I have a confession to make. I like the John Lewis Christmas advert. I know it's a sales vehicle but it's cute, sweet, brings a tear to your eye, features a boy, his toy and his Mum and Dad, has a happy ending and has resisted the inevitable push to be politically correct and have homosexual couples or a single parent family. What's not to like? What I don't like is the way that Christians are falling over themselves to remake it. I've seen two 'christian' versions of the ad and I don't like either of them. The first is by Central Church, Edinburgh entitled "Don't get your hopes up" - well that's a turn off for starters. The video lives down to the title. In fact, Central's Christmas theme is don't get your hopes up. Someone really ought to have a word with their marketing guys. Talk about negative! I just don't feel like going to one of their services to find out what I shouldn't get my hopes up about!
The second remake is by St Thomas Norwich and features a tiger instead of a penguin. Shades of Calvin and Hobbes .... except that Hobbes gets discarded .... *sniff* (gets hanky out but not for the reason the video makers intended) ...
I think what some Christians are forgetting, in their rush to point out the inevitable disappointment of Christmas when kids don't get half of their wish list (because John Lewis has run out of penguins) and the turkey is underdone and we fall out with the in-laws over the sherry trifle, is that it's just an ad. Adults enjoy it while knowing that it's trying to sell us something and kids need to learn to do the same. And it's OK for a kid to have a cuddly toy as their best friend. Of course Jesus is the ultimate best friend who will never leave or forsake us and it's the job of parents to teach this to their children along with the real meaning of Christmas but ... give me a break! And give me some hope! There's enough sadness and disappointment in the world without adding to it with penguins who don't hit it off and tigers who get dropped and forgotten.
Merry Christmas!
Monday, 15 December 2014
Thursday, 24 January 2013
Yet more on separation
OK - I'm still reading Ezra. Today it was chapter 6 and, again, the subject of separation came up. In the description of the first celebration of the Passover after completion of the Temple, it says that "the Israelites who had returned from the exile ate it, together with all who had separated themselves from the unclean practices of their Gentile neighbours in order to seek the LORD, the God of Israel" (vs 21, NIV). So the returning Israelites were not totally exclusive, but any others who wished to join them had to first of all separate themselves from certain things. We are not told exactly what the unclean practices were, but worship of idols would have been included and may have involved various forms of sexual immorality and possibly even child sacrifice. Exactly the sort of things which had got the Israelites expelled from the Holy Land in the first place, more than 70 years earlier.
This message - of the need for those who seek the Lord to separate themselves from the world and its ways - is largely absent in the church these days. Not much is said about how the world system in which we live is totally antithetical to living as a Christian and so has to be forsaken. Not much preaching is done on the need for repentance. It's all about God's love and grace and forgiveness to the extent that many in the church do not seem to realise that, if the world does not find them odd, something is wrong. They are going to get a shock when the real persecution starts! If you have put your faith in Christ and crossed over from death into life, you are in the world but not of the world. Sometimes that involves a physical separation but, more often, it is a mental separation from worldly ways of thinking. We still need to interact with the world around us but we do it from a different perspective and with the thought always that this is not our home. Our home is in heaven with Christ.
As Christians, we need to be careful of the company we keep, what we read, what we listen to, what we watch on TV or look at on the internet. Bad company corrupts good character. We need to measure everything against what the Bible teaches. We need to heed Philippians 4:8 and think on good things and, if possible, find godly people to associate with and emulate (Philippians 4:9). If the church we attend majors on love and forgiveness and does not preach the need for repentance and separation from the world, we need to find another church, because otherwise we will end up surrounded by people who have one foot in the church and one foot in the world and we will be corrupted by them.
"Therefore come out from them and be separate", says the Lord. (2 Cor 6:17a NIV)
This message - of the need for those who seek the Lord to separate themselves from the world and its ways - is largely absent in the church these days. Not much is said about how the world system in which we live is totally antithetical to living as a Christian and so has to be forsaken. Not much preaching is done on the need for repentance. It's all about God's love and grace and forgiveness to the extent that many in the church do not seem to realise that, if the world does not find them odd, something is wrong. They are going to get a shock when the real persecution starts! If you have put your faith in Christ and crossed over from death into life, you are in the world but not of the world. Sometimes that involves a physical separation but, more often, it is a mental separation from worldly ways of thinking. We still need to interact with the world around us but we do it from a different perspective and with the thought always that this is not our home. Our home is in heaven with Christ.
As Christians, we need to be careful of the company we keep, what we read, what we listen to, what we watch on TV or look at on the internet. Bad company corrupts good character. We need to measure everything against what the Bible teaches. We need to heed Philippians 4:8 and think on good things and, if possible, find godly people to associate with and emulate (Philippians 4:9). If the church we attend majors on love and forgiveness and does not preach the need for repentance and separation from the world, we need to find another church, because otherwise we will end up surrounded by people who have one foot in the church and one foot in the world and we will be corrupted by them.
"Therefore come out from them and be separate", says the Lord. (2 Cor 6:17a NIV)
Saturday, 19 January 2013
More on separation
My Bible reading for today was Ezra chapter 4. In it, the returned exiles, who are rebuilding the Temple of the LORD, receive an offer of help from some of the local inhabitants, who say that they too seek the God of the Israelites and sacrifice to Him. They receive a very definite 'no' from the leaders of the exiles. Now, to a modern reader of Scripture, this seems a bit harsh. Although these people are described as 'the enemies of Judah' right at the start of the chapter, that may be from the benefit of hindsight, as they certainly went on to become enemies after their help was rejected. Not an unnatural reaction. If a similar situation were to occur nowadays, many would say that seekers who seem to worship the same God as we do and who want to get involved in our church should be welcomed, not rejected. Why make enemies of your neighbours?
However, the Israelite leaders were quite right. To understand the situation fully, you need to know the background of the people who came to help. They were not Israelites or descendents of Abraham but people from elsewhere who had been relocated from their conquered homelands by the Assyrian ruler Esarhaddon, in line with Assyrian policies which aimed to uproot conquered peoples in order to subjugate them to Assyrian rule and assimilate them into the Assyrian empire. 2 Kings 17:24-41 describes how these people worshipped the God of Israel but also continued to worship their own gods. In other words, they were idolaters. If their help had been accepted, their idolatry would soon have infected the Israelites, who had managed to stay faithful to the God of Israel throughout the exile. A temple built with their involvement would have ostensibly been a temple to the God of Israel but would probably also have had annexes for the worship of other gods!
Zerubbabel, Jeshua and the others seem, to our modern way of thinking, to be anything but inclusive when they tell the locals "You have no part with us in building a temple to our God." They not only forfeited help they could have had but also suffered years of opposition. However, they stayed true to God and, in the end, the temple was built. It may have lacked the glory of Solomon's Temple but it was dedicated to the one true God. That was more important. They applied the principle of separation and stayed faithful to God. Would that more of our churches would do the same.
