay is just a little bit further down the coast from Prestatytn and Rhyll, and is a community with a population of 6000 or so. I hadn't known what to expect, and given that North Wales is an area of great gospel need I had presumed that the church was likely to be small, elderly and traditional in character. I couldn't have been more wrong, and I felt rebuked that I had held such a prejudiced presumption. I found a thriving and lively church, with a membership of over 80 and a Sunday congregation of 180. They are the only church in the community and function very much like the parish church. They have an attractive modern building, and are currently developing plans for an extension because they are bursting at the seams. The church is led by Rev Gwyn Parry, who has been Pastor for 10 years or so, and they also have an Assistant Pastor, Church and Community Worker and Children and Families Worker. They have a impressive range of ministries and meetings catering for all ages, including a group for toddlers and their parents and grandparents, and groups for school- age children on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. On Tuesdays and Thursdays they run Café 3:16, which offers drinks and light snacks.

Gwynn preached from the life of Elijah, reminding us of the power of prayer. The church recently held a 24/7 prayer week, and there was such a positive response that the pastor’s office has been turned into a permanent prayer room. They were sending a young women out from the church on a short-term mission trip to Portugal, which had come about as a result of a word that the Lord had laid on the heart of the pastor on Christmas Day. Her parents are not part of the church, but they had sent a wonderful card to thank the fellowship for their support of their daughter and for the blessing of the commissioning service held for her. In church life there are inevitably sorrows as well as blessings, and the church was mourning the sudden death of an older lady who had provided pastoral care and support to many in the congregation and community. They were expecting over 300 people to attend her thanksgiving service later in the week, which would be a great opportunity to declare the gospel hope. I had chance to spend time after the service chatting to Gwynn, sharing something of the vision of the FIEC. The church has a real heart to help, support and work with other churches in the area.

There are few growing evangelical churches in North Wales, and many communities where there is no effective gospel witness at all. However I am encouraged that there are small signs of progress. It was great that New Word Alive were supporting a new FIEC church plant in Denbigh, led by Daf Cunningham out of Ebenezer Baptist Church Mold, and it was very heartening to find another thriving FIEC church further along the coast which has a similar gospel heart.

Kinmel Bay is a very different community to Canterbury. It is much smaller and there are almost no students. However it is just as important that such communities have thriving gospel churches sharing the good news of the Lord Jesus, and they can be just as strategic for their region as city-centre churches. I felt that Kinmel Bay Church was a model of how a church can engage and connect with the local community, sharing Christ in a welcoming context, and investing in ministries that serve local people. I am delighted they are part of the FIEC family, and there is much that we can learn from them. We would love to see many similar churches in communities all across the nation.

Exegetical Thoughts: The Parable of the Wedding Banquet - Matthew 22v1-14

2013-04-22T09:14:00.000+01:00

In the past couple of weeks I have been writing notes for our Homegroup leaders at Christchurch Market Harborough to help them prepare studies on Jesus' Parables. It is quite difficult to find ready-made material for Homegroup leaders that is pitched at the right level for busy people who have a limited time. They don't have the time to delve into commentaries, but they need to have a thorough grasp of the text, its context and meaning so as to guide the group through the study without it becoming a mutual sharing or ignorance, or devotional truths that are not grounded in the passage. At the same time it is not helpful to have a guide which spoon-feeds and does all the work, because this means there is no need to develop the skill of crafting good questions to guide through the study. Leaders need to have more information at their fingertips than group members. The result is that we have written our own study notes that try to meet this need. Here are my notes on the Parable of the Wedding Banquet.

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22v1-14) follows immediately after the Parable of the Tenants that we studied last week. It continues to explain how and why the Kingdom of Heaven (which is Matthew’s way of saying the Kingdom of God) will be taken away from Israel/the Jews and given to others. Quite simply Israel will reject Jesus and refuse to respond to his message to repent and return to God (to give him the “fruit” that he is due, or to respond to his invitation to the wedding banquet of his son) and the result is that the Kingdom will be offered to others. If the Parable of the Tenants primarily looks back to the history of Israel in the Old Testament, and their repeated rejection of God, his prophets and now his Son, the Parable of the Wedding Banquet primarily looks forward to the future and how God will invite others into the Kingdom after Israel has rejected Jesus. The context for both parables is the growing opposition of the Jewish leaders to Jesus and his message (especially the way in which he is welcoming “sinners” and rejecting their narrow nationalistic and militaristic vision of salvation) in Jerusalem during the week before he is arrested, condemned and executed.

The Wedding Banquet in the parable is a metaphor for God’s promise of eschatological salvation for his people. It is a picture of the new creation that God promises. The same imagery is used in Revelation 19v7 & 19v9 and is picked up in Revelation 21v2 & 9. This idea of the consummation of the Kingdom as the wedding between Jesus and his people also underlies Ephesians 5v22-33 and 2 Corinthians 11v2. We can therefore conclude that the idea of attending the King’s wedding Banquet is a picture of entering God’s Kingdom/Heaven/the New Creation.

It is worth remembering that a wedding banquet was a glorious and joyful celebration. The host would supply the very best food and wine possible for his guests (see for example the wedding at Cana – John 2). This wedding banquet was hosted by a king for his son, so it would be a royal wedding. It would be an immense honour to be invited, and the guests would be unlikely to ever experience a feast as lavish as this ever again. It would be a great insult to the King, his honour and generosity as host to refuse to come to the banquet and honour him and his son.

The central point of this parable is that the original guests invited to the banquet by the king refuse to come (v3). The king does not respond with immediate judgement but gives them further opportunity to accept his invitation by sending his servants to command them to come (note the parallels with the Parable of the Tenants). He sends his servants to tell the guests that the dinner is ready, and that the best food has been prepared (v5). However the guests still refuse to come. They pay no attention to the king’s servant. Some attended to their own business (their field or business). This is an immense insult to the King, who is their master. They are effectively rebelling against him, refusing his command and insulting his honour. They are failing to treat him as their king. The rest of them mistreat and kill his servants (v6 – again note the parallels with the Parable of the Tenants). The parable illustrates the nature of sin as wicked rebellion and rejection of God, despite his goodness, generosity and sovereign authority. We have all treated God in this way, but the particular focus of the parable is the sin of the people of Israel in refusing to accept God’s invitation to receive his Kingdom by trusting in Jesus.

The result is that the King becomes rightly and justly wrathful against his rebellious subjects, and acts in judgement against them (v7). He sends and army to destroy them and their city. This clearly pictures how God will act to judge and destroy Jerusalem because Israel has rejected Jesus. This took place in AD 70 and Jesus spoke about it in detail in Matthew 24. Note again the parallel with the Parable of the Tenants where the justly angry landlord brought the rebellious tenants to a “wretched end” (21v41).

In the remainder of the parable the king sends his servants out to invite replacement guests to come in and join the wedding banquet he has prepared (v8-10). The servants are sent to invite everyone and anyone to come. Note the emphasis “anyone you find” (v9) and “all the people they could find” (v10). All kinds of people are to be invited to come, “the bad as well as the good”, which in the context probably means the “religious” and the “sinners”. The result is that the King’s purpose is accomplished, because “the banqueting hall was filled with guests”. The original guest’s rebellion and refusal does not cause the King’s plan to fail. It is just that the guests who in fact attend are not those who were originally invited.

We can clearly see this parable being fulfilled in the book of Acts, the rest of the New Testament, and in church history as the good news of the gospel is taken to all people. At the end of Matthew’s gospel Jesus commands his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28v16-20). The parable thus has a double application to us. We are those who have been invited to attend the king’s banquet because the original guests refused to come. We are also the king’s servants who are sent to invite all people everywhere to attend the banquets. So we must first ask ourselves “Have we accepted the invitation – or are we refusing to attend like the first guests?” and then we must ask ourselves “Are we inviting everyone we can find to come to the king’s banquet?”

