Scribblings From My Desk

I've moved

2011-08-17T11:01:00.003+01:00

To anyone who might still look at this blog, a note to say I've re-started blogging after a hiatus at http://peterdray.wordpress.com

Speaking the truth in love

2010-01-11T17:03:00.001Z

I’ve been made to think in recent times about what it means for a Christian to be committed to ‘speaking the truth in love’ to other Christians, whether individuals or groups.

Often it seems to me that, in the name of ‘godliness’, we chicken out truth telling. No doubt there a grain of sensitivity behind all this: after all, we don’t want to cause others unnecessary pain through our blabbering. On other occasions, we are aware that a particular audience just doesn’t need to hear our gripes and pains. But, looking at my heart, I know that often I fail to tell the truth to others because of my ‘fear of man’.

This fear can even be institutionalised in some Christian circles. We believe that there are certain things that we just can’t say. There is an unwritten code which dictates that talking about finding situations (or people) difficult should be not done, or only alluded to, even when we believe that we have been objectively wronged. I guess I’m not the only person to have seen this lead to an ‘elephant in the room’ syndrome where, for example, certain individuals or churches or organisations aren’t mentioned by name – although everyone on the inside knows exactly who or what is being talked about.

I wonder whether, in situations like this, any good comes at all from this approach. The veneer of words merely used to obscure painful realities rarely does anything positive. On the other hand, it can lead to cynicism, caricature and further suspicion. Motives are analysed and re-analysed – and the issue at hand remains unresolved. All in all, hardly a great model for loving others.

What is the answer? Surely it is to speak with humble honesty. I need to consider who I need to speak to about the problem, and likewise those I don’t need to speak to (for instance, it may be a matter for church elders, but not the broader church membership as a whole). I need to be certain of my acceptance by God (whether I am right or wrong), which frees me from being driven to be approved by others. I need to admit that, because of my sin and fallibility, I may be wrong and uncertain in my judgements. I need to admit that I might be part of the problem. I may need to admit to myself my confusion and confess that I don’t know the way forward. And then I speak, with graciousness and humility, to those who need to know, and don’t speak to those who don’t need to know, giving the situation time and prayer to change.

The cynicism which goes with 'the elephant in the room' is ugly and leads to a lack of truth and love between believers. But, with God’s help, we can surely speak honestly and specifically, leading to real change.

The 'one anothers'

2009-12-08T16:28:00.000Z

I've spent some time doing a word study on 'one another' of the New Testament. Most of these 'one anothers' appear to be those things we do in community with other Christians, regardless of whether they are in our own church family (although they will often find expression primarily in our local church family). It's quite a list... and a great reminder that whilst following Jesus is a personal allegiance, it's never merely private.

Love one another (John 13:34, John 13:35, Romans 13:8, 1 Peter 4:8, 1 John 3:11, 1 John 3:23, 1 John 4:7, 1 John 4:11, 1 John 4:12)
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love (Romans 12:10, Hebrews 13:1)
Honour one another above yourselves (Romans 12:10)
Living in harmony with one another (Romans 12:16, 1 Peter 3:8)
Stop passing judgement on one another (Romans 14:3)
Accept one another (Romans 15:7)
Instruct one another (Romans 15:14)
Greet one another with a holy kiss (Romans 16:16)
Agree with one another (1 Corinthians 1:10, Philippians 4:2)
When you come together to eat, wait for one other (1 Corinthians 11:33)
Serve one another (Galatians 5:13, also by implication in John 13:14)
Don't become conceited, provoking and envying one other (Galatians 5:26)
Carry one other's burdens (Galatians 6:2)
Bear with one another in love (Ephesians 4:2, Colossians 3:13)
Be kind to one another (Ephesians 4:32, 1 Thessalonians 5:15)
Forgive one another (Ephesians 4:32, Colossians 3:13)
Sing to one another (Ephesians 5:19)
Submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21, Colossians 3:16)
Do not lie to one another (Colossians 3:9)
Encourage one another (1 Thessalonians 4:18, 1 Thessalonians 5:11, Hebrews 3:13, Hebrews 10:25)
Build one another up (1 Thessalonians 5:11)
Live at peace with one another (1 Thessalonians 5:13)
Consider how to spur one another on to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24)
Do not slander one another (James 4:11)
Do not grumble towards one another (James 5:9)
Confess your sins to one another (James 5:16)
Pray for one another (James 5:16)
Offer hospitality to one another (1 Peter 4:9)
Clothe yourself with humility toward one another (1 Peter 5:5, see also Philippians 2:4)

Ed Clowney on meeting Jesus

2009-11-29T17:09:00.001Z

I read this gem of a quote from Ed Clowney yesterday:

The word of the Lord constantly presents the Lord of the word. Coming to the word is coming to the Lord. This central truth cuts both ways. We cannot detach the word from the Lord and, like the scribes and the Pharisees, profess to cling to the Scriptures while refusing the Lord. On the other hand, neither can we profess obedience to the Lord while rejecting his word. To separate a living Lord from a 'dead' book or a divine Lord from a merely human book is to reject the apostolic gospel....

Those who read the word of God, and surely those who teach it, must never forget why the word is given and whom it reveals. The word shows us that the Lord is good; his words are sweeter than honey to our taste because in them the Lord gives himself to us.

-- The Message of 1 Peter: The way of the cross, pages 79-81

It is a sad situation in UK evangelicalism that people often divide themselves into either 'Bible people' or 'experience people'. What Clowney says is helpful. Being a Christian is all about experience, because it is all about relating to the living Lord Jesus. But the Bible - when properly handled, and with the Spirit's help - brings us to the Lord Jesus himself, so that readers experience him, and taste and see that the Lord Jesus himself is good.

Jack Miller: Preaching Christ by Faith

2009-11-26T09:23:00.000Z

Here's an extended quote that I read yesterday from one of my heroes, Jack Miller, on preaching. I considered that it was worth sharing. It has brought me to repentance in my attitude to preaching:

Preaching ought to have the best wit, wisdom, clarity and logical order that a preacher can give it. But these qualities by themselves will not add up to preaching Christ by faith. Something more is called for. That something more is aiming the message at people with the purpose of bringing them to Christ. The goal is to change them by the power of the gospel.

If we as preachers have another goal, we will have short-circuited the whole process and confirmed ourselves and the congregation in our spiritual introversion. I think that we preachers must admit that we often are captured by other goals. Sometimes we make an eloquent message our primary goal. We become intent on producing a work of art or a scholarly composition. The sermon can become the end instead of a means toward an end. Phillips Brooks wrote in his Lectures on Preaching that this the cause of the failure of so 'many of the ineffective sermons that are made.' The prevailing intention of the heart of the preacher is to 'produce something which shall be a work of art' rather than a message 'aimed at the men,' with a view to their transformation into Christlikeness.

The preacher can hardly expect the Spirit of Christ to breathe through an art object that exists for its own sake.... The preacher should instead see preaching much more as a declaration of war, a conflict in which well-disciplined words march as to war to bring the hearers to surrender to Jesus Christ. We need to use the pulpit as a battle station.

- C. John Miller, Outgrowing the Ingrown Church, pages 123-124

Engaging with Foucault: can we believe in truth any more?

2009-10-30T08:34:00.001Z

I spoke earlier in the week at Sheffield CU's lunchbar, engaging with issues of truth. As a social scientist, it's great to be engaging with writers like Michel Foucault. (I've written before on whether Foucault is correct in thinking power must always be used in a way that invariably restricts freedoms). I owe part of my thinking here to Tim Keller. Here's a summary of what I said:

20th Century philosophies of truth: your perspective informs what you understand the truth to be. When we look at the world around us, each of us sees it from within the horizons of our own world, whether those horizons are linguistic, emotional, social, artistic or whatever. Actually our perception of things is, at best, a limited or partial view of the truth.

Foucault's bit: he added to the above by claiming that truth claims are invariably power plays (as they limit the freedoms of others to chose to live as they like).

This leads us to a kind of paralysis. The big questions are unanswerable. And when we do decide to land on one answer as opposed to another, we can get accused of trying to get power over someone else. We long for truth - but instead all we have is lots of information, a whole load of 'partial truths' at best.

Jesus on Foucault: Jesus agreed that truth can be used as a power play (e.g. in the way that he confronts the teachers of the Law in Luke 11).

We’ve all experienced times when people have spoken genuine truth to us but they have not spoken it to us in love. Instead they’ve told it to us to hurt us, to wound us, to injure us. Yes, we can step back and say, 'What you’ve said is true, but the way you said it; well, you are intending to hurt me, not to help me.' And Jesus would say: "Listen, it’s not the claim to truth that does this – that hurts people. It’s what’s in the truth claim and its intent that matters."

Let's look at Jesus by these criteria...

1. Jesus claimed to speak as someone not limited by his humanity. Jesus was a Jewish man in the 1st Century. But he claimed to speak as God in human form: that he had a God’s-eye view of the Universe. And so he claimed not just to be having a good guess about how things are, but to reveal and embody the truth.

2. Jesus' mission (in his own words) was to bring freedom. While most religions and belief systems present God as static and making demands upon us, Christianity trusts in the God who has served us, in coming to us and dying for us. And so for Christians, true freedom is found in relationship with God. When we realize all that Jesus has done to serve us and give himself for us, this speaks to our fears of giving up our independence, finding true freedom in him.

3. The intent behind Jesus' truth claims. Jesus claimed that he isn’t out to control people like us, rather he’s out to free us and to bring us into the relationship with God we’re made for. In fact Jesus was so committed to us that it ultimately led to his voluntary death in our place. So as you consider Jesus’ truth claims, test the person of Jesus: does he seem out to coerce or control?

A person is transformed when they encounter undeserved sacrifice. Once you’ve encountered someone who sacrifices on your behalf and you know you don’t deserve it, you’re aware you can never be the same. It requires transformation. That is what drives Christians. Out of love for Christ and love for others, they long to see others entering into that relationship of life with Jesus. And so Christians are committed to loving their friends (and their enemies) and pointing them to Jesus, building strong relationships based on truth. That is the natural outcome of Jesus’ teaching and intent.

So, as a Christian, can you believe in truth any more?

This was a question I used to wrestle through as I did my Masters which embraced lots of continental philosophy. Can I believe in truth any more as a Christian? Yes, because truth has made itself known in the person of Jesus; because truth diagnoses me as I really am, then offers an antidote; and because truth shows itself when lived out fully in beautiful others-centred relationships that do not hurt others but build them up.

Seven steps towards building outreach into CU small groups

2009-10-09T16:07:00.005+01:00

I've been thinking a bit recently about how to make CU small groups in all sorts of different university contexts more effective in outreach.

Here are seven steps I've come up with that can build a more of a missional edge in CU small groups:

1. Work hard to show your small group members how all components of small group time are inter-related. CU small group outreach tends to fail if outreach is seen as an unnatural intrusion to small group life. Outreach becomes more effective and natural when, for instance, Bible study is presented as something which energises the group's mission; as group members grow in trust and relationship with each other, they gain a sense of community in witness, and so on. Prayer topics in CU small groups should be wide-ranging (and it’s important to make space for the real needs that small group members have), but there should be an ongoing eye on outreach.

I made some practical suggestions on how to do this in a post a while back.

2. Ask questions that encourage discussion in the small group about how the gospel really is news that is good for people today. For instance, in a Bible study on 1 Peter 2:9, you could ask:

What are Christ’s deeds?
Why are they wonderful?
What kind of darkness previously surrounded you?
What is your present experience of God’s light?

(This is based on an approach I read in the book Good Things Come in Small Groups, which I believe is now out of print). Questions like these help small group members grapple with the specifics of God’s love, encourage them to appreciate the grace of the gospel, and help them begin to personalise and talk about it.

3. Set the perspective from the beginning that outreach is both necessary and natural. If your small group is less confident in evangelism, start initially in forms of non-threatening outreach, in which group members confident. As gospel confidence increases in your group, you can step up into more stretching forms of outreach.

4. Ask for help. If you need help in your outreach, don't let this stop you! Speak to your CU's small group coordinator or your CU Staff Worker for help.

5. Press for group ownership in outreach. Work towards small group members seeing your small group as a think tank. Work together to reach consensus on what specific task God has for you. Group ownership enables everyone in the small group to work as a team: this is much more fun, more effective and you'll find small group members are more committed.

6. Plan time for planning. To reduce undesirable last-minute panic, start the planning process far enough in advance. Factor in small group time to make these plans. Make sure too that you've thought about how you'll follow up those people who show interest in the gospel.

7. Surround all outreach in prayer. As we ask God to intervene in lives and events, we learn to rely on his strength rather than ours. While God commands us to be stewards of our gifts, energy and resources, it is not our job to change hearts. The Holy Spirit alone can do that. Our role is to serve as signposts pointing to Jesus.

It’s great when small group members keep a list of 3-5 friends, praying that they get opportunities to share the gospel and that their friends hearts would be open to the gospel. Set aside time regularly for prayer for these friends who are without the knowledge and experience of Christ's love.

When you have an event, ask for prayer wherever you can - at your church, in CU central meetings - and, of course, spend good time praying together in your small group too.

Lord of the dance

2009-10-06T22:52:00.004+01:00

I was listening recently to Pixie Lott's Boys and Girls on the radio. It got me thinking: why are there so many pop songs about dancing?

I guess at one level there's an easy answer to this question: because a lot of the songs that are popular are played in pubs and clubs where people go to dance. But why is dancing championed in so many songs?

Of course, dancing is fun ('it sure feels good, feels good, yeah, we're gonna lose control'). But there's more too it. Again, as Pixie puts it, 'when the beat kicks in you feel it in your bones.' It's interesting to think that many people feel at their most 'free' and their most 'natural' when they're abandoned from their cares and concerns in dance (at least at the points when they're not worried about what people think of their dancing).

Perhaps we love dancing so much because we yearn to be away from our troubles and be in perfect sync with our surroundings.

Reaching university subcultures

2009-10-01T15:55:00.007+01:00

One of the things I am passionate about is encouraging CU students to be strategic and to reach students in those subcultures who appear to be the very 'hardest' reach with the gospel in their local settings.

When I say this, I'm not saying that CU students should just ignore the pre-existing opportunities that they have in evangelism already; rather, that they should think carefully about how they can best serve the church through engaging with those only realistically reached through CU outreach.

Sometimes some churches in student towns can put on a 'guest service' that will attract a certain type of student - most often those who have come from a Christian or religious background; whether that is lapsed Christians, nominal Christians, those who have attended chapel at school - and so on. Of course, the Holy Spirit blows where he wants as his word is proclaimed, but - without partnership with the CU - church-based student evangelism is often relatively ineffective at reaching others.

I have taken to asking CU leaders to identify those groups or subcultures on campus that they consider that only the CU can realistically reach, with their privileges of contact, access and student-run evangelism. I've been asking Christian students to isolate those groups who wouldn't even consider or have the opportunity to enter the doors of a local church without prior CU contact. It's been quite eye-opening: at many universities it's Muslims, hard-core clubbers and those in private halls of residence. Chatting to a fourth year Durham student yesterday, he identified members of the Conservative club and non-Christian theology students.

I love it when CUs think strategically about reaching their campuses. I love it when local churches encourage their students to think this way, and set them free to be 'missionaries' within the university.

An update

2009-09-26T11:10:00.004+01:00

I'm beginning to get into the swing of things now as Team Leader with UCCF in the North East.

This past week was a week of building gospel partnerships. There have been a number of meetings with other Christians: I met with representatives of eleven different mission agencies earlier in the week. These mission agencies come together to think, along with UCCF, how world mission can be better profiled and promoted amongst CU students. I came away with a lot of thinking to do - lots of exciting prospects ahead.

I've also met with a number of church leaders this week. Perhaps the highlight of the week was meeting the Yorkshire gathering of Newfrontiers ministers. I love the heart for Jesus and his gospel these folks have, and how that transfers itself in strong relationships and a commitment to church planting. It was exciting to hear about two plants that will happen in the next few months. I was also really encouraged by how many there wanted to develop stronger partnerships with CUs.

These were two very different gatherings, but I've spent the week reflecting on the second half of Galatians 2 having studied it with Hamish in Durham. How wonderful it is when Christians recognise that - above all, and through all of the differences - we have our justification in Christ in common.

Next week I'm heading back down again to Quinta in Shropshire; this time to speak at Durham CU's 'Freshers' Getaway'. There will be about 70 students coming away, 40 of them new Freshers. I'm really amazed at how this whole venture has come together and really excited by the thought of encouraging these Freshers to thrive as Christians during their time at university before they even start. To that end, I'll be teaching from the book of Daniel. Do pray that as I speak the Spirit will speak and reveal more of Jesus.

Now but not yet

2009-09-21T17:33:00.004+01:00

I've been enjoying Alec Motyer's brilliant little book Journey which is a devotional guide to the psalms of ascent (Psalms 120-134). These were the songs that pilgrims sang as they wound their way to Jerusalem for the three feasts each year.

One of the things that Motyer notes is that, throughout the psalms, the psalmists note that - even at the height of the Davidic covenant, at the height of Jerusalem's security and fame, and when the Temple is fully inaugurated - there must be more to come. Psalm 122, for instance, celebrates the throngs gathered for worship in Zion (verses 1-5), yet the need to pray for the future peace and prosperity of Jerusalem remains (verses 6-9). There is more to come. New Testament readers know that this is the new Jerusalem of Hebrews 12 and Revelation 21-22.

Reading Psalm 27 today with my boss Tim, we noticed something that is perhaps similar. David longs to dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of his life - yet, this is something that as a member of the tribe of Judah (and therefore not a Levite or a priest) was not accessible to him. Yet David longs to seek the face of the LORD. Is this perhaps another occasion where the psalmists point beyond themselves, prophetically knowing that there is more to come?

Is God merely a psychological crutch for the weak?

2009-09-20T16:25:00.005+01:00

I've been giving some thinking over recent months to the above question. My post on Robbie Williams' latest song, Bodies, shows that the question regarding whether or not God is a psychological crutch is alive and well. Here are a few of my thoughts:

The presupposition behind the question: that there is widespread internal desire for the spiritual. This is true. A 2005 worldwide survey placed belief in the spiritual realm at 90%. Popular culture also attests to this fact. Sam Sparro's 2008 grammy nominated song Black and Gold, for instance, is about the seemingly innate longing for God.

The charge: God is merely a psychological crutch. People like Sam Sparro – and perhaps you – so desire ‘something bigger than them’ that they project these desires onto a big screen and call it ‘God’. Theorists from Marx to Freud have argued that, in some way, God is merely a figment of the imagination, a kind of wish-fulfilment.

The psychological crutch is a well-documented phenomenon, in academia and in popular culture. The Tom Hanks film Castaway depicts psychological crutches that help Hanks' character Noland to survive under extreme pressure: the most famous being Wilson, the volleyball that Noland turns into his confidante and friend. Richard Dawkins, when examining the Pacific cargo cults - a religious system very obviously rooting from psychological need - claims that all religious belief evolves in this manner. We desire certain things, and so we conjure up spiritual entities – God or gods – in whom we place hope in to bring us what we need.

Taking on the argument

1. The charge that belief in God is a product of wish-fulfilment for believers can be countered by the charge that unbelief might be a product of wish-fulfilment for unbelievers. Arguments that don’t rest upon objective evidence can cut both ways. If one group attributes the other’s view to emotion or sociology or psychological need, then the other only needs to reply in kind. Non-belief in God could, itself, be a form of wish-fulfilment.

For example, the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud hypothesised that belief in the existence of God as "merely a projection of a childish wish for the protection of the father.” But this statement can be turned around. As the psychologist Philip Witz has recently written, Freud had a very bad relationship with his own father. Whereas religious belief might be rendered merely a childish need for a father figure, the non-belief of others such Freud could be characterised as a form of adolescent rebellion against the father-figure of God.

Moreover, CS Lewis showed that there is a psychological dynamic of ‘fear fulfillment’: in other words, that people have reasons to wish God non-existence as well as his existence. According to Freud’s own theory of universal subconsciousness, a person would seem to have at least as plausible a psychological basis for wanting to do away with a Father in heaven as wanting to believe in him.

2. Not all forms of belief in God or gods can be lumped together. Richard Dawkins writes: ‘I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan. Instead, I shall define the God Hypothesis as this: there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual human evolution’. It sounds fair enough – that Dawkins wants to somehow remain politically correct and attack everyone’s gods!

But there's a flaw in this argument: just because some belief in God can be shown to be psychological doesn’t mean that all belief in God is psychological. No doubt some forms of religious belief are merely psychological, but it is logically fallacious to say that therefore all belief in God is merely psychology. Dawkins’ view assumes (without any argument) that all religions have the same basic core components, which can all be explained as projections of psychological crutches. All gods, and hence all religions, are simply projections of human desires. But there are differences between religions – crucially including how God is made known and is knowable.

3. Christian belief in God is not primarily founded in human experience, but in God's own revelation of himself. The Christian writer Gresham Machen wrote, 'The only God about whom I feel concerned is one who has objective existence, an existence independent of man. But if there be such a really and independently existent Being, it seems extremely unlikely that there can be any knowledge of Him unless He chooses to reveal Himself.' This is where Christianity differs to every other religion and philosophy. Whereas, for whatever reason – psychological factors or an inbuilt desire to want to know God – other religions are about humanity trying to find God, Christianity is about God coming to find humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. This means that the way of knowing what God is like is not internal, but based upon revelation in human space and time.

An alternative perspective on spiritual desire

The Bible endorses the idea that each of us has a desire for God, and with it a primal longer for fulfilment and significance. We feel that without God we’re incomplete. But, according to the Bible, this feeling of incompleteness is no crutch or hope for an imaginary friend. Rather, it teaches is that humans are not accidents, but that we were created in the image and the likeness of God. As relational creatures made in the likeness of a relational Creator, it’s not at all surprising that we want to relate to God. We long for God because we have been created to relate to him. As one Bible verse puts it, ‘God has set eternity in the hearts of men.’

CS Lewis put it like this: “A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, then; is such a thing as water. People feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.” Lewis is saying that our universal instinct for purpose and meaning is a strong evidence that God exists. It’s as if there is an inbuilt honing device in each of us that draws us beyond the physical.

God has designed us to want to know him, and we can only understand our creatureliness when we understand the Creator. In fact, we are truly human – we live as we were created to live – when we live in relationship with the God that made us. It’s something that Jesus won for us through his death on the cross, that we might be reconciled to God, start a relationship with him and therefore experience true humanity.

Please don’t dismiss this out of hand – dismissing it like that could be a psychological crutch – a fear fulfilment. Will you look into the evidence objectively for yourself?

New universities and the need for community

2009-09-16T20:50:00.005+01:00

One of the passions that has grown within me over recent years is the desire to see the 'new universities' of Britain reached with the gospel. The main stimulant of this desire was working with the Christian Union at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston.

I was often humbled by the Christian students in Preston, who continued to plug away with gospel proclamation and witness on campus, even though the odds were very much against them. CU numbers never really went over 70 in Preston, what is a university with a massive undergraduate presence.

No doubt there were other Christians on campus. One of the characteristics of new universities is that a large percentage of students commute in from nearby towns, and so never live permanently in their place of study. This makes it difficult to even grow a viable 'mission team' of any size.

There were other things that can make ministry hard and, for many, frustrating in new universities. Firstly, the subjects studied there are often more practical or vocational, making 'traditional' methods of apologetics and evangelistic proclamation less effective. In addition, my experience suggests that generally students at new universities are 'further back' in their appreciation for the gospel - particularly, there is the widespread assumption that becoming a Christian means you stop having fun (not the sort of objection that might be tackled effectively in an apologetic talk).

On top of all this, there are often no large halls of residence, a lack of emphasis across the university for involvement in extra-curricular activities and, perhaps above all, a lack of public meeting space. Certainly in Preston, students spent much of their time in their rooms, or out together in pubs and clubs. There was little sense of community.

A colleague yesterday was talking about another CU at a different new university. His observation of this group was that it was 'just a community' - that CU students had a tendency to sometimes huddle in a group. The evangelism that this group has tended to do has favoured first contact evangelism - this isn't surprising: as a relatively small group in a university of tens of thousands, it's tempting to think that first contact evangelism is the only way that it might be possible to make an evangelistic 'dent' in the university. The fact is, however, that such a large percentage of students on these campuses see Christianity as so functionally irrelevant, first contact is fairly ineffective. The students on these campuses need to see Christianity lived - to taste and see that the gospel is good - more even than students at traditional universities, who might be persuaded more easily to investigate Christianity through being convinced of its ring of truth. In fact, all of the people I know that have become Christians in Preston (and most of those who have shown any serious interest in Christianity) first became interested because they saw the gospel lived out in a friend or friends.

All this has got me thinking. I wonder if the need for friendship and community, that was so obvious in Preston, and which caused the CU my colleague was talking about yesterday to huddle, should be part of the outreach and evangelistic strategies at new university campuses. Obviously Christian huddling is a long way from the pattern of Biblical gospel ministry - but could CUs at these universities seek to meet the need for community to many around them with an outward emphasis? Sacrifical, outward-looking community, where everyone is accepted as they are, is - after all - a massive implication of authentic gospel living.