PS. And if the Israelite leaders knew at the time that these people who came offering help were enemies, they were smart enough not to be taken in by the story of them seeking the God of Israel. They didn't just take them at face value but applied biblical principles and rejected the offer. Something for churches which accept lottery money to think about!
However, the Israelite leaders were quite right. To understand the situation fully, you need to know the background of the people who came to help. They were not Israelites or descendents of Abraham but people from elsewhere who had been relocated from their conquered homelands by the Assyrian ruler Esarhaddon, in line with Assyrian policies which aimed to uproot conquered peoples in order to subjugate them to Assyrian rule and assimilate them into the Assyrian empire. 2 Kings 17:24-41 describes how these people worshipped the God of Israel but also continued to worship their own gods. In other words, they were idolaters. If their help had been accepted, their idolatry would soon have infected the Israelites, who had managed to stay faithful to the God of Israel throughout the exile. A temple built with their involvement would have ostensibly been a temple to the God of Israel but would probably also have had annexes for the worship of other gods!
Zerubbabel, Jeshua and the others seem, to our modern way of thinking, to be anything but inclusive when they tell the locals "You have no part with us in building a temple to our God." They not only forfeited help they could have had but also suffered years of opposition. However, they stayed true to God and, in the end, the temple was built. It may have lacked the glory of Solomon's Temple but it was dedicated to the one true God. That was more important. They applied the principle of separation and stayed faithful to God. Would that more of our churches would do the same.
PS. And if the Israelite leaders knew at the time that these people who came offering help were enemies, they were smart enough not to be taken in by the story of them seeking the God of Israel. They didn't just take them at face value but applied biblical principles and rejected the offer. Something for churches which accept lottery money to think about!
Sunday, 13 January 2013
The gospel of peace
If you have read my earlier articles, you will be aware that I do not believe that Roman Catholicism is a true Christian religion, however I would like to make it clear that I deplore the fact that over half the religiously agravated crimes in Scotland in 2011/12 were directed against Roman Catholics. (The next largest group of victims at around 30% were Protestants.) There is no excuse for being violent or abusive towards someone who holds different beliefs. This is a free country and people should be able to follow their religion without fear. They should also not be forced to conform, which seems to be the advice being given to Catholics at the moment.
The intransigent problem of sectarianism in Scotland has deep roots and is more to do with tribalism than religion. Many of those identifying themselves as either Catholic or Protestant hardly ever see the inside of a church. Unfortunately some football teams have historic associations with one side or the other, which serves to crystallise the tribalism. Some of it is also a spill-over from Northern Ireland due to decades of immigration from that province. And some people will use any excuse for a fight. Whatever the cause, violence and abuse are never acceptable.
Scotland's Shame, as it has been called, is not so much the sectarianism - it's the violence, much of it alcohol-fuelled. It's men thinking that it's OK to fight in the streets with the opposing team's supporters and then go home and beat up the wife. That's the real problem. We see it in Belfast at the moment where violence has erupted over a political/symbolic issue. The rioters there have a point but violence is not the way to address it. What is particularly sad is that it's mainly young people who are taking to the streets and attacking police. We have failed to teach them a better way. We are also failing to give them jobs, hope and a future.
Ultimately the only lasting answer to this nation's troubles and those of Northern Ireland is Christ. He is the Prince of Peace. When He returns there will be peace on earth. Until then Christians need to share the gospel of peace, which is salvation in Christ, and the truth that violence accomplishes nothing.
The intransigent problem of sectarianism in Scotland has deep roots and is more to do with tribalism than religion. Many of those identifying themselves as either Catholic or Protestant hardly ever see the inside of a church. Unfortunately some football teams have historic associations with one side or the other, which serves to crystallise the tribalism. Some of it is also a spill-over from Northern Ireland due to decades of immigration from that province. And some people will use any excuse for a fight. Whatever the cause, violence and abuse are never acceptable.
Scotland's Shame, as it has been called, is not so much the sectarianism - it's the violence, much of it alcohol-fuelled. It's men thinking that it's OK to fight in the streets with the opposing team's supporters and then go home and beat up the wife. That's the real problem. We see it in Belfast at the moment where violence has erupted over a political/symbolic issue. The rioters there have a point but violence is not the way to address it. What is particularly sad is that it's mainly young people who are taking to the streets and attacking police. We have failed to teach them a better way. We are also failing to give them jobs, hope and a future.
Ultimately the only lasting answer to this nation's troubles and those of Northern Ireland is Christ. He is the Prince of Peace. When He returns there will be peace on earth. Until then Christians need to share the gospel of peace, which is salvation in Christ, and the truth that violence accomplishes nothing.
Friday, 4 January 2013
What is the church for?
After the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, in Acts chapter 5, we read that "all the believers used to meet together in Solomon's Colonnade. No-one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number." (Acts 5:12b-14 NIV) At first glance, this seems to be a bit of a contradiction. No-one dared join them but more and more ... were added to their number. The answer, it seems to me, is that no unbeliever dared to join them but new believers (converts) did. The early church was a group of believers only. They were visible to the public, they preached their message to the public but you didn't join in their meetings unless you were saved. There was a clear line of demarcation between those who believed in the risen Christ and those who did not.
This state of affairs did not last, although we see another hint of it in Acts 8:21 where Simon the Sorcerer is told that he has no part in the ministry of the apostles because his heart is not right before God. Later epistles such as those of John and Jude indicate that there were unbelievers and deceivers in the church, masquerading as sheep. The prescribed remedy for this was for the church to have nothing to do with such people. Which brings me to my question in the title of this post. What is the church for? Nowadays it seems to be for unbelievers, judging by the actions of many churches, however, in the beginning, it was for believers. Those bringing false teaching were not welcome. Sinners had to repent or leave.A far cry from most churches today.
In an effort to evangelise the lost and grow the church, we just about fall over backwards trying to get unbelievers through the door, and, when we succeed, we fail to preach the whole gospel to them (in case we put them off) and so we get half-baked converts in our midst who then go on to spread their yeast of worldly thinking/new age beliefs/doubt/false teaching through the whole congregation. We think that as long as we preach the word every Sunday they will eventually become true believers, while, in fact, we are ignoring Jesus' teaching about the effects of leaven. Meanwhile the gangrene is spreading within the Body of Christ and no-one has the guts to chop off the affected limb.