The final verses of the parable explain how to respond to the king’s invitation, and why it is that some people accept but others reject it. We should not push the imagery too literally. The point of v11-13 is that only those who are properly dressed are qualified to attend the banquet. A person who has come but is not wearing “wedding clothes” (v11) is ejected on the orders of the king. He is thrown into hell (the imagery of v13 pictures the final eternal judgement). This man, who has sought to attend without appropriate clothing, shows that he does not respect the king and he has not truly accepted the invitation. He is a gate crasher coming on his own terms. He is insulting and dishonouring the king just as much as the original guests who refused to come. The parable does not spell out what the “wedding clothes” signify, but they were required to be glorious and clean. They represent the way in which those who trust in Christ are clothed with the righteousness of Jesus. This image of being “clothed” in Christ is common in the New Testament (eg Ephesians 4v22-24). If we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ we are properly dressed for the wedding banquet and need not fear that we will be excluded (cf 1 Corinthians 1v30).

Verse 14 ends the parable by providing a summarising explanation of why it is that the original guests (and presumably some of the other people who were subsequently invited in their place) rejected the king’s invitation. It is not that God’s plan in some way failed. Rather it was not his sovereign purpose that all those who were invited would respond positively to his invitation. They were not “chosen” in the sense of being elected by God to share in his kingdom. The invitation is offered widely to all, but only some of those invited respond. At a human level this is because they rejected the invitation, but at a deeper level it is because God’s sovereign purpose is being worked out. We see this illustrated in Acts 13v48. Paul and Barnabas preach the gospel to many people in Psidian Antioch (i.e. they are “invited”) but “all who were appointed for eternal life believed” (i.e. these are the ones who were “chosen”) We may not find this truth easy to understand or accept, but it is taught throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament (cf eg 1 Peter 2v8). Romans 9-11 in particular stress this sovereignty of God, and explain that is was God’s purpose that the people of Israel would reject Jesus (see also Acts 2v23). What is absolutely clear is that it is not our role or responsibility to try to guess who God has chosen. We are to invite everyone, knowing that some will respond whilst others will reject. All we can know is that a person who responds to the invitation does so because they have been chosen by God to be amongst his people. This truth should be liberating and encouraging for our evangelism. The way that people respond to the invitation we issue on God’s behalf is no ultimately our responsibility. Our task is simply to issue the invitation to people wherever we find them.

Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013: 11 Lessons Christian Leaders Can Learn

2013-04-18T09:10:00.000+01:00

I was sad to hear the news that Margaret Thatcher had died at the age of 87 last week while I was away at New Word Alive. I voted for her in 1987, a decision which I have never regretted since the choice between Margaret Thatcher and the conservative election manifesto, and Neil Kinnock and his pre-New Labour policy platform seemed to me to be a no-brainer at the time. I was, however, glad that she was deposed by her party in 1990, because I felt that by that stage she had lost the plot politically and was headed for justly deserved electoral defeat. The cabinet coup that ousted her was ultimately vindicated by the unexpected victory of John Major in 1992. I was privileged to meet her couple of times after she had left office, because she had become the Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, where I was working as an extremely junior lecturer in the Faculty of Law. She was unfailingly courteous and polite, and genuinely interested in the students (many of whom were international students from all around the world) and encouraging of their achievements. Her speech at the graduation ceremonies was almost always identical, along the lines of urging the graduands to stand for freedom and against oppression, and to respect and uphold democracy and the rule of law. I remember her paying an especially moving and eloquent tribute to Caspar Weinberger, the former US Defence Secretary, for the unflinching support her provided to Britain during the Falklands conflict, often against the wishes of the US State Department.

The death of any human being, who continues to bear the image of God no matter how much that image may have become marred, is always a poignant reminder of our own mortality and the fact that we will ultimately have to give an account to God himself for our lives. The most powerful man or woman on earth will, in the end, succumb to age, decay and death. It is sobering that a woman who was once so powerful, and who in many ways dominated the background of my childhood and adolescence, descended into the dependence and incompetence of Alzheimer’s and has how now gone the way of all flesh. At New Word Alive we were preaching thorough 1 Peter, which quotes Isaiah 40v6-8 in 1v24-25:

“All people are like grass,

and all their glory is like the flower of the field;

the grass withers and the flowers fall,

but the word of the Lord endures forever”

It seems appropriate to meditate on these verses whenever anyone who has achieved human greatness has died. They are both a comfort (in that no flawed human being will hold power for ever) and a warning (that we need to base our lives on the promises of God's word and not human achievement).

Margaret Thatcher’s legacy is a matter of intense debate, and it seems remarkable that some 34 years after she became Prime Minister she still provokes such unhealthy extreme reactions of hagiographic worship or vitriolic hatred. I won’t attempt to undertake an objective assessment of her achievements, failings and effect on the life of our nation, but rather want to reflect on lessons that we can learn about leadership from her political career. Although for Christians Jesus is our supreme model of leadership, "common grace" means that there is much that church leaders can learn, both positively and negatively, from her premiership. As in the case of most people her strengths developed into significant weaknesses.

There are many parallels between her assumption of power in 1979 in a Britain that was suffering endemic decline and industrial failure, and a new pastor who is appointed to a hitherto failing church. In my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees I studied Labour Law and Industrial Relations Law, and the way in which she reformed the rights of Trades Union and workers.

Here are 11 lessons we might learn from her as leaders:

(1) Be prepared to address the obvious problems that others have not had the courage to confront

When Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979 Britain was facing the consequences of the failure of previous governments to address the long term problems of industrial decline, industrial unrest, international uncompetitiveness and rampant inflation. British manufacturing industry was failing to produce quality products at competitive prices that people around the world wanted to buy. The fact that the British car industry had produced the Austin Allegro and the Morris Ital says all that you need to know. The British shipbuilding industry was not destroyed by Thatcher, but by the fact that the Japanese and Koreans were producing better ships at far lower cost than their British rivals.

Successive governments had simply failed to grapple with these fundamental problems, which were then compounded by the oil crisis. The cosy post-war consensus had failed to deliver sustainable growth and prosperity and to rebalance the economy. The continued subsidy of massively inefficient industry was unrealistic. The shift from traditional labour-intensive manufacturing to an economy with a strong service sector was inevitable. The control of the power of the Trades Unions was also necessary, and had been attempted by previous administrations. Barbara Castle, the Labour Employment Secretary, had sought to restrain union strike action in her white paper In Place of Strife, which was comprehensively rejected by the unions. Ted Heath had introduced the Industrial Relations Court to seek to regulate union action, and was brought down by a miners’ strike. Wilson and Callaghan had been forced to impose public sector wage restraint and severe austerity as a result of IMF intervention (Britain was in a similar situation to Greece in the years preceding Mrs Thatcher’s election). Mrs Thatcher finally acted to address these problems.

In much the same way churches can develop endemic problems that are obvious to all, but which no one has the courage or resilience to address. Church leaders needs to have the courage to deal with real underlying problems, otherwise they will stagger on and decline until it is too late. Far too many churches have failed and closed because of the lack of courage of leaders to tackle what they know to be wrong. Mrs Thatcher has taken the blame for the blight to communities and individuals caused by her economic policies which lead to the closure of traditional heavy industry, but the pain was at least in part caused by the failure of previous administrations to tackle reality, and thus to enable a more gradual and less traumatic transition to a changed world. Delaying addressing fundamental problems causes greater grief in the end.

(2) Be prepared to take on vested interests which protect themselves rather than serving the common good

One of the key characteristics of Margaret Thatcher was her willingness to take on the various elites and vested interests which stood in the way of necessary reform. This included most obviously the power of the Trades Unions, who fought for the benefits of their members at the expense of the viability of the companies that they worked for. Restrictive practices and salary increases that bore no connection to performance were the norm. However she took on not just the Trades Unions but also the vested interests of professional bodies, the media, the educational establishment, the City and the civil service. In a way she also took on the vested interests of the Tory party itself, overturning the entrenched power of the patrician grandees of a previous era.

Churches are often held back by the vested interests of groups or individuals, who wish to preserve their power, resist change and ensure a more comfortable life for themselves. Often such behaviour is stressed up in the language of high-principle. Church leaders need to make sure that they do not allow vested interests prevent the changes that will be needed to fulfil the mission to which we have been called.

