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!
Saturday, 19 January 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)