I have frequently witnessed double-minded so-called believers mainlining doubt and unbelief straight into the heart of a church or bible study group. They may be promoting new age therapies. They may have embraced the cult of positive thinking. They may advocate watering down the gospel lest we scare people away. They may encourage ecumenicism and inclusiveness and other worldly views. They may try and bring business management techniques into the church. It's all poison and its long-term effects on the Body of Christ are fatal. The early church had an antidote - separation. Unfortunately the doctrine of separation has become discredited over the years to the extent that it is now a dirty word in evangelical circles. More fool us. (For more detail see this excellent article from Herescope.)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be friends with unbelievers - of course we should. We just need to make sure that someone truly is a believer in the Risen Christ, with a good understanding of all that that means, before we let them join our church. That was what communicants classes were for in the Presbyterian tradition. They seem to have fallen somewhat by the wayside. I personally believe in adult (believers) baptism because I think it has a more solid scriptural foundation but also because it requires a degree of commitment, particularly when backed up by a godly interrogation beforehand by the person doing the baptism, to make sure that the one being baptised understands what they are doing!
I expect to have to defend my Christian beliefs outside the church. I shouldn't have to do so inside the church, which should be a safe haven for sheep. Instead it is full of wolves because the walls of the sheep fold have broken down and the shepherds are not doing their job properly.
This state of affairs did not last, although we see another hint of it in Acts 8:21 where Simon the Sorcerer is told that he has no part in the ministry of the apostles because his heart is not right before God. Later epistles such as those of John and Jude indicate that there were unbelievers and deceivers in the church, masquerading as sheep. The prescribed remedy for this was for the church to have nothing to do with such people. Which brings me to my question in the title of this post. What is the church for? Nowadays it seems to be for unbelievers, judging by the actions of many churches, however, in the beginning, it was for believers. Those bringing false teaching were not welcome. Sinners had to repent or leave.A far cry from most churches today.
In an effort to evangelise the lost and grow the church, we just about fall over backwards trying to get unbelievers through the door, and, when we succeed, we fail to preach the whole gospel to them (in case we put them off) and so we get half-baked converts in our midst who then go on to spread their yeast of worldly thinking/new age beliefs/doubt/false teaching through the whole congregation. We think that as long as we preach the word every Sunday they will eventually become true believers, while, in fact, we are ignoring Jesus' teaching about the effects of leaven. Meanwhile the gangrene is spreading within the Body of Christ and no-one has the guts to chop off the affected limb.
I have frequently witnessed double-minded so-called believers mainlining doubt and unbelief straight into the heart of a church or bible study group. They may be promoting new age therapies. They may have embraced the cult of positive thinking. They may advocate watering down the gospel lest we scare people away. They may encourage ecumenicism and inclusiveness and other worldly views. They may try and bring business management techniques into the church. It's all poison and its long-term effects on the Body of Christ are fatal. The early church had an antidote - separation. Unfortunately the doctrine of separation has become discredited over the years to the extent that it is now a dirty word in evangelical circles. More fool us. (For more detail see this excellent article from Herescope.)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be friends with unbelievers - of course we should. We just need to make sure that someone truly is a believer in the Risen Christ, with a good understanding of all that that means, before we let them join our church. That was what communicants classes were for in the Presbyterian tradition. They seem to have fallen somewhat by the wayside. I personally believe in adult (believers) baptism because I think it has a more solid scriptural foundation but also because it requires a degree of commitment, particularly when backed up by a godly interrogation beforehand by the person doing the baptism, to make sure that the one being baptised understands what they are doing!
I expect to have to defend my Christian beliefs outside the church. I shouldn't have to do so inside the church, which should be a safe haven for sheep. Instead it is full of wolves because the walls of the sheep fold have broken down and the shepherds are not doing their job properly.
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Wake up and smell the coffee
With the successful prosecution of yet another Christian B&B owner over her refusal to give a double room to a gay couple, it's time for Christians in the UK to wake up and smell the coffee, because if same-sex marriage becomes a reality, this will only be the start. Sadly, it's the BNP who have taken up the case and who are campaigning for the "rights of all home owners, gays included, to rent or not rent rooms to whomsoever they wish". The problem is a law which was passed a few years ago and which outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation, however laws are not set in stone - they can, and in this case should, be changed. As Christians we need to be challenging legislation which goes against our religious convictions, or at least arguing for a freedom of conscience clause. It is just not acceptable for us to be told that we should find another job or business if we can't comply with equalities legislation. Christian B&B owners have had 'married couples only' policies for their double rooms for a lot longer than the equalities act has been in place. It's hard not to feel that the legislation is being used as a stick to beat Christians with. That said, if we don't make our feelings known to politicians, it's our own fault if they pass laws which discriminate against us.
Monday, 15 October 2012
The church is the people
Sadly, recent events regarding St George's Tron in Glasgow (the church where I was christened by Rev Tom Allan) clearly demonstrate the Church of Scotland's determination to continue its dog in the manger attitude towards congregations which wish to secede. Presumably they hope to send out a clear message to the likes of Holyrood Abbey in Edinburgh, which has recently undergone a similar refurbishment paid for in large part by the congregation. I can only hope that Holyrood, Gilcomston and others send a clear message back to 121 - get back to the Bible or we're off. It is not now just a matter of the denomination's stance on homosexuality which is the problem - it is also the petty, spiteful way in which Presbyteries are acting towards congregations who reject the way the denomination is heading and who want to remain faithful to God's word. Rev David Robertson of the Free Church challenges us, both inside and outside the Church of Scotland, not to sit on the fence. I stand with my brothers and sisters who have been evicted from the Tron and I pray that their witness in Glasgow city centre will continue. The church is the people, not the building.
Here is the church
Here's the steeple
Open the doors
Look - no people!
(from an old children's action rhyme - adapted to suit Glasgow Presbytery)
Here is the church
Here's the steeple
Open the doors
Look - no people!
(from an old children's action rhyme - adapted to suit Glasgow Presbytery)
Monday, 1 October 2012
Great is thy faithfulness
Why, oh why, do some churches feel that they have to modernise everything in order to appeal to people? I am not a die-hard traditionalist however I also do not believe that the decline in church attendance has been caused purely by the use of old-fashioned English and can be reversed simply by replacing all instances of 'thee' and 'thou' in our prayers, worship and bible readings by 'you'. Such language was already out of date when I was a child but that didn't stop me from understanding what was meant, at least most of the time. It also didn't stop me from becoming a Christian.
The English of the King James Version, although beautiful, can be impenetrable and so I personally use the NIV for Bible study. Being of a certain age (ie over 50) I do, however, prefer to keep the old language of 'Our Father' which I learnt as a child and I really, really object when people try and modernise the words of favourite old hymns. Do we modernise Shakespeare? Do we update John Donne? Or Chaucer? Hymns are poetry set to music. When you alter the words you spoil them. Churches which do this also run the risk of alienating older people who know many old hymns off by heart and who become confused when the words are changed. Such relentless modernisation makes me feel that old people are being forgotten when it comes to evangelisation. Everything is aimed at the younger generation and yet pensioners have an even more urgent need to hear the gospel because their time is short.