(3) Be wisely pragmatic in the way that you implement change

From the perspective of the end of her premiership it is hard to believe that Margaret Thatcher was not initially a hard-line ideologue. Her first term in power was not especially radical, and change was introduced gradually and incrementally. Her reforms were achieved by cumulative effect over a long period. Some, such as privatisation, were an accidental discovery rather than a planned policy. It needs to be remembered that as Education Secretary in the Heath government she was responsible for overseeing the transformation of more grammar schools into comprehensives than at any other time. Soon after she took office she was faced with a strike by steel workers and settled the dispute with an unusually large pay increase. She knew that this was a battle she could not win at that moment, and did not want to precipitate wider union unrest. From the very start she was planning for a confrontation with the miners which was bound to come at some point, but only wanted to face that battle when she was in a position to win. The Labour Reforms that she introduced were implemented incrementally, removing the closed shop and requiring ballots for strike action. She had learned the lesson of Heath’s failed reforms. In her early years many of her ministers were from the “wet” wing of the party, including men such as Jim Prior and Francis Pym. Even later into her premiership key ministries such as Health and Education were in the hands of moderates such as Ken Clarke. Despite her implacable opposition to Soviet Communism she viewed Mikhail Gorbachev as a man she could “do business with.”

The image of Thatcher as a politician who did not care about the effects of her policies on industrial heartlands and northern cities is belied by the facts. After the 1981 riots Michael Heseltine (hardly a right-wing ideologue) sought to regenerate cities such as Liverpool. Peter Walker was permitted to pursue an interventionist policy at the Welsh Office, using subsidy to attract new industry and employment to the Principality. The government worked hard to attract new employers, such as Japanese car manufacturers, to the north of England, with some success.

Church leaders often need to apply their principles with a degree of realistic pragmatism if they are to effect lasting change and transformation. This is one of the key differences between taking leadership of an existing church and planting a new one where there is the opportunity to start entirely afresh. Leaders need to know which battles really matter, which they can win, and which they can only lose. Wisdom is a vital component of leadership in practice.

(4) Ensure you have the support of an overwhelming majority by envisioning them with hope of a better future

Given the deep hostility of some towards Mrs Thatcher today, it is hard to remember that she was a popular politician. She won three general elections - at least one by a landslide and another by a very considerable majority. People felt that she had their interests at heart and that she would lead them to enjoy a better future. To the great frustration of the left she encapsulated the dreams and aspiration of many ordinary people, who far from wanting to find their identity as members of the proletariat caught up in a Marxist class struggle, sought to achieve bourgeois success. They wanted to own their own homes rather than council houses, and to determine how to spend their own money rather than have it taken away from them by the state in taxation. They wanted consumer choice rather than to be told what they had to have by state owned monopolies (it seems unbelievable that you had to have the kind of telephone dictated by the Post Office!). They wanted freedom and autonomy rather than restriction and collectivism.

Church leaders similarly need to gain popular support for the reforms that they want to implement by presenting a compelling vision that matches true biblical aspirations, and to instil confidence that this vision can be realised, or at least that progress can be made towards achieving it. This is especially important in free churches where there is a high degree of congregational decision making.

(5) Take an uncompromising stand against obvious evil and oppression

To the great credit of Margaret Thatcher she took a firm and uncompromising stand against obvious and destructive evil. It was one thing to compromise with striking steel workers as part of the give-and-take of industrial policy in a democracy, and quite another to compromise with republican terrorists in Northern Ireland. Thatcher steadfastly refused to be cowed into submitting to their demands, and resisted the blackmail of the Maze hunger strikes by refusing to accord wicked criminals the status of political prisoners. She was implacably opposed to oppressive Soviet Communism, which was strangely appealing and even financially supportive of many of her opponents at home, which blighted the lives of many European citizens for more than half a century. She resisted the naivety of CND and allowed US medium range nuclear weapons to be stationed in the UK, hastening the fall of the USSR, and renewed the British nuclear deterrent. She allowed the Americans to bomb Libya in reprisal for their role in fostering global terrorism (which included supplying the IRA with weapons and semtex). She took these stands even though they almost cost her own life at the Brighton party conference. Supremely she refused to capitulate to aggression when the Argentinians invaded the Falklands, but mounted a daring and risky mission to retake British sovereign territory. Yet again the result was to hasten the demise of military rule, with its accompanying human rights abuses, in Argentina. Whatever the rights and wrongs, her failure to support sanctions against South Africa was not out of approval of apartheid, but because she did not believe they would make any difference. However she was clearly not perfect and consistent. Her support for General Pinochet in Chile, despite his record of human rights abuses, was coloured by her wider antipathy to communism, and his support for Britain during the Falklands War.

The vitriol directed to Margaret Thatcher seems wholly disproportionate given the undoubted part she played in bringing down repressive regimes around the world, without involving Britain in any potentially illegal war on the basis of dodgy sexed-up intelligence at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Sadly many of her left wing opponents seemed to regard her as evil incarnate whilst themselves supporting murderers, terrorists and oppressors, such as the IRA, Gerry Adams, Colonel Gadhafi, and Yuri Andropov.

Many areas of life are morally ambiguous, and the choice between different policies, such as economic policy, is not always clear cut and obvious. It is the same in church leadership. In many cases church leaders have to discerning prayerfully what seems to be the best, or the least worst, option. However in cases where there is an obvious evil, or clear oppression, then there is a need to take a firm stand. Church leaders must not give in to blackmail and threats, whether financial or emotional, by those who want to get their own way. The person who threatens to leave unless they get what they want, or who demands that their preference and taste be imposed on everyone, ought to be faced down.

(6) Recognise that successful leadership is often a result of providential factors

Mrs Thatcher was in many ways a lucky politician. She took power just when much of the difficult economic medicine imposed by the IMF, and implemented by Dennis Healey, was beginning to take effect (in the same way that Tony Blair benefited from the economic measures taken by John Major and Ken Clarke). Britain was beginning to enjoy the benefit of revenue from North Sea oil, and the opening of world markets and new communications technology meant that a global service industry was a possibility. She was also lucky in her opponents. In Michael Foot Labour had chosen an unelectable left-wing intellectual, and their 1983 election manifesto was rightly described as the “longest suicide note in history.” The failings of the GLC and “loony” Labour councils in Liverpool (Derek Hatton) and elsewhere provided evidence that alternative socialist policies would not solve the problems of the nation but compound them. She was fortunate in the Miners’ Strike to be faced by a leader as intransigent and self-confident as Arthur Scargill, who adamantly refused to hold the strike ballot required by law (which he would probably have won) as a matter of principle to defeat the governments union reforms, which refusal led to a split amongst the miners themselves. Finally the Falklands War enabled her to be recast as a successful war leader at the very time that her credibility was most under strain.

All successful leaders require a measure of “luck”, and their achievements are often a result of the fact that they happened to be the right person, in the right place, at the right time, rather than a result of their unique personal qualities. As Christians we would not call this “luck” but sovereign providence. It is all too easy to forget the reality of such providence and to deceive ourselves and others about our own significance and contribution to our success. As she went on Margaret Thatcher seemed to lose any sense that she had enjoyed such “luck,” with the result that she appeared to lose humility and became arrogantly confident of her own rightness in every situation. As church leaders we need to have a humble recognition that everything we have been able to do is due to God’s sovereign providence and grace. Others who seeming “failed” before us may well have done even better if they had enjoyed the providences that we enjoy.

(7) Don’t allow your principles to become narrow ideology

Although Margaret Thatcher started out with a degree of pragmatism in the application of her policies, over time she appeared to become a more dogmatic ideologue. She eliminated many of the “wets” from her cabinet, and instead promoted those who shared her perspective entirely. Policies such as privatisation, monetarism and the free market, which were necessary correctives to the prevailing statism and collectivism, were elevated to the status of controlling dogmas. Ideas such as the Community Charge (Poll Tax), which were driven by such dogma, were imposed by political will even when they did not enjoy the consent and support of the people because they were perceived to be unfair. Such dogmatism inevitably comes across as arrogant, and often fails to be able to address the very complex issues that arise in real life.