Imagine - building on solid gospel convictions, it's the CU at new universities including the lonely international students in dinner plans; it's the CU that runs a football team; it's CU members that offer their front rooms for other university meetings to take place. Imagine the way in which this would place gospel transformation on view, and the way in which this would require CU members to give a reason for the different hope they obviously have. Because CUs are currently very small at these universities, we're not going to talk about massive numbers coming into contact with CU members. But I wonder if the quality of contact might make CU evangelism in these tough mission fields more effective?

Bearing with others on disputible issues

2009-09-15T18:29:00.003+01:00

An excellent post on gospel unity from Marcus which ties in with some of the ideas I've mentioned on this blog in recent weeks. Here's a taste:

Here is the principle: forebear with others in matters of indifference. Participate with them. Be friends with them. Encourage them.
But one more thing needs to be said: we need to be careful to distinguish what are matters of indifference and what aren't. I think ther are twin dangers: elevating to primary importance things that aren't - like style of meetings - and thereby refusing to have fellowship with people we should; or, demoting things that are of first importance - like core doctrines - to secondaries for the sake of wanting to be friends with everybody.

Cursed

2009-09-11T08:58:00.003+01:00

There is real benefit in reading through a book of the Bible all in one sitting. When reading Galatians recently, I noticed the repetition of the world 'cursed' in chapter 1 and chapter 3 (all quotes from TNIV):

Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under God's curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let that person be under God's curse! (Galatians 1:8-9)

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because "the righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, "Whoever does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole." (Galatians 3:10-13)

I think that maybe this explains why Paul explodes with such emotional intensity in the way that he does at the beginning of the letter. Paul explains that Christ 'gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age.' To walk away from Christ is to place oneself under curse, because only he can deliver anyone from that curse. To wilfully teach others, then, in a way that draws away from trust in Christ is not only to place oneself under curse - but others under curse too. Christ alone is able to deliver anyone from their curse; we can turn to no other.

District 9

2009-09-10T08:54:00.003+01:00

District 9 is the much-hyped movie on current release; the current Number 1 in the UK box office, and reckoned to be pushing Star Trek as the premier science fiction movie of 2009.

One of the strengths of the film is the way in which it immediately engages the watcher. Like other recent films, the use of hand-held cameras and footage apparently CCTV cameras breathlessly grabs the audience's attention. About 30 minutes into the film I found myself surprised at the way in which I was so bothered about the welfare of a group of prawn-shaped aliens!

I had a love-hate relationship with the technical sides of the film. Sharlto Copley, in what I believe is his first, role as Wikus van de Merwe (an official charged with overseeing the forced evacuation from District 9 to the purpose-made District 10) is excellent. The scenes amongst the slums of District 9 have been excellently shot, and the special effects and costumes meant that I sometimes had to remind myself I was watching a science-fiction film. On the downside, the swearing in the film felt gratuitous (adding nothing to either plot or characterisation), Wikus' relationship with his wife wasn't developed enough and there was more gore than was probably necessary. Of the group that I saw the film with, some liked it, others didn't.

I once heard one of my heroes, the film critic Mark Kermode, saying that the best science fiction points beyond itself, where aliens are allegories or metaphors of people. And that's clearly in the mind of the film and script writers. The questions that the film poses are obvious: To whom should 'human rights' apply? Is it ever right to ignore a person's human rights? And what are the dangers when a population are treated as second-class citizens? There are also questions posed regarding the philanthropic intentions of multinational companies.

Above all, the fact that District 9 is set in Johannesburg and that it opens with the re-location of aliens from one township to another means that the movie watcher cannot help but associate the aliens with the black population of South Africa under apartheid. (Interestingly, the film opens in the early 1980s, when the aliens arrive over South Africa when, of course, apartheid was still in full force). Yet the politics of the film is far from a direct allegory of apartheid: there are other scenes that seem to echo the Nazi experiments on Jews during the Second World War, as well as the treatment of African-American slaves whilst away from home.

District 9 is an interesting piece. I, for one, hope that a sequel isn't made. An interesting discussion point with friends might be how they would imagine the loose ends of the film might be tied up, and to then discuss what is said about human nature.

Robbie Williams: Bodies

2009-09-09T20:17:00.008+01:00

Robbie Williams makes his long-awaited comeback later this year with an album released in November and his latest song, Bodies, regularly on the radio.

I'm not a massive fan of Robbie's music but there's no doubting that he's something of a cultural icon. His forthcoming album Reality Killed the Video Star is dominating the charts on future release charts. And to his credit, Bodies, his comeback single isn't safe: not a ballad, but a sound that will appeal to a slightly more adult audience.

There's no doubt that spirituality plays an important part in the track. It opens with Gregorian chant and ends with a gospel choir. And whilst the lyrics sometimes feel somewhat forced, there's some interesting mileage in considering their message.

One of the lyrics at the end of the track is 'Jesus didn't die for you / What do you want?' I happened to hear an interview with Robbie on the radio over the weekend and there's no doubt that in part this is an effort to attract headlines through shock. But I wonder if there's more going on in the song.

There are masses of spiritual references: not only to Jesus, but also to the Bodhi tree (where the Buddha apparently received his revelations). In the interview I heard, Robbie confessed that although he'd been raised a Roman Catholic, he no longer knew who to pray to. He joked that the previous night he'd prayed to the Archangel Michael because he liked the look of his muscles, and also intimated that he enjoyed reading atheist writings by Richard Dawkins.

And I wonder if that brings the hearer to the crux of the song. Robbie sings about 'bodies' ('Bodies in the Bodhi tree / bodies making chemistry / bodies on my family...). Yet the song seems to point to a conviction that humans are more than just bodies finding themselves in space and time at a particular point ('Praying for the rapture / Cause it's strange, getting stranger'). Perhaps above all, though, the song represents a fear that the need for Jesus is merely a psychological need that we all have: possibly the need to be accepted as we are ('All we've ever wanted is to look good naked / That someone can take it / God save me rejection from my rejection / I want perfection').

And so the song closes, with Robbie singing that 'Jesus didn't really die for you', whilst a gospel choir sings 'Jesus really died for you'. I wonder: is this an argument that is going on in Robbie's head? Is Jesus merely a projection of our needs?

For more on Jesus being a psychological crutch or wish-fulfilment, click here, or see my post Is God merely a psychological crutch for the weak?

Pastures new

2009-09-06T16:38:00.003+01:00

It's been a while since I last wrote anything on this blog - a combination of a holiday and moving house has meant that my Internet access has been minimal.

In the mean time, I've started a new job: I'm still working with UCCF but I'm now Team Leader in the North East region. That means I'll be responsible for leading the team of Staff and Relay Workers across the area as they seek to resource and inspire students to live and speak for Jesus during their time at university. I'm somewhat daunted but also excited about the months and years ahead. Linda is also seeing her career change: she's retraining and doing a PGCE at Sheffield Hallam University nearby.

We've settled into South Doncaster Community Church, and have been blown away by the reception we have received. It's so nice enjoying time with a church family, having the conviction that even when we don't know each other well yet, we have so much in common. Our new church family have welcomed us well, supporting us and seeking to meet our practical needs. Our new pastor, Alistair Gooderham, has a blog worth scanning sometime.

I've had some more thoughts on unity and a range of other issues and will seek to record them here in the coming days.

Cultivation of God-centred worship enhances horizontal unity

2009-08-05T07:00:00.002+01:00

A.W. Tozer memorably stated how a deliberate focus away from self and onto Christ is fuel for Christian unity:

Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshippers met together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be were they to become ‘unity’ conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.
[The Pursuit of God, page 97]

Stott: disunity often caused by proud prejudices

2009-08-04T07:00:00.000+01:00

As we've seen already, a crucial part of maintaining Christian unity is doggedly holding to the key parts of the gospel. However, as this quote from John Stott shows, Biblical unity also requires a humility and realisation of ones own presuppositions and prejudices when it comes to 'secondary' doctrines:

We must come to the biblical text with a recognition of our cultural prejudices and with a willingness to have them challenged and changed. If we come to Scripture with the proud presupposition that all our inherited beliefs and practices are correct, then of course we shall find in the Bible only what we want to find, namely the comfortable confirmation of the status quo. As a result, we shall also find ourselves in sharp disagreement with people who come to Scripture from different backgrounds and with different convictions, and find these confirmed. There is probably no commoner source of discord than this. It is only when we are brave and humble enough to allow the Spirit of God through the Word of God radically to call in question our most cherished opinions, that we are likely to find fresh unity through fresh understanding.
[You Can Trust the Bible, page 50].

I experienced a case in point of this a number of years ago when I was a Relay Worker. I was meeting to study the Bible with another Christian from a very different background to my own. For nearly six months, this felt like a chore as both of us wanted to impose 'our' Christianity upon the other. Then I believe the Lord showed both of us - suddenly, and at the same time - the futility of what we were doing. This made us both much better listeners, and we actually found out that we both had a whole lot more in common with each other than both of us had previously thought. We still don't see eye to eye over every issue. But I would count him one of my good friends and a tenacious partner in the gospel.

Two models of CU unity

2009-08-03T10:00:00.004+01:00

I'll carry on drawing together some thoughts from others on unity in future posts, but here's something that's been buzzing around my head for a wee while on unity. What does it look like in practice to maintain unity in an interdenominational setting like a CU?

It occurs to me that there are two models.

The first model is a kind of 'lowest common denominator' approach. Speakers in this model are instructed to only present Biblical teaching that all members present can agree with (i.e. from within the Doctrinal Basis). If a speaker presents an issue outside of this band of core teaching (and if particularly they teach on a 'secondary' issue that falls outside of the Doctrinal Basis) they might be reprimanded or encouraged next time to focus on core issues (depending on the amount of graciousness shown by CU members). In the model, 'tolerance' is defined by limiting what might cause offence or discomfort. In practice I think this model often leads to the domination of whatever the most popular church background in the CU is.

It seems to me that a better approach would be a second model. In this model, speakers are encouraged to pitch their material bearing in mind that the CU is a short-term interdenominational mission team. However, when they believe that the passage or issue that they have been asked to speak upon requires teaching on a 'secondary issue', they feel free to teach it (albeit humbly bearing in mind that other evangelicals can also have Scripturally-driven positions that are different to their own). CU members bear in mind that within the CU setting, they agree to agree upon the core doctrines of the gospel (as summarised in the Doctrinal Basis) but agree to disagree upon secondary issues. Therefore, so long as the speaker is led by Scripture in their teaching of a secondary issue, they are willing to receive such teaching (even if it is very different from the position they themselves hold). In this model, 'tolerance' is defined by loving somebody as a brother or sister for whom Christ died, even when they hold a position of theology that is very different from your own. It is looking somebody in the eye and saying that you are glad they are part of a gospel-focused mission team with you (and saying this even if you might never join their church).

It seems to me that the second model is stronger than the first model, and closer to the Biblical model of unity than the first. It is harder to achieve, because it is requires a strong understanding of what CUs are about, and a thorough focus upon grace. But I think it is worth striving for.

I once remember a colleague speaking of how, ideally, each CU member should come away from a CU central gathering feeling slightly frustrated, because not everything was done in a way that matched their own preferences and positions of secondary doctrine. However, he said, in this sense of general dissatisfaction, there is great satisfaction - modelling together great unity in the gospel, and being more effective on campus as a group than a whole host of smaller groups ever could be by themselves.

Lloyd-Jones: what is schism?

2009-08-01T10:30:00.006+01:00

Martin Lloyd-Jones answers the question: what is a schism?

The best definition you will ever find of schism is in Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, especially in chapter 12 perhaps but it is also there in other places. Schism as it is defined by the great apostle is this: it is men and women who are agreed about the centralities of the faith disagreeing about things which are not essential; it is a tearing of the body. The only man who can be guilty of schism, therefore, is a man who believes the truth, the essential truth, but denies other things that are not essential.
[What is an Evangelical?]

The observation that came to me here is that Biblical unity does not just consist of attending a meeting together. Presumably the church in Corinth was still meeting together, and yet it is the only church which is explicitly criticised for being schismatic.

Packer: Biblical unity is not unity at any price

2009-07-31T23:34:00.008+01:00

Continuing with my thoughts on Christian unity, here's a quote by the great JI Packer on when visible unity is not the thing to prize above all. He looks back to the Reformation as a time where it was right to break fellowship:

Where the gospel is, faith is, and where faith is, there the Church us, whatever institutions may be lacking; but no group or organisation can be acknowledged as the Church while it lacks the gospel. The Church becomes visible and identifiable, not by flaunting some historical pedigree of ministerial succession, but by professing and proclaiming the apostolic gospel by word and by sacrament.

On this basis the Reformers held, first, that their separation from Rome was no sin since Rome had effectively unchurched herself by corrupting the gospel; second, their separation was no breach of the Church's unity, since neither papal government and order, nor any other particular form, was essential to that unity; third, by recovering their own church-character through their renewed confession of the gospel the Reformed churches had actually recovered unity, and were now waiting for Rome itself to join their new-found fellowship.

[...] To separate for truth's sake, at the summons of a biblically enlightened conscience, is not sin. When, without failure of love or respect, men dissociate themselves from their previous church connections in order to be free to obey God, this is not, and never was, schism. It may be their duty - as the Reformers thought it their duty to break with Rome over the gospel, and as the Baptist and Independent dissenters of 1662 thought it their duty to stand apart from the re-established Church of England and gather churches according to what they held to be the biblical model.

For such separations the word 'schism' is a pejorative misnomer... It can only engender a false sense of guilt about divisions which are rooted in the cleavage of principle, and encourage an ungodly attitude of 'union at any price'. Union between separated churches in the same area is certainly to be sought ... but it may not be bought at the cost of truth, or the compromise of conviction.'
[The Doctrine and Expression of Christian Unity]

I guess it will come as no great surprise to many readers here that I believe along with Prof. Packer that there are times to break fellowship where the gospel is at stake. But what about in other situations? Are there other times in which it is right to break a form of fellowship? And how does this work in an inter-church partnership (or 'parachurch') situation like the ministry I am involved in? These are the questions I plan to turn to over coming days, with the help of other believers that have gone before us.

In his comment on my previous post, Chris highlights a more up-to-date expression of Prof. Packer's theology here, which considers questions of the contemporary 'Anglican realignment.'

Schaeffer: showing love to Christians with whom we disagree

2009-07-30T22:22:00.011+01:00

Over the next few days I want to gather together some quotes and thoughts on Christian unity. It's been a subject that I've been thinking about in recent weeks, both in theology and in practice.

Here's a quote to start the series from Francis Schaeffer, whose starting point for this discussion is John 13:33-35:

Not all differences amongst Christians are equal. There are some that are very minor. Others are overwhelmingly important.

The more serious the wrongness, the more important it is to exhibit the holiness of God, to speak out concerning what is wrong. At the same time, the more serious the differences become, the more important it is that we look to the Holy Spirit to enable us to show love to the true Christians with whom we must differ. If it is only a minor difference, showing love does not take much conscious consideration. But where the difference becomes really important, it becomes proportionately more important to speak for God's holiness. And it becomes increasingly important to show the world that we love each other.

Humanly we function in exactly the opposite direction: in the less important differences we show more love toward true Christians, but as the difference gets into more important areas, we tend to show less love. The reverse must be the case. As the differences amongst true Christians get greater, we must consciously love and show a love which has some manifestation the world may see.

So let us consider this: is my difference with my brother in Christ really crucially important? If so, it is doubly important that I spend time upon my knees asking the Holy Spirit, asking Christ, to do his work through me and my group, that I and we might show love even in this larger difference that we have come to with a brother in Christ or with another group of true Christians.
[The Mark of the Christian, pages 46-47]

I'm challenged as I read this passage, especially the final paragraph. As I enter into a new job with UCCF, I am only too aware of the need for visible Christian unity and love with other true believers with whom I (and maybe UCCF) disagree - in theology, in methodology and so on. What will it look like to love these brothers and sisters? Schaeffer is right: the work of prayer is vital.

Inside Out: Forum film discussion

2009-07-28T18:40:00.008+01:00

I'm hosting a short film discussion at UCCF's Forum conference in September on the track designed to showcase to students how they can use the arts in CU events.

The film I've chosen to show is Inside Out, directed by Tom and Charles Guard.

Here are a first draft of some questions I've come up with for the discussion afterwards. They've been written so that they can be fairly easily transferred to a discussion after pretty much any film:

1. What was your initial reaction to the film? What was it that prompted this reaction?
2. What impressed you most about the film? (e.g. plot, script or screenplay, an acting performance, film making technique, cinematography, soundtrack etc.)
3. Did any part of the film stand out to you as particularly meaningful or powerful in any way? Why?
4. What is the message of the film, or view of life and the world that is presented in the story as it unfolds? (Try to state this in a sentence). How did the film-maker’s technique seek to make this message plausible or compelling?
5. To what extent do you agree with the message of the film?

I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on my questions... or on the film for that matter!

Inside Out is availableto buy on the excellent Cinema16 collection of short British films.

Ten important things I learned in Moldova: part 2

2009-07-22T08:11:00.003+01:00

Following on from this post...

6. 'Do not forget to entertain strangers' - One of the unique things about the Moldova summer team is that, after the camp, we go home for a short stay with a Moldovan. I wrote about this experience last year. This time, I went home with a non-believing guy called Valentin to his home in a village called Cojuşna. Once again, I was reminded of the poverty that exists even in Europe. The different this year was that Valentin's grasp of English and my grasp of Romanian were on a par (i.e. very low). However, I was blown away by Valetin's hospitality and discovered that it's actually possible to communicate a large amount, even when verbal communication is very limited (although I am hugely grateful for a Romanian phrase book I had, and an ancient Russian-English phrasebook that Valentin owned!).

7. 'I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want' - Last Sunday the team split into three groups and attended three different evangelical churches in Chişinau. I had the opportunity to attend Christos Pentru Moldova, a Pentecostal church in the city centre. It was a really interesting experience. Perhaps the thing that will stand with me longest was the sermon, on trusting in Christ in financial difficulty. Moldova is Europe's poorest country and the pressures of lack of money are very real. It's tempting to think that something other than the gospel is needed when there is severe financial pressure. Of course it's right to aim to alleviate these problems, but the sermon reminded me that Christ is sufficient even in times of great lack.

8. 'But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us' - My friend Cathy Midmer, who'd co-led two previous trips with me, used to always say that being in Moldova makes a British person feel their weakness. It's true. Everyday activities that would normally come very easily all of a sudden become things that are risky and hard. Add the inevitable bout of illness to the mix and you're made to feel very weak. But with the difficulties we faced this time, it was more obvious than ever that the British team were frail and, like everyone, possessing their own honest shortcomings. One of the CSC staff workers commented that she'd always secretly thought that the British teams in Moldova were somehow super-human. This year she'd realised that we struggled like everyone else. But I think this led to greater glory to Christ. It was Christ that kept us going, and when we were whittled away he remained, just as Paul wrote about in 2 Corinthians 4.

9. 'We live by faith, not by sight' - As I mentioned in the previous post, we spent early morning team times on camp studying 2 Corinthians 1-6. I'd looked at this letter a number of times before, but it came alive as we moved through it methodically. The 'gospel' and 'ministry' of the super-apostles impacted me like never before: a gospel of glory and ministry that celebrated present comfort, the seen and the special. I was convicted by how easy I find it to slip into super-apostle thinking, where I am bothered most about what I see, and lose confidence in the Spirit's gospel transformation being what really matters. Even on the camp, it was easy to get most excited by external things rather trusting the Lord's work in people's hearts. And so the experiences of difficulty were helpful, refocusing me (and the team) onto what really matters: the eternal, internal work of gospel transformation, when the heart is God's true target. As well as some Moldovan non-believers, members of our team were moved to real openness, honesty and repentance regarding a wide range of areas of their lives. When Christians are honest about their lives, it can be tempting to despair at all the messiness. But we live by faith and not by sight. And so it is much more wonderful when hearts are changed than when Christians live a false life that outwardly looks sorted.

10. 'And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit' - Perhaps the thing above all that I will remember from Moldova 2009 was the deep work of transformation that the Lord did through his Word and by his Spirit. Nearly every member of our team experienced deep spiritual renewal as they were shown their weakness and sin and driven back to the cross. Several members of the team came face to face with sin and with situations that they had buried for years. The Lord granted some of our team members deep forgiveness. At the same time, at least four Moldovan students professed faith for the first time on the camp, and several others left the camp counting the cost of following Jesus. I have returned reminded once more of the powerful transformation of the gospel and the life that it brings.

Perhaps the three weeks in Moldova this time were three of the most intense weeks of my life. It's difficult to find words to describe some of the things that went on. But please join me in praying that this summer team might prove to have the long-term fruitfulness that I think it might have had, both in Christians and in non-Christians. Pray that the Moldova 2009 summer team might prove of tremendous value for the kingdom.

Ten important things I learned in Moldova

2009-07-21T14:25:00.004+01:00

Yesterday evening the UCCF Moldova summer team arrived back in Luton after 15 hours of travelling. It was the last stage of an incredible three weeks.

I'd rarely - perhaps never - previously had the opportunity to see the gospel at work so powerfully in the way that it was during our time away. To be honest I'm still finding it a bit difficult to process everything that went on. But here are ten things I'll remember:

1. 'He who began a good work in you will carry it on to the day of completion' - It was so encouraging to see ongoing growth in many of the students I'd met in previous years. Ştefan (a room mate on camp three weeks ago) now works as an accountant and is active in his local church - I was so grateful to God for letting me bump into him again. Another former roommate, Artur is about to start as a volunteer with CSC (the Moldovan equivalent of UCCF) on a programme a bit like UCCF's Relay; Victor (who became a Christian on the camp two years ago) is to start training as a priest in the Orthodox Church, looking to apply what he's learned and serve the saviour he loves there; Tanea (who became a Christian on the camp last year) is going strong as a believer. It was also amazing to see how several friends from last year have softened to the gospel over the past twelve months. There are other stories just like this. It's brilliant to see that our ministry is not 'hit and run' and makes a real difference in the long term.

2. 'I urge that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for those in authority' - Until this trip I guess I'd had quite a romantic view of the former Soviet regime. But over the course of the trip this time it became evident how in Moldova - a former Soviet country with an elected Communist government - this sort of governance plays out. It's a strange time in Moldova. The upcoming elections are the most important in the country's history. Meanwhile, the government seem paranoid about 'destabilising influences'. As Westerners working with students - perhaps those amongst the more politically active in Moldova - we were viewed suspiciously. Roll on endless bureaucracy given to our Moldovan hosts. The whole system works on fear: a real fear of negative consequences if you don't do as you are told. Having had just a taste of this, I've realised how difficult it is to be in this sort of system (especially to be a Christian). Pray for the upcoming elections, especially for the Christians standing to reform the system.

3. 'Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn' - Due to the culture of fear that I described above, our team ended up having an ultimately unnecessary brush with the authorities. What followed was really invasive and painful for some of the members of our team. One of the things that I'll remember, though, was the way in which our team pulled together. I've never really been part of a group of Christians that has modelled all suffering when one part suffers in the same way. Deep love for each other and deep love for Jesus was behind the deep emotional response that the group showed.

4. 'We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about the hardships we suffered in the Republic of Moldova. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure... But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God' - I felt out of my depth for nearly all of our time away. Day to day different situations emerged where things just seemed to be spinning out of control. I know that several other individuals experienced this too, especially in the situation I sketched above. There were a whole series of pressures that I'd never experienced in leading other summer teams. On the mornings of the camp, the British team studied 2 Corinthians together. It was very appropriate. Together we realised the great blessing of being made to cast ourselves once more upon Christ and his Spirit. In our time of debrief, several people shared that they had experienced the joy and freedom of this, even in situations of pain and pressure.

5. 'I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh' - In the evangelistic Bible studies on the camp this year, we used an adapted version of The World We All Want course. In my opinion, one of the real strengths of the course is the way in which it emphasises that real change is impossible without the Holy Spirit, but with the Spirit change of heart and desires is possible and realistic. As this truth penetrated people's hearts, we saw amazing things happen. In our orientation, the British team were convicted of deep sin as we went through these studies - especially regarding trust in works, rules and law to change oneself, rather than the Spirit. On the camp, many Moldovan non-believers camp to crave this indwelling of the Spirit, realising their helplessness to see real heart change without his special work. One girl, just before she trusted Christ, asked a member of the group how many times she needed to pray to receive the Spirit's indwelling. She was amazed to hear that, if the prayer was genuine, she needed to turn to Jesus only once to be forgiven and receive his Spirit. What a privilege it was to bring this good news!

Part 2 follows in due course...

Moldova 2009

2009-06-26T12:44:00.004+01:00

On Monday, I'm heading out for the third and final time with a team of students to Moldova to partner with the IFES movement there, CSC.

I'm a swirl of emotions as I prepare to return to Moldova. It's been a hard period of sad goodbyes to friends in Lancashire, and the past few weeks have been quite demanding. The whole setup in Moldova means that you are made to feel weak. I'm already feeling weak and so I'm somewhat nervous about how I might cope this year.