The vast majority of the over-50s in this country grew up with the King James Version and the Church of Scotland Hymnary 2nd Edition with the Scottish Psalter. That is what they are familiar with. It therefore makes sense that that is what churches should use if they want to reach the over-50s. You have only to look at the faces of the residents in an old-folks' home when old hymns are being sung to see how much they enjoy them. I'm not saying that we can't have modern songs. I'm just saying that we should have a mixture of both old and new and that we shouldn't try and update the old favourites. "Great is your faithfulness" just doesn't sound right any more than "wherefore are you Romeo".
The English of the King James Version, although beautiful, can be impenetrable and so I personally use the NIV for Bible study. Being of a certain age (ie over 50) I do, however, prefer to keep the old language of 'Our Father' which I learnt as a child and I really, really object when people try and modernise the words of favourite old hymns. Do we modernise Shakespeare? Do we update John Donne? Or Chaucer? Hymns are poetry set to music. When you alter the words you spoil them. Churches which do this also run the risk of alienating older people who know many old hymns off by heart and who become confused when the words are changed. Such relentless modernisation makes me feel that old people are being forgotten when it comes to evangelisation. Everything is aimed at the younger generation and yet pensioners have an even more urgent need to hear the gospel because their time is short.
The vast majority of the over-50s in this country grew up with the King James Version and the Church of Scotland Hymnary 2nd Edition with the Scottish Psalter. That is what they are familiar with. It therefore makes sense that that is what churches should use if they want to reach the over-50s. You have only to look at the faces of the residents in an old-folks' home when old hymns are being sung to see how much they enjoy them. I'm not saying that we can't have modern songs. I'm just saying that we should have a mixture of both old and new and that we shouldn't try and update the old favourites. "Great is your faithfulness" just doesn't sound right any more than "wherefore are you Romeo".
Friday, 31 August 2012
The problem of feelings-based legislation
I have already talked in an earlier post about the dangers of relying on feelings when it comes to interpreting God's Word. I am also very concerned about the current tendency for individuals and groups to press for changes in legislation based on feelings. No-one who watched Tony Nicklinson on TV could fail to have been affected emotionally by his struggles, however that does not mean that we should change the law to allow someone to kill a person in Mr Nicklinson's position with impunity. Thankfully the judges in the case decided that they were not able to change the law. The problem is that politicians are, and they are being actively lobbied by the pro-euthanasia groups both at Westminster and Holyrood. I have said before that we cannot impose Christian values on society however that does not mean that we can't encourage society, by all methods at our disposal, to live according to God's law, thereby protecting the weak and the vulnerable. Having rejected both the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Greek tradition of rational thought, our nation is now floundering on a sea of emotionalism. As Christians we need to be throwing it the lifebelt of God's word to bring it to safety on the rock which is Christ.
Monday, 4 June 2012
Watered-down christianity doesn't work
There is a school of thought that says that we should back-pedal on the harder teachings of Christianity in order not to scare away seekers or new christians. The theory goes that it is better to get and keep such people in the church, where they can hear a (watered-down) gospel rather than frighten them off. What rot. If anyone has any lingering doubt that such a philosophy works, they have only to look at the experience of seeker-friendly Willow Creek. The results of a multi-year study on the
effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry reveal that most of what they have been doing for these
many years, and what they have taught millions of others to do, is not
producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not
disciples.
I think people need to know exactly what they are committing themselves to
before they make a decision to follow Christ. "Small is the gate and narrow the
road that leads to life, and few find it." (Matt 7:14) "He who puts his hand to
the plough and then looks back is not fit for service in the kingdom of God."
(Luke 9:62) Better a few really committed christians who understand what it is all about than a load of wishy-washy
touchy-feely felt-led sort-of christians who still have one foot in the world
and who will probably run away at the first sign of persecution or hardship. In the meantime, they are infecting our churches with their worldly views on everything from homosexuality to new age therapies. That is why the church in Scotland (and the Church of Scotland in particular) is in such a mess. Preaching a watered-down gospel just doesn't work.
When the rich young man came to Jesus and asked what he must do to inherit eternal life, did Jesus make it easy for him? No, he didn't, even although Mark's gospel tells us that Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). Actually, Jesus asked the young man to do the same as he'd asked the other disciples to do - leave everything and follow him. The result was a failure, in the world's eyes, but why should Jesus have asked anything less of this particular would-be follower? Would we really expect Jesus to make an exception just because someone was rich? The way to eternal life is the same for everyone - through faith in Christ. The cost is everything we have. There are no shortcuts, no easy way, no privileged path. It's a pity Pilgrim's Progress is not more widely read these days.
Yes, it is harder for those who have a lot invested in the world to become christians (Mark 10:23). Sometimes they need to lose their wordly wealth before they will turn to Christ. Our job is not to make it easy for them but to preach the gospel, omitting nothing. To do otherwise is dishonest and unfair.
When the rich young man came to Jesus and asked what he must do to inherit eternal life, did Jesus make it easy for him? No, he didn't, even although Mark's gospel tells us that Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). Actually, Jesus asked the young man to do the same as he'd asked the other disciples to do - leave everything and follow him. The result was a failure, in the world's eyes, but why should Jesus have asked anything less of this particular would-be follower? Would we really expect Jesus to make an exception just because someone was rich? The way to eternal life is the same for everyone - through faith in Christ. The cost is everything we have. There are no shortcuts, no easy way, no privileged path. It's a pity Pilgrim's Progress is not more widely read these days.
Yes, it is harder for those who have a lot invested in the world to become christians (Mark 10:23). Sometimes they need to lose their wordly wealth before they will turn to Christ. Our job is not to make it easy for them but to preach the gospel, omitting nothing. To do otherwise is dishonest and unfair.
Monday, 21 May 2012
What's in a name?
I heard a sermon recently in which the preacher mentioned emergent and emerging churches. In his view, the former was bad, having gone off the rails theologically, but the latter was OK, being just churches looking for a way to be culturally relevant. Leaving aside, for the moment, the whole minefield of cultural relevance, making such a distinction between 'emergent' and 'emerging' is rather dangerous. A quick check of Wikipedia shows that there is no consensus about what those terms actually mean. Indeed, many commentators on today's churches use the terms interchangeably, including Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries. It seems that the term 'emergent' started with Brian McLaren's Emergent Village and some still use it to refer to that, with 'emerging' referring to a wider, more diverse movement which would include the likes of Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll, Doug Pagitt and Dan Kimball, however there is a considerable amount of overlap and confusion about the terms, making the assertion of the preacher, which I mentioned at the start, open to misinterpretation.