Christian leaders can all too easily fall into this danger when they turn one or more aspects of Christian teaching or theology into a governing ideology that is applied to everything. They reduce the breadth of Scripture into single-principle dogmas or mantras, which often emerges because a particular perspective had been side-lined or ignored in the past. Good Christian leadership, which carries the vast majority of the church forward, usually requires balance between equally important biblical perspectives and principles. Young men who are ideologically inclined can easily fall into this danger, and will find themselves burned when the church turns against them because their supposed simple verities don’t work in the real world.

(8) Don’t underestimate the power of sin to corrupt every good reform

I don’t think that Mrs Thatcher set out to deliberately destroy communities, or to create a culture of greed and personal self-indulgence at the expense of care for others. Her values of thrift and personal responsibility were forged by Methodism and WWII, and her policies were a reaction to collectivism that undermined individual initiative and responsibility. However her reforms, especially of the City of London, did unleash a culture of irresponsible greed, perhaps encapsulated by Harry Enfield’s “loadsamoney” character, which was only a mild exaggeration of the reality of some City traders. The selfish protectionism of the Trade Unions became the selfish exploitation of the new Yuppies, who thought nothing about paying themselves vastly disproportionate salaries. Mrs Thatcher had failed to appreciate that the freedoms she introduced would not be balanced by a sense of restraint and community responsibility that she would have taken for granted.

The Thatcherite revolution was in many ways an extension of the sexual liberation movement of the 1960s into economic and political life more generally. The seeds of individualism, consumerism (i.e. choice) and personal self-gratification had already been sown, and their application was merely extended. It is foolish to think that they could have been restrained for ever, and collectivism was only ever a by-product of the emergency situation created by WWII and was bound to unwind in subsequent generations. The lesson is that every reform, no matter how well intentioned, will give rise to unintended consequences because it will provide fertile ground for new ways of sinning. Utopia can never be achieved. The more recent invasion of Iraq provides another example, as the neo-conservative theorists expected the removal of Saddam Hussein to lead to the flourishing of western-style democracy and freedom, whereas it in fact led to sectarian violence.

Church leaders ought not to be surprised that reforms and changes they introduce may solve one set of problems but generate new ones, which may sometimes be more destructive and intractable. We ought to try to anticipate what those unintended consequences might be, so that we can mitigate or ameliorate then in advance. Most of all we need to remember that the gospel is the only answer, since it alone can deal with the problems of sin, the flesh and the devil.

(9) Don’t despise, abuse and humiliate your colleagues

In the post Blair era it is hard to remember that Mrs Thatcher did not begin with a “presidential” style of government, but rather a genuine collective cabinet government. This forced her to work with colleagues who were strong and powerful figures in the party, and who held different views to herself. In the early years of her government her relationship with Geoffrey Howe was crucial. She took necessary action to sack ministers who were incompetent and not up to the job, but over time her relationships with her colleagues became dysfunctional. She always felt that the real enemy was “within” and castigated those who did not support her “revolution” as “wets.” She side-lined key former allies and replaced them with her devoted supporters. It is not just that she disagreed with colleagues, but that she despised and humiliated those who disagreed with her. In the end this was her undoing. She had alienated Michael Heseltine and forced his resignation over Westland. She made it impossible for Nigel Lawson to function as Chancellor and made clear her lack of confidence in him by appointing her own economic advisor. She sacked Geoffrey Howe from the job he loved (as Foreign Secretary), gave him the meaningless role of Deputy Prime Minister and excluded him from all decision making. It is no wonder that they eventually turned on her.

As church leaders we inevitably have to work with people who are different from ourselves, and whose perspectives will not be identical. We need to avoid simply surrounding ourselves with “yes men” who simply confirm our conviction that we are right about everything. Church leaders can all too easily fall into abusing or humiliating those who disagree with them, and as a result they become isolated and dangerously unbalanced.

(10) Lead with humility and genuine empathy

Mrs Thatcher is remembered by many as a leader who became arrogant, extreme and out of touch. This was not the way that she began in office, but over time it is almost as if she fulfilled the image that was cultivated by both her supporters and her critics. It is as though she began to believe that she was “The Iron Lady,” and she seemed to become more and more like the way she was portrayed in Spitting Image (Waiter: “And the vegetables?”; Mrs Thatcher: “They’ll have steak too.”) The girl made good from Grantham seemed to become regal, announcing “We are a grandmother” and promising to “go on and on.” Mrs Thatcher was not immune to spin and image management. She was given voice training to lower her voice so that it would sound less shrill. When she entered office she was presented as the “bossy housewife” who knew best how to manage the family finances (unlike the profligate husband who had been in charge before). Whilst this grated with many it also resonated with others, but the apparent confident arrogance of the later years alienated all but the true believers.

We have no way of knowing the reality of her heart, but for many Mrs Thatcher came across as harsh and unfeeling, especially towards those who were suffering redundancy and unemployment as a result of the economic situation. She was a politician who had grown up in an era of genuine hardship (the Great Depression and WWII) when people did not wear their emotions on their sleeve. The image she projected was one of telling people the harsh facts of life, rather than wringing her hands about their difficulties. However there were moments when her compassion and vulnerability was evident, as for example when close friends were murdered by the IRA, and when she was finally forced from office and left Downing Street struggling to hold back the tears. Tony Blair was a politician who had learned the need to connect emotionally with electorate and speak the language of sympathy and compassion.

As church leaders we are called both to tell people the harsh realities that they do not want to hear, and which they do not want to face up to, but we are also called to empathise and sympathise with their struggles and weaknesses. They need to know that we are on their side and that we understand. We need to share our heart and or feelings with them (but not to fake them), just as Paul does in his letters. Paul is preacher, teacher and pastor with emotional intelligence. Church leaders must ensure that they remain humble, constantly appreciating where they have come from, namely that they are undeserving sinners saved by grace. They need to ensure that they do not fall into thinking that they are inevitably right, they are indispensable or that they are the “saviour” who will solve the problems.

(11) Know when it is time to quit

Margaret Thatcher’s premiership ended not in glorious triumph but ignominiously through a cabinet coup that forced her to resign. She had lost the support and confidence of the majority of her MPs and ministers, and had become an electoral liability rather than an asset. This was largely a result of some of the flaws that I have outlined above, namely that she had become ideologically intransigent, insensitive to public opinion and had alienated key colleagues. She ought to have stepped down voluntarily a couple of years after her third election victory in 1987, at which point she would have secured her legacy without the rancour and bitterness of rejection. She clearly felt betrayed but it ought to be remembered that politics is a dirty business in which self-interests and personal electoral survival play a large part, and Mrs Thatcher had herself ousted Ted Heath from the leadership of the party in a similar way. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. She had made radical and necessary changes, generally in line with broader public opinion, that had addressed many of the problems that the country faced in 1979. However this did not mean that she had the right skills and vision to lead the country forward into the future. Both John Major and Tony Blair built on the basic foundations of Thatcherism, but with a more pragmatic approach to the public/private divide, and with greater professed commitment to the cause of advancing social equality. Mrs Thatcher was a product of the political battles of the 60s and 70s, and having changed the political landscape was ill equipped to meet the different challenges of the late 80s and early 90s.

There is similarly a danger that church fail to recognise that the time has come for them to pass over leadership to others, either by moving to another ministry or retiring from full-time ministry. It may be that they lack the gifts and vision necessary to lead the church into the next stage of its life. The church may have grown beyond their personal capacity. They may have been very effective at identifying and resolving historic problems but less able to see what needs to be done next. They may have become pugilistic as a result of the conflict and battles they have faced when the church needs to enter a period of calm stability. They may have become ideologically narrow or anachronistic, constantly refighting the battles of a previous generation when these have already been won and the fight has moved to different territory. They may be reluctant to step down or move on because they enjoy the power that their position brings them, or because they wrongly assume that they are essential to the church. They may have surrounded themselves with acolytes who are committed to them, or with lightweights who are unable to counsel them that it is time to move on. Sadly it is sometimes necessary for churches to mount ministerial coups, which are deeply painful, but essential if the church is to have a future (think of Paul and Barnabas going their separate ways). All of us in ministry need to have the wisdom to know when it is time to make a graceful exit, because this is in the best interests of the church and the gospel. Mrs Thatcher failed to recognise this, and the result was great personal pain, enduring bitterness, and unresolved fractiousness within the party she led in subsequent generations. We need to make sure that this doesn’t happen in the church.

Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013: Give Thanks and Learn Lessons

Mrs Thatcher was not a perfect leader. As Christians we know that no one is righteous, not even one, and that no one is truly good except God alone. Whatever our achievements we are all guilty of sin, deserve eternal judgement, and our only hope is to be found in the grace of God through the death of the Lord Jesus on our behalf. If she had true and living faith in Jesus (which I am in no place to know) then his mercy will cover all her sins and she will be welcomed into glory. Although Christians may differ as to the merits of the legacy of Mrs Thatcher and her policies, they ought to be united in giving thanks to God for her. She fulfilled the biblical expectations of civil leaders. She maintained civil peace and security in the nation, thwarting the intentions of revolutionaries, terrorists and anarchists, and she maintained and upheld religious freedom which allowed Christians to preach the gospel openly and practice their faith (1 Timothy 2v1-2). This is more than can be said for Blair, Brown and Cameron who, through the totalitarian imposition of an equalities agenda that privileges the rights of some groups in society over those of religious believers, have begun to curtail the historic freedoms of Christians to live as they believe to be right before God. On the international stage Mrs Thatcher's implacable opposition to Communism and contribution to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, significantly extended religious freedom for millions of people, allowing the gospel to advance. For this we can give thanks, and therefore she is rightly to be honoured, and there is much that we can learn from her.

Roger Scruton & the Meaning of Life: Only the Resurrection Provides a Viable Alternative to Consumption and the Cult of Celebrity

2013-04-12T19:07:00.000+01:00

On the journey back from New Word Alive I finally had chance to skim through the 30^th March edition of the Spectator, against the background noise of the umpteenth playing of Just William on the CD player and the ever increasing agony of a daughter desperate for the toilet with the nearest service station still 16 miles away!

The Happy Easter leading article is a wonderful declaration of the importance of the resurrection in the face of the fact that Britain has become the least religious country in the western world. It is hard to imagine any other major UK magazine or paper writing:

“In the last month we have seen a new Archbishop of Canterbury and a new Pope installed. Both have the opportunity – and have expressed their desire – to renew their churches and to preach the gospel. This means, in Britain these days, taking the word of God to people who may only have the shakiest idea of who Christ was, or that He existed at all – but this is the job which Archbishop Welby and Pope Francis both entered the clergy to do. As certainties that have guided our country and our continent for years begin to shake, and as the distractions of our age forever tempt us towards the shallow and the ephemeral. Easter is an opportunity to think once more of greater, older and deeper things. Beginning with an empty tomb and a stone rolled back.”

Whilst I don’t believe that the Roman Catholic Church preaches the true gospel of Jesus Christ, and it remains to be seen whether Archbishop Welby will have the courage to do so unequivocally, the Spectator is absolutely right that the urgent need is for the church in Britain to take the word of God to the people. This has always been the heartbeat of evangelicalism. The danger today is that we will replace this vital task with some lesser and more acceptable mission, such as engaging in social action or pursuing community transformation as a goal in itself. It is worth reading the whole editorial, which you can find here.

However the highlight for me was Roger Scruton’s article Pleasure vs Happiness: Our celebrity culture grows from a twisted idea of the good life. He brilliantly exposes the inability of a culture which has made “having fun” the meaning of life to produce true satisfaction and happiness. He explains that the enslaving and addictive pursuit of pleasures cannot satisfy because it inevitably renders all pleasure stale and insufficient:

“And all around us in our society we see the price that people pay for their addictions: a sense that no pleasure is forbidden, but all pleasure is stale. Out of this feeling comes the celebrity culture. The illusion arises that someone, somewhere, must be having real fun, not just the illusory fun that fizzles out as soon as it is lit. And we turn our eyes to those places where this real fun seems to be most evident – places where fame, wealth, good looks and sexual enticement abound. We are filled with envy. Here is the meaning of life, and it is they, not I, who possess it. Hence people in the grip of ‘celebrititis’ begin to hate the people who obsesses them. They look for proof that the celebrity is, after all, the broken, wretched, unloved creature that they wish him to be. And that way they come to experience another kind of pleasure; the pleasure in another’s willed misfortune, which the Germans called shadenfreude and which is about as unsatisfying a pleasure as any we know…Wherever we find the cult of celebrity, therefore, we find deep unhappiness. ‘Fun’ has become the highest good, but fun is always out of reach, available only in that other and unattainable world where the stars are dancing. Meanwhile envy and resentment colour the world below, and there is no relief save the pleasures of consumption.”

Whilst Scruton’s critique is devastating, and somewhat akin to that of the Teacher in Ecclesiastes who ruthlessly declares that the pursuit of pleasure is “meaningless” or “vanity” (cf Ecclesiastes 2v1-11), it does not go far enough, and he provides no viable alternative. The ultimate problem is not just that pleasure seeking is unfulfilling, nor that we are addled by envy of others - though both are certainly true. It is rather that everything is rendered meaningless by the harsh reality of death. Ecclesiastes declares that this is true not just of the pursuit of pleasure, but also of work and achievement.

Scruton’s answer to the problem is to seek consolation and refuge in “happiness, beauty and the sacred” rather than the life of consumption and the cult of celebrity. He writes:

“Consider beauty – the beauty of flowers and landscapes, of birds and horses, of the things we see, touch and smell as we walk in the countryside. We are entirely at one with these things…The beautiful and the sacred are connected in our feelings, and both are essential to the pursuit of happiness. I think it is no accident that, in a life of consumerist pleasure and trumpeted ‘fun’, the habit arises of desecrating the human form and the life that inhabits it. The cult of celebrity is a substitute for religious faith, and also an inversion of it. It offers desecration in the place of sanctity, envy in the place of bliss. But it satisfies no one. The odd thing is that the avenue to happiness lies open before us and yet so many people do not take it.”

In the end he has nothing better to offer. The aesthetic appreciation of the beauty of the world (and in many cases this requires ignoring the brutal ugliness of the world) is equally incapable of bearing the weight of bringing meaning to our lives. Such romantic notions have been tried multiple times in generations past, and our present consumerist celebrity culture is testimony to their failure to deliver. The numinous sense of the beautiful and the sacred is no answer to the unbearable truth of our own inevitable personal extinction. Unless there is a way to escape or defeat death then the only logical way to live is indeed to enjoy all the sensual pleasures that this world has to offer (cf 1 Corinthians 15v32).

The answer to the quest for meaning, significance, purpose, happiness and lasting satisfaction is not, therefore, to be found in the appreciation of the beauty we see in the world around us, nor of the beauty of the art and artefacts humans have produced. This cannot deal with the reality of death, which renders all such beauty ultimately absurd. The answer is only to be found in the gospel, which reveals and declares both the true beauty of God himself, and the defeat of death through the sacrifice and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. These alone are able to bring true meaning to our existence, deliverance from a pointless and unsatisfying life of consumption and worship at the cult of celebrity, and give the certain hope of lasting happiness in the eternal glory to come. As John Newton so memorably put it in his great hymn Glorious things of thee are spoken:

“fading is the wordlings pleasure,

all his boasted pomp and show;

solid joys and lasting treasure

none but Zion’s children know”

The Spectator editorial therefore has it right. Our urgent task is to take the word of God, the gospel, to a lost and enslaved people, proclaiming the good news that Jesus has risen from the dead and calling them to repent and put their faith and trust in him. Only if they do this will they come to enjoy the true, lasting and satisfying happiness they long for, and that their consumption and celebrity worship will never bring.

Six Dry Days in Wales! - The Blessings and Encouragements of New Word Alive Week 1

2013-04-10T11:50:00.000+01:00

My family and I have been away at New Word Alive in Prestatyn since last Monday, hence the fact that I haven’t had time or opportunity to write any posts. It is my privilege to a member of the NWA Steering Committee, so we are here for both events. It has been a great encouragement and blessing to me personally, and for us as a family, and we have been very conscious of the Lord’s goodness and grace.

