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. 

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

For Him

One of the pitfalls of writing a blog like this is that it can become just an endless list of criticisms, especially in these days of widespread deception. It is easy to lose sight of the reason I do this. I am therefore glad for articles like this one on Reformed Arminian blog. It reminds me why I do what I do and why I should do what I do. Because every false gospel and every deception has but one aim - to replace the real gospel and the real Christ within the hearts of believers with a false one, an anti-christ.
'Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray.' 1 John 3:7a (NIV)

Only half the story

It was good to hear the Queen giving an unashamedly Christian Christmas message yesterday which emphasised the importance of family and community and, dare I say it, marriage between a man and a woman. It was better than many of her recent Christmas messages, so much so that it seems a shame to take issue with it, however...

I do have a problem with her saying that 'we sometimes need saving from ourselves' because I think we need saving from ourselves all the time. I also think that while forgiveness is at the heart of the Christian faith, as the Queen said, the message of forgiveness in Christ came after John the Baptist's call to repentance. One of the problems in our society today is the emphasis on love, reconciliation and rehabilitation without the requisite repentance and confession of wrong-doing. Indeed, how often do we hear on the news that some politician or other public person has 'denied any wrong-doing'. It has almost become a mantra. Our prisons are full of repeat offenders who have manifestly not repented of their crimes because society has more sympathy for them than for their victims.

Until our society heeds the call of John the Baptist it will not know the peace that comes through Christ.

'The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord' - Isaiah 40:3 (KJV)