The attempt to be culturally relevant has led many churches off the straight and narrow path and onto the broad highway which leads to hell. Maybe not all emerging churches are on that road but a lot are, with their emphasis on conversation, inclusion, generous orthodoxy, interfaith dialogue and mysticism. The christian who wants to stay faithful to God's word would do well to avoid such churches, where experience is elevated over scripture. That is not to say that I am against all things modern - I read the NIV and I don't use King James English to pray. What the emerging church movement is doing goes well beyond simply updating the language they use to worship God and communicate the gospel to others. If your church is getting involved in any of the following, it may be time to leave:
(this list is not exhaustive)
Worship services that are more like a disco than a church service.
Promotion of contemplative prayer/lectio divina/teachings of the 'desert fathers'.
Use of labyrinths.
Use of The Message instead of a more reliable bible version eg NIV, NASB, KJV.
Elevation of experience over Scripture.
The Toronto blessing/soaking prayer.
Angelic manifestations.
Teaching and use of techniques for healing, rather than dependence on the Holy Spirit.
Ecumenical/interfaith services.
Vision casting/visualisation.
Over-emphasis on the demonic or prophetic.
Purpose driven/seeker friendly.
Ignoring hard teachings in order not to offend or scare away non-christians.
The attempt to be culturally relevant has led many churches off the straight and narrow path and onto the broad highway which leads to hell. Maybe not all emerging churches are on that road but a lot are, with their emphasis on conversation, inclusion, generous orthodoxy, interfaith dialogue and mysticism. The christian who wants to stay faithful to God's word would do well to avoid such churches, where experience is elevated over scripture. That is not to say that I am against all things modern - I read the NIV and I don't use King James English to pray. What the emerging church movement is doing goes well beyond simply updating the language they use to worship God and communicate the gospel to others. If your church is getting involved in any of the following, it may be time to leave:
(this list is not exhaustive)
Worship services that are more like a disco than a church service.
Promotion of contemplative prayer/lectio divina/teachings of the 'desert fathers'.
Use of labyrinths.
Use of The Message instead of a more reliable bible version eg NIV, NASB, KJV.
Elevation of experience over Scripture.
The Toronto blessing/soaking prayer.
Angelic manifestations.
Teaching and use of techniques for healing, rather than dependence on the Holy Spirit.
Ecumenical/interfaith services.
Vision casting/visualisation.
Over-emphasis on the demonic or prophetic.
Purpose driven/seeker friendly.
Ignoring hard teachings in order not to offend or scare away non-christians.
Friday, 18 May 2012
On running the race
Last night at Bible Study we looked at Hebrews 12. It starts with that wonderful verse 'Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.' Not the race that we have chosen - the one marked out for us. For one christian friend today that race is coping with the death of her husband in an accident just weeks before they were due to share retirement together. For another, it is struggling with secondary cancer when just months ago she had been given the all-clear. There are times when you just have to keep putting one foot in front of the other (metaphorically speaking). That's perseverance.
There is some debate as to who wrote the book of Hebrews but my money is on the Apostle Paul. He knew about both hardship and perseverance. He finished the race and kept the faith (2 Tim 3:7). He called himself the least of all the apostles and yet, in many ways, he was the greatest. He left us a wealth of instruction on how to live the christian life and was himself a shining example for us to follow. It therefore concerns me when people write him off as legalistic or his example as too difficult to follow. How could the writer of Galatians possibly be legalistic! Paul, were he alive today, would be the first to say that we should follow Jesus, not Paul, however if we ignore Paul we are missing something, because Paul's writings, inspired by the Holy Spirit, point us to Jesus. That is why they are included in the Canon of Scripture and I am uncomfortable with the current trend among some christians to minimise or sideline Paul's epistles - an example being Professor Donald Macleod of the Free Church, who is reported as saying in a BBC radio interview "My concern is to go back to Jesus. I even feel uncomfortable going back to St.Paul." Why? The two (Paul and Jesus) are not incompatible. If we didn't have the gospels, we would still be able to understand the gospel and know Christ through Paul's writings.
It seems to me that those who want to go back to Jesus and who ignore Paul are really modern-day liberals who preach a gospel of love and grace while quietly ignoring the fact that grace is not a licence to sin. Paul was an observant Jew who had a supernatural encounter with the living Christ which changed his life from that moment on. He then became the apostle to the gentiles. That's you and me, unless you are a Jew. That's why we need to pay attention to his teachings. He had the background to understand the law and the prophets and he had the revelation of Christ as Messiah. He is also a wonderful example of perseverance in the face of persecution. The writer John Buchan understood this. In his book, Mr Standfast, one of the characters discourses on courage. 'It's easy to be brave if you're feeling well and have food inside you ... but the big courage is the cold-blooded kind, the kind that never lets go even when you're feeling empty inside, and your blood's thin, and there's no kind of fun or profit to be had, and the trouble's not over in an hour or two but lasts for months and years ... fortitude's the biggest thing a man can have - just to go on enduring when there's no guts or heart left in you ... the head man at the job (fortitude) was the Apostle Paul.' (Mr Standfast Chapter XI)
Now Paul is one of the great cloud of witnesses who surround us and I, for one, am glad of his example.
There is some debate as to who wrote the book of Hebrews but my money is on the Apostle Paul. He knew about both hardship and perseverance. He finished the race and kept the faith (2 Tim 3:7). He called himself the least of all the apostles and yet, in many ways, he was the greatest. He left us a wealth of instruction on how to live the christian life and was himself a shining example for us to follow. It therefore concerns me when people write him off as legalistic or his example as too difficult to follow. How could the writer of Galatians possibly be legalistic! Paul, were he alive today, would be the first to say that we should follow Jesus, not Paul, however if we ignore Paul we are missing something, because Paul's writings, inspired by the Holy Spirit, point us to Jesus. That is why they are included in the Canon of Scripture and I am uncomfortable with the current trend among some christians to minimise or sideline Paul's epistles - an example being Professor Donald Macleod of the Free Church, who is reported as saying in a BBC radio interview "My concern is to go back to Jesus. I even feel uncomfortable going back to St.Paul." Why? The two (Paul and Jesus) are not incompatible. If we didn't have the gospels, we would still be able to understand the gospel and know Christ through Paul's writings.