At the same time, I'm aware of how amazing an opportunity we have in Moldova. The main part of the camp is resourcing an 'English and Bible Camp' where there will be about 60 Moldovan students (including 40 non-believers) who come to practice conversational English and study the Bible. We're using The World We All Want evangelistic Bible overview and I'm excited to see the impact this makes in the Moldovan context.

Please pray for us. We're a big team with an extraordinary amount of diversity. Pray that this acts to underline the truth of the gospel that we are proclaiming, rather than act as something that undermines team unity. Pray that we're not ashamed of the gospel, that the British team grow in their knowledge and love of Jesus, and that God draws people to himself.

I'll try to update from Moldova, but this might not be possible.

Itinerary:

29th June: team meets in Luton
30th June: early morning flight from Luton to Bucharest, then travel by coach to Chisinau
1st July: arrive early morning in Chisinau; team orientation lasts until 6th July
6th-15th July: on the English and Bible camp
15th-16th July: team members stay with Moldovan hosts
17th-19th July: team debrief in Chisinau
19th July: travel to Bucharest
20th July: flight back from Bucharest to Luton

Sarah has some more detailed daily prayer requests here.

Evangelism-driven legalism

2009-06-21T18:06:00.004+01:00

I've been thinking a bit recently about a subtle form of legalism which I think seems to be common in many evangelical churches.

The argument runs a bit like this:

Unbelievers will have the gospel commended to them by Christian behaviour, and so will want to ask questions of Christians.
Therefore make an effort to impress non-believers by your behaviour - this might take various forms: be outgoing, be generous at work, arrive early at church to chat to newcomers... and so on.

It's certainly true that lifestyle commends the gospel. But I feel uneasy when I hear this sort of teaching. Here's why:

1. It seems to forget or sideline the place of grace. Titus 2, for instance, speaks of how different groups can commend the gospel through the way that they live - older men, older women, younger men and slaves. But the whole chapter is bound up with a theology of grace: Titus 2:11-14. The gospel of Christ (and the redemption in full from sin that he has achieved) gives a Christian a whole new perspective and teaches them to say no to ungodliness. The chapter is bound up with Jesus and his grace, not merely with exhortation.
2. For this reason, the implication of the above exhortation without grace is that Christians should try hard to be something that they are not really e.g. friendly, outgoing, generous. These actions are stripped away from the salvation we have received in Christ.
3. This effectively relegates godliness to a place where it is not much more than a piece of bait that can be dangled before non-believers to win conversations.
4. It also is likely to promote self-righteousness and/or despair amongst believers as they seek to strive towards these outward forms of behaviour. This behaviour is not coming from believers' hearts, and it ignores the empowering of the Holy Spirit.
5. This emphasis means that believers consider that if they show non-believers their sin, they've blown it forever.

There is a missing stage to the above teaching...

Jesus' gospel of grace has freed you and empowers you to live a life of love.
Unbelievers will have the gospel commended to them by Christian behaviour, and so will want to ask questions of Christians.
Therefore, be what you are called to be - loving Christ above all, and therefore radically seeking to meet the needs of others, trusting that all your needs will be supplied by Jesus. Be confident in the transforming power of Jesus to commend itself, even in someone as sinful and broken as you.

Dave makes a helpful addition to this post.

Looking for Eric: sketch of a maverick genius

2009-06-13T22:47:00.008+01:00

Looking for Eric is an unlikely but enjoyable collaboration between footballer-turned-actor Eric Cantona and director Ken Loach.

The story centres around Eric Bishop, a postman whose life has spun out of control. Failed marriages, teenage stepsons that he can't control and other complex family relationships drive Eric to the point of breakdown. Desperate for comfort and escapism, he turns to smoking his son's marujuana, and soon starts receiving visions of his hero, Eric Cantona.

The film oscillates between some light humour and a very gritty depiction of life in Manchester's social underclass. John Henshaw is brilliant as Meatballs, the leader of Eric Bishop's friendship group of postal workers. There's some real wit and brilliantly observed banter, especially between the this crowd of friends. (Two scenes stand out in particular: the session reading Paul McKenna's self help manual in Eric Bishop's lounge, and the scene of Manchester United related banter in a pub, where some knowledge of the Malcolm Glazer takeover helps).

I'll now add a spoiler alert - if you're going to see the film, stop reading now. After saying that the person with most charisma and charm he admires is Cantona, Eric Bishop's visions of Cantona lead him to act as Cantona apparently would in each situation he faces. As Eric Bishop learns to see his circumstances through the lens of the character of Eric Cantona, his choices change. The vision of Cantona encourages Eric Bishop to be spontaneous, to be passionate, to take risks, to trust in team-mates and never to give up when knocked down. There's a couple of sideways references to Cantona's mysterious pseudo-philosophy. The final scenes, in particular, represent Cantona (acting through Eric Bishop) as a big-hearted maverick rather than a crazed individual (as he was often portrayed in the media, especially after the infamous kung-fu kick).

The audience is forced to ask the question: what would Eric Cantona have been like in any other sphere of life, other than a professional footballer? Looking for Eric is a biography, yes - but a biography with a difference. It is a celebration of a unique kind of genius and, in that respect, a celebration of the diversity of personalities and gifts there are amongst members of humanity.

Playing the enemy: common grace and wisdom

2009-06-10T22:10:00.003+01:00

A few weeks ago I read John Carlin's excellent book Playing the Enemy. It tells the story of Nelson Mandela's project of nation building in post-apartheid South Africa, climaxing with the 1995 Rugby World Cup final.

It's rare that a retelling of events in recent history that are in my own living memory can evoke as much emotion as they did at the time. John Carlin's book almost moved me to tears as I was led to appreciate the great significance of the events that formed the Rainbow Nation. I understand the book is to be made into a film, and I should imagine that it will transfer across media very well.

The book is really a biography of Mandela himself. He is represented as a political genius - using his charm and charisma pragmatically to achieve what he wanted, and being very aware of his surroundings. Mandela is quite a hero of mine, and whilst the book sometimes overstates his saintlike qualities, I felt I understood him further after this sketch.

One of the things that I've found myself responding to time after time is Mandela's strategy to always expect the very best to come out of a conversation, even those in situations of confrontation. Time and again, Mandela seems to go beyond reasonable expectation in giving his opponents the benefit of the doubt. He seems to assume that people are generally good - undoubtably corrupted by other influences - but good nonetheless. Here's a case in point of Mandela at work, responding on radio to one far-right opponent Eddie von Maltitz:

For a full three minutes he [von Maltitz] ranted and raved at Mandela - communism that, terrorists the other, the destruction of our culture, civilised standard, and norms. He ended with a brutally direct threat. "This country will be embroiled in a bloodbath if you carry on walking with the Communist thugs."
After a tense pause, Mandela replied, "Well, Eddie, I regard you asa worthy South African and I have no doubt that if we were to sit down and exchange views I will come closer to you and you will come closer to me. Let's talk, Eddie."
"Uh... Right, okay, Mr. Mandela," Eddie muttered in confusion. "Thank you," and he hung up.
[page 151]

I've been made to return to Mandela's strategy on several occasions in recent days. I wonder if often tense meetings would be made easier if we gave our opponents the benefit of the doubt as Mandela did. Mandela's theology seems to imply universal goodness and evil systems. A closer Biblical theology is of universal depravity of all human hearts. But I wonder whether our understanding of this true theological diagnosis of the heart sometimes causes us to put limits on the common grace he has placed into the hearts of all humans, and leads us into unnecessary confrontation and arguments when they might be diffused.

Anticlimax

2009-06-04T15:29:00.005+01:00

I have been struggling for days with feelings of anticlimax. I've found these feelings highly disconcerting and pretty exhausting.

This isn't the first time that I think I've struggled with anticlimax. About five years ago, the week after a CU mission I had been highly involved in organising was perhaps the week in which I struggled most as a Christian and was my sharpest period of doubt so far.

This time round I've found myself not doubting the gospel as much as being self-obsessed. I think this is linked to being in a period of flux and change - finishing as a Staff Worker in Lancashire, preparing to move eastwards as Team Leader with UCCF, having to say a whole suite of goodbyes and preaching on some emotionally-demanding passages. The way in which this self-obsession has shown itself has been constantly comparing where things are with how I imagined them to be, and comparing where I imagined things would be relationally with a whole number of individuals with where they actually are. I've scared myself with how God-less these thought patterns have been, and the pride and despair that I've found myself being sucked into. All of this has been tiring, and I've really felt the devil on my back.

Like all periods, over recent days I've had to preach the gospel to myself. I've been blessed by the Lord's kindness in helping me. Singing songs about the cross on Tuesday night helped me lift my eyes from myself and back to Jesus. A conversation with a minister friend this morning spoke truths back into my life. And I was encouraged to a more helpful and God-centred viewpoint of my circumstances by Psalm 29 in my own Bible time this morning.

Anticlimax isn't something we often talk about or think about. But it is powerful. And I think, like grief, anticlimax is an important period through which we adjust to changes in our surroundings. Like grief, though, it's important to ensure that our emotions are ultimately surrendered to Jesus' Lordship and to his gospel. Just as we don't mourn as the pagans mourn, so it seems to me that disciples of Jesus shouldn't suffer anticlimax like others around us.

The LORD sits enthroned over the flood;
the LORD is enthroned as King forever.
The LORD gives strength to his people;
the LORD blesses his people with peace.
[Psalm 29:10-11]

Embarking on the adventure

2009-06-04T15:26:00.000+01:00

I've been reflecting recently on how certainty is often considered uncool at best and arrogant at worst when talking about spiritual issues. The Bible speaks of confidence, of certainty and of being sure - yet to many people, this appears to be a boring turn-off.

Many people are suspicious of confidence. They're suspicious partly because it sounds as though it could be dull. We are surrounded by seemingly heroic people who are on a spiritual quest into the unknown – and Christians say, “We know.” And it sounds like if you become a Christian you’ll never going to go on an adventure again; it sounds like you’re just going to close down your mind and resign yourself to a cosy future with cardigans and slippers and just a small little world.

Actually, it is not knowing that is paralysing. The present economic climate is a great example of this. Whilst there is so much financial insecurity, it's very difficult to make long term plans. It's difficult to embark on an adventure when it feels there's nothing solid to build upon.

Similarly, as long as we are not sure about God, there is a kind of paralysis. We never live lives which are completely hung on the gospel, because we're not sure. We’re not quite sure we want to put all our eggs in his one basket. We feel as those we need to keep our options open; so we live a bit for Christ and a bit for other things as well. And when this is the situation, the Christian life seems very average.

In contrast, when the Bible writers say 'be sure' (and, as I've shown before, the Bible writers want us to be sure), we need to realise that being sure is not the end of adventure, but rather being sure is the beginning of adventure, where the Christian life can really take off! Life knowing the God that made you and redeemed you can really take off in all its richness and joy, because you know you can hang your life on Jesus and your death on Jesus. Hanging your life on Jesus means that you will serve and sacrifice and find joy in a whole range of unexpected places. The adventure really begins.

Nehemiah 8: Word Alive

2009-05-28T10:10:00.004+01:00

Here is the text of the last message I gave at Lancaster CU. The table on law and gospel is taken from World Harvest Mission's Sonship course:

As we’ve seen, the book of Nehemiah is all about the work and worship of God’s people, serving in his strength. In the chapters prior to Nehemiah 8 we’ve seen Nehemiah lead his people – the ancient Israelites – in rebuilding the walls around Jerusalem.

Why was Nehemiah so bothered about repairing these walls? Well, it’s because Jerusalem was no ordinary city. Promise after promise in the Old Testament speaks of how Jerusalem is to be the climax and centre-point of all that God does to the nations through Israel. Jerusalem was to be the focal-point of Israel’s worship, where they could model to the world what a relationship with the LORD looked like. And so for the walls to be in a state of disrepair was dishonouring to God and meant that God’s model of blessing the nations – which in turn pointed forward to Jesus and his ingathering of the nations – was broken.

Now, by the time we get to Nehemiah 8 we see that wall has been finished. Miraculously, in just 52 days, this mile of wall around Jerusalem was erected. The Jews had made their witness to the nations. God’s model of heaven on earth had been restored. God has finished repairing the walls; in Nehemiah 8 – which is perhaps the climax of the book – God starts the process of reviving and repairing his broken people. And the way in which God repairs his broken people is through feeding them from his word.

Verse 1 tells us that all the people assembled as one man in the square before the Water Gate on the first day of the seventh month – the Jewish festival month. In today’s calendar, the date would have been 8th October 444BC. We read in verse 2 that the people comprised of the men, the women and all those who could understand (so presumably that means the children who were old enough). In total, there were probably around thirty thousand people, gathered together.

And if you’d been in backstreet Jerusalem that day, I guess you might well have asked, ‘What’s going on? Thirty thousand people! Is it a football match? A rock concert? What would draw thirty thousand people to gather as one man?’

Well, a guy called Ezra comes out onto a stage specially built for the occasion. And he has an entourage next to him – verse 4 – not backing vocalists, but other priests. It’s as if Ezra is showing that he is not going to do anything on his own authority, he doesn’t want the glory here. The whole thing is set up for a spectacular occasion. But the crowd are not there for a gig or a football match, they are there to hear the Book of Moses read – the first five books of the Bible: Genesis and Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. They’re there to hear them read and explained.

Well in verse 1 the crowd began chanting for Ezra to get cracking (Imagine: ‘Ezra! Ezra! Ezra!’). Ezra 7:10 describes the man in this way: ‘Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the LORD, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel.’ Ezra is the Bible teacher, Ezra is the one that the people know they need to expound God’s Word. And it’s just worth noting that, at this point, Nehemiah is happy not to be centre stage. As I was preparing this message, I was wondering if I would have been as humble as Nehemiah. After all, Nehemiah has been the main man up until this point. But, gifted as he is, Nehemiah knows that his gifting is in leadership and in administration. Ezra’s gifting is in teaching Scripture. Nehemiah knows that God has distributed different gifts to different individuals in his people: up to this point, primarily Nehemiah has been serving Ezra through leading the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. Now Nehemiah turns to Ezra, knowing his gift, and says, “Serve me and the rest of God’s people through feeding me with God’s Word.”

What makes this hunger for God’s Word particularly noteworthy is the context. Remember, the people of Judah have been in exile for many years. Not only that, but the society was an oral one – most people would neither have been able to read or have ever heard the Law of Moses read in any venue. And now, in the safety of the completed walls of the city of Jerusalem, the people gather expectantly to hear from God.

And look at the depth of hunger for God’s Word that the Lord has instilled in his people. Look at verse 5: ‘Ezra opened the book. All the people could see him because he was standing above them; and as he opened it, the people all stood up. Ezra praised the LORD, the great God, and all the people lifted their hands and responded, ‘Amen! Amen!’ Then they bowed down and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.’

Look at the passion that emanates from the hearts of the people. The LORD has placed into their hearts a thirst to hear from him. The apostle Peter wrote in the New Testament to churches saying that they should crave pure spiritual milk like newborn babies’. And that’s what the people are doing here. The people stand up as Ezra opens the book – it’s like a sign of respect; they’re waiting to hear what Scripture says. Then as Ezra prays, the people lift their hands. Lifting hands in the Old Testament is a physical way of saying to God, ‘I am completely submitted to you. I am humbly dependent on you. Let nothing get in the way of you speaking to me and my right response to you.’ It’s one of the reasons that some Christians raise their hands now. And then as the prayer ends, the people shout, ‘Amen! Amen!’ They are shouting, ‘Yes, Lord! I agree!’ to Ezra’s prayer that God would speak to them. As Scripture is opened, the people are not passionless or looking to intellectually assent to what they are hearing. They are arriving expecting to hear from the living God, expecting to meet with him through his Word. These guys have arrived to hear the Word of God, with energetic and conscientious listening. They are not texting each other as Ezra speaks, they are not preoccupied with other things. And verse tells us that for six hours they absorbed everything that Ezra has to say.

Can you imagine a six hour sermon? You have to love the Bible to stand reverently and attentively for six hours, no toilet breaks, no coffee breaks. Just standing and listening to God speak. But these Israelites were pleased to do it. The lure of the football on TV couldn’t keep them away.

Their attitude to the Bible is very much like that which is described in the Law of Moses which Ezra was reading to them. In Deuteronomy 8:3 Moses declares: “Man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes out of the mouth of God.” It’s a very good description of the scene in Nehemiah. It’s the picture of hungry beggars waiting for crumbs that are dropping from the King’s table. And every single word that falls from the mouth of God is food for these people. They are feasting on God’s word. Nehemiah 8 is about thirty thousand people who crave to hear God speak to them more than any earthly thing. They longed to know God.

Too often we take the Bible for granted. Just think of it. In the Bible, the God of the Universe is offering himself to you. The God of the Universe has commissioned a self-portrait called the Bible. The Father has asked the Holy Spirit to write, through the Bible writers, a rendered biography of his Son Jesus Christ, the exact image of his Father. So the Father has given this Spirit-inspired account of His Son, and he’s done it because he wants to be known. He wants to speak into your life – to introduce you to his wonderful Son and so to realize the wonder of his love.

How will God speak into your life? God speaks as the Bible is read and proclaimed. Do you see that in verse 8? Whereas in verse 1, it was called the Book of the Law of Moses – in verse 8, Nehemiah is absolutely clear that it is also ‘the book of the Law of God.’ Moses might have been the human writer – but God, by his Spirit, is the ultimate author. And just as he used Moses to write the Bible – so he uses people to communicate the meaning of the Bible. We see in verse 7 there were many who were employed in the task of making God’s voice heard and understood – preachers or small group leaders if you like. In verse 8, ‘they read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read.’

The Bible should not simply be read; it should be proclaimed and understood. And this is a wonderful thing. The Father does not simply send down the Bible like a textbook and expect us to study it on our own. So often people complain that they can’t get a handle on the Bible and they need help. And I want to say – yes you do need help – we all need help, and God gives us help. He gives us help through the Holy Spirit, the co-author or the Bible, and he gives us help through giving us the church: preachers and small group leaders and others around us to help us understand God’s word for ourselves.

Well what is the effect of hearing God speak in this way? Look at verse 9 with me: “All the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law.”

The Bible had exposed them in their rebellion against the Living God. The Law thundered and convicted the people of their sin – of how they had turned to other things and placed them at the centre of their lives. It convicted them of how they couldn’t saunter into a relationship with God, because they had neglected him that had given them such goodness. They understood this not just individually but corporately: that for so many years the people of Judah had been under a curse because they had refused to hear the LORD’s voice. The Bible brought all this home – and it made them weep.

But Nehemiah says that this reaction to what Ezra had just taught is inappropriate. Look again at verses 9-11:

9 Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and teacher of the Law, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, “This day is holy to the LORD your God. Do not mourn or weep.” For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law.
10 Nehemiah said, “Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks, and send some to those who have nothing prepared. This day is holy to our Lord. Do not grieve, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.”
11 The Levites calmed all the people, saying, “Be still, for this is a holy day. Do not grieve.”

Nehemiah twice says that crying is inappropriate because ‘this day is holy to our Lord’, and the
Levites agree. “It’s inappropriate to be weeping on a day like today,” says Nehemiah. And what was the day? Remember – it’s the Feast of Trumpets, which marked the beginning of seventh month in the Jewish calendar. And you can read in Numbers 29 of the seventh month was the festival month – it was the highlight of the Jewish calendar, jam-packed with festivals and celebrations that spoke of how the LORD rescues and forgives his people.

And so when Nehemiah says that in the light of the people’s conviction of sin that they should rejoice and not grieve, he’s not saying that the people’s sin doesn’t matter. Nor is he saying that times of grief and mourning about sin are wrong. Rebellion against God does matter: it breaks relationship with him. And sorrowful confession of sin is part of how we ensure that our hearts remain truly penitent and God centred. No, what Nehemiah is saying is that to see sin against God – to see the Law – as the end of the story to have a wrong view of the big picture. In the New Testament, it’s quite obvious that the Law isn’t the end of the story. But it’s also there in the Old Testament too. And part of this was the institution of various holidays where, in spite of their sin, God encourages the people to rejoice at their relationship with him. It’s a pointer that, one day, he will deal with sin once and for all. The law leads people to Jesus.

And so back outside the Water Gate in Jerusalem, Nehemiah says to the assembled throng: ‘Guys – it’s the Feast of Trumpets. It’s the celebration of the beginning of the seventh month – the month which speaks of how sin isn’t the last word. So stop grieving and start celebrating!’
It would be a bit like meeting someone on Easter Sunday that is gloomy and miserable. You ask them why, and they say, “Because of my sin, Jesus ended up on the cross.” And whilst that’s right and true, you’d want to say, “But it’s Easter Sunday! Today we’re remembering our wonderful Saviour and Redeemer who took our judgement and beat death. Mourning sin today isn’t appropriate.” Law isn’t the end of the story; sin isn’t the end of the story. And where sin abounds, God’s grace shown to us in Christ abounds all the more.

But so often today we can slip into thinking the Law is the end of the story, constantly making its demands. And when do so is miserable. We give the Law a place it should never have had. Have a look at this table:

Law is good because it...	Law is powerless because it can never...
Shows us how our faith should express itself	Maintain our relationship with God and others
Shows us what Jesus is like	Give us righteousness
Reveals the character of God	Justify those who break it
Brings sanity, wisdom and direction	Free us from bondage, guilt and corruption
Drives us to Christ and his Spirit	Give us power
Restrains wickedness	Give us life
Convicts of sin	Provide us with a substitute
Is written on our hearts	Give us the gift of the Spirit
Is part of love	Can cleanse our conscience

And what Nehemiah is doing, in a manner of speaking, is showing the people around him this table, or flipping open his copy of God’s Big Picture. He’s encouraging the people to see the broader picture of the Bible. And so Nehemiah pronounces an order to rejoice. “Do not grieve” he says “for the joy of the LORD is your strength.” In spite of your rebellion – there is forgiveness in the LORD, therefore rejoice. Go! Enjoy a barbecue, and make sure there’s plenty of food for the poor around – the God of the universe knows what you’re like and he loves you anyway. If that’s not cause for a generous celebration, I don’t know what is. And these Israelites went out rejoicing in the LORD. The Bible had taken them to weeping and mourning and then to rejoicing and celebrating. God is repairing his broken people.

It is the pattern of every great adventure story. All adventure stories follow the same sort of pattern. You know: there are some ordinary people living ordinary lives and they are plucked out of their ordinary circumstances and transported to another land, another kingdom, another world, another planet, where they are caught up in a cosmic battle of good and evil. And there are dangerous baddies and there are wonderful heroes and at the end there is a decisive battle fought and the good guys snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. And at the end of the book the heroes are placed back in their ordinary lives, but now they are changed. They are stronger, braver, more caring, more centred, more joyful. Why? Because they had been caught up in something more grand and important than they had ever experienced before. Now their everyday lives take on a new perspective.

It’s the same as we come to the pages of Scripture. As we read the Holy Spirit’s history of the world, it is a cosmic tale of good and evil and victory in the Lord Jesus Christ. And the believer in Jesus is caught up in the events of the Bible. We were in the enemy camp – waging war against Jesus and deserving eternal death – but Jesus in His mercy has come and died in our place and scooped us up in the resurrection and brought us into the family of God to worship him as King and sing his praises forever. What a story!

This is something that God’s people at the time of Nehemiah tasted as his word was taught, because they now had caught sight of God’s purposes. Or as verse 12 puts it, ‘they understood the words that had been made known to them.’ And how does this show itself? It shows itself through a hunger for God’s word that sees them returning day after day so that Ezra can continue to feed them. And – beautifully and ironically – the chapter ends with the people making temporary shelters, as required in the Law for the Feast of Tabernacles. This was a festival to remind the Israelites that they are strangers and aliens in the world. The people are home, at last, in Jerusalem – but, as God’s word feeds them, they are reminded that they are not truly home. As Hebrews 11 puts it, they were being reminded that they could look forward to a city with foundations whose architect and builder is God. They were in the earthly Jerusalem, but God was reminding them of his rescue that meant they could look forward to the heavenly Jerusalem forever. That is where history is heading. That is the big story.

But I have to ask you: are you immersing yourself in this story? Are you daily reminding yourself of reality? Are you daily making room for God to feed you and speak into your life? Are you placing yourself regularly under God’s word? Will you, over the summer and upon graduation? If you’re not, then the gaps you’re leaving in your life won’t be left empty – they’ll be filled by other things. And you’ll find that although you nibble on snacks to satisfy the hunger in your life, your appetite for the truly satisfying meat that only God offers will diminish. It is a dangerous thing to neglect the word of God. But it’s also a stupid thing. Look at verse 10. Don’t you want verse 10 to be a reality in your life? “The joy of the LORD is your strength”? The highway to a joyless existence is one cut off from God’s gracious word to us. If we refuse to listen to God’s word, we’re like the sullen child who pokes his fingers in his ears while his parents try to tell him of a wonderful holiday.

The Word of God brings life and salvation. Through it, the Holy Spirit declares that all our sins can be forgiven in Jesus, if only we will cast ourselves on him and believe in him. If we would unblock our ears and listen there would be tremendous joy. The minute we think life is about striking out on our own we enter a very joyless and peaceless existence, which is profoundly dishonouring to God and miserable for us. And the minute we think life is about our approach to God (rather than his approach to us) we lead the unhappy life of the one under the Law. But when we understand that the Bible declares to us Jesus Christ’s approach to us, to bring light and life, then the joy of the LORD will be our strength. And we will find strength to live for him, whatever the cost.