As I look back on the first week there are a number of things which stand out for me, many of which are a

reminder of why New Word Alive is such an important event within the broader context of British evangelicalism. I won’t say anything about the student side of NWA, although this is a massive part of the event and UCCF are key NWA partners. It is, however, wonderfully encouraging to see so many students here, and to know that the next generation of church members and leaders is being nurtured and encouraged by CUs and churches around the country. It only feels a moment since I was myself a young graduate attending my first Word Alive in 1994, and it will be even less time until my own kids have fled the nest and will be students themselves, so I am deeply appreciative for the work amongst the students.

(i) Excellent Bible Teaching The fundamental conviction of New word Alive is that God speaks to us

today by his Spirit through his word in the Bible. We long to hear God’s voice and we have been blessed by gifted and faithful Bible teachers and preachers who have enabled us to hear God. The main Bible Readings, given by Christopher Ash from John 18-20, were outstanding. They were a model of faithful exegesis and understated passion. Christopher opened up the text, helped us to see many fresh themes and connections, and made challenging practical applications. I found his explanation of how Jesus protected his disciples in John 18v1-14 especially encouraging, and something that I had not seen before. As usual a very wide range of seminars were on offer, tackling theological and practical issues. Bruce Ware was excellent and very stimulating on the important, and often neglected, implications of the humanity of Christ. I was challenged by the three sessions given by Sam Storms on “The Sin-Killing Power of Enjoying God.” I have never heard Sam before, and he rather self-effacingly described himself as “John Piper for dummies.”

What I loved about him was that he is quite evidently a man who enjoys God himself, and wants to share what he has discovered with others. My natural temperament and spiritual inclination is to be driven by duty rather than delight, and I need the corrective of this other biblical perspective. You can find out more about Sam's ministry here. My wife was really helped by Dan Strange’s seminars on apologetics, which sought to equip us to meet the challenge of a society in which people have little or no interest in Jesus by showing how we can bring the gospel to bear through everyday life and culture. In the evenings we have heard from 1 Peter, a letter which is incredibly relevant to the church in the UK at the moment as we come to terms with the reality that we are strangers and aliens in our culture, and that we need the courage and confidence to speak for Christ, live for Christ and stand firm in the true grace of God we have received.

(ii) Wonderful Children’s Work As a family with four children aged between 6-11, one of the main

reasons we love New Word Alive is because of the fantastic groups for the children. We are deeply appreciative for the leaders, many of whom are taking either a busman’s holiday from their usual church ministry or valuable holiday time from their busy secular jobs to come and serve the children, teaching them faithfully about Jesus and making so much effort to ensure that they have fun. It is such a help for the children to spend time in an environment where believing in Jesus is normal and encouraged, since most of the year they are in a tiny minority amongst their unbelieving schoolmates. We belong to a relatively small church, and they have few role models of teenage Christians to hand. My oldest daughter in particular loves being back with friends that she has made in previous years. It is also a chance for us as parents to see how our children are growing up and making progress. Each year we are able to allow them to have more freedom on site, and they are progressing up the groups. We would come to New Word Alive for the benefit to the children alone.

(iii) Opportunity to Build Relationships One of the joys of New Word Alive is the chance to catch up with old friends from all around the country, and also to make new friends. Everyone seems to be incredibly friendly and it is easy to get chatting in queues for sessions, enjoying using the facilities or around the bookstall and exhibition. We have especially enjoyed meeting lots of friends from Birmingham. It is a joy to see how those we knew as students have progressed. Many have married and now have children. Some are serving in full time Christian ministry or are in training at Bible College. Others are pillars of their local churches and are serving in all kinds of ministries. Others have experienced great sadnesses, including sickness, bereavement, and redundancy. It is good to know that the Lord has gracious kept them through these trials and they are still walking with Him. There is a real sense of rejoicing with those who rejoice and mourning with those who mourn. I am especially delighted to be able to bump into ministers and members from FIEC churches all across the country, and to hear their encouragements and discouragements.

(iv) Expression of Gospel Unity One of the great blessings of New Word Alive is that it is an expression of true unity in the gospel. The event is clear in its commitment to the core doctrines of the gospel, but generous in respecting different opinions and practices on secondary issues which fall outside of these core beliefs. Guests represent a wide range of church backgrounds, including Anglican, FIEC, Church of Scotland, Presbyterian, Baptist, Brethren, Methodist and Pentecostal (to name just some of those that I met during the week). It is impossible in such a gathering to cater for everyone’s exact tastes in style and music, but there is a generosity of spirit and willingness to put mere personal preferences aside in the interests of the common good. I suspect that this is an area in which conservative evangelicalism has matured over the last twenty years. I enjoy exposure to a wide range of musical styles, and to new songs. I am glad that FIEC leaders and churches are able to be part of this wider gospel unity. It is encouraging that so many FIEC churches are here, some with large groups, and that a good number of the speakers are from FIEC churches: Neil Powell; Andrew Evans; Tim Chester; Maurice McCracken; Greg Strain and Graham Beynon to name a few. Colin Webster and the band from Cornerstone Church in Nottingham were also leading the worship at the one of the main meetings during the week.

(v) Exposure to the Needs of the World-Wide Church One particular feature of New Word Alive in the

past few years has been the opportunity to hear from brothers and sisters who are suffering severe persecution and hardship because of their faith in Christ. Two years ago we heard from Ben Kwashi about the persecution of Christians in Northern Nigeria. This year we heard about the amazing work of Baroness Caroline Cox, who has visited suffering Christians in some of the most dangerous places in the world. It was impossible not to be moved by the plight of our brothers and sisters in Nigeria, Burma and Sudan. We saw a photograph of a woman in Southern Sudan who faced the choice between remaining faithful to Christ and watching her child starve to death, or converting to Islam and receiving food aid from the Islamist government. She had chosen to remain faithful to Christ and to die as a Christian rather than convert to a false religion. Baroness Cox seeks to be a voice for these persecuted people, many of whom are utterly ignored by the media and politicians, and to speak from direct experience. She urged us that, whilst we cannot do everything, we must not do nothing. She also shared her concern about the growing influence of Islam in the UK and the establishment of Sharia courts which are enforcing Islamic law, especially in family matters, which leads to systematic discrimination against women. This will shortly be the subject of a Panorama programme, and it is disturbing to be made aware that that citizens of our country are not in practice treated as being equal before the law enjoying rights that the rest of us take for granted. You can find out more about the work of Baroness Cox and here charity HART here.

(vi) Many Opportunities for Evangelism Whilst New word Alive is a tremendous encouragement to many Christians in their faith, perhaps acting as an annual spiritual check-up or wake-up all, there are also wonderful opportunities for evangelism. Many of the children and young people attending the event with their families are not yet converted, and no doubt some will come to true personal saving faith during the event as they heard the gospel taught. An encouraging number of people chose to come to a “Just Looking” group, which provided a chance to find out more about the Christian faith. There were over 180 internationals at the event who were able to join a track specially for them, where the Bible was taught and they were able to participate in small groups, many of which were in their own languages. It was wonderfully encouraging to hear of two people who had been converted at New Word Alive last year, who were back at the event this year with their church group. We have been reminded from 1 Peter that God, in his mercy, gives new birth into a living hope, and we long and pray that he might have worked powerfully and graciously in this way during the event this year.

(vii) Lots of Fun This is the second year that New Word Alive has been held at the Pontins site in Prestatyn, and the experience gained last year has enabled us to make significant improvements to the way that we use the site. The site as a whole is relatively compact, which is conducive to meeting people and playing informal sport and games around the chalets. This year we has seen the introduction of an excellent café in the Hub area, serving cappuccinos, lattes, mochas, and a fantastic hot chocolate with marshmallows and whipped cream! The coffee is as good as the Starbucks at Pwhelli, but without the massive queues! Clownfish have brought bigger and better inflatables onto the site, and my kids have loved spending every afternoon playing there. You can also indulge them with popcorn and candy-floss The pool is well used and there are other Pontins facilities available, including mini-golf, table tennis, bike hire and Captain Croc’s Driving School! We have been remarkably blessed with the weather. Whilst it has not been particularly warm, it has been dry so far and there has been quite a bit of sun. It has been much better than the dreadful few weeks of snow, rain and wind before the event started, for which we are very grateful to God.