It seems to me that those who want to go back to Jesus and who ignore Paul are really modern-day liberals who preach a gospel of love and grace while quietly ignoring the fact that grace is not a licence to sin. Paul was an observant Jew who had a supernatural encounter with the living Christ which changed his life from that moment on. He then became the apostle to the gentiles. That's you and me, unless you are a Jew. That's why we need to pay attention to his teachings. He had the background to understand the law and the prophets and he had the revelation of Christ as Messiah. He is also a wonderful example of perseverance in the face of persecution. The writer John Buchan understood this. In his book, Mr Standfast, one of the characters discourses on courage. 'It's easy to be brave if you're feeling well and have food inside you ... but the big courage is the cold-blooded kind, the kind that never lets go even when you're feeling empty inside, and your blood's thin, and there's no kind of fun or profit to be had, and the trouble's not over in an hour or two but lasts for months and years ... fortitude's the biggest thing a man can have - just to go on enduring when there's no guts or heart left in you ... the head man at the job (fortitude) was the Apostle Paul.' (Mr Standfast Chapter XI)
Now Paul is one of the great cloud of witnesses who surround us and I, for one, am glad of his example.
Sunday, 15 April 2012
On adding to the faith
It seems to me that the reason why so many people have trouble accepting that Roman Catholicism is not a true Christian denomination is because Catholicism does not deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith so much as add to them. An example of this is the Alpha Course. Roman Catholics have their own version of this which is the same as the Protestant version but with the addition of two extra chapters dealing with Roman Catholic sacraments and other practices of the Roman church.
Why is adding to the Christian faith a problem? Surely as long as we all agree on the fundamentals that is enough? For an answer to this, first read the book of Galatians. Then listen to the video on this link here.
Why is adding to the Christian faith a problem? Surely as long as we all agree on the fundamentals that is enough? For an answer to this, first read the book of Galatians. Then listen to the video on this link here.
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
Make your views known on assisted suicide
There is an important consultation going on in the Scottish Parliament right now which you should prayerfully consider responding to. It is a consultation on Margo Macdonald's second attempt to bring forward a bill to legalise assisted suicide. The details can be found by clicking here. CARE for Scotland recommend that you only answer Question 1 if you do not agree with legalising assisted suicide and you can do that by emailing Margo at the address towards the end of the consultation document. It only takes a few minutes to make your views known on this important matter.
Thursday, 15 March 2012
How to avoid being deceived
Deception has always threatened the church. Jesus warned about it. Paul wrote several of his letters to counter it, Peter and John had strong words to say about it. It is nothing new, however the scale of deception assaulting the church at the moment seems to be far more than at any other time in history, save the early days of the church when they did not have the Gospels and Epistles. That, together with other global events, indicates to me that we are in the last days. The main reason I decided to start writing this blog was to counter, in some small way, the deceptions I find creeping into the church in Scotland. I do not expect anyone to just accept what I say here as gospel - I expect them to go away and search the scriptures to see if what I say is true. I also expect them to do some background reading, which is why I provide links to other websites in many of my articles.
This blog is aimed at mature christians. If you are a new christian my advice to you would be to concentrate on reading the Bible. Read a decent translation, not a paraphrase like The Message or the Living Bible. Don't skip any of it, because you need to get the big picture. Go to a church where they preach from the Bible. Go to a good Bible study group if you can. Then, when you've read the Bible, you can use it to measure what I say. If you are a mature christian and you have not read all of the Bible, go away and read it all. You need to get the big picture. How can you use the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God if you haven't read it all?
I cannot hope to cover all the deceptions of the enemy in this blog, however if you really know the Word of God, you will be able to recognise deception when you see it and that is vitally important. In the words of Jesus "Watch out that no-one deceives you." (Matthew 24:4 NIV)
This blog is aimed at mature christians. If you are a new christian my advice to you would be to concentrate on reading the Bible. Read a decent translation, not a paraphrase like The Message or the Living Bible. Don't skip any of it, because you need to get the big picture. Go to a church where they preach from the Bible. Go to a good Bible study group if you can. Then, when you've read the Bible, you can use it to measure what I say. If you are a mature christian and you have not read all of the Bible, go away and read it all. You need to get the big picture. How can you use the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God if you haven't read it all?
I cannot hope to cover all the deceptions of the enemy in this blog, however if you really know the Word of God, you will be able to recognise deception when you see it and that is vitally important. In the words of Jesus "Watch out that no-one deceives you." (Matthew 24:4 NIV)
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Where do you draw the line?
In this age of increasing deception and compromise, I am wondering where one should draw the line when it comes to fellowshipping with people who do not hold exactly the same views as me. I don't think I am alone in wondering this and so I want to explore the issue in this post, and am taking the unusual step of opening it for comments so that others can contribute to the discussion if they wish.
As I have already said, I am an Arminian Baptist. I have described Arminianism elsewhere on this blog and I believe in adult, or believer's, baptism, not the christening of infants. At the moment I attend a Presbyterian church which is Calvinist and practises infant baptism. So you would be right in deducing that I don't see these things as deal-breakers when it comes to christian fellowship. Maybe some people would. However, if my church were to start holding joint services of worship with Our Lady of Lourdes RC church round the corner I would be out of there like a shot. A line would have been crossed because I don't believe that we share the same gospel with the Roman Catholic church.
If a minister were to preach something contrary to the Word of God as expressed in Scripture, I would leave that church. It is dangerous to sit and listen to heresy - eventually you will start to believe it. If a church leader were to start advocating things which are extra-biblical, such as lectio divina, visions of angels, centering prayer, Toronto-blessing type manifestations, I would also leave. These things are not founded in the Bible and can lead one into deception. You'll notice I'm talking about what the minister or leader is doing. That is because they set the direction of the church. I would be concerned if a member of the congregation had unbiblical views but it would not be a leaving issue for me unless it infected the whole congregation.
What else would cause me to leave a church? The use of The Message as the primary version of the Bible. Participation in the Purpose Driven Church program. Promotion of extra-biblical revelation and experiential christianity. A female leader. A leadership which is above criticism. Attempts to unduly control and influence my life in areas where the church has no authority eg telling me what job to take, what house to live in, who to marry. (Those are the signs of a cult, not a church.) Undue pressure to give financially to the church. I'm sure I could think of a few more things given time and I'll maybe expand on some of the above in later posts, again given time!
One particularly pressing issue for many in Scotland at the moment is the fact that, while their church is fine and their minister is sound, the denomination to which they belong is going off the rails. That is a difficult one. Do you (or should you) belong to the local church or do you belong to the denomination? Should you leave a good church just because the denomination is bad? I don't know the answer to that and, I suspect, many others don't either. It needs to be a matter for much prayer and, ultimately, the conscience of the individual. I personally am not loyal to any particular denomination and so look for the best church locally.