Putting the Bible at the centre of our lives is crucial to understanding the wonderful grace of God. The Bible is where the Holy Spirit gives to us Jesus Christ and in him all the goodness and grace which the Father longs to grant his creation. If we want to be people of enduring and God-glorifying joy – a quality of joy that demonstrates that only God offers what humans like us need – then we must constantly hear the Spirit speak God’s good news to us through his Word. We must constantly allow ourselves to be repaired and transformed as the Spirit’s sword frees us and makes wounded people like us whole, as it made the wounded and broken people at the time of Nehemiah both free and whole.

This is my final message at Lancaster University CU. We’re in a time in this country where it seems to me fewer and fewer Christians are taking the Bible seriously and letting the Spirit use it to rip roar in our lives and bring us radically to Jesus. Too often we settle for impoverished sermons, Christian books that are more like self-help manuals than Scriptural truth, and suffer from a lack of hunger to actually grapple with and be transformed by the word. But I love you all very much and so my prayer for all of you for the rest of your lives is that you will continue to be people of the book, that Lancaster CU will be characterised by holding firm to the word of life, and that each of you as individuals will make time to hear God speak. I pray that the written word will continue, through the power of the Spirit, to reveal Jesus, the Living Word. And that as you see him more clearly, the joy of the LORD will be your strength, and that this will cause you to live radically. That as the joy of the LORD is your strength, and as you see knowing Jesus to be the supreme blessing, you will willingly suffer, you will willingly love people radically and sacrificially, and that you will make brave decisions for Jesus and his gospel, knowing that living wholeheartedly for Christ is never in vain.

Star Trek 2009

2009-05-24T21:55:00.001+01:00

Linda and I went to watch Star Trek tonight. I hope at some point in the next couple of days to scribble some thoughts I had.

For the time being, here's my brother's review of the film.

The Trinity: unbiblical, illogical, irrelevant?

2009-05-23T11:00:00.000+01:00

I had the privilege and opportunity to speak on a lunchbar with the above title at Lancaster University last week.

As part of the lunchbar, I stated that I believed that any religion based upon a singular god shows itself (at least in part) in works. After all, this god might demand obedience and religious service and sacrifice and prayer and elaborate worship. If it's going to come from anyone, it has to come from humans. Religion is about humans paying all of this to a god. (This contrasts to Biblical Christianity, in which the Son makes forgiveness possible, and whose righteousness is credited to those who trust in him).

I had an interesting conversation afterwards with a Christadelphian. I have to admit that I didn't know very much about Christadelphian doctrine, beyond the fact that they denied the Trinity. But the girl I met was adamant that works have no part in salvation in the Christadelphian view.

However, as the conversation continued, I think my original statement was endorsed. Christadelphians believe that humans are separated from God because of their sins, and can be reconciled to him by becoming disciples of Jesus Christ. This comes through faith, confession and it seems baptism (although the girl wasn't completely sure on this point). But, above all, she explained that salvation comes as a result of making a commitment to follow the commands of God. The work, it seems, is a commitment to obedience.

I left the conversation sad, because we seemed to get nowhere. But then I got to reflect again on the amazing Trinitarian God - a plurality that offers all those who trust in Christ forgiveness in full as a gift of grace, the reputation and righteousness of Christ, the very status of Christ, adoption as heirs and the gift of the Holy Spirit. What a God!

Some thoughts on the prosperity gospel

2009-05-22T21:56:00.005+01:00

A few weeks ago I was asked to give a message at Bolton CU concerning the prosperity gospel.

Whilst there are a fair number of prosperity gospel lunatics, I realised that most prosperity teaching is actually only a subtle (but dangerous) twist of the genuine gospel message. Jesus is portrayed as a kind of key that brings us entry into a store of blessings that flow from God the Father.

But here are three problems that I have with the prosperity gospel:

1. True blessing for a Christian is not primarily concerned with 'stuff' (as prosperity teachers imply) but a closer walk with Jesus, whereby a believer leans more fully on Christ in everything - Philippians 1:21

2. Communion with Christ transforms all areas of life (as the prosperity gospel teaches) - but this happens not magically but as a believer surrenders life to him with the Holy Spirit's help - Colossians 2:6-7

3. The clearest witness to Christ comes not through accumulating stuff, but as we willingly surrender it to him - Matthew 13:44-46

'Communal reinforcement'

2009-05-21T09:07:00.002+01:00

I've been away for a week in Cyprus - an excellent time to get some R&R, and do some reading. One book I read was Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. Goldacre is the editor of the Bad Science website, and his book is well-written, heartfelt and engaging.

At one point of the book (in a chapter entitled 'Why clever people believe stupid things', in a section on why we often prefer chat show endorsements to empirical evidence), he writes the following:

'Communal reinforcement' is the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief, through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched, or supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Communal reinforcement goes a long way towards explaining how religious beliefs can be passed on in communities from generation to generation...' (page 253).

I've spoken several times on whether belief in God is merely a psychological crutch, and this is a commonly occuring theme in popular culture (see my review of the Brit flick Franklyn, for example). I'd come across 'communal reinforcement' in thinking about voting patterns before, and it got me thinking further about communal reinforcement in Christian circles. (In passing, I think it's harder to make this claim of Christian belief than, perhaps, theocratic beliefs like Islam, where confession influences much wider aspects of a society's culture).

It's certainly true that communal reinforcement inevitably does occur within Christian circles. This is shown by the fact that when someone professing as a Christian loses the community around them (typically leaving to go to university), many cease professing further. Additionally, it is not difficult to envisage that Christian conferences (for example) might leave delegates with an emotional high that is of merely psychological benefit. Conferences are wonderful but it's important we don't let them become emotionally manipulative. To do this might actually drive some away from authentic belief in Christ.

But like the normal 'psychological crutch' argument, just because some belief can be proven to be communal reinforcement, this does not necessarily go 'a long way' in explaining Christian belief. For one thing, it does not account for Christian belief where Christian community is minimal or non-existent (or where a person's community is primarily with those that are not Christians). Certainly Scripture represents belief in Christ as something based on historical fact (see John 20:30-31, 1 John 1:1-4 and so on), and not hunch or family faith.

Neither legalism nor laziness: working out responsibility in Christian leadership

2009-05-07T12:09:00.003+01:00

It's very difficult to manage responsibility effectively in Christian leadership. Often it seems that Christian leaders are burdened, tired and even joyless. CU leadership is no different. Here are three case studies:

Chloe is frustrating her small group co-leader, Harry. She was apparently at first very enthusiastic about leading the group. However, as time has gone on, Chloe’s productivity has declined. She appears less committed to leading studies, constantly asking Harry to stand in for her, and she’s reluctant to take on any extra responsibilities.

Joshua is very passionate about evangelism and Bible study and was delighted when he was asked to be a CU leader. He’s not very bothered about his course and regularly skips lectures to be involved in CU activities. Nor does he work very hard at his essays – after all, he reasons, God is more bothered by eternal fruit than by activities that don’t have eternal importance. Joshua is a talented sportsman but chooses to sacrifice his place in the university team for the sake of being able to encourage his Christian brothers and sisters.

Ollie has a reputation amongst most of the CU for being something of a hero who has a real desire to serve others. He seems to always be the first to volunteer for anything. As evangelism secretary, Ollie has pioneered a number of new initiatives which have gone well. However, underneath the surface, things are not well. Ollie feels exhausted and finds himself constantly telling others how busy and tired he is. He’s not prayed on his own in weeks, and has slipped behind with university work. Nor is Ollie eating or sleeping well. If he was honest with himself (which he normally isn’t) Ollie measures his worth through his accomplishments in CU.

Ultimately, all of these students need to believe and trust the promises of the gospel and in the character of God in their situations:

CU leaders can look lazy for a number of reasons - Chloe may actually be lazy (in which case she needs to discern those things that really are God-given responsibilities), although often seemingly lazy people feel over-burdened by concerns that are not truly responsibilities (therefore leading to perfectionism and procrastination). If the latter were true, Chloe needs to know that God's strength is made perfect in weakness, and let the Spirit do what only he can.
Joshua tends towards super-spirituality, with a low view of what it means for Jesus to be his Creator - and therefore has a compartmentalised view of worship. He may look spiritual, but in fact he is with-holding certain parts of his life as areas dedicated to the Lord.
Ollie is a legalist. He is probably using his CU accomplishments as a way of making and keeping himself acceptable to God (and other Christians). He needs to rediscover the truths of God's grace: that Jesus is our perfect righteousness and that we need no other. He needs to stop trying to be what he is not, admit what he is - and then realise that he does not need to prove himself to either God or others.

"I have many people in this city"

2009-04-30T10:07:00.004+01:00

One of the most tender parts of the book of Acts comes in chapter 18. Paul is feeling discouraged in Corinth: having been chased out of town after town, the Lord appears to him:

One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: "Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city." So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God. (Acts 18:9-11)

A few of us were considering these verses at the Lancaster CU small group leaders' meeting on Tuesday. Christ gives Paul an incredible promise - he had in Corinth 'many people'. These people had not yet believed in him, but they would do so because, as Stott puts it, 'already according to his purpose they belonged to him.' And so we considered the implications of God's sovereignty in evangelism: this conviction did not cause Paul to pack up and go on holiday, but he had the great conviction to keep going as an evangelist, knowing his efforts would not be wasted.

We haven't had a specific word about the campus of Lancaster University - but as we look forward to the great crowd in Revelation, we discussed as to how we can be very optimistic that Christ has 'many people' at Lancaster University - eternally his, but not yet trusting him.

Last night we maybe had a glimpse of some of 'the many' on the campus. The CU organised a 'toastie and question' event from 6pm to 2am. It was quite an amazing event: there were three 'stations' that were all making toasties, and dozens of CU members involved in taking the toasties out, chatting and answering questions.

The stories are still filtering through the CU. A whole football squad listened to a CU member explain something of the gospel; several people want to come to church on Sunday; the campus radio station texted in for a toastie and featured the answer on their station! Literally hundreds of conversations happened over the course of the night.

In a couple of times especially we were aware of God's leading the conversation. In one instance, the CU members were there for nearly 2 hours - a banterous conversation turned very serious, and the CU members were invited back to chat further over dinner. In another conversation, the final question was, 'So how would I become a Christian?'

As we prayed last night, we reflected on Christ's promise to Paul: 'I have many people in this city.' We couldn't help thinking that he has many people on the campus. How precious the conviction of God's sovereignty is in evangelism!

Grieving student ministry

2009-04-23T22:49:00.005+01:00

I have had a wonderful couple of days. I have been struck again by the sheer privilege of being involved in student ministry.

Of course there are massive frustrations, but there are certain days that just seem to be full of blessing. This has included the last couple of days. An opportunity to feed on the truth's of adoption and the Spirit's indwelling in Galatians 4 yesterday morning, then leading the Cumbria small group leaders through 1 Samuel 2 yesterday - amazed at God's sovereignty in acting for his people.

Today I had the opportunity to really engage with a non-believer at the Lancaster lunchbar over the Bible's teaching on justice and hell. Afterwards I chatted with students about God's sovereignty and what it means for us. This was followed by a lovely 90 minutes with another student in Colossians 2 - both of us saw more of what it meant to reject rules but willingly submit our lives to Jesus' Lordship. Tonight at Cumbria CU it was great chatting with students and seeing the transformation that God is doing in their lives. What a pleasure to be around students who love Jesus so much that they long to introduce their friends to him!

I feel very blessed to have had 5 years with UCCF and had the privilege of seeing so many penny dropping moments and Jesus changing many. The (many) frustrations are vastly outweighed by these joys. Now as I prepare to move out of so much contact with students, I feel torn: ready to move on, excited by future challenges, blessed to have seen so much, but also grieving somewhat and realising I am going to miss so much ministry amongst students. I am praying that I would have Paul's heart in Colossians 1, the pzazz of student ministry may go, but may I have this attitude:

We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.

The development of theology and evangelism

2009-04-22T18:17:00.002+01:00

I've been reading through Timothy Ware's book The Orthodox Church as part of preparation for the summer team I'm co-leading to Moldova in June and July*. I've been wanting to brush up on Orthodox beliefs as many of the non-believers that attend the camp are influenced at least nominally by the Orthodox Church.

One of the things that has struck me is the extent to which Orthodox and Protestant beliefs diverge because of a difference in whether Scripture or Church is the ultimate authority. Protestants argue that Scripture is the ultimate authority, whereas Orthodox argue that because the canon was formalised by the Spirit-driven Church, Church effectively is the authority above Scripture. (And so church creeds and the writings of the Church effectively have equal authority to Scripture).

This inevitably has an impact on the development of theology. Whereas Orthodox believers would certainly grant the possibility of theological development (in deepening existing Orthodox doctrines), it seems to me that the Orthodox Church's default position is to look at the writings of the early Orthodox saints. Protestanism - with its insistence of being Scripture-driven - places much more emphasis on theological development. The weakness of the Protestant position is that it can be faddish and perhaps (at least in evangelical circles) does not place enough emphasis on the historical testimony of Christians from other generations. But it appears to me that Orthodox theology starves itself of many of the theological developments that a sola Scriptura conviction has brought - diverse issues, including the nature of sin, the atonement, common grace, the doctrine of humanity and so on. I've no doubt that there are many genuine believers in the Orthodox community (and met some incredible people last time round in Moldova), but these under-developed doctrines seem to be very unhelpful.

Certainly my study so far means that I am inclined to run a session for our team's orientation on the doctrine of revelation. I'm also going to be inclined to show that the beliefs that many Moldovans find incredulous (for instance, that Jesus is not just 'Son of God' (which they learn by rote), but also 'God in the flesh') were testified by early Eastern believers. Eventually perhaps these thoughts will come to fruition in a short resource designed to help evangelicals share the gospel more effectively with nominally Orthodox unbelievers.

* The book, recommended by my dad, is a massively helpful and detailed introduction to Orthodoxy. There are second-hand copies on the Internet for next to nothing. Ware himself is a bishop in the Greek Orthodox Church.

Five reasons why Christians read so few good books

2009-04-20T08:30:00.002+01:00

With a room full of bargain books at low, low prices, that will be heading to CU meetings over the next fortnight, here's a thought. Five reasons why Christians read so few good books, according to Neil Richards:

Sheer worldliness.
Lack of conviction that such reading strengthens faith and increases joy.
A disorderly life that cannot find time for the best things.
Preaching that does little to stimulate the mind or make us want to know more.
A diet of poor Christian books.

HT: Dan Green

Symptoms of hyper-Calvinism

2009-04-19T19:54:00.004+01:00

All of a sudden many of the CU students at Lancaster University and the University of Cumbria seem to be thinking about Calvinism and Arminianism. I think that thinking about the sovereignty of God in this way has got to be a brilliant thing so long as it is done humbly and with Scripture open.

I had one conversation recently with a student on this issue, and we got to talking about hyper-Calvinism (that is, one who goes beyond and over the bounds of what Calvinism teaches, and excessive in application of the doctrines of Calvinism). The student asked me what the symptoms of hyper-Calvinism are.

Tim Challies cites Phil Johnson who theologically defines hyper-Calvinists with a five-fold definition. According to Johnson, a hyper-Calvinist is someone who:

Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

So what then would be the symptoms of slipping into hyper-Calvinism? It would seem to me that there are several:

A lack of commitment to evangelism and world mission (possibly even an unwillingness to evangelise at all - or at least to evangelise without appealing that non-believers accept and believe the gospel);
A lack of commitment to political engagement and the desire to improve society (because there is no common grace in non-believers);
A perceived lack of value in anything made by non-believers (again rooting from the belief that no common grace exists). Art, for instance, is seen as something made by a reprobate person rather than someone made in the image of God using their God-given talents;
A tendency towards arrogance and elitism, and an attitude of deploring the 'non-elect';
A strongly fatalistic prayer life that does not seek to grow in relationship with the Father;
A lack of assurance (because the believer is constantly looking for evidence within themselves that they really are elect).

What do others think? (It's worth noting that I know at least two people who have rejected a Calvinistic understanding of Scripture, to my mind because they equate Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism).

"The joy of the LORD is your strength": reflections from Nehemiah 8

2009-04-14T18:05:00.006+01:00

I'm working on a message for later in the term on Nehemiah 8, which is when the Law is read by Ezra to the exiles, who have just finished rebuilding Jerusalem.

Famously, the people are reduced to tears as the Law is read, presumably as they realise that individually and corporately they are rightly under God's curse as lawbreakers.But Nehemiah says that this reaction to what the people have just said is inappropriate, as seen here in verses 9-11:

9 Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and teacher of the Law, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, “This day is holy to the LORD your God. Do not mourn or weep.” For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law.

10 Nehemiah said, “Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks, and send some to those who have nothing prepared. This day is holy to our Lord. Do not grieve, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.”

11 The Levites calmed all the people, saying, “Be still, for this is a holy day. Do not grieve.”

Verse 10 is especially famous, especially the phrase 'the joy of the LORD is your strength'. But why should the people stop mourning and crying? After all, elsewhere in Scripture (in both Old and New Testaments), mourning over sin is presented as a right response to its ugliness and offence to God.

The key is something that it would appear many preachers miss. Nehemiah twice says that crying is inappropriate because ‘this day is holy to our Lord’, and the Levites agree. According to Nehemiah, weeping on that particular day was wrong.

What was the day? Nehemiah 8:2 explains that it is the first day of the seventh month, which Numbers 29:1 explains is to be a festival called the Feast of Trumpets. Numbers 29 also demonstrates that the seventh month was a kind of 'festival month' - jam-packed with rituals and celebrations that together reminded Israel of God's past redemption and forgiveness (and the hope of future redemption and forgiveness). All of this is tied up with the concept of sacrifice - indeed, the high point of the festivals of the seventh month was the Day of Atonement, where a burnt offering and a scapegoat visually demonstrated God's provision for a sinful people.

And so when Nehemiah says that in the light of the people’s conviction of sin that they should rejoice and not grieve, he’s not saying that the people’s sin doesn’t matter. Nor is he saying that times of grief and mourning about sin are wrong. Rather, what Nehemiah is saying is that to see sin against God as the end of the story to have a wrong view of the big picture. And it’s of that big picture that the seventh month spoke to the people.

And so Nehemiah is saying to the assembled throng: ‘Folks – it’s the Feast of Trumpets. It’s the celebration of the beginning of the seventh month – the month which speaks of how sin isn’t the last word. So stop grieving and start celebrating!’ It would be a bit like meeting someone on Easter Sunday that is gloomy and miserable. You ask them why, and they say, “Because of my sin, Jesus ended up on the cross.” And whilst that’s right and true, you’d want to say, “But it’s Easter Sunday! Today we’re remembering our wonderful Saviour and Redeemer who took our judgement and beat death. Mourning sin isn’t appropriate today. Think about the big picture to which today points.”

Nehemiah 8 is not teaching that grieving sin is wrong. Rather, Nehemiah 8 teaches that if grieving sin never leads a person to Jesus (and to experience the joy of forgiven sin that Jesus offers), we have got our understanding of God's big picture very wrong.

Christ and him crucified

2009-04-10T10:38:00.003+01:00

On Good Friday, a good question to revisit again might be: is the cross really that special? Paul determined to know nothing but Christ and his cross - but was he mistaken?

These are the questions that Peter Leithart asks in an extraordinary and poetic homily on Good Friday written a couple of years ago. Read his post in full (do it!) to see how the cross of Christ is the summation of all history and the fulfilment of the many shadows of judgement and redemption that had gone before. Which leads to this masterful and triumphant conclusion:

'The cross is the crux, the crossroads, the twisted knot at the center of reality, to hich all previous history led and from which all subsequent history flows. By it we know all reality is cruciform – the love of God, the shape of creation, the labyrinth of human history. Paul determined to know nothing but Christ crucified, but that was enough. The cross was all he knew on earth; but knowing the cross he, and we, know all we need to know.'

The Damned United: the idolatry of ambition

2009-04-09T23:01:00.003+01:00

The Damned United concerns Brian Clough's ill-fated 44 day stint as manager of Leeds United. Based on fact but no doubt embellished, the film places the seven weeks Clough spent there as manager in the context of his long-running rivalry with Don Revie.

Michael Sheen is, again, brilliant and Timothy Spall provides excellent support as Clough's number 2, Peter Taylor. There's a good script which highlights Clough's arrogance, wit and pomp. The film is quick moving and held the attention even of my football-tolerating-at-best mother. There's also some beautiful photography work (my favourite scenes were those set in Brighton) which captures what I imagine the spirit of the 1970s to be perfectly.

Clough is portrayed as a flawed genius - to those of us know who anything about the man, no surprise there. His genius and his flaw root from the same place: Clough's great ambition and associated arrogance. Positively, these drive Clough to excellence and brings great hights. Negatively, they are pictured as destroying relationships with friends, family, rivals and colleagues - and lead Clough himself into misery and bitterness. (This is particularly shown in the rollercoaster-type relationship Clough has with Peter Taylor; particularly tragic to those who know how this relationship finished in real life). In short, success becomes Clough's god. He is pictured as willing to do anything in order to achieve it - and cannot live without it.

Success is something which is not wrong to pursue, nor is achievement. But The Damned United reminds the viewer that when these become ultimate, hurt of oneself and others (and regret) are bound to follow.

Pray for Moldova

2009-04-08T18:29:00.003+01:00

I don't know how many of my readers will be familiar about the situation in Moldovan following the parliamentary elections last Sunday. There's a summary from the BBC here.

Moldova is a country that is close to my heart. Corruption and poor leadership has held Moldova back from developing (it is Europe's poorest country) and it is crucial that there is a genuine democracy there; and a leadership that will wisely work for the benefit of both the Russian and Romanian ethnic groups.

Please pray for a speedy resolution to the present situation, and pray for safety and opportunities to point to Jesus for the CSC staff and students (CSC is the equivalent of UCCF) that are based in Chisinau.

Go elsewhere

2009-04-07T10:39:00.004+01:00

A couple of interesting links to follow:

The incredible sermon given at Jade Goody's funeral. Jade apparently discovered the hope that having Jesus brings in the last days of life. What an amazing testimony to God's grace that this sermon is!
Lancaster University CU's mission week features towards the episode here of the 'LA1 Show', produced by Lancaster University's Lutube [HT: Michael Ots].

Lessons from New Word Alive

2009-04-04T17:46:00.004+01:00

I have got back today from a week at New Word Alive in Pwllheli. Here are some things that particularly struck me.

1. Going through the parables in Luke's Gospel was a treat. The evening celebrations each focused on one of Jesus' parables recorded in Luke's Gospel. It's amazing how clearly these parables speak into everyday life and psyche of the Christian. Terry Virgo reminded us from Luke 15 of how the relationship God wants with his people is based on grace, as a father to a son. Don Carson spoke of the eternal consequences that the gospel has from Luke 16. The other messages were also top drawer. Perhaps my highlight was the exposition of the parable of the Good Samaritan by Krish Kandiah, who reminded that that although salvation is by grace, life in the kingdom will always show itself in radical neighbourly love. (I also attended a seminar from Dewi Hughes of Tearfund who made a similar point). We in the evangelical church have sadly often failed to meet the very real needs around us in the name of doing evangelism alone. But the heart of Christ is a heart to meet all needs - both temporal and ultimately eternal.

2. The doctrine of justification is to be treasured. I attended Mike Reeves' morning sessions on justification. I have left with more clarity on the doctrine itself and what it means to have been united to Christ and with a heart singing of Reformation truths. There are many ways that this doctrine can be weakened or removed from centre ground - but it is the bedrock of Christian life and spirituality. I had a brilliant conversation with a student who'd understood why joy was such a feature of the Christian life - we cannot fail to be joyful when the wonderful gospel truths saturate our hearts.

3. North Wales is beautiful. We were so fortunate to have a week in the sun. And the drive back today was truly awe-inspiring.

4. Conferences are great. God has not left us to be Christian hermits. His primary design is that Christians encourage each other, worship together and engage with the world through local churches. But I was struck this week by the very unique ministry opportunities that conferences bring - a teaching quality that can be rarely reproduced, a wealth of expertise, singing that engages the heart in a way not often seen in local churches, time to spend with friends, conversations with people you'd never otherwise share and so on. It's easy to arrive with a cynical attitude at a conference, but I for one think they're great.

5. Evangelical unity is worth fighting for. The group of students I took from Lancaster University and Uclan CUs were incredibly diverse - at least seven university churches were represented. It was brilliant to see students who'd previously written off believers from other Christian backgrounds actually treating each other like brothers and sisters for the first time, centring around the core truths of the gospel. Gospel unity is an incredibly attractive thing - and vital to demonstrate the joyful truth of the gospel to the world.

New Word Alive 2010 will run from 13-18 April. Confirmed speakers include Wayne Grudem, Jerry Bridges and Rebecca Manley-Pippert.

A tool to help engage with philosophy and pop culture

2009-03-29T13:38:00.004+01:00

I've recently come across a series of very useful books for those of us involved in cultural engagement, apologetics and evangelism.