There is much more that could be said. This year New Word Alive has grown and expanded to two back-to-back events. We are currently in the middle of the second week, and it seems to be going just as well as the first. Two of our children have decided to repeat their groups, whilst the other two are just enjoying using the site. It is great that no one has been disappointed this year, and that everyone who has wanted to come to New Word Alive has been able to do so. I am glad that the overwhelming majority will return home spiritually encouraged, challenged to keep living faithfully for the Lord, equipped to serve in their local church, appreciative of the blessings of unity and partnership with other gospel believers, and with a greater concern for the needs of our brothers and sisters around the world. It has not yet ended, but we are already looking forward to coming back next year. Those who weren't able to be here this year will be able order all the talks and seminars from New Word Alive media.

Judas or Jesus? Give the Glory to the True Conquering Hero

2013-03-31T20:59:00.000+01:00

This morning at church we sang my all-time favourite Easter hymn: Thine be the Glory. It is a wonderful celebration of the victory of the Lord Jesus over death, and of how the truth of the resurrection transforms our doubt into confident faith, and our fear of death into the assurance that we will safely enter the glory of the new creation.

It struck me this morning that it is especially serendipitous that this great hymn is sung to the chorus “See, the Conquering Hero Comes” from Handel’s oratorio Judas Maccabaeus. Judas Maccabaeus was a paradigm of the kind of Saviour that the Jews were wanting and expecting: someone who would lead them in military rebellion against the hated Roman occupiers and liberate their land. Their vision of salvation was too small: political, local and nationalistic. Judas had led the Jews against the hated Selucid oppressors, defeated them, purified the Temple and restored worship there in 164BC. However his triumph was short lived. He was killed at the Battle of Elasa in 160BC, when he fought an Assyrian army that enjoyed massive numerical superiority over his forces. For all his achievements Judas Maccabaeus was defeated by death.

In contrast to Judas Maccabaeus, Jesus of Nazareth appeared to be a failure. The early stages of his ministry had promised much, and many people were attracted to follow him as they wondered whether he might be the Christ who would deliver them from the Romans and re-establish a free Kingdom of Israel. However they soon drifted away when it became clear that this was not his objective. He made no attempt to gather an army, and renounced the use of violence. He resisted their every attempt to make him king by force (eg John 6v15). He headed resolutely to Jerusalem not to launch a rebellion but to submit willingly to death on a cross, the fate of failed revolutionaries. He entered Jerusalem as if he were the coming king (Matthew 21v1-11), but then demanded that the people submit to the authority of Caesar as well as that of God (Matthew 22v15-22). He told Pilate that his kingdom was “not of this world” (John 18v36), and when he was crucified he appeared pathetically unable to save even himself, let alone others or the kingdom (Matthew 27v38-44).

However, despite these appearances, Jesus was the true Saviour, and he delivered his people from their real enemies for ever. Far from being a failure, his death was the very means by which he accomplished this ultimate victory. His sacrificial death fully satisfied the just wrath of God against the sin of his people, and as a result Sin, Satan and Death were utterly defeated. Whereas Judas Maccabaeus remained dead and buried, and became nothing more than a memory, Jesus rose in glorious triumph. Through the cross he disarmed the hostile spiritual powers and authorities, and made a public spectacle of them (Colossians 2v15). He crushed our enemies once and for all. By his resurrection he was "appointed the Son of God in power" (Romans 1v4) and made sure that death would not win the victory over us, thereby removing its sting (1 Corinthians 15v54-58). He is not merely remembered as a dead hero, an inspiration for future generations to emulate, but “he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7v25).

It is Jesus, and not Judas Maccabeaeus, who is the true “Conquering Hero”, and it is right and proper that the praise, glory and honour should go to him:

“Thine be the glory, risen conquering Son,

endless is the victory Thou o’er death hast won”

A Glorious Easter Truth: Rejoice that the Tomb Wasn't Empty!

2013-03-30T19:14:00.001Z

Earlier this week there was the annual pre-Easter article in the newspaper debating whether the Turin Shroud is genuine or not. This time the latest scientific investigation is claiming that the shroud can be dated roughly to the time of Jesus. Others, of course, argue that it is an early medieval fake. Personally I fail to understand those who want to claim, let alone prove, that the Turin Shroud is genuine, since they are thereby inadvertently seeking to undermine the Bible’s account of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The gospel account does not say that Jesus was wrapped in a full-body burial shroud, but rather that his body was bound with strips of linen and that a separate cloth was wrapped around his head (John 19v40 & 20v6-7). Some 75lbs (or 34kgs) of spices were included in this mummy-like bandaging. So either the Turin Shroud or the gospel account is a fraud – they both can’t be true. Personally I think the Turin Shroud is a medieval forgery, like many of the alleged relics of the period, and believe the gospel accounts to be truthful eyewitness testimony.

There is a fitting symmetry to the fact that the earthly life of Jesus began and ended with his body wrapped in strips of cloth (see Luke 2v12), and with rich people making gifts of expensive burial spices (see Matthew 2v11 & John 19v38-39). It is as if this brackets the whole of his incarnation and sharing of our frail, tempted and mortal flesh.

The grave clothes that encased Jesus body when he was buried in the tomb are not simply an incidental detail in John’s gospel. We are used to assuming that the truth, and therefore the hope, of the resurrection is established by, amongst other things, the fact of the empty tomb. However John is at pains to tell us (and he should know- he was the one who ran to the tomb and looked in first to see what was there: John 20v5) that the tomb wasn’t empty at all. The strips of linen were “lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head” (John 20v6-7). Luke records exactly the same detail. Peter ran to the tomb and “bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying there by themselves” (Luke 24v12).

The significance of this seemingly small detail is to highlight the fact that Jesus was raised to the glorious new life of the age to come, inaugurating the new covenant, and beginning the work of new creation. Jesus did not just “come back” from the dead, but triumphed over death. He did not take up his frail, tempted and mortal incarnate flesh, but was raised in glorified flesh, which is the pattern for our own resurrection to come.

The fact that the grave clothes were left in the tomb is convincing proof that Jesus’ body was not simply stolen by grave robbers. There were no ancient equivalents of 19^th Century grave robbers stealing corpses to supply medical schools wanting specimens for anatomical dissection. Grave robbers would have wanted the valuable spices, yet these were left behind in the linen strips. Similarly they are evidence that Jesus had not been resuscitated after swooning on the cross. The image recorded by John is of the grave clothes still intact but collapsed, leaving an empty case. Not even Houdini would have been able to extricate himself from the tightly bound linen strips and crushing weight of spices, and if Jesus had been helped to escape by others (for example his disciples in on a massive deception) they would not have been able to leave the grave clothes in this condition.

However, altogether more significantly the presence of Jesus’ grave clothes in the tomb makes clear that the resurrection of Jesus was not of the same character as that of Lazarus. In John 11v38-44 Jesus demonstrated that he was the “resurrection and the life” by calling his friend Lazarus back to life after he had been entombed for four days. However not only did the tomb have to be opened for Lazarus, but he emerged with “his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face” (John 11v44). Jesus had to order his sisters to “take off his grave clothes and let him go.”

John therefore wants us to know that the resurrection of Jesus was a different order of event. Jesus did not just resume his previous bodily life, but entered into an entirely different kind of bodily existence. He did not need to be set free from his grave clothes, as Lazarus did, but rose through them, his body as it were passing through the clothes and spices, just as it would subsequently pass into locked rooms. Although John does not spell it out in theological terminology, the narrative makes clear that Jesus rose with a body that had been transformed to belong to the new creation, what Paul in 1 Corinthians 15v42-45 would term a “spiritual body” that is “raised in glory.”

Jesus triumph over death, his conquest and defeat of it, is thus made clear by the fact that the tomb wasn’t empty. The subsequent resurrection appearances to the women and apostles only serve to confirm that his resurrection was to a new kind of life. As John puts it in the prologue to his gospel, summarising his experience from the perspective of the end of the story, “we have seen his glory” (John 1v14 & cf 1 John 1v1-2). The very nature of the resurrection means that it is no mere coincidence that Jesus rose on the “first day of the week” (John 20v1), nor that he was first seen in a garden and mistaken for a gardener (John 20v15). Jesus’ resurrection marks the beginning of the work of new creation, that will culminate in new heavens and a new earth, and he is the new and last Adam, the “life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15v45) who will give eternal life to all who are untied with him by faith (Romans 6v4-10).