Ultimately the issue is not whether I agree with the minister/church/denomination. It's whether they agree with the Word of God as set forth in the Bible. When Paul and his companions arrived in Berea with the gospel, the Bereans "received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11b NIV) We need to be like that and not like the Corinthians who "put up with a different gospel" to the one Paul preached "easily enough". (2 Corinthians 11:4b NIV)
As I have already said, I am an Arminian Baptist. I have described Arminianism elsewhere on this blog and I believe in adult, or believer's, baptism, not the christening of infants. At the moment I attend a Presbyterian church which is Calvinist and practises infant baptism. So you would be right in deducing that I don't see these things as deal-breakers when it comes to christian fellowship. Maybe some people would. However, if my church were to start holding joint services of worship with Our Lady of Lourdes RC church round the corner I would be out of there like a shot. A line would have been crossed because I don't believe that we share the same gospel with the Roman Catholic church.
If a minister were to preach something contrary to the Word of God as expressed in Scripture, I would leave that church. It is dangerous to sit and listen to heresy - eventually you will start to believe it. If a church leader were to start advocating things which are extra-biblical, such as lectio divina, visions of angels, centering prayer, Toronto-blessing type manifestations, I would also leave. These things are not founded in the Bible and can lead one into deception. You'll notice I'm talking about what the minister or leader is doing. That is because they set the direction of the church. I would be concerned if a member of the congregation had unbiblical views but it would not be a leaving issue for me unless it infected the whole congregation.
What else would cause me to leave a church? The use of The Message as the primary version of the Bible. Participation in the Purpose Driven Church program. Promotion of extra-biblical revelation and experiential christianity. A female leader. A leadership which is above criticism. Attempts to unduly control and influence my life in areas where the church has no authority eg telling me what job to take, what house to live in, who to marry. (Those are the signs of a cult, not a church.) Undue pressure to give financially to the church. I'm sure I could think of a few more things given time and I'll maybe expand on some of the above in later posts, again given time!
One particularly pressing issue for many in Scotland at the moment is the fact that, while their church is fine and their minister is sound, the denomination to which they belong is going off the rails. That is a difficult one. Do you (or should you) belong to the local church or do you belong to the denomination? Should you leave a good church just because the denomination is bad? I don't know the answer to that and, I suspect, many others don't either. It needs to be a matter for much prayer and, ultimately, the conscience of the individual. I personally am not loyal to any particular denomination and so look for the best church locally.
Ultimately the issue is not whether I agree with the minister/church/denomination. It's whether they agree with the Word of God as set forth in the Bible. When Paul and his companions arrived in Berea with the gospel, the Bereans "received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11b NIV) We need to be like that and not like the Corinthians who "put up with a different gospel" to the one Paul preached "easily enough". (2 Corinthians 11:4b NIV)
Monday, 27 February 2012
Free Church abandoning the Westminster Confession?
As an Arminian Baptist, I do not subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is the subordinate standard of most Presbyterian churches, including the Free Church of Scotland, because of its Calvinist standpoint and emphasis on infant baptism. I do, however, agree with its stance on Christ being the head of the church, not the Pope, and its repudiation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. It is therefore worrying to see that some Free Church ministers are now abandoning the Westminster Confession (and, it seems, their ordination vows) in favour of ecumenical relations with the Roman Catholic Church. Rev James Maciver, last year's Free Church moderator, joined in an ecumenical watchnight service with the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Stornoway in December and was praised for it by Rev Professor Donald Macleod, recently retired Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free Church College in Edinburgh, in his Footnotes article for the West Highland Free Press of 30-12-11. In addition, Rev David Robertson went on air on Radio Scotland in 2010 and welcomed the Pope to Scotland as a 'fellow-christian' which is definitely not how the Pope is described in Chapter XXV of the Westminster Confession.
It seems to me that the Free Church needs to either discipline these men (who are very influential within the denomination) or else come clean and admit that they no longer regard the Westminster Confession of Faith as their confessional document. Then at least we would all know where we stand. Personally I think it is very sad that these ministers should have been so deceived as to forget what the Reformation was about and accept Roman Catholicism as a christian faith. Without the restraining influence of those who left to form the Free Church (Continuing) in 2000 it seems that the Free Church of Scotland is now beginning to go down the same path as the Church of Scotland, albeit 40 years behind. They'll be appointing women elders next.
It seems to me that the Free Church needs to either discipline these men (who are very influential within the denomination) or else come clean and admit that they no longer regard the Westminster Confession of Faith as their confessional document. Then at least we would all know where we stand. Personally I think it is very sad that these ministers should have been so deceived as to forget what the Reformation was about and accept Roman Catholicism as a christian faith. Without the restraining influence of those who left to form the Free Church (Continuing) in 2000 it seems that the Free Church of Scotland is now beginning to go down the same path as the Church of Scotland, albeit 40 years behind. They'll be appointing women elders next.
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Angels - the new god?
I was browsing the religious section of my local library this afternoon and was amazed at the number of books on angels. Perhaps I shouldn't have been - there is plenty of evidence around that angels are the new god, from angel workshops to cute little statuettes of angels in people's homes. It seems there is an angel for every occasion - a bit like saints - and you can read about how to harness their power for your own benefit. Sadly even Christians are being taken in by all this - I personally have encountered Christians who pray to angels, invoke their help and have a special guardian angel whom they regard as a mascot. They obviously haven't read Hebrews recently, otherwise they would know that angels are ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation, but that salvation comes through faith in Christ, who is far above the angels. (Hebrews 1)
Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us to pray to angels - quite the opposite. In Colossians 2:18 we are warned against those who worship angels and praying to angels instead of to God is, I believe, idolatry. It is God who commands the angels, not us (Psalm 91:11). We are commanded to pray to God, in the name of His Son and to make all our requests known to God, not to angels. If God decides to answer our prayers by sending an angel, that is his prerogative. Personally I'd rather he used other means, as encounters with angels in Scripture usually left the person concerned terrified! Angels are not cute, cuddly beings - they are awesome messengers and mighty warriors. They are also always male, not female, so the female angel which Todd Bentley claimed to have seen floating along was not Biblical.
It seems to me that people become interested in angels because they want to believe that someone is looking after them but they don't want to have to deal with a righteous God. They are not interested in repenting of their sin and worship of angels doesn't require them to. All is sweetness and light and love. It is a false gospel. Christians who have a wrong image of God as stern, harsh and unapproachable sometimes find that angels are much easier to believe in and pray to but the real answer is to gain a right understanding of God as a loving heavenly Father through reading His Word. Worship of angels will only lead one deeper into deception. Remember that Satan can appear as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14).
As Christians, we should be grateful for the ministry and protection of angels but we should not seek to contact them. Our relationship is with God the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ our Saviour and the Holy Spirit is our comforter, who reveals Jesus to us (John 16:14) and helps us to pray as we ought (Rom 8:26).
Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us to pray to angels - quite the opposite. In Colossians 2:18 we are warned against those who worship angels and praying to angels instead of to God is, I believe, idolatry. It is God who commands the angels, not us (Psalm 91:11). We are commanded to pray to God, in the name of His Son and to make all our requests known to God, not to angels. If God decides to answer our prayers by sending an angel, that is his prerogative. Personally I'd rather he used other means, as encounters with angels in Scripture usually left the person concerned terrified! Angels are not cute, cuddly beings - they are awesome messengers and mighty warriors. They are also always male, not female, so the female angel which Todd Bentley claimed to have seen floating along was not Biblical.
It seems to me that people become interested in angels because they want to believe that someone is looking after them but they don't want to have to deal with a righteous God. They are not interested in repenting of their sin and worship of angels doesn't require them to. All is sweetness and light and love. It is a false gospel. Christians who have a wrong image of God as stern, harsh and unapproachable sometimes find that angels are much easier to believe in and pray to but the real answer is to gain a right understanding of God as a loving heavenly Father through reading His Word. Worship of angels will only lead one deeper into deception. Remember that Satan can appear as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14).
As Christians, we should be grateful for the ministry and protection of angels but we should not seek to contact them. Our relationship is with God the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ our Saviour and the Holy Spirit is our comforter, who reveals Jesus to us (John 16:14) and helps us to pray as we ought (Rom 8:26).
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Is the UK a Christian country?
According to a poll carried out by Ipsos-Mori for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for
Reason and Science, half of those in Britain who say they
are Christian rarely go to church while nearly 60% do not read the
Bible. Such statistics allow Dawkins to claim that Britain is not the Christian nation which some claim it to be, based on the fact that more than 50% of the population still identify themselves as 'Christian' when asked about their religion.
Frankly, I am really uneasy when anyone claims that this is still a Christian nation, because my experience says that it manifestly is not, and so I am not surprised at the result of this latest poll. Reading the Bible and going to church are not essential for salvation, which is through faith in Christ and not through good works, however they are a pretty good indicator as to whether someone is a genuine Christian or not. Dawkins therefore has a point when he claims that Christianity is not as prevalent as some would make out. However, the fact that a significant number of people in this country still tick 'Christian' as opposed to 'atheist' or 'none' when asked about their religion does mean something. They may not be born again, they may not be practising Christians, but they are still comfortable with being labelled as a Christian and the backlash currently under way against militant secularism is a reflection of this.
I do not believe that we should be imposing Christianity on the nation, as I said in my last post, however I do believe that Christians should be involved in public life and should encourage people to live by God's laws. It is an absolute fallacy to suggest that anyone, whatever their faith, can so compartmentalise their life as to leave their faith out of it when they go into their job, be it as a politician, councillor, doctor, teacher or whatever. Your religion or belief system is integral to your life, it influences all your opinions and decisions and secularists are not exempt from this rule. Christians should not be ashamed of their faith and should not be bullied into keeping it 'just for Sundays'. It applies to all the other days of the week too.
If there is one thing above all which the great British public hates, it is intolerance. Hopefully, the increasing aggressiveness of the secularists will be self-defeating in just the same way as attempts to impose Christian morals on the public have been.
Frankly, I am really uneasy when anyone claims that this is still a Christian nation, because my experience says that it manifestly is not, and so I am not surprised at the result of this latest poll. Reading the Bible and going to church are not essential for salvation, which is through faith in Christ and not through good works, however they are a pretty good indicator as to whether someone is a genuine Christian or not. Dawkins therefore has a point when he claims that Christianity is not as prevalent as some would make out. However, the fact that a significant number of people in this country still tick 'Christian' as opposed to 'atheist' or 'none' when asked about their religion does mean something. They may not be born again, they may not be practising Christians, but they are still comfortable with being labelled as a Christian and the backlash currently under way against militant secularism is a reflection of this.
I do not believe that we should be imposing Christianity on the nation, as I said in my last post, however I do believe that Christians should be involved in public life and should encourage people to live by God's laws. It is an absolute fallacy to suggest that anyone, whatever their faith, can so compartmentalise their life as to leave their faith out of it when they go into their job, be it as a politician, councillor, doctor, teacher or whatever. Your religion or belief system is integral to your life, it influences all your opinions and decisions and secularists are not exempt from this rule. Christians should not be ashamed of their faith and should not be bullied into keeping it 'just for Sundays'. It applies to all the other days of the week too.
If there is one thing above all which the great British public hates, it is intolerance. Hopefully, the increasing aggressiveness of the secularists will be self-defeating in just the same way as attempts to impose Christian morals on the public have been.
Friday, 10 February 2012
Prayers banned in council meetings
As an Arminian, I believe that God has graciously given man free will and man can use that free will to deny the existence of God and exclude Him from their lives. As Christians, I believe that we should try to persuade men, as it says in 2 Corinthians 5:11, but always accepting that they may choose to reject the gospel which we bring. Christianity cannot be imposed on people - to do so goes against everything the Bible teaches us. In that context, I was interested to read today about the decision on prayers in council meetings in England and Wales handed down by the courts. It seems that the matter hinges on whether the time of prayer is part of the agenda of the meeting, in which case councillors are summoned to attend that part of the meeting, as opposed to prayers being apart from the official business of the council, in which case atheist councillors need not attend. Today's ruling states that having prayers as part of the agenda is unlawful, however the judge said 'prayers could be said as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend'.
I have to say that I am in agreement with the judgement as reported. I would not like to be forced to attend prayers to non-Christian gods. I therefore think that we as Christians should extend the same courtesy to those of other religions, including atheists and humanists. We are currently seeing a rise in militant atheism, militant humanism and militant Islam. All seek to force their viewpoint on others. Christians should not be like that - we should seek to share the Truth in love, without force, and so try and win people to Christ. Militant Christianity is also on the rise these days and it is as much to be deplored as the other militant religions I have listed above. We do not fight force with force. We should stand fast in what we believe, always being prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15) but also being prepared for the fact that they may not accept what we say. In that case, we pray for them and leave them with God. Only the Holy Spirit working within someone can ultimately bring them to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I have to say that I am in agreement with the judgement as reported. I would not like to be forced to attend prayers to non-Christian gods. I therefore think that we as Christians should extend the same courtesy to those of other religions, including atheists and humanists. We are currently seeing a rise in militant atheism, militant humanism and militant Islam. All seek to force their viewpoint on others. Christians should not be like that - we should seek to share the Truth in love, without force, and so try and win people to Christ. Militant Christianity is also on the rise these days and it is as much to be deplored as the other militant religions I have listed above. We do not fight force with force. We should stand fast in what we believe, always being prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15) but also being prepared for the fact that they may not accept what we say. In that case, we pray for them and leave them with God. Only the Holy Spirit working within someone can ultimately bring them to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)