Published by Wiley-Blackwell, the Philosophy and Pop Culture series helps the reader to get their heads around the various philosophies that popular films and television programmes both espouse and reflect. Why is it that we find David Brent so ridiculous? What is the form of philosophy that drives Jack Bauer? These are amongst the questions that the books investigate. As well as 24 and The Office, there are also guides on other series including Battlestar Galatica, Family Guy, Lost, South Park and the Batman films, amongst others. You can view the full list of titles here.

The books aren't easy reads (especially the one I read on 24). It's academic philosophers that have written the chapters. But I found the guides both helpful in illustrating quite abstract philosophical ideas, and in helping me to engage with the ideas these shows present and play around with. I'm hoping that as well as deepening my appreciation of these programmes, the books have armed me with new material for sermons and lunchbars.

Joel and the gift of the Spirit

2009-03-26T08:56:00.003Z

I'm studying through Joel at the moment with the Relay Workers. It's been a real treat. This week we arrived at God's restoration of blessings following the repentance of the people in chapter 2.

Verses 18-27 are beautiful. I was particularly struck by the phrase, 'I will repay the years the locusts have eaten' - what grace! The people deserved the covenant curse that they had received, but not only is the LORD happy to restore them to parity upon repentance, but then repays them for that curse! A marvellous reminder that where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.

But it was verses 28-32 that particularly struck me afresh. They're the famous verses that are quoted by Peter at Pentecost, explaining the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. In Joel these verses are tied to the section of blessing for God's people. It appears to me that there are two blessings here:

Firstly, that the Holy Spirit himself will be poured out generously on all of 'Israel' - that is, that all God's people will have the same Spirit that caused Joel to speak out and write his prophecy. In some ways, all of God's people will be 'Joels', having a far more intimate relationship with the LORD than before;
But - and here was what was new for me - the second blessing is that the gift of the Holy Spirit is tied to the deliverance of Jerusalem and Zion. The LORD promises that the gift of the Spirit will be closely linked to the day of the LORD - a time of judgement and deliverance. In fact, the pouring out of the Spirit is a sign that judgement against God's enemies is coming - and with this judgement comes a final deliverance of those that call on the name of the LORD.

This second point is, of course, stated propositionally in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit is a deposit, an engagement ring, a foretaste. It's sometimes difficult to see God's final judgement in positive terms, but that is how it is stated in Joel. At last we will know the full extent of the relationship for which we have been saved. At last our bodies will be redeemed. Sometimes that seems like a far-off illusion. But the gift of the Holy Spirit proves it to be a reality.

Bureaucracy and the glory of God

2009-03-25T12:53:00.005Z

So the last few weeks have been punctuated by regular phone calls to Moldova, last minute faxes (I'd never even sent a fax before two weeks ago!) and lots of prayer.

UCCF in the North West has had a long-standing commitment to partnering with the IFES movement in Moldova, CSC. As part of this, we raised money for two Moldovan Christian students to come over to be part of the New Word Alive conference. On paper, it sounded easy. In reality, it's been really hard work to try and make this opportunity happen. It feels that at every turn, we have been thwarted.

As I write, the British Embassy are still looking over the paper work over the Moldovans that are due to come over. Their flight is due to leave at 5.30am Moldovan time tomorrow. In some ways it's a miracle that we've got this far. I'm praying like mad that the visas will be granted in the next three hours and this time tomorrow I'll have met the Moldovan brothers at Heathrow.

The last few days have been a strange mixture of emotions. I've been absolutely humbled and forced to rely on God. I've examined my heart. I've argued in prayer. I've told God that (although I could be wrong) I can't possibly see how he gets more glory with these Moldovan lads staying at home. I can't see why God would want these resources of time and sacrificial giving apparently wasted. I've wondered whether God is wanting to change me in this whole process so I'm called to rely more wholeheartedly on him.

Funnily enough (some might say sovereignly!) I've just found myself writing this paragraph as I put together some cell notes for the University of Cumbria CU on 1 Samuel 1-2:

Hannah’s story should not be read as a promise that God will always remove physical problems, or that he will always get rid of barrenness amongst godly women (although it’s true that the passage does underline the power of believing prayer). The main thing that the writer is trying to illustrate is God’s sovereignty over events: Samuel will become a great and much-needed leader in Israel. If Hannah had had a son at an earlier date, she would never have left him at the house of the LORD in Shiloh. Because Samuel did grow up there, God was preparing him for his future life – to be a man of God and prophet, used to the public gaze and ready for leadership of Israel.

I guess that, regardless of whether or not the visas come through, God works out all things for the good of those who love him. It's a truth I'm still learning.

UPDATE: The British Embassy has closed for the day. I'm about to see if we can change the dates of the Moldovans' flights. I pray on.

Put on the armour of God (Ephesians 6:10-20)

2009-03-23T16:03:00.003Z

Here's a draft of a message I'm bringing tomorrow to Chester CU. Any thoughts or comments would be most welcome as I've struggled a bit putting it together!

There’s probably no-one here that has been involved in a war time situation. But we all know that the realities of war make people behave very differently. A friend of mine, Jonny, has a brother currently serving in Afghanistan. And that makes Jonny behave differently. He talks about his brother regularly. He emails him and prays for him with gut-wrenching concern for his safety. He’s terrified he might get hurt.

Everything must get ratcheted up a further level when you are in a country that is being ravaged by war. The newspapers there daily carry headlines about how the troops are doing. I spoke once to a person who’d been caught up as war erupted in Kosovo. He said you’d have to be on the alert all the time. You might have to be armed. You’d certainly have to be vigilant. A war touches everybody.

We mustn’t miss the wood from the trees when we come to what, for many of us, is a familiar passage. Paul’s headline is: if you are a Christian, life is a war for you. And the stakes are very high. The war is much worse even than what’s going on in Afghanistan. Verse 12 describes the enemy: ‘our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.’ In other words, the enemy being spoken about is Satan (that is, the devil) and his demonic powers. That’s why the spiritual war we are in is more serious even than the most awful physical war we can imagine. Satan is a much worse enemy than any earthly enemy. In war, the worst that can happen in physical death – but in the war Paul is talking about the danger is eternal death. And the war is not restricted just to one part of the world, but is in every town and city in the world where there are Christians. The stakes are very high.

Now this passage is written to Christians. What is written is for you if you have turned back to God and personally trusted in Jesus for yourself. There are probably some here tonight that have not yet turned to Jesus. Well, you need to know that Paul – the writer of the passage – holds the conviction that those who are not trusting in Jesus are in serious trouble. Jesus himself said that it’s better to lose an arm or an eye than to enter the hell of everlasting torment, where a person loses everything, including their very soul. It’s because Paul doesn’t want Christians to fall into hell that he writes this section of Ephesians, encouraging Christians to stand firm. As you hear the war that Christians are in described, and as you realise how terrifying the prospect of being without Jesus is, I hope that those of you that aren’t Christians will realise the seriousness of your current situation without him.

For the rest of the evening, I want to look at this amazing passage by thinking about four questions.

Firstly, who is our enemy and why he is so intent on waging war against Christians?

We’ve already seen that the enemy is the devil. Now I think most Christians aren’t very balanced when it comes to thinking about the devil. The Christian author CS Lewis once wrote: ‘There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about demons and the demonic. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.’

Both of these extremes find expression amongst Christians today. There are those who seem to be unhealthily interested the world of the demonic and appear to see a demon hiding around just about every street corner. Here Satan seems to receive as much attention as Jesus does – sometimes even more so. A person loses their car keys or gets a cold and they attribute it to the work of a demon.

On the other hand, some Christians have effectively airbrushed out anything supernatural from their beliefs, and so end up more or less ignoring the spiritual dimension altogether. When their evangelism is ineffective these Christians immediately blame lack of training or inadequate techniques rather than recognising the work of the devil blinding people's minds. When Christians slip up, it’s easier to blame society rather than the one who is working through that society: the devil.

Satan is, of course, quite happy with Christians at either extreme. Whether we give him sensational attention or effectively ignore him, he is able to get away with his work in the world – through creating fear or through creating apathy. What we need is the balanced perspective which the Bible gives. And the place where this is laid out most clearly for us is in Ephesians 6. Here we learn about true spiritual warfare.

The Bible teaches us that the essential character of the devil is wicked and evil. He stands against God – and therefore against God’s people – with an icy hatred that is much greater than any earthly metaphor. The devil is the arch enemy of the Lord Jesus. There are several words given in Scripture to describe the devil’s personality – proud, powerful, evil, clever, deceitful, fierce and cruel. He feels extreme contempt for Christians. You should never feel sorry for the devil or under-estimate his dedication to destroy you.

Now God has made it clear that we will have trouble and difficulty as we work our lives out in spiritual warfare with an enemy that seeks to destroy us, but he has also reminded us that Satan is a defeated foe. 1 John 3:8 says that Jesus came to defeat the works of the devil. At the cross, Jesus defeated Satan and gained all authority in heaven and on earth. At the cross, what Satan thought was his greatest victory in taking crucifying Christ was his greatest defeat. The cross shows us that all of Satan’s work in setting human hearts against God, and all of the ways in which this shows itself in the world, will one day be wiped away. The whole of the Universe will one day be reconciled to God and put right. In that respect, Satan is defeated. Jesus’ death and resurrection means that Satan’s downfall is assured and his doom is certain when Jesus returns. But, in the meantime, Satan exists to do all the damage he can possibly do to thwart God’s purpose and work. He wants to prevent non-believers from trusting Jesus, he wants to lead Christians into sin and even to the point where they abandon trust in Jesus. He wants to blunt the witness of your church and your CU. Above all, Satan hates God getting the glory he deserves.

In verse 12 Paul employs a vivid image to depict this war. He describes it as a ‘struggle’: ‘For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.’

Paul probably has the wrestling matches of his day in mind when he speaks of struggle (not WWE but Roman wrestling). It’s as if Paul says, “You can go to the games and see how in a wrestling bout men get to grips with each other. It’s all close contact, it is painful, it uses every muscle, and they do not let go until they have won. They struggle. And that is what it is like wrestling with the devil. This warfare is deadly serious. It is hand to hand combat. And there is a danger of being knocked out and falling into the eternal death of hell, which the devil longs for you.”

This struggle is unrelenting and constant. In verse 13, when Paul speaks of standing ‘when the day of evil comes’, he is talking about the period between Jesus’ first coming and his second coming, when he will return to judge and restore the Universe. In other words, it has been ‘the evil day’ for the last two thousands years and it is the ‘evil day’ today. When we think of demonic opposition, we tend to think of supernatural experiences and demonic possession. And the devil certainly can use these things. But these things are just the tip of the iceberg when we think about the devil’s opposition.

The devil’s opposition tends to be much more subtle. He tempts us: he longs for us deny the Lordship of Jesus in our life; he plays into our own weaknesses to discredit our witness or to make us doubt God’s goodness. The Bible tells us that Satan uses false teaching amongst Christians to get his way, and can even quote Scripture. We also know that Satan tries to destroy those human relationships that God has designed to bring glory to him. Satan likes nothing more than destroying a God-glorifying marriage or dividing a gospel-centred church so that it can’t witness to the Lord Jesus. Satan is very subtle. He knows us much better than we know ourselves – and he uses this knowledge to try and cause us to fall, to abandon our hope in Jesus and so that the gospel about Jesus is not preached and lived.

Now, I’ve spent quite a while on the first question, because I wanted you to see how serious the situation is for Christian. And it brings us to our second question: how on earth can we going to meet this attack of Satan?

Look at verse 13: ‘Therefore, put on the full armour of God...’ The picture Paul gives us is of a Roman soldier carefully putting on his armour to be ready for battle. If even one item is missing then it could spell disaster. Your life depends on getting it right. In other words, despite the very real threat of Satan and his evil powers, God is able to keep Christians from falling and the way he keeps Christians from falling is by fitting us for successful spiritual combat. So if your aim is to keep going in the Christian life and not be defeated by the schemes of the devil, then you must put on the armour described in these verses. This is how God means to keep Christians safe until Jesus returns.

Since the gospel shapes and undergirds the whole of Paul's thinking and action, it should come as no surprise that it does so at this point as he goes through the items of a Christian's spiritual armoury.

Firstly, Paul says, use the pieces of armour that cause you to saturate yourself in the gospel. This is what Paul is getting at when he tells Christians to ‘put on the breastplate of righteousness’ in verse 14. Embrace the gospel. Keep preaching to yourself what Christ has done for you. Keep telling yourself that, if you are a Christian, your status before God is one where you are accepted completely. You are righteous – that is you are right with God – in God’s sight because Christ has taken the filthy rags of your sin on himself on the cross and has placed around your shoulders the gleaming robe of his righteousness. As God looks at you, it’s as if he sees Jesus. One of Satan’s tactics is to ‘tempt us to despair’ as the song puts it. He makes us think we’re too bad to come back to God when we’ve slipped up. Well, listen to the words of the song: ‘When Satan tempts me to despair and tells me of the guilt within, upward I look and see him there who made an end to all my sin. Because the sinless Saviour died, my sinful soul is counted free. For God the Just is satisfied to look at him and pardon me.’ Don’t believe Satan’s lie. Jesus’ sacrifice is completely sufficient. Remember: you are never too bad to come back to him.

A Christian friend of mine, Andy, once slipped up massively. He felt so guilty that he wondered whether God could ever take him back. One morning, Andy emailed another friend of ours saying he felt he was such a wretch and that felt he couldn’t go on as a Christian as he’d blown it for ever with God. Andy’s friend emailed him back just once sentence: “Amazing grace, how sweet a sound, that saves a wretch like me.” Andy was reminded of everything he had in Jesus. When the devil tried to knock Andy out, he could respond with the breastplate of righteousness.

I think this is linked to wearing the helmet of salvation and the shield of faith. A helmet is a piece of armour that protects the head, the brain. And what is the most important thing we can know? It is the fact that you are saved by grace alone in Jesus. So putting on the helmet of salvation means embracing the gospel as it really is. If we’ve put on the helmet of salvation, we’ll know that we have everything we need – complete salvation – in Jesus. Likewise, if you have the shield of faith, you’ll commit yourself to holding on and treasuring the truths of the gospel, even when it is hard to hold onto them. In short, putting on the helmet of salvation and holding onto the shield of faith means putting the gospel first and treasuring it. If you’ve done so, you won’t go off on theological tangents, majoring on minors or plugging your own hobby horse, but you’ll want to sink roots into Jesus as he really is. We put the gospel first.

Secondly, we’re to use the pieces of armour that cause us to live the gospel. Paul talks about wearing a ‘belt of truth’ in verse 14. In Ephesians, truth normally refers to integrity, a kind of goodness that permeates everything. So when we’re called to put on the belt of truth, we’re called to examine ourselves and check that we have an integrity that runs all the way through every area of our life.

One of the blights upon Christianity is when Christians are different people in different situations. I’m one person to one group of friends, and another person to a different group. Or I’m one person in public at CU on Tuesday, and a very different person on my own when the door is closed. We’re disciples of Jesus in only certain areas of our lives. Satan loves this kind of Jekyll and Hyde Christianity. For one thing, it causes Christians to con themselves that everything is fine when it isn’t. Many Christians are much closer to being knocked out by Satan than they think. For another thing, it means that this kind of Christian discipleship is half-hearted. You’ll never make brave decisions for Jesus that last in public if in private your heart is somewhere else. Perhaps above all Satan loves this kind of Christianity because it means that, in this atmosphere amongst Christians, under-handed motives thrive. Tensions amongst Christians, false teaching and power games start in this way.

Some of you will have watched the film Chariots of Fire, the true story about the runner Eric Liddell. Well, after the 1924 Olympics, Liddell went as a missionary to China where he travelled from village to village on foot and by bicycle sharing the gospel. During World War II the Japanese invaded China. Liddell was branded, along with many others Westerners, as an ‘enemy national.’ In 1943 he was confined in a prison camp with thousands of other so-called nationalist enemies. While there he had an impact on the prison camp: he organized athletics events, conducted worship services, preached the gospel, counselled people, and comforted the sick and the dying. Liddell’s commitment to Jesus permeated every area of his life.

A man called David Michell was a child in the camp during that time. He later wrote of Liddell: "None of us will ever forget this man who was totally committed to putting God first, a man whose humble life combined muscular Christianity with radiant godliness in every area.” That is a description of someone with integrity, someone who evidently had put on the belt of truth. Can the same be said of us?

Thirdly, we come to the only offensive piece of armour: ‘the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God’. It’s this piece of armour, which will cause us to hold out the gospel. What is it that cuts into Satan's territory? What is it that causes him to shudder? It is when the gospel is proclaimed within a context where the gospel is lived out. That is when God's power is unleashed, for then through Word and Spirit people are liberated from Satan's snare, lives are changed and society is transformed, when God's truth is promoted and the devil's lies are dethroned.

A sociologist called Rodney Stark has written addressing why only Christianity amongst all the other religions of the day turned the Roman world upside down. He describes the cities of the time as places filled with ‘urban disorder, social dislocation, filth, disease, misery, fear and cultural chaos’. And, he says, Christianity alone provided a solution to these problems. Where people were gripped with the fear of death, the gospel of Jesus gave hope. Where self-centredness reigned, amongst the disciples of Jesus self-sacrifice became the order of the day. Instead of babies being left on the hill tops to die, Christians were moved by the gospel of Jesus to take them in and give them life. That is what the gospel of Jesus does when it is proclaimed and lived. As Paul writes in chapter 1, ‘You also were included in Christ when you heard the word of God, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed in him, you were marked with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.’ People are freed from slavery to the devil as they hear and believe the gospel. And so if you are serious about making headway in the battle against the devil, then you must be a group that is committed to living out and proclaiming the word of God.

Fourthly, says Paul, if you are serious about spiritual warfare, you will pray. Look at verses 18-20: 'Pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints. Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.'

Now prayer is presented as something a bit like air-power that can cover us and others when we’re in a situation when fighting ourselves is by overwhelming. And notice what it is that Paul asks these Christians to pray for with regards to himself; not that God will enable him to get out of the prison in which he is rotting, or provide him with an extra blanket, but that he will proclaim that gospel. Why? I think for two reasons. Firstly, because as we have seen it’s this which causes the demons to shake as they lose their power, and second because gospel proclamation is not easy.

I’ve got to say that when I’m involved in some evangelistic ministry, like giving a talk to non-believers at a CU meeting or speaking at a mission week, that is when I will feel particularly under spiritual attack. Often while I am preparing there will be interruptions and distractions. As I bring the message, the battle goes right on. There are doubts (‘no one is listening’). I feel inadequate. A mobile phone goes off in the room at a crucial point in my message. It’s then when I feel the spiritual attack – I can almost smell the sulphur! And that is when I am also praying away at the same time as I am speaking: ‘Lord Jesus, please help me, give me everything I need’. And it’s when I’m aware I need the prayers of others. And so, says Paul, pray for all Christians everywhere all the time. But pray especially for each other’s witness to non-believers. It’s as we do this that the devil is going to target us especially. As we pray, let’s get serious about wrestling with these evil powers.

And so we come to our final question: what is the aim of the spiritual battle?

Quite simply, it’s ‘to stand’. Paul says this is explicitly in verses 13-14: ‘Therefore put on the full armour of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then...’

The important thing here is that Christians stand together. This command is written to a group of Christians; the ‘you’ here is plural. One of the reasons that the Roman army was so effective was because of their tactic of creating a phalanx. As the barbarian hordes rushed at the Roman army with screams and swords, the Romans stood together, shoulder to shoulder, shields overlapping, swords drawn, acting as one man, steadfast and immovable, forming what in effect was a human fort. There was strength in numbers. And it’s the same in the Christian fight. The New Testament writers assume that if you’re a Christian, you’ll be active in a local church. When my shield of faith begins to slip, I need the Christians around me to cover me with theirs. When the trust of Christians around me is waning, I need to uphold them with mine. Christians need each other.

Make no mistake. We’re in a war. Our foe is mighty and frightening; he hates us and would, given the power, destroy us and cast us into hell. But our Saviour, Jesus, is mightier still and he loves us. He has given us everything we need. And that is the heart of the gospel message.

Let us pray.

Who will reach the north of England?

2009-03-18T12:00:00.004Z

I've been in the north of England for nearly five years now. It certainly wasn't my plan to move this way, nor did I envisage my move northwards being any more than a brief foray. But the Lord has other plans, and now it seems that we're set to be in the north of England for the forseeable future.

One of the things that has struck me in the north of England is the comparitive need of the Church here compared to the south of England. I guess I'd always assumed that the needs of the gospel were fairly similar across the UK. But this isn't the case.

Most recently, I came across this article from Tearfund. The statistics aren't full and there's a lot more going on, but I was impacted by the paragraph showing the groups of people that are consistently under represented in UK church attendance (the figures are the percentage of people that attend church at least once a year - the UK figure for adults was 26%):

Men (21%)
16-24s (16%)
25-34s (22%)
C2 social class i.e. skilled manual (21%)
DE social class i.e. unskilled labour and unemployed (22%)
single people (19%)
council tenants (19%)
NE region (18%)
Yorkshire & Humberside (17%)
Wales (24%).

I guess there'd be quite a lot of cross over between some of these categories. The headline is, I think, clear. It's the poorer areas in the north of England where church attendance is at its very lowest. (Interestingly, the north west of England had also featured in previous surveys as being under-represented but church attendance apparently shot up 8% last year - possibly a sign for optimism but possibly a statistical anomaly).

I think this fact has been brought home to me personally over recent years. In my region of the north west, the churches are generally reaching middle class people (certainly evangelicals seem to be making barely any impression on the working classes). There have been a number of occasions when northern students have become Christians through CUs and we've wanted to recommend an evangelical church in their home town, only to realise their isn't one.

What is to be done? I'm pleased to see that Tim Chester and co. and others are seeking to buck the trend. I'm seeking to do my bit too (and getting a reputation for it!) - through encouraging fairly footloose Christian graduates to stay in the north (whether in full time paid Christian ministry or not). Often more attractive jobs are in the south of England (both in secular work and Christian ministry). But we need to ask - if we are not to reach the poorer northern towns with the gospel, who will?

How should Christians go about their university studies?

2009-03-16T17:31:00.001Z

I'm currently involved in writing a resource for college students and Sixth Formers who are heading to university. Here is a short piece that I've started writing on Christians and university studies: what do you reckon?

Above all, Christians undertake their studies as acts of worship.

As Christians, we believe everything comes from God our Creator. Your brain, your aptitude at maths or history, your eye for design and your ability with your hands (delete as appropriate!) all come from him. Not only that, but he’s given us his world to steward, explore and enjoy. And that’s what you’re doing on your course.

When these realities hit home, you’ll want to humbly pursue excellence on your course. You’ll be humble as you use your God-given gifts to study, because you know that you never whipped them up from within yourself. Instead, you will want to use these gifts and skills to please God – simply because of who he is: the Creator and Lord of the Universe, and the God who loves so much.

Christians should want to offer their talents and abilities in their studies as an act of worship. That means that we will work hard, regardless of the grades we receive and when our studies aren’t fun. We won’t make an idol of our studies – because we know that we’re acceptable to God just as we are, regardless of whether we get that first (or 2:1). But we need never be ashamed of wanting to do our best in our studies provided that our motivation is to please and honour God, rather than to earn our own praise.

And we needn’t be scared of really engaging with the ideas that are taught on our courses. Some Christians sometimes give the impression that if they engage their brains in their studies too much, they might discover something that causes their beliefs to all come tumbling down. But the Bible claims to be public truth and not private fantasy. You may well come across challenges to Biblical Christianity on your course – but, if you do, don’t be afraid. If Christianity really is true, it will stand up to the hardest scrutiny.

Debaptism and institutional religion

2009-03-14T23:19:00.004Z

Andy Jinks refers to a BBC article on the latest atheist statement against the institutional church: debaptism.

The article is worth a read, touching on subjects like the individual's freedom to religion, the role of theology and baptism, and the issue that seems to be dominating many atheists' soundbites: whether or not it is right to bring children up with religious beliefs.

It's interesting that original sin seems to be the thing that the guy in the article is particularly angry at. It's also interesting how the article closes:

The Church wonders aloud why, if atheists and secularists believe baptism is so meaningless, they are letting it upset them.
Mr Hunt supplies his own answer.
"Evangelical noises are getting louder and louder. The recent change in European legislation has led to religious beliefs not being challenged at all, and there's no limit at all on what anybody can claim as a valid religious belief. I think it's important that more people speak out and say they don't subscribe to the historic beliefs of the Church."

It still seems that many equate institutional Christianity with (abuses of) power, and that Christian beliefs are merely superstitious. What a challenge we Christians face in debunking these ideas.

God's grace of the model of Israel to the world

2009-03-14T23:04:00.004Z

Tomorrow Linda and I will be teaching Deuteronomy 28 to the 11-14 year olds belonging to our church family. It's been quite a challenge getting to grips with it.