The resurrection is the very foundation of the Christian faith. If Christ did not rise then our faith in him is futile, because the new covenant has not been inaugurated and our sins remain unforgiven (1 Corinthians 15v17). However the great news of Easter is that Jesus has indeed risen from the dead and entered into glorious new life. This is the basis of our justification (Romans 4v25), the pattern for our own resurrection to glory to share his likeness (1 Corinthians 15v49) and the grounds for our living hope of a glorious future inheritance, which enables us to endure and rejoice in the trials and sufferings of life in a world that remains hostile to God and his people (1 Peter 1v3-4).

We ought to rejoice this Easter that the tomb wasn't empty at all!

Where Love & Mercy Meet: Substitution, Propitiation and Revelation at the Cross

2013-03-29T13:39:00.001Z

If, as I suggested yesterday, the gospel narratives of the arrest, trial, condemnation, and execution of Jesus seek to emphasise that he went to the cross utterly alone, highlighting that we contribute nothing to our salvation, they also explain what took place when Jesus died. He willingly gave himself as our substitute and propitiated the just wrath of God against our sin. In so doing he revealed most fully to humanity the true extent of the justice and love of God.

(i) Substitution

Two short vignettes in the gospel narratives indicate that what took place at the cross was a substitution. All four of the gospels tell how Pilate offered the Jews a choice between the release of Jesus, and the release of Barabbas, a convicted murderer/revolutionary/terrorist (see for example Mark 15v6-15) Contrary to Pilate’s expectations, and thwarting his plan to avoid condemning Jesus, who he knew to be innocent, the unquestionably guilty man went free and the entirely innocent man went to the cross. Jesus took the place that rightfully belonged to Barabbas, and was nailed to the cross that had been earmarked for him. There could be no clearer illustration of what was taking place in the death of Jesus. The righteous Son of God was willingly taking the place of the wicked rebel, assuming and bearing in himself the judgement that the rebellion deserved, with the result that the rebel was released to enjoy a new life.

The second vignette also pictures substitution, but here the focus is on how Jesus’ disciples are granted his status. Jesus commanded John, the disciple he loved, to take his place as “son” in relation to his mother Mary (John 19v25-27). In a sense there was no need for Jesus to do this. We know from elsewhere in the gospels that Jesus had other brothers, who could have assumed responsibility for their mother. However Jesus substituted John for himself in his role and relationship as Mary’s firstborn son, with the result that John took her into his home.

These two incidents therefore encapsulate both the negative and positive aspects of the substitution that took place on the cross. Jesus steps in to bear the judgement that we deserve as wicked rebels against the Sovereign God, and in return Jesus confers on us his status as “son.” They demonstrate the theological truth spelled out in 2 Corinthians 5v21: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

(ii) Propitiation

Substitution inherently carries with it the idea of propitiation. Jesus took the place of Barabbas and thereby bore the just wrath of the Roman state at it punished him as a guilty rebel. However multiple aspects of the narrative of the death of Jesus on the cross indicate and emphasise that he was bearing and experiencing the just wrath of his Father poured out upon him.

In Gethsemane Jesus has prayed “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me” (Luke 22v42), making clear that he was anticipating drinking the cup of God’s wrath (cf Isaiah 51v22 & Matthew 20v22)- and also that the cup was the Father’s to give or to withhold.

The very fact that Jesus was crucified was itself a clear indication that he was bearing the wrath of God. He was “hung on a tree” (Acts 5v30; Galatians 3v13), which showed that he was taking on himself the covenant curses for the faithlessness and rebellion of God’s people (Deuteronomy 21v23). Deuteronomy 28v15-68 is unequivocal that the curses imposed as a result of covenant disobedience are not just the operation of some immutable principle of moral or spiritual cause and effect, but are the active judgement of God: “The LORD will send on you curses” (Deuteronomy 28v20). As Jesus died on the cross God the Father send on him the curse of the covenant and exiled him from his presence and withdrew his glory from him.

John makes clear that Jesus died on the cross as the true Passover Lamb (John 19v26, citing Psalm 34v20 looking back to Exodus 12v46 & Numbers 9v12). This means nothing less than that his death was the result of the active judgement of God. In the first Passover it was the LORD who went through the land striking down the Egyptians (Exodus 12v23). At the cross, which is the anti-type of the Passover, God the Father strikes down his our firstborn Son in judgement. The darkness which envelopes the earth during the hours of Jesus spiritual agony and separation from his Father further indicates that he is experiencing active judgement. Jesus is being “de-created” in the judgement of death, just as Egypt was de-created in the plagues that he sent against them, climaxing in the plague of darkness (Exodus 10v21-29) which was the last plague before the death of the firstborn.

Alongside these obvious indications that Jesus was bearing in himself the wrath of his Father against sin, the narratives also allude to events and prophecies that make this point, most significantly the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis 22 and the Servant Song of Isaiah 53.

The idea that Jesus did not experience and bear the wrath of the Father poured out against him requires nothing less than a wilful misreading of the narrative. The gospel authors, and if we believe in divine inspiration God himself, want us to know that this is what took place. That Jesus's death in fact propitiated the wrath of God, so that he could show divine favour and grace to his people, is made clear by the cry of triumph Jesus uttered as he gave up his spirit. Jesus declared “It is finished” (John 19v30), meaning that the debt due to sin had been paid in full and discharged. The Father was satisfied by the payment that had been made. Nothing more was due, or ever would be due.

(iii) Revelation

The combination of substitution and propitiation that took place at the cross together constitute the fullest revelation of the character and nature of God there has ever been, or ever will be. The fact that Jesus had to go to the cross to bear the just punishment for sin reveals the justice of God. God could not simply forgive sin and pretend that it hadn't happened, or didn't matter, without violating his own holy and just character. The cross was the only way in which forgiveness could be secured without God ceasing to be himself. This much is also clear from Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. If there had been any other way then the Father would have been more than willing to take the cup of wrath from him, and ensure that “the hour” passed from him (cf Mark 14v35-36). That he didn't is sure proof that there was no other way.

The cross thus reveals the righteousness and justice of God (Romans 3v26). As we look to the cross and meditate upon it we see both that sin deserves to be punished, and also the punishment that it deserves. We have a glimpse of the reality of Hell, and see what those of us who trust in Christ have been rescued from, and what those who remain outside of Christ will face if they do not repent and turn to him. Looking to the cross reminds us of the eschatological nature of salvation. Jesus does not ultimately rescue us from poverty, unhappiness, futility, unfulfilled potential or lack of personal fulfilment, but from an eternity of separation from God and the withdrawal of all the blessings that he currently graciously confers on both the righteous and the wicked alike. A failure to see that this is at the heart of the cross will inevitably lead to a distorted understanding of salvation and our mission.

At the same time the cross is the fullest revelation of the love of God. The New Testament consistently associates the love of God with the propitiatory actions of the Father and the Son at the cross (John 3v16; Romans 5v8; 1 John 4v9-10). God’s love is not just a sentimental feeling of concern, but an action of total self-giving. The cross demonstrates the love of the Father for the world and his people in his willingness to give his only beloved Son. The cross demonstrates the love of the Son for the Father in his willingness to obey and to voluntarily submit himself to bear the divine wrath. Any alleged models of the atonement which refuse a central place to propitiation thus misrepresent God, and make him out to be less loving than he really is. They rob him of his true glory, and strip the cross of its power as an example of the costly self-giving love we should practice towards each other (1 John 4v11: “Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another”).

(iv) Mission

There is much talk today about “sharing the love of God with others.” Whilst there is a right and proper place for the care of others and their needs, we fall short of sharing the love of God with others unless we are also preaching the message of the cross to them, and calling them to respond to the God who has there demonstrated the full extent of both his love and justice. No wonder that Paul declares that “Christ’s love compels us” to preach the gospel, and to implore others on Christ’s behalf “Be reconciled to God” while it remains the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 5v14 & 20). To do anything less is to fail to share the true love of God.