As Moses closes his sermon to the people of Israel on the edge of the Promised Land, he presents Israel with a choice. They can choose to obey the LORD (verse 2) - in which case they will experience unique blessings (verses 3-14). But disobedience to the LORD will also have unique consequences: those of curse (verses 15-68). The climax of this curse is described in verse 68: 'The LORD will set you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.' The climax of the curse is slavery, humiliation and degradation.

These blessings and curses do not imply a kind of salvation by works. Salvation by believing God's promises and trusting him (supremely regarding the Messiah) is already an established pattern in Scripture by the time we get to Deuteronomy. Instead, God is using the people of Israel as a kind of model. Israel are to model to the nations what humble reliance on the LORD brings (blessing and life), and what life that removes the LORD from his rightful place is like (curse and death). That this is what is happening in Deuteronomy 28 is made explicit in verses 9-10, 36-37 and 47-48. Israel are a unique model - both in blessing and in curse. The LORD is teaching that human life must be LORD-centred if it is not to be a dangerous delusion.

The lesson being taught in Deuteronomy 28, however, is not new. Genesis 1-3 show that life that is lived in relationship with the LORD brings blessing and life (from the Author of life), whereas those who live out of relationship with God face death and judgement. Christians are not under the law - Galatians 3 makes it clear that in Christ we have no fear of curse and possess his unique blessing. Nor are the people of Israel aren't used in quite the same way today. But the message of Deuteronomy 28 still speaks clearly to us today: to have life centred on the LORD is to live life as it was created to be. How foolish we are to think that we can experience true blessing away from the LORD, the fount of blessing.

Where are the men?

2009-03-12T12:42:00.004Z

OK, so there's loads of rubbish written about Christian masculinity (which says masculine = macho) and about men in church. The CUs that I work with are broadly representative of their campuses in terms of gender.

But one thing I am noticing is that - with a few notable exceptions - the students that are willing to hang their lives on discipleship to Jesus, and those who are willing to take real risks for the gospel, are female. This is particularly noticeable amongst first year students. Those who lead - in other words, those who lead by example - in sacrificial and radical discipleship, are almost all women. There seem to be lots of boys about but not many men.

No doubt part of this is to do with processes of maturity. I remember reading a few years ago that females mature more quickly than males. But it would seem to me from my perspective that there's a broader trend. Christian youth groups and festivals are good at keeping boys involved, but aren't encouraging them to take responsibility and to own their Christian discipleship for themselves. Why is this the case? Why is it that female students are much more likely to volunteer for summer teams? Why is it that those who are willing to count costs of friendship and reputation are women?

Where are the men?

Franklyn: "If you believe in something strongly enough, who is to say whether it's real or not?"

2009-03-05T15:20:00.004Z

Franklyn is a British film that is set between the parallel realities of modern-day London and a futuristic metropolis called Meanwhile City. The theme of the film is an examination of the link between reality and perceptions of reality.

The movie traces the lives of four people. Jonathan Preest is a masked vigilante of Meanwhile City (where he is the only atheist) - and he won't rest until he finds his nemesis, a religious leader known only as 'The Individual'. Emilia is a troubled young art student whose artwork mixes reality and hyper-reality. Milo is a jilted man who yearns for love. Peter is a man steeped in religion, searching desperately for his missing son amongst London's homeless. In the final scenes of the film, their lives dramatically coincide.

Although I enjoyed this film, its low-budget clearly showed. The acting was okay - although I was perhaps distracted by the fact that several of the actors are better known for roles on the small screen. Expect to see actors who've cut their teeth in The Bill, Life on Mars and Cracker. Bernard Hill (who was our next door neighbour once upon a time) was the standard actor, playing the character of Peter admirably.

The movie examines the relationship between perceptions of reality and 'reality' itself. Emilia's art blurs the distinction between her art and real life. Religious belief, psychosis and wish-fulfilment portrayed as other examples of when a perception of reality drives an individual so that they are not engaging with 'reality' at all. Hence the most powerful line of the film, spoken by Emilia, which is in the post title.

There's no doubt that this idea has some truth in it. In fact, I wondered whether the film really took this idea far enough - implying, as it did, that there are some who operate in life with no such filter - as if an atheistic, well-rounded, psychologically healthy person engages with reality alone. An so, according to the film, to recognise our psychological crutches and filters is to do away with them. But this is somewhat simplistic. Postmodern theorists have rightly shown us that each of us has only a shard's view of reality - we can't claim to see everything ourselves. It seems to me that the best way of thinking about life is the position of 'critical realism' - that there really is a real world, but that for all of us our cultural baggage and experiences affect how we live in it.

Northumbria CU mission update

2009-03-05T14:42:00.000Z

Just a quick note from Northumbria...

Please do keep praying for the Free outreach here. It's been quite a struggle over recent days - there are a small number of committed CU members, but pray that more get involved over the next couple of days. I'm speaking on Mark 7 tonight at a pub quiz, and then Mark 8 tomorrow night. Pray that there's something of a gathering of momentum, and that we see some of the same faces coming back.

Free in Central Lancashire and Northumbria

2009-03-02T16:19:00.002Z

I'm writing from Newcastle, where I am this week for the Free outreach organised by the University of Northumbria Christian Union.

I've not had a chance to update things here much. Last week, we had a brilliant time at the University of Central Lancashire's Free outreach in Preston. All of the events were packed and it was brilliant to be partnered by my friend Andrew Norbury who presented Jesus from Mark's Gospel at each event. There is something very special about working with people time and again, especially when you have learned almost by intuition what they are thinking. Paul modelled this with Silas, Timothy and the others. It was great to have a taste of ongoing gospel partnership with Andrew last week. The week built on a steady but discernible growth in love for Jesus and in passion for evangelism amongst the CU members. Thursday night was particularly brilliant - nearly 100 crammed in for a three course meal prepared by CU members and Andrew's message entitled 'Free from guilt'.

This week I'm speaking each day here in Newcastle. The lunchbar today provided a solid start to the week's events. Tonight I'm speaking on 'Free from spin: will the real Jesus please stand up.' The CU here is less experienced in evangelism and this is the first time they've had a single speaker at their events for the whole week. I can't help feeling a sense of anticipation in launching these students into a lifetime of speaking for Jesus.

Please do pray for me over the coming week, especially as I've damaged tendons in my right foot which is causing my energy levels to sap more quickly than normal. I'm very aware that I'm a jar of clay (which is a good thing) - pray I'd rely on Jesus as I seek to present him as the supreme treasure this week.

Justification and sanctification

2009-02-24T22:34:00.003Z

I spoke tonight on James 2, a tricky passage on the relationship between faith and works. It is the passage that infamously caused the young Martin Luther to label James 'the epistle of straw' (a view that he later rescinded) because he thought it threatened the doctrine of justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone.

I came to the conclusion that when Paul is attacking ‘justification by works’ he is attacking the view that anything we do along with faith can be credited to us as righteousness; that it is only through faith in Jesus that anyone can obtain a ‘not guilty’ verdict when we become Christians. Works are not needed to receive justification. But when James affirms ‘justification by works’ he means that works are essential in the ongoing life of a Christian: they are how authentic faith shows itself. Works confirm and prove the reality of the faith which justifies. In that respect, faith without works cannot justify.

I found this vintage quote by CJ Mahaney perceptively clear and helpful in this context (particularly the bottom paragraph):

'Justification refers to a Christian’s position before God. The moment you were born again, God justified you. On the basis of Christ’s finished work, God thought of your sins as forgiven and declared that you were righteous.

Sanctification, on the other hand, refers to our practice before God. It is the ongoing process of battling sin and becoming more like Jesus. Though sanctification is the evidence and goal of our justification, we must never see it as the basis of our justification. Here’s where so many Christians get confused. They try to earn what has already been given to them as a free gift. As Martin Luther stated, “The only contribution we make to our justification is our sin which God so graciously forgives.”

There are other vital distinctions. Justification is about being declared righteous; sanctification is about becoming more righteous. Justification is immediate; sanctification is gradual. Justification is complete the moment God declares us righteous. It does not take place by degrees. Sanctification, however, is a process that lasts as long as we live. Finally, while every Christian enjoys the same degree of justification, we vary in terms of sanctification. You will never be more justified than you are at this moment, because justification is an act of God. But by God’s grace, you will become ever more sanctified as you cooperate with God’s Spirit in the process of change.

Though it’s important to distinguish between justification and sanctification, these two doctrines are inseparable. God does not justify someone without sanctifying him as well. Sanctification is not optional. If one has truly been justified, that will be evident by a progressive work of sanctification in his life.'

(From Why Small Groups?, pages 4-5)

Benjamin Button? I'd rather have 2 Corinthians 5

2009-02-17T04:47:00.003Z

Already nominated for major awards and an Oscar favourite, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a film that has been pulling in the viewers. And it's no surprise. There's an all-star cast, a great idea, a heart-breaking love story and incredible special effects. It's message is engaging but - as I've hinted in the title to this post - one I have found increasingly unsatisfactory as I've thought more about this film since I saw it.

Benjamin Button is about a man who is born in his eighties and who, over time, grows younger. It is based on the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. The story begins in New Orleans at the end of World War I in 1918 and ends in the 21st century. Benjamin's life is characterised in the movie by the people he meets, the places he discovers, the loves he experiences, the many joys of life he knows, and the sadness of losing people he loved.

Cinema-goers have been somewhat polarised by the film. For some, the film is magical and wonderful. For others, it is dull and dreary. For my wife, Linda, it was the latter. Certainly, the film dragged in places and the action took a while to develop. And whilst the special effects and the make-up are brilliant - it's so strange seeing Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett as pensioners - this didn't really capture my attention for the nearly three hour duration of the film.

The most interesting aspect of the film was it's lament - death is lamented, broken relationships are lamented, happy times that have to finish are lamented and bodies that break and become diseased are lamented. Benjamin's increasingly younger body simply reminds Daisy of her increasingly ageing body, heading as it is toward death. And so the movie is characterised from start to finish by recognising the sheer fragility of human life. Indeed, a collection of quotes from the film can be found here, which reflects this point.

Life is presented as 'a series of intersecting lives and incidents, out of anyone's control'. A fate greater than ourselves seems to decide whether we live or die (as shown comedically by the Mr Daws, who's apparently been struck by lightning seven times - who survived, but who has to live with bodily effects of what happened), making life a person's greatest gift. Wallowing in resentment for what has ceased or gone wrong is, according to the film, a waste of time. And so the heroic characters in the film are those who make the best of their lives and experience what they can, despite the unfortunate circumstances that they might have faced - whether that's swimming the English Channel later in life, or dancing. As Benjamin puts it,

'For what it's worth: it's never too late or, in my case, too early to be whoever you want to be. There's no time limit, stop whenever you want. You can change or stay the same, there are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. And I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people with a different point of view. I hope you live a life you're proud of. If you find that you're not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again.'

And so the film causes the viewer to ask questions in the light of these sad truths: Am I using my time wisely? Are I letting life happen to me, or am I happening to life?

As a Christian, I found a film about what it's like to be continually surrounded by the reality of death both engaging and sad. Engaging, because Hollywood rarely takes on such a subject in a subtle and real way. But I also found it sad - because of the lack of hope that was portrayed. As grateful as the central characters appear for the gift of life they have received, the reality of death punctures it continually. And at most, an elderly Daisy mentions being curious about what happens 'next' after her final breath. This apparent lack of belief in a personal God - or a meaningful afterlife - inevitably leads to sadness. Benjamin and Daisy live to fully experience their lives, but it's as if they are always watching the clock, always aware that 'nothing ever lasts'. I found myself leaving the cinema very grateful for the hope that 2 Corinthians 5 offers me through Christ - a hope of a new body and a life beyond death in the renewed creation: a life of solid joys and lasting pleasures. I can't help but think that this is what the film's writers crave.

Ultimately, I found Benjamin Button's message frustrating. Frustrating because it's sometimes not enough to be told to just be grateful for life and to experience it as best we can. The film hits the nail on the head as it pictures the tyranny of time, a life inevitably heading toward death and the destruction and hardship of a broken world and broken bodies. But we long for more than this - deep down we know that God has set eternity in our hearts and we long for more.

Isn't the God of the Old Testament genocidal and bigoted? (or, Is the God of the Bible a monster?)

2009-02-11T15:24:00.003Z

I'm speaking at the lunchbar at Lancaster University on the very tricky and emotionally engaging question above. This has been hard work to prepare.

I've decided to look at the slaughter of the Canaanites in Joshua 6 (which is often what people have in mind - at least implicitly - when they ask this question). The incident, which occurs with the invasion of Jericho, is thought to demonstrate God's lack of moral standards, that don't even seem to match up to our own. Nor can Christians just pass off these incidents as being inapplicable because they are recorded in the Old Testament. God is unchanging. And so a whole load of fears emerge... fears that God isn't good, fears that the Bible might stirs its readers to religious violence and so on.

Here's an outline of the path I'm going to take in responding to the charges against God from Joshua 6:

1. God's actions in judging the Canaanites as he did were unique because what he was doing in the world at the time was unique.
The land of Canaan was the backdrop for God’s model; an arena where the nations could see the blessing of a relationship with God, and a real-life picture pointing to forward to the Messiah, ultimately fulfilled in Jesus. Because the reality to which the model pointed has come, Christians are never called to take up arms and kill people in the name of God or Christianity today.
2. God alone has the right to demand the end of another’s life.
3. The Canaanites were not innocent.
As illustrated in Deuteronomy 18:9-12 and so on. Child sacrifices were amongst the detestable practices that God was judging.
4. God was not impatient in judging the Canaanites, but had given them many years to change their ways.
As shown in Genesis 15:16, and echoed for us today in 2 Peter 3:8-9. God's justice will still be done - and eventually he will bring a final judgement.
5. Escape was not impossible.
... As illustrated in the example of Rahab and her family (Joshua 6:17, 22-23). This illustrates the Lord's kindness, and points us forward towards the ultimate rescue he made for us through the cross.

Five questions for Christians to engage with popular music

2009-02-10T15:45:00.004Z

Pop music - like any other form of art - is made of what Francis Schaeffer called 'glorious ruins', made by people made in the image of God, yet ruined and sinful. How as Christians can we discern what is good in pop music without endorsing what is wrong and sinful?

Here are five questions that you can use to begin to consider these questions:

1. What's sort of response do the song writer and musician want the hearer to make? How successfully is this intention achieved?
2. How technically excellent is this piece of music? (this considers the skill of the composers, musicians and producers)
3. Is the musician being true to their talent and worldview - or are they making their music primarly for fame or for money?
4. What's the content and message of the song? What can we agree with? What do we disagree with?
5. To what extent is the agreement between what's being communicated and how it's being communicated? (Jerry Solomon: ‘The ideal situation occurs when both the medium and the message agree.’).

These questions show that it is entirely possible for a musician to create a song that is creative and technically excellent while its theme is something we can’t agree with (or vice versa). Much of the music we encounter will contain both things we agree with and things we disagree with and it is dishonest to deny the reality of either. When we write off a song or musician because of their lyrics or performance, we deny the God-given talents that they inevitably have. In so doing, we miss much of the way in which God has blessed the people he made with common grace.

Additionally, if we evaluate music based on our personal preferences, we exalt our preference to place of ultimate authority. As Christians we recognize Scripture as the ultimate authority for our belief and practice and we should also root our assessment of an individual piece of art work in the same place.

Bible translations personified

2009-02-07T15:12:00.005Z

I love spending time with Blackpool School of Arts CU: they're an exemplary small CU with a real heart for godliness and evangelism.

However, one of the more random things they have assembled is a selection of bizarre icebreakers. Here's the one from Friday: if each translation of the Bible had to be personified by a celebrity, who would each translation be?

Here's the ideas we came up with:

KJV: Brian Blessed
Message: Mike Skinner
ESV: John Humphreys
CEV: Ben Shepherd
NLT: Myleene Klass
NIV: Philip Schofield
TNIV: Declan Donnelly
GNB: Lorraine Kelly
Amplified: Geri Halliwell

Anyone got any other ideas?

Godliness and the futility of legalism

2009-02-06T09:36:00.003Z

Studying Ephesians 4-5 with a student at Uclan yesterday gave me a new insight into the passage that I'd never noticed before. I've known for some time that legalism can't change behaviour in more than an outward way, but had never spotted in Ephesians how this conviction is demonstrated.

Ephesians 4:22-24 says:

You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

In other words, there is a behaviour for believers to take off and a new behaviour to cultivate. But what will make this possible is to be made new in one's attitude. And that's the pattern of the verses that follow. Paul won't let us become legalistic - he always explains a reason for why the 'old self' needs to be taken off and the 'new self' is put on. It's as this new attitude penetrates a believer's mind and their desire is changed that behaviour ultimately changes.

So, for instance, the Christian that struggles with telling the truth should put off falsehood (verse 25) and instead speak truthfully. But what will help them do this? Not rules. But the conviction that lying to other believers is disruptive to other members of the body. We ourselves are hurt through lying to other members of the body. It's this new attitude that gives the believer a desire to change.

The pattern continues. Those who are stealing should steal no longer (verse 28). What will cause this to happen? Not rules, but a new attitude of wanting to share with those in need, that drives the believer to work hard instead.

Spent a great time with Jon in Preston yesterday chatting through these things. How wonderful it is that we not only have a calling to a new life, but that God has also given us the desire and resources to begin to live this life!

My favourite current advert

2009-02-05T00:13:00.001Z

'Revolutionary Road' and the critique of existentialism

2009-02-02T20:39:00.003Z

Revolutionary Road is the latest Sam Mendes offering set in suburban America. This time, he tackles the issues of happiness, freedom and their source, tracking the fortunes of married couple Frank and April Wheeler.

Frank and April are a young couple living in a model suburb (spot the similarities with American Beauty). April, played by Kate Winslet, is a failed actress and stay-at-home mother, whilst Frank, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, commutes daily to an office job in New York City.

The film picks Frank and April up as they have stalled into a rut of mundane life. Both characters feel as though they are just 'surviving': Frank in a job that he hates, April in a life she'd had never chosen minding her children. Suddenly, April gets the idea that their lives (and their marriage) can be reinvigorated if they move away from the 'comfort' of their home in Revolutionary Road and move to Paris. There she can work, whilst he works out what his vocation is. Frank eventually agrees to April's plan (he says that he, too, craves 'feeling, really feeling'), much to the consternation of their suburban friends.

Everything changes, though, when April becomes pregant, and a joke at work ends up giving Frank a chance at becoming a corporate hot-shot. With these changes, how will the Wheelers cope? April is driven by the prospects of freedom and true life - she's willing to abort and to carry on with the proposed emigration; Frank, meanwhile, prefers to numb the pain of his unfulfilment through staying busy, through material gain and through cigarettes and booze. The film essentially plays out this clash of worldviews and particularly critiques April's driven existentialism and demand for experiential fulfilment.

What's celebrated is April's zest for life: she longs for truth and a felt reality. She's willing to face up to the facts of her existence. She hates the emptiness and hopelessness of suburban life. She longs to make her life count and craves purpose, something endorsed by the fascinating character John, who has a psychiatric illness and speaks blunt truth. However, April's experience-driven choices are not shown in a completely positive light: she hurts many of those who are closest to her and treats them as objects for her gratification, she ignores her children and she makes some very dubious moral choices. In the end, the viewer can't help wondering whether her driven existentialism is irresponsible, selfish and ultimately unrealistic escapist (sentiments I've shared about existentialism before). But the only alternative given in the film is to ignore the voices that tell us that our lives don't count and numb the pain.

As a Christian, what is very obvious to me is that God is missing from the lives of the characters Revolutionary Road. The Bible speaks of a God who created humans in relationship with him and each other, of a God that judges - showing that lives matter, and a God who gives a purpose to his people. The Christian good news speaks to people like April who long authenticity, freedom and reality. It also speaks to people like Frank, encouraging them to face up to life as it really is, with all its hopelessness and emptiness. True freedom is found in offering all of one's life in joyful submission to Jesus, living life as it was created to be lived.

Knowing Jesus and 'knowing' Jesus

2009-01-31T12:16:00.004Z

I had the pleasure yesterday of spending an hour or two with a Lancaster student who has grown into a close friend. As we were approaching the end of a stretching two-week period of Gospel distribution and mission, we chatted about what God had been teaching us personally.

One of the things that my friend said was that he'd appreciated for the first time what it felt like to be a jar of clay, what it felt like to know one's weaknesses and not to rely on oneself. He went on to say how he'd intellectually understood this before (he said he thought he understood the passages and he certainly knew the cliches) but now he now understood what it meant to be a jar of clay in experience too. There was a real feeling that, over the past fortnight, my friend's life had changed. Grace was no longer just a word for him, it had become a reality.

How common an experience this is! I think of my own life and see that this has happened so many times: that theological truths that I might have been able to agree with, assent to and even explain only later become realities that I experienced and knew all the more deeply.

I was reminded of Philippians 3:10-11 where Paul speaks of a 'knowing' that cuts much more deeply than mere intellect: "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead."

U or √?

2009-01-29T22:42:00.002Z

I was chatting to a Christian student earlier in the week at Lancaster University. She had been brought up with the idea that Jesus has made a 'return to Eden' possible. Many Christians hold to this point of view - it's a kind of U-shaped view of the Biblical narrative.

Her questions, then, followed like this: surely it would have been better for God to have ensured that Adam and Eve didn't fall in the first place if salvation is all about returning things to how they were before the Fall. This had become a major apologetic stumbling block for the student.

Instead, though, the shape of the Biblical narrative is not just a 'U'; in fact, it is more like a '√'. Our heavenly existence will see our adoption as sons, a status of being co-heirs with Christ and a deeper knowledge of God's grace and mercy than Adam and Eve could have ever known. God allowed the Fall to happen so that humans might experience a quality of relationship Adam and Eve never had in Eden.

Real life ministry

2009-01-28T18:03:00.003Z

Closing in on Day 8 of a 10-day mission at Lancaster University, many of us involved are now beginning to feel a bit weary. Like any CU mission there have been real frustrations and some sadness, but also a whole load of encouragements and joys.

A particular joy today was spending time with Christian students from the English Literature department who put on an evangelistic event dedicated to Biblical motifs in secular literature. I then asked as part of this event to present an overview of the Biblical story to help the students see how these themes work themselves out in Scripture. There were about 20 of us there, nearly half were not Christian. Some fascinating stories and really interesting questions. A great event organised by students who are convinced of the gospel's truth and reality, and who are growing in discerning common grace in literature. I'll try and upload my talk if I get a chance.

It's tempting during a mission week to begin to resent the sacrifices that one has to make. It was really helpful, then, for my own godliness and perspective to study Philippians 1:12-28 with the Cumbria cell leaders this afternoon. It was great chatting about how Paul's view of the gospel isn't that of a religious maniac but of someone who just sees the gospel as it really is. I've blogged about how amazing I consider this passage before, and so I'm now praying that I'll see my time now to serve others with Christ-centred and Christ-empowered ministry and death as gain.

Joys and sorrows, feeling out of one's depth, relying on God's grace to keep persevering: it is real life ministry after all.

Increased love for God, not increased knowledge

2009-01-28T12:38:00.004Z

As a first year UCCF staff worker I was treated to an afternoon with Marcus Honeysett on handling the Bible rightly. For the first time in my life I realised that engaging with the Bible was more about meeting God and being transformed than merely learning things.

Marcus has posted on this theme recently - it's really worth a read. Here's his juicy conclusion:

You can search the scriptures uselessly because you are merely interested in comprehending the text, or you can search with all eagerness to your eternal profit because you have received the word in your heart.

Enjoy!

Frost/Nixon and the search for truth

2009-01-25T15:27:00.006Z

A film about the making of a TV interview in the 1970s might not immediately seem like a great evening out. There's already some spice added when the interview is the famous meeting of David Frost and Richard Nixon. Add a great screenplay, some brilliant individual performances and it leads to a fascinating piece.

Ron Howard's film has been very well shot. Apparently, the movie is an adaptation of a stage play; however, this isn't obvious. In fact, the strong point of the movie is the detail that comes from close up shots of the two main protagonists' faces. The scene of the final day's filming of the Nixon interview is particularly well shot, using shots of Nixon and Frost's face on the monitor nearby capturing incredibly emotional intensity. The film tracks the emotions and passions of the two men over the period of the interviews, and uses these to tell its story. The acting is superb, and Frank Langhella deserves his Oscar nomination.

Truth is the driving nature of the movie. It is presented as having a redemptive element. Indeed, Frost's crusade to force Nixon to confess his Watergate-related misdemeanors is because it is considered that Nixon never received the justice that he should have rightfully faced. It's a champagne moment when Nixon finally confesses, and has (along with his family and friends) to publicly live with the consequences of his actions. The truth shows Nixon as he really is: neurotic, insecure, arrogant and paranoid.

However, the movie also blurs issues of truth. Firstly, there's a blurring between conventional movie and documentary, which means that in the film itself its difficult to separate truth and creative license. The content of the movie also blurs simple understandings of truth. Cultural theorist Marshall McLuhan wrote in the mid 1960s that 'the medium is the message'; that is, that the type of medium that is used to communicate something affects what is communicated. 'Truth' is 'conditioned' by the medium through which it is communicated. This is a theme that comes through clearly in Frost/Nixon: for instance, there's comment on the famous Nixon-Kennedy debate: while radio audiences thought Nixon won it by a landslide, on television Nixon appeared emaciated, unhealthy, and awkward, while Kennedy appeared handsome, tanned and confident. Meanwhile, throughout the movie, the viewer is shown glimpses of how both Frost and Nixon camps seek to manipulate circumstances in order to produce the 'truth' they crave. This all contributes to what postmodern scholars call 'the hermeneutic of suspicion': the position of scepticism that assumes that one is rarely (or never) being shown the whole truth; but rather a message that is mediated and influenced by power games. Even in the final scene the whole truth is hidden as a 'white lie' is considered kinder and more beneficial.

Perhaps the contemporary popularity on Frost/Nixon is because the movie concerns a politician who has made mistakes: Will he come clean, tell the truth and admit that he made mistakes and acted wrongly? And how might remorse for these actions show itself? In a world that is now moving on from Blair and Bush, these are questions that still echo loudly.

The penny-dropping moment

2009-01-23T17:38:00.002Z

One of the CU Guests up this week, and a friend of mine, Rachel Earnshaw, writes about the penny-dropping moment experience she had on mission at Lancaster this week.

She writes about a late-night conversation with a Muslim:

But the amazing thing I went away from this conversation with, as well as an encouragement for both me and the guy I was with that we could explain the Gospel (which when you aren't constantly coming into contact with people who ask such blatent questions, doubt can creep in...) was this overwhelming thankfulness and joy that what I said was true and it applied for me! I am such a classic rule setter, and the type that beats myself up every time I fall into the same sinful things I struggle with time and time again... and yet just as I told the guy we spoke to, I am saved from that! I was practically dancing as I walked back, both out of excitement that God could use someone as unwilling and uncooperative and broken and bumbly as me, and also that this amazing message, that seems too good to be true sometimes when you say it out loud, IS true and IS applied to me!

Read the post in full here.

The deeper gospel

2009-01-23T08:32:00.003Z

I'm writing from the last day of the first of two weeks of outreach events at Lancaster University. As ever, it's been a mixed time: frustration and heartache is inevitable, but there have also been great encouragements. I'd encourage you to check out things from the perspectives of Michael, the speaker this week, and Sarah, one of the team of CU Guests.

I've also found that this week has made me reflect more on my own walk with the Lord, and what it means for me to be a Christian. This is my fifth mission week at Lancaster University, and so it feels that reflections have been inevitable both in comparison with the first, four years ago, and the most recent, a year ago.

It was during my time as a Relay Worker that I think I realised that the gospel was really real. Not just in an existential kind of way, not just as truths in a spiritual subsection in my mind, but really real, more real than anything else. And that conviction has just kept on growing over the years since.

In the past year, I think I've seen that Jesus' diagnosis of humans is really real too. I've written about this before. I think I used to have two categories of Christians in my head: those that were basically sorted, and those that were basically unsorted. The last year has helped me to see that all of us are basically unsorted: struggling with sin, knowing hurt and feeling sore under the effects of the sin of ourselves and others in our lives. And knowing this truth in experience has had a whole number of different knock-ons: knowing that we are broken and hurting jars of clay offering other broken and hurting people hope (and don't need to be 'sorted' to first offer this hope), and knowing that only Jesus can clear up the mess.

So this mission week has felt like it's been in a richer colour. I'm grateful to God that he's helping me to see and feel these basic truths more. The gospel that I'm aware we're offering is rendered more deeply. I'm praying and having to ensure that this doesn't spill over into frustration with other Christians that appear to have a much smaller (more clinical) gospel. I'm desperate to see the gospel changing lives, in bringing people into the kingdom and then in changing lives. Because that is the ministry that, with the Holy Spirit's help, we have.

The egotistical God that demands praise?

2009-01-20T16:18:00.003Z

I was chatting earlier to a student who struggled with the idea of a God that demands to be praised and was reminded of this quote I recently read:

'The praise of the God whose truth, beauty, grace, mercy, greatness and faithfulness we appreciate is the most natural thing in the world, and can be the most joyful too, as well as the most health giving. As CS Lewis wrote, 'Praise almost seems to be inner health made audible.'

Lewis's wisdom helps us to see two things. First, tat what looked like bargaining with God is simply honest anticipation of glorifying him through active enjoyment of a renewed display of his active love. Second, that the corporate praise to which the psalms constantly call us, and which we seek to achieve in church every Lord's Day as we sing out together our shared appreciation of God and his ways, brings him close to us. Writes Lewis: "I did not see that it is the process of being worshipped that God communicates His presence to men. It is not of course the only way. But for many people at many times the 'fait beauty of the Lord' is revealed chiefly or only while they worship him together."'

[JI Packer & Carolyn Nystrom, Praying, pages 100-101]

Free at Lancaster University

2009-01-18T17:44:00.002Z

The 'Free machine' rolls into Lancaster University over the next fortnight: it's the turn of the CU there to offer their campus the opportunity to engage with Jesus and his claims.

The CU at Lancaster have got quite brave plans for the next fortnight: aiming to give out 4000 Gospels by hand (representing over one-third of the university undergraduate population), five lunchbars, five evening talks the following week as well as events in departments and colleges. I've also been really delighted to see how creative the CU have been in putting together plans: there's a Free 'Zine of poetry that's been made by some Creative Writing students, a series of audiovisuals to be shown on the uni LCD boards and a whole 'bedroom' assembled in the centre of campus where people will be able to come, chill out and say what they think constitutes true freedom. It's been great seeing everyone pull together and use their gifts.

Please pray for the CU over the coming fortnight. This next couple of weeks is probably as high-profile as the group there have been during my time; not least because of the Free marquee currently standing outside of a busy university building. We can expect opposition and things probably won't be plain sailing. But pray that we're bold in proclaiming the gospel, and that God uses these efforts to bring others to faith over the coming weeks and months.

Week 1 speaker Michael Ots gives his perspective.

Slumdog Millionaire

2009-01-17T20:47:00.003Z

After a series of films out over Christmas that I've not exactly been that bothered about seeing, a whole batch of movies are currently out that seem to be worth viewing. Yesterday, I got around to watching the much-hyped Danny Boyle offering Slumdog Millionaire.

I'm always slightly cautious when a film is massively hyped, but Slumdog lived up to its popular billing. The acting is brilliant and the whole movie has a lovely tempo to it. Perhaps the highlight of the film is the cinematography: there are some shots which have been impeccably made, and there are several sequences where the medium of cinema is used to its very best. The chase sequences through the slums and the scenes set at the train station come to mind. Combined with skilful flashback scenes and powerful characterisation, Slumdog Millionaire draws upon all of the senses.

There are a few themes that run through the film (including love, justice and an interesting motif of destiny and/or the sovereignty and providence of God), but its major theme is India itself, in which the film is set. India not only provides the backdrop to the movie but, in many ways, is its prominent topic too. Aspects of Indian life and culture are celebrated, but it's partnered with a kind of lament (which mourns religious tension and extremism, the abuse of the most vulnerable in society and the pressures of poverty, amongst other things). It's interesting that Indian community itself has been quite divided in its reception to Slumdog. Knowing this before viewing the film made me wonder at several points whether certain aspects of Indian culture and life are really shown in a very honest light, or whether they have been exaggerated for a primarily Western audience. You'd have to wonder how the film might have been shot by an Indian director.

Still, at this very early stage of the year, Slumdog Millionaire will surely feature as one of the best. (And excitingly, one of the ones I missed from last year - Waltz with Bashir - is being shown at the independent cinema in Lancaster next week!).

A psalm for 2009

2008-12-31T14:53:00.006Z

2008 saw a dramatic amount of change. My own personal circumstances have altered in ways I could have scarcely imagined a year ago. The world has been seen to be an unpredictable place over the past twelve months. Psalm 62 speaks to those who are aware of changing and bewildering circumstances. It is a great psalm to reflect upon at the beginning of a new year.

It is reckoned that David might have written this psalm when he had been deposed by his son, Absalom, before he regained his throne. In some ways, it doesn't really matter: the theme of the psalm is universal.

Sometimes we all find ourselves in a vulnerable condition described by David: as if perched on a leaning wall or a tottering fence. We feel like we are real pushovers. So, the question is, where do we turn from for support in these times?

We may turn to others. And so we should. God’s design is that believers in him should be part of a church. And being part of a Christian community not only gives us the opportunity to help those in need, but also to ask for help when we ourselves are in need. But though others may help we cannot rely on them. Even they will sometimes let us down. As this psalm puts it, "Surely the lowborn are but a breath, the highborn are but a lie. If weighed on a balance, they are nothing: together they are only a breath." All of us – from the highest to the lowest – are but ephemeral breaths of wind. And even as trustworthy as others might be, they have no control over their futures. Eventually even they will die.

You might put your trust in riches to support us as we totter. Writing at the end of 2008, that seems less sensible than at other times. Apparently, the average British person lost 13% in 2008. In 2009 it seems that many will be affected their firms going bust, and many will be made bankrupt as loans are called in. Some will lose houses. In order to bail out the banks the government has borrowed billions. In future years we will have to pay this all back as taxes are increased. One person I heard recently said it's like putting your money in a pocket full of holes. How foolish it is to set your heart on riches!

Who then can be relied upon? Where then can my soul find rest? In God alone. Truly he is my rock and my salvation. He is my fortress, I will never be shaken. Over and over again this psalm insists that we are secure in God and nowhere else. ‘One thing God has spoken, two things have I heard: power belongs to you, God.’

A lot of people see God like a liberal football referee, who gives a lot of warnings but never books a player or shows a red card. They imagine a God who talks big but never delivers. They mistake his patience for his tolerance. They think he winks at sin. So many people seem to 'get away with it' that there seems no point in obeying the rules. "They take delight in lies; with their mouths they bless but in their hearts they curse."

The age of Premier League football with cameras everywhere has changed discipline in football. Apparently, there are at least thirty video cameras recording all of the action at Premier League games. And that means that the referee may miss a shirt tug or a sly push, but the cameras collect it. Indeed, things missed by the referee may still result in a retrospective red card. Omniscience may be fairly new to British football, but God has had it for years. He never misses a trick.

What a referee to have on your side! Nothing the opposition can throw at you goes unnoticed. He is a strong supporter.

So why doesn't he act? Well, it’s because he is concerned about the final result of the game. A few years ago, I missed the first half of the European Cup final. It was AC Milan 3 Liverpool 0 at the time. I almost didn’t watch the second half. I’m glad I did. Although it would have been easy to have given up in the face of such adversity, Liverpool refused to surrender and eventually won on penalties, masterfully led by topical figure Steven Gerrard. God is not primarily concerned about our comfort or even our bank balances. He cares about the final result. It is our salvation that matters, ours and every one else's. God is gathering together a people that will be his forever. That is how he is glorified. That is how his strength is shown.

And that’s second thing David heard. That God is not only strong, but that he is also loving. That's why he is so patient. It is not his purpose that any should perish, rather he wants everyone to repent. I’m very glad he gave me time to repent. I’m sure you are too.

In 2009, let us turn to the LORD. As the wall we are standing on starts to lean, as our fences totter, let us rely on him in everything.

Doctor Who, feminism and Jesus

2008-12-27T12:40:00.003Z

After the awful Doctor Who Christmas special last year, we were relieved at my in-laws' house that this year's episode was significantly better. The plot was fun, there was plenty of snow and you got the sense that Doctor Who is perhaps the 21st Century equivalent of the pantomime.

I couldn't help noticing, though, that there was more of a politics to the episode than some. The combination of it being Christmastime and these politics had interesting things to say about Christianity, Jesus and feminism.

There were several mentions of and allusions to Jesus throughout the episode. At the grave side of one of the workhouse owner, a vicar rehearsed burial liturgy, surrounded by a group of men. There was a strong link of Jesus (and Christianity) with patriarchy. The villainess, Miss Hartigan, who had worked in one of the workhouses for many years, ended up in partnership with the Cybermen in reaction to the evils that she witnessed as a result of such patriarchy (indeed, this was portrayed as her only escape!). She represented herself as a new suffragette-style hero(ine) that came into the world at Christmas - only now not one that would oppress women. She even used the words, 'Behold, I have risen'. Miss Hartigan was set up as a kind of Christ figure; the implication throughout being that Christianity (even Jesus?) is misogynistic and oppressive.

In the end, however, the Doctor seemed to identify the problem with Miss Hartigan's plans: her ideals, too, were shown to be oppressive. In compassion, the Doctor offered to send Miss Hartigan and her Cybermen to another planet, where they wouldn't need to 'convert' anyone (another backward slap at Christianity?). However, once Miss Hartigan's eyes were 'opened', the horror of her evil meta-narrative convicted her and she imploded.

In the end, perhaps the episode was a critique of patriarchy and feminism. Feminism that become an inflexible meta-narrative is to be rejected as it threatens to become an evil ,oppressive (and Christianity-like) system; yet the tragedy portrayed by the episode is that a real heroine (a character called Rosita, who helps many children to be saved) ends the epsiode merely as a nanny. We're forced to ask... is this right? Is it right that a heroic, bright woman can rise only to this position in a Christianity-influenced (Victorian) patriarchy?

An interesting theme. I wonder what the writers would make of Jesus' encounters with women in the Gospels?

Matthew Parris on mission

2008-12-27T12:02:00.003Z

An interesting article by Matthew Parris in the Times: 'As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God'.

This is a truly incredible article, including the following quote: 'Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.' Well worth a read and a ponder.

HT: Michael Ots

Stuart Briscoe on Christmas

2008-12-24T19:55:00.002Z

Found a Christmassy quote that is worth pondering:

'The spirit of Christmas needs to superseded by the Spirit of Christ. The spirit of Christmas is annual; the Spirit of Christ is eternal. The spirit of Christmas is sentimental; the Spirit of Christ is supernatural. The spirit of Christmas is a human product; the Spirit of Christ is a divine person. That makes all the difference in the world.' (Stuart Briscoe).

Happy Christmas.

Grumbling vs complaining

2008-12-23T14:40:00.003Z

A few posts ago, I spoke of how the writers of Scripture envisage Christians as people who do not grumble, so confident are they in God's goodness and sovereignty.

However, the Bible does positively hold up believers that complain... The Psalms, for instance, are full of incidents where the psalm writers open their hearts in complaint. So what is the difference between grumbling and complaining? How can I make sure that I'm a complainer and not a grumbler?

The difference to me seems to be the focal point of my problems. In Psalm 6, for instance, David complains about all manner of things in his circumstances (including his enemies, and illness in body and spirit). His response, however, is not to grumble but to complain: to place all of his concerns into the hands of the LORD, knowing that the LORD alone is one that can help in this situation. Even though his circumstances are the subject of his prayer, the complaint is God-centred (isn't this the thrust of Philippians 4:6-7).

It would seem to me that, whilst grumbling is always a danger, it is possible to complain in a godly matter in conversation with others too (particularly when the audience of complaint is also wary of letting the conversation drift into grumbling).

It would also appear to me that (despite the danger of grumbling), it is sometimes right to complain, particularly when, in some way, God does not appear to be getting the glory he deserves or, from what he has revealed about himself, his will is not being done. For example, whilst the danger is always that it will spill over into grumbling, it is right that injustice or church gospel disunity causes us to complain (primarily to God, but sometimes to each other).

Any other ideas on how we can complain in a godly way, but not grumble?

Changeling: Foucault's 'Discipline and Punish' redux

2008-12-19T23:25:00.003Z

Tonight Linda and I went to see Clint Eastwood's latest film, Changeling. We had both been really moved by Million Dollar Baby and so looked forward to viewing it with anticipation.

Let's make one thing clear: it isn't pretty viewing. The film opens reminding the viewer that it is based on true life, and this is what makes the movie powerfully arresting. In fact, the auditorium was quieter at the end of the film than any other I'd been to since The Passion of the Christ. Whilst there wasn't much gore, the subject matter was such that it leaves you squeaming at many points.

The trailer for Changeling only gave the bare bones of the plot: a boy is abducted, a police search ensues, a boy is found, but the boy's mother Christine Collins (played by the very good Angelina Jolie) insists that the boy returned to her is not her son.

However, perhaps the main issue that the film raises is the matter of madness. After confronting the city authorities, Mrs Collins is branded an unfit mother, branded delusional and sent to a secure psychiatric hospital. Later in the film, another view of madness is presented in one of the other major characters. The movie considers what 'madness' is, who has the right to call someone else 'mad' or delusional, and whether 'madness' ever mitigates one's societal responsibility. And so whilst there are other strong themes (human evil, death, the family, justice and women's rights), it's issues of 'madness' and the role of the institution that is explored most deeply. In this respect, it is very similar to the 'archaeology of knowledge' of the penal system and the hospital presented by the French postmodernist Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish. The movie questions whether two key figures - Mrs Collins and Northcott - might be treated in the same way today (and if not, why not?).

It's true that societal factors are highly influential in governing behaviour. I believe that evangelical Christians (like me) have traditionally underplayed these societal forces. However, part of what Foucualt's philosophy has done has placed us in a society where nobody is ever 'guilty'. We can always blame our mental health, our disposition, our upbringing or our parents. At the end of Changeling, it's worth considering this question: despite all of the guilt and the violence, who is guilty? (The answer might surprise you).

For a second opinion, here's what Nick Pollard of the excellent Damaris organisation made of it:

Top films of 2008

2008-12-19T23:13:00.003Z

Dave K recently posted his top films of 2008. I don't think there were loads of classics (although we didn't make No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood, and I'm still hoping we'll catch Waltz with Bashir), but here's my top 5 so far. I've linked to films I reviewed.

1. The Dark Knight
2. Changeling
3. Wall-E
4. Juno
5. Quantum of Solace

I quite enjoyed bits of Iron Man, Charlie Wilson's War, City of Ember, Burn After Reading and Jumper. Lowest marks of the year would include films like 21, The Duchess and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).

"The grumbling Christian" - an oxymoron?

2008-12-16T16:30:00.007Z

I’ve been spending more time today in Philippians, and I’m thoroughly enjoying seeing Paul’s gospel-heartedness. He glorifies Christ and he values Christ and his gospel above everything else – and calls other believers to do the same.

Today I’ve been thinking about Philippians 2:14-15: “Do everything without grumbling and arguing so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation.” Last time I taught Philippians, on a summer team in Moldova, this was one of the verses that jumped out at us. Grumbling and arguing is even easier than normal when under pressure in a different culture without creature comforts. Even, in everyday life, it's hard not to grumble or argue. So why is it so important not to grumble? And why does Paul put this prohibition against grumbling right here? He just done telling the Philippians that God is at work in them, he’s about to call them to shine as lights in this twisted, dark world... but first he has to warn them to do all things without grumbling and complaining.

Perhaps this reflects on the pervasiveness of grumbling and complaining. We all find it so easy to grumble and complain! But a grumbling Christian is, for Paul, an oxymoron. A grumbling Christian spreads darkness and bad mouths God. So, says Paul, God is working in you to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose. And that means that if you want to please God and glorify him in our dark world, you’ve got to get a handle on grumbling. Grumbling is not a ‘minor sin’. It is an indication that all is not well in the spiritual life of a believer.

Of course, the vice of grumbling doesn’t turn up for the first time in Philippians. (Bible Gateway gives 25 other places where the word ‘grumble’ or ‘grumbling’ is used in the NIV). In fact the same word – ‘grumbling’ – is used plenty of times to describe the redeemed people of Israel in the wilderness. I think Paul is alluding the the people of Israel here in Philippians. God saves them with outstretched arm then has to listen to their grumbling just about every step of the way to Canaan! Now, Paul teaches the Philippians, God is powerfully at work in you to will and to act... so learn from the bad example of Israel.God has brought you out of the world, and now it’s time to shine his glory into the darkness of our world.

Israel, of course, had hardly got across the Red Sea when their grumbling began! (In fact, they were grumbling even before they got to the Red Sea: Exodus 15:24). They grumbled about water. They grumbled about food. They grumbled about Moses and Aaron, God’s appointed leaders. They grumbled about the spies. And, of course, their grumbling was ultimately directed against the Lord and his provision. (In this sense, all grumbling is ultimately against the Lord).

The people hit an all-time low in Numbers 16. Firstly they grumble against Moses and Aaron’s leadership... and then following God’s judgement, instead of seeing their own sin, they grumble again (Numbers 16:41), blaming Moses for God’s judgement. And this grumbling is serious. By the end of the chapter, nearly 15000 people have died in judgement. Grumbling is a serious sin against God.

If grumbling is so pervasive, where does it come from? Surely it’s when we lose sight of God’s grace and sovereignty. We grumble because we are self-centred and proud, and that we think we’re not getting what we deserve. Grumblers develop the mindset “I deserve better than this”, and think that life (or God) should have given them a better deal. In that respect, grumbling an symptom of arrogance. It is saying that I know how to run my life better than God, that I doubt his sovereignty and wisdom and goodness.

How, then, does a person fight a grumbling spirit? What is the antidote? Well, this is surely answered by the rest of the letter to the Philippians. It’s letting the wonderful truths of the gospel hit home and placing one's cicumstances in God's hands in this light. It’s cultivating joy that isn’t dependent on one’s present circumstances, but from the eternal realities of an everlasting and wonderful relationship with Christ. It’s learning to know and experience the very great value of the gospel that puts everything else in its correct perspective. It’s through seeing death as gain. It’s working towards a prayer life in which thanksgiving plays an important part. It’s rejoicing in the Lord always. It’s keeping our eyes on the citizenship we have in heaven. It’s learning to be content whatever the circumstances. Above all, it’s knowing Christ, who didn’t demand what he deserved, but gave it all up and made himself a nobody in order to serve others in humility.

"What does it matter...?"

2008-12-15T17:39:00.002Z

I've spent the day soaking in Philippians 1, challenged again by Paul's attitude in putting the gospel first that caused him be to be willing to face personal discomfort, denigration of his name and bruised feelings so long as the gospel is preached.

What shines through this passage is the great splendour, goodness, potency and effect of the proclaimed gospel message, and the glory that goes to Christ through its proclamation. In the light of the gospel, nothing else can hold first place for our ambitions and motivations.

Here are two quotes I've been reflecting on today in this light:

"Putting the gospel first ought not to be the exception among us, but the rule. We are talking about the good news that reconciles lost men and women to the eternal God. We are confessing the gospel: that God himself has provided a redeemer who died, the just for the unjust, to bring us to himself. Without the gospel we are cut off, without hope in this world or the next, utterly undone. Compared with this good news, what could possibly compete?" (Don Carson, Basics for Believers)

"[O]ne day, as we know from his promises, he [Christ] will come again in unimaginable splendor to perfect his kingdom. We are commanded to watch and be ready. Meanwhile, the gap between his two comings is to be filled with the Christian missionary enterprise. We have been told to go to the ends of the earth with the gospel, and we have been promised that the end of the age will come only when we have done so. The two ends (of earth space and time) will coincide. Until then he has pledged to be with us. So the Christian mission is an urgent task. We do not know how long we have. We certainly have no time to waste. And in order to get on urgently with our responsibility, other qualities will be necessary, especially unity (we must evangelize together) and sacrifice (we must count and accept the cost). Our covenant at Lausanne was "to pray, to plan and to work together for the evangelization of the whole world". Our manifesto at Manila is that the whole church is called to take the whole gospel to the whole world, proclaiming Christ until he comes, with all necessary urgency, unity and sacrifice." (The Manila Manifesto, Lausanne Covenant 1989)

Athanasius and the development of Trinitarian doctrine

2008-12-12T10:40:00.003Z

Yesterday the UCCF North West had a good team day on Athanasius and Trinitarian debate led by the very knowledgeable Donald Allister. It was an interesting and heart-warming time, particularly poignant at this time of year when we think about Jesus' incarnation.

Athanasius has been one of my heroes for quite a while. Donald's 'warts and all' exposure of how things developed during the 4th Century didn't really change that (although they did make me appreciate much more the kind of pressure that many Christian leaders were under at that time). The other thing that really stood out was that the Arian heresy was far more subtle than often caricatured today. We briefly considered Arian interpretations of Colossians 1:15-20 and Hebrews 1:1-6.

One of the interesting things to ponder was that Donald suggested that he believed that there would be many 4th Century Arians that would prove to be saved. He suggested that many people were Arian at that time simply because theology hadn't developed enough for the case to be otherwise. And so whilst Athanasius saw Trinitarian theology to be of salvation importance (because only God can reconcile humanity to God), perhaps many who did not have the blessing of this reality could still be saved. I've thought a bit about the 'eschatological' element to doctrine a bit before (that we should expect doctrine to be constantly rendered more clearly over time, yet never contradicting previous true Biblical insight), but I'd like to do some more thinking on this. Any thoughts or good things to read?

"God can't look on or have anything to do with sin"

2008-12-08T17:11:00.003Z

It’s a common evangelical cliché and throw-away line. But is it fair to say that ‘God can’t look on or have anything to do with sin’? I’ve heard a couple of people (festively) attacking this notion recently, on the grounds of the incarnation.

The argument runs like this:

Jesus is fully God as well as perfect man;
During his ministry, Jesus associated himself with sinners – he talked with them, worked with them, ate and drank with them;
Therefore, the idea that God is totally against sin is false (as what can we say but that Jesus is ‘having something to do with sin’ during his ministry?).

Now I think that this argument is flawed for a number of reasons (for instance, it seems to imply a deistic and unscriptural understanding of a god that isn’t actively involved in creation apart from when physically manifested in the person of Christ). But let us put this aside for the moment.

It’s surely true that Jesus associated himself with those widely recognised by the religious establishment (and pretty much everyone else) as being particularly sinful (see Mark 2:13-17). Equally, the New Testament endorses Jesus as God (Colossians 2:9 and so on). But does this mean that we must come to the conclusion of the third statement above? Or in what sense, if any, is it impossible for God to look on or have anything to do with sin?

Clearly, as God in the flesh, Jesus looked upon sinners, in the sense that he looked at them. But in his grace he came not to endorse their sinful lifestyles (or even to say that their sin didn’t really matter) but to bring them freedom and forgiveness and reconciliation in his kingdom. When Christians (perhaps thoughtlessly) say that the God of the Bible can’t look on sin, they’re not saying that he’s somehow blind to the sinful reality of the world, but rather that his character as moral arbiter of the Universe is to call sin evil and wrong. The great news of Christmas is that, in Christ, he’s found a way of reconciling us to himself in his own body without compromising his character.

There is one question that remains. It’s this: if Jesus really was fully God, why did no-one (as sinful beings) burn up and drop dead in his presence? John 3:17 says that, ‘God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.’ This is the same Son of God that, according to John 1:17, came into the world with grace and truth. In other words, the Father would have had every right to send Jesus the Son into the world to immediately condemn it (and by implication each of us – for, as members of the world, each of us is sinful). But he preferred to send him instead as an atoning sacrifice to make reconciliation to himself possible. Peter perhaps caught something of this when he said (in Luke 5:8): “Go away from me, Lord, I am a sinful man!” Jesus had every right to condemn Peter, yet lived amongst sinful people in order to be the perfect sacrifice to make atonement for sinners.

I think that part of the reason that this debate has come up is that, in certain circles, Christmas is presented in quite a flat and tired way: it's just a necessary preamble for all of the stuff that followed later. We feel unable to say what it means to have our God as Emmanuel, God with us. The implications of the incarnation as an event in itself are sidelined and flattened (perhaps because we can’t fit it otherwise into 2 Ways to Live). And that is wrong and a symptom of wider illness in evangelicalism.

It’s right to look for and meditate upon the wider significance of the incarnation. (Indeed, I’ve been personally struck recently by the number of times that Hebrews draws real pastoral application from the incarnation and the humanity of Christ). However, in looking to say that the incarnation represents more than just a pre-requisite for Easter, we surely cannot say that it is anything less.

Avoiding the idolatrous abomination

2008-12-06T11:37:00.005Z

One of the most significant sessions that had a bearing on future ministry was when Marcus described boring Bible studies and talks as 'idolatrous abominations' (you can hear the story re-told from his perspective here).

It was at that moment that I realised for the first time that a sound Bible study or talk that did not lead to worship is not treating Scripture in the way intended when it was given to us. The Bible was given so that we might joyfully submit our lives to Jesus in everything. Bible ministry that stops at understanding makes an idol of reason and knowledge.

That session, several years ago, profoundly changed my ministry. I say all this because I was reminded of it in listening to Tim Keller's recent sessions on Bible 'application' (not a term he likes, and I dislike too) and 'preaching to the heart' given at Oak Hill College (thanks Dave). Tim Keller uses a different vocabulary and slightly different approach to that which Marcus took, but the heartbeat was the same. The first session, particularly, is a 'must listen' for any who expound Scripture.

They're available here:

MP3: Tim Keller at Oak Hill College (1) November 2008
MP3: Tim Keller at Oak Hill College (2) November 2008

Am I really a Christian?

2008-12-03T10:42:00.004Z

Once again, I've left it far longer than I had intended to write a post. The last few weeks have been pretty busy. The busy period finished with the superb Lancaster University CU houseparty at a snowy and misty Blaithwaite (see above).

I gave a seminar on the title 'Am I really a Christian?' The first part of the seminar focused on how anybody can be saved at all. The second part focused on the signs that the Bible writers point to as characterising those who have true spiritual life, those joined to Jesus, our living Head. It's not that these things define us as Christians; rather, when we have true spiritual life, they characterise us.

Here are the characteristics I came up with:

1. The truth test: a born again believer accepts God's promises as not just being true generally, but true for them. The genuine Christian has a humble assurance of their assurance and forgiveness. "The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." (Galatians 2:20 - see also 1 John 2:1-2, Romans 4:20-21).

2. The confession test: a true believer is pleased to declare Jesus as Lord, in word and action. 1 Corinthians 12:3 says: "No-one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit." Greg Haslam puts it like this: 'Is Jesus the boss in your life? Are you unashamed to let it be known that he is? Unembarrassed to speak of your allegiance to him before others? Glad to sing, say, preach and declare ‘Jesus is Lord’ in an unforced way on each occasion? Does this flow as a clear and resounding certainty from your heart to your lips? If the answer is ‘yes’ to each of these questions, then you must be a Christian, for the indwelling Holy Spirit produced that confession.'

3. The obedience test: a genuine believer is committed to fighting sin in their life. Will Metzger puts it like this: 'God, in his mercy, will not allow children of his to be comfortable in sin. He makes us restless, even to the point of questioning our salvation, so that we might not presume on his favour but, instead, relish his grace. Often we recognise our salvation not by victory over sin but by the warfare that is still going on within us. Comfort and encouragement do not come from outward circumstances of “success” but rather from drawing near to God with a true heart in full assurance of faith, from knowing that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Boldness coupled with humility is the result.' See 1 John 2:3-6, Mark 8:34-35, Galatians 5:17 and so on.

4. The fruit test: the Holy Spirit puts the attitudes and desires of Christ into true believers. It is true that Christians slip up - again, as Metzger puts it, 'we sometimes find winters where no fruit is evident, even in the lives of genuine believers.' However, Jesus promises that true believers will bear fruit, particularly his own character (John 15:5, also Galatians 4:22-23).

5. The personal test: a true believer knows that they know Christ. This is what Romans 8:15 and 1 John 5:10-12 say. Christians are not people who are backing a plausible theory, hoping it works out. They have the Spirit’s testimony in their hearts that they know Christ. You can look at what Jesus has said and what he’s done, but knowing him is personal. When it comes to knowing someone, you know whether you know them or not. With a theory, I may not be sure that I’ve grasped; a moral code, I’m not sure whether I’ve kept it well enough - but a person, I know whether I have met them or not.

'I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.'(1 John 5:13)

How does a rich and famous celebrity stay content?

2008-11-24T16:46:00.004Z

What's required to know true contentment and humility - the sort that makes us satisfied in our circumstances, that causes us to be neither envious nor disdainful of others?

Psalm 131 is David's reflection on exactly this. I suppose that as king of Israel - and all that such an office represented (with all its riches, fame and celebrity) - the temptation to be proud (and derisory of others) might have been very real. Those of us involved in full-time Christian ministry can also face the temptation to be proud and to look down upon others. It occurs to me from this psalm that a right view of the LORD (and of the believer's relationship with him) is essential to fighting this temptation.

Firstly, David is happy not to play God. This is what he's getting at in the last section of verse 1: 'I do not concern myself with great matters or things that are too wonderful for me.' There are certain questions that we will not have answers to in this life; for instance, why particular forms of suffering happen to certain people. Likewise, there are certain situations in which we are impotent and have to rest in the sovereignty of God. It's hard not to want to take these things upon ourselves. But David is happy to trust these things to the living God of the Universe.

Secondly, David's relationship with God has caused his ambitions to change. Once we see ourselves as creatures in relationship with the Creator, it's not surprising that the way that we see ourselves changes. We can no longer be obsessed with self. This change occurred in David.

Whilst I consider myself to be at the centre of the Universe, my ambition will know no ceiling. But once I know that God is rightly at the centre of the Universe (and my Universe), everything changes. For many, being king of Israel was an office to desire because of the kudos and personal benefits it brought (desires seen in the case of Absalom and others). For David, it was merely the role that the God of the Universe had asked him to fulfil.

Likewise, once a person has been brought into the relationship with the God of the Universe for which they were created and experienced his grace, their desires for other things change. The relationship with him is satisfying in itself. That's what the powerful image at the end of verse 2 describes. Just like Paul (in Philippians 4:10-13), David has learned the secret of being content. He is quiet and easy. Spurgeon surely hits the nail on the head:

'To the weaned child his mother is his comfort though she has denied him comfort. It is a blessed mark of growth out of spiritual infancy when we can forego the joys which once appeared to be essential, and can find our solace in him who denies them to us: then we behave manfully, and every childish complaint is hushed. If the Lord removes our dearest delight we bow to his will without a murmuring thought; in fact, we find a delight in giving up our delight. This is no spontaneous fruit of nature, but a well tended product of divine grace: it grows out of humility and lowliness, and it is the stem upon which peace blooms as a fair flower.'

Verse 3 is a very fitting end to the psalm: here we see a man weaned off from obsession with himself demonstrating a concern for others. David models Jesus' exhortation to the disciples who, having deeply experienced God's grace, were called not to lord it over others but serve others (knowing that they're no better). A deep experience of God and his grace is what is required to serve radically.

Oh for more of the heart of humility and others-centredness that God granted David!

A better covenant (Hebrews 8)

2008-11-20T22:27:00.006Z

I arrived at Hebrews 8 today in supervision time with the Relay Workers. It's another chapter that shows the folly of legalism when compared with the utter supremacy of Jesus' sacrifice and all that it guarantees.

Covenants are legal agreements between two parties, and covenants between God and humans feature significantly in Scripture. Some of the covenants that God makes with humans are unilateral - in other words, they can't be broken by humans. This includes the covenant that God makes with Abram where he promises to give a land and descendants to him.

Other covenants have an element of performance built into them. The most significant of these is the covenant that God makes with the nation of Israel at Sinai. Although the heart of this covenant is faith, covenant blessings and covenant curses are given to Israel dependent on the extent to which they humbly submit to the LORD as their God (see Deuteronomy 28 and 30).

The sad story of the Old Testament is that Israel - themselves, remember, a mirror of humanity - failed to keep the covenant. Indeed, they ended up in exile because of this. And so Jeremiah (31:31-34) foresaw a new covenant - like the Sinai covenant, one that brought the possibility of blessing - but that was unilateral. Indeed, the very things that caused Israel to abandon their blessings - their lack of desire to keep the law, and the way that this showed itself in sin - are those things that are addressed in the new covenant: the law will be internalised, and sin will be forgotten forever.

The writer to the Hebrews was writing to a group of Jewish Christians who felt under pressure to abandon Christianity, keep making the Levitical sacrifices and return to Judaism. Perhaps they considered it necessary to keep making these sacrifices so that they would experience covenantal blessings. But Hebrews 8 shows that vast supremacy of the new covenant: what people hoped for through performance in the old covenant, Jesus has guaranteed through his sacrifice, resurrection and the giving of the Spirit. Christ's sacrifice for us and righteousness imputed to us guarantees our blessing forever (and so led Paul to write Ephesians 1:3).

As we reflected on Hebrews 8 earlier, we spoke of how the human heart causes us to want to write another covenant with God (where our blessing is based on legalism and performance). How ridiculous when Christ has guaranteed our blessings forever! How much better to glory in what has already been won and given to us!

Check this out

2008-11-20T22:16:00.000Z

A directory of UCCF bloggers is now online.

Check out http://uccfbloggers.blogspot.com/. Cheers Dave!

Praise and thanks

2008-11-17T22:19:00.003Z

A gem from JI Packer and Carolyn Nystrom on a simple distinction that has helped me in my prayer life recently:

'It is helpful, in our praying, to make a distinction between praise and thanks, and to make sure we express both. Prayers of thanks tend to focus to some extent on us. We thank God for particular gifts given to us and others personally, and for general gifts bestowed on all. Praise, on the other hand, focuses directly on God. We praise him because of who and what he is. It is the difference between one spouse saying to the other, "You are the most understanding person I know; that's one reason I love you so much" and "Thanks for the sandwich; I needed it." Both kinds of prayers are appropriate. But because we are naturally self-centred creatures, we tend to major on thanks, because God's gifts and mercies to us constantly fill our minds. Yet God himself is to be praised, for he is supremely praiseworthy. "Praise to the LORD! For it is good to sing praises our God; for he is beautiful, and a song of praise is fitting." (Psalm 147:1). "Let everything that has breath praise the LORD." (Psalm 150:6). So it is good and right to occasionally wrestle our attention away from ourselves and turn it toward God in prayers of praise.' (Praying, IVP, p. 31-32).

I've been trying to put this into practice recently. So Maurice and Sarah (via the Ferndale website) have both commented on last week's University of Cumbria FREE outreach. There's plenty to give thanks for: good numbers at events, great gospel partnership and the gospel's effect seen in the lives of both Christians and non-Christians. But perhaps above all we should be praising the Lord that he's the sort of God who wants relationship with creatures like us, that he's the sort of God that comes not to be served but to serve, and to sort of God who accepts us if only we admit that we are ill and sinful and have nothing to offer, and approach him as children. What a beautiful character he has! "Great is the LORD, and most worthy of praise."

Jesus as he really is (Mark 12:1-12)

2008-11-14T23:16:00.004Z

Tonight I spoke at the last 'Free week' event at the University of Cumbria. I spoke on the parable of the tenants (Mark 12:1-12). The talk is reproduced below. I struggled to sufficiently include the original challenge to the religious teachers of Israel, but hopefully haven't changed the message too much.

I recently heard about magazine article in which a mother wrote in to say this, “Our 10 year old son Robin would invariably live in a complete mess. His bedroom was a sight to behold. Finally after all the nagging seemed to have failed, I wrote the following note and left it on his pillow:

‘Dear Robin, I wish I was clean and tidy like all the other rooms in the house. Please could you do something about this? Love, Bedroom.’

Next day, to my surprise, I found the room spick and span, and my son had left a note for me to find. It read:

‘Dear Bedroom, There you are. I hope you feel better now. Love, Robin. PS You’re beginning to sound just like my mother.’"

I guess you could say our parents are our earliest landlords. We live in their space. They have rightful authority over us. And yet from the word ‘go’ we show our natural inclination to reject that authority.

That, in effect, is the issue that Jesus addresses in the story we’re going to spend just a few minutes looking at tonight. The title of the talk advertised was ‘Jesus as he really is.’ And we’ll see that to understand Jesus as he really is, we need to turn to the issue of taking other people’s things for ourselves, passing them off as our own and rejecting their love. It would be helpful if you turned to page 39 in your black books [Matthew 12:1-12], as that’s where the story is recorded. We’re going to look at it in three parts.

First of all, it’s a story about bad tenants. Let’s read verse 1: ‘Jesus them told them this story: “A farmer once planted a vineyard. He built a wall around it and dug a pit to crush the grapes in. He also built a lookout tower. Then he let his vineyard and left the country.”’ Now that wasn’t that unusual at the time of Jesus. There were plenty of mostly foreign landowners who let their land out to Jewish tenants. But perhaps the thing that might have jumped out to Jesus’ original listeners was how generously the owner had provided for them: a wall to protect the vineyard from wild animals, a winepress where the process of fermentation could begin, and a lookout tower ensuring that the vineyard isn’t destroyed by animals or humans. These tenants are in a good position thanks to the provision and kindness of the owner.

But the tenants don’t seem to appreciate the owner’s kindness. Let’s read on, in verses 2-3: ‘When it was harvest time, the owner sent a servant to get a share of the grapes. The tenants grabbed the servant. They beat him up and sent him away without a thing.’ When we read that the owner had let the vineyard to the tenants, the deal was that they were responsible to pay a fixed part of the proceeds. It’s a bit like on Dragon’s Den, where the Dragons resource entrepreneurs on the basis they’ll get a future share of profits. But when the owner sends a servant to ‘get his share of the grapes’, they resist him. At the time, you could establish your right as owner of a piece of land if you had undisputed use of it for three years. And so the tenants refused to pay their share of grapes as rent, they were attempting to deny the owner’s claim of possession. They wanted to keep the vineyard for themselves. And so the tenants treat the servant that had been sent to collect the rent like a robber, trying to deprive them of what they considered already to be theirs.

Read verses 4-5 and you see that, despite the patience of the owner with the tenants, the pattern continues: ‘The owner sent another servant, but the tenants beat him on the head and insulted him terribly. Then the man sent another servant, and they killed him. He kept sending servant after servant. They beat some of them and killed others.’ They all receive the same reception. The tenants intended to keep the fruit for themselves. They were using the vineyard as a means of gaining power for themselves. In their minds, the vineyard was their vineyard, like Robin’s room was, in his mind, his own. He could live as he wanted.

Now look at verse 12, because this makes sense of the story: ‘The leaders knew that Jesus was really talking about them, and they wanted to arrest him.’ Jesus originally told this story to religious leaders, and they understood exactly what he’d been saying. They’d have known this because they were Jewish people familiar with the Old Testament, the part of the Bible written before Jesus came. In the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah tells a very similar story to this one by Jesus, involving a vineyard rented out to tenants. Isaiah’s story is addressed to the people of Israel – he reminds Israel that although God built them up as a nation, they’d turned against him. He sent prophet after prophet to speak to them and to call them back to him. The difference with Jesus’ parable is the bit involving the son. But the key thing is that the people there understood that they represented the tenants. The scandal is that, despite having been warned otherwise, they took things that belonged to God and passed them off as their own.

The story of the Bible opens with God creating the world. As humans, he made us tenants in God’s world. God has given us a responsibility to look after the world and to enjoy it. But we don’t own it. God owns the world and we are ultimately answerable to him. And so we’re just like the tenants in the parable.

We’ve seen that the tenants acted as they did because they thought it would lead to getting the vineyard for themselves. They wanted to be owners of the vineyard and run it their own way. And that describes the attitude of each of us. God has made us tenants in a world that belongs to him, he’s kindly provided for us – but our response is to choose to ignore God, to own the world and rule and run it as though it all belongs to us. We want to be God of the world for ourselves.

But here’s the thing. A world that has walked out on God will always end up a war zone. God created us to submit to him, at the centre of our lives. Everything fitted together for God's good purposes. But now each of us has tried to redefine reality so that we are at the centre serving our own ambitions.

So if I am trying to rearrange the world so that I get to the top, I’m probably not very bothered about the rainforests or the fact that a child dies every six seconds of a preventable disease. When it doesn’t suit me, I am not going to be very bothered about you either. I am looking out for myself. And things get ugly because just as I am looking out for me, you are looking out for you. In my version, I get to the top, in your version you do. So what so we do? We fight. Not just with bombs over Baghdad, but with snide words and cutting remarks over the washing up. We try to prop up our version of how we think things should be. That’s what happens when we take God out of the picture and when we forget that God is the true owner.

So here’s the scandal. Blessing upon blessing has come our way from God. But what have we done with them? Thanked God the Giver? Not exactly. The natural reaction of each of us is to take each of these gifts for granted, rejecting his love. Even though our every breath depends on God, the natural reaction of each of us is to airbrush him out of our existence.

But look again at this story. Do you see how much God is showing his patience with his people – how much he loves them? He sends messenger after messenger and in one last desperate act we read in verse 6, last of all he sent his son to them and says, 'They will respect my son.' That is how much God cares for a wayward world and wayward people. He sends Jesus. A lot of people think that Jesus has come to stop their fun. But, as we see in this parable, Jesus’ claim is that he is the son; that he is the owner of everything. In other words, when he calls us to repent – to put God at the centre of our universes – he isn’t calling us to some strange religious cult, he is calling us to do what we should rightly do, what we are made to do: to submit to his authority as the King sent by God and give all that we have to him.

But let's look at what happens to this son, as we turn to its second element: a story about the death of a much-loved son.

Look at verses 7-8: ‘But they said to themselves, “Some day he will own this vineyard. Let’s kill him! That way we can have it for ourselves.” So they grabbed the owner’s son and killed him. Then they threw his body out of the vineyard.’

The Bible teaches that, far from what we often think, rather than being essentially good, humans are essentially bad. And the ultimate proof of that, according to the Bible, is that we murdered our Maker. That is what Jesus’ death on the cross, illustrated in this parable by the murder of the Son outside the vineyard, means. Remember Jesus’ call was just that each of us should place God at the centre of the Universe, in the place that he belongs. He said that humans experience true freedom when we live this way, the way we were created to live. As a fish is free in the ocean, as an eagle is free in the air, so humans are free when we live in the environment in which we made to live, submitting our lives to God. And Jesus’ life backed up this claim as, through submitting his own life to God the Father, he always put others before himself. And so the human response to him, to sentence him to death, is the ultimate insult, the supreme gesture to what we think about the idea of God as our king, as the owner of the vineyard. It is the final snub which puts the lid on all the snubs that God has received from the human race.

Sure, none of us was actually there when Jesus was crucified. ‘Oh yes,’ we say, ‘It was all their fault. The Jews, the Romans, we all know how barbaric they were. The crucifixion of Jesus was such an appalling act of judicial murder.’

But it’s the conviction of the Bible that those that actually put Jesus to death merely represented each of us. Some of us are represented by the Roman bureaucrats, turning a blind eye to the injustice of the crucifixion, just as we turn a blind eye to the evidence for Jesus today. Some of us are represented by the smug religious leaders, very religious but wanting rid of Jesus for the sake of the quiet life. Perhaps most of us are represented by the crowd crying ‘Crucify, crucify’. Our hands were not the actual hands that drove the nails into his hands and the wood, but our lives show that we want rid of Jesus’ claim to be at the centre of our lives.

Sometimes I catch myself thinking about what Jesus cried out on the cross: 'Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.' But this parable shows the generosity of that prayer, because verse 7 shows that the tenants knew exactly what they were doing. If there was any ignorance in those that killed Jesus, it was an ignorance for which they were responsible. And we living today have even less excuse for rejecting Jesus than they had for we have the whole Bible in our hands, God's complete and clear revelation. To walk away from Jesus is to add our own personal nail to the cross.

And this is why Jesus gives us a final element to the story: a story about a choice that faces each of us.

Remember, Jesus is speaking to those who quite literally got rid of him. In this parable he paints a picture of them as confident that they can get rid of him and get away with it. But Jesus goes on at the end of his story, in verse 9, “What do you think the owner of the vineyard will do?”

Jesus assumes that his listeners have the sense to see the story can’t end at verse 8 – the tenants can’t have the last word, they surely can’t get away with it. The owner must ultimately step in and act. And so he continues, “He will come and kill those tenants and let someone else have his vineyard.”

And he goes on, “Surely you know that the Scriptures say, ‘The stone that the builders tossed aside is now the most important stone.’” That’s slightly enigmatic stuff. In fact, it’s a quotation from the Old Testament, from a time when God’s Old Testament people were under attack. The people around them were trying to overthrow their king in order to build their own empires. And God had turned the tables, the attackers had failed, and the king had survived. So this line came to be written, ‘The stone that the builders tossed aside is now the most important stone’, in other words, ‘God’s king the attackers rejected has now become the most important one.’

So the picture is of a building site and there is a stone lying there. The architect’s plan is that that stone is central to what he is building. And various other builders say ‘Well, actually we want to build differently. We want to get rid of that stone.’ So they chuck it out of the building site. Then the architect himself walks onto the site. He turns the tables by rescuing that stone, bringing it back and building on it. That’s the picture Jesus is building. He’s saying that he’s the stone, God’s son, our rightful king.

The builders, the leaders of Israel are about to crucify him, and throw him off the building site thinking they can get on with building their lives as they please. But Jesus says, ‘Not so. Very soon you will realise the stone the builders tossed aside is now the most important stone.’ He is God’s king, he is risen from the dead and he will judge. And so, in effect, Jesus says, “You can reject me, but you cannot ultimately get rid of me, and you will ultimately have to reckon with me. The reality is that I belong at the centre of the universe.”

And so, it seems like a grim story, as we’ve all been bad tenants. The amazing news, however, of Mark’s Gospel that we’ve been sharing for the whole week is that God still longs to have relationship with us, the people he has created. And so Jesus’ first words in Mark’s Gospel, way back in chapter 1, are these: ‘The time has come! God’s kingdom will soon be here. Turn back to God and believe the good news!’ The good news is that God will accept us back just as we are, if only we will put him back in his right place, admit that he owns the vineyard, and believe the good news. The good news is when we admit we don’t deserve anything from God, he accepts us through Jesus’ death on the cross in our place. At the cross, Jesus took the punishment in our place and in our shoes. As we’ve been saying all week, that’s the best news about accepting the resurrected Jesus as our King: he lays aside everything and gives his life so that we might be forgiven.

So will you come clean tonight? Will you admit that you’ve acted as though you’re the owner of the vineyard, that you’ve lived at the centre of your Universe and that you’ve ignored the true king? Do you see how deluded that is, that it messes with true reality? If you will, and you will admit that you’ve nothing to commend yourself before God, he will accept you tonight on account of Jesus. Each of us must face Jesus as either saviour or judge. It would be an amazing thing if you arrived here tonight as a rebellious tenant, and go home reconciled through Jesus’ death on our behalf.