Tip Your Sacred Cows

First off, take about eight minutes to watch this beautifully shot, and compelling odd, film, Venom and Fire.




Like i said, odd huh? But i'm not trying to make fun of these people or the things they believe. When we finally know as we are known, there are probably things i do, and believe, that will make running around the auditorium with a molotov cocktail seem pretty mundane. And there's no doubt that these people sincerely believe what they're doing is within the boundaries of Biblical Christianity. That makes them sincerely wrong of course, but in many ways it makes them preferable to whatever the latest megachurch craze is by the time you're reading this!

There are sacred cows in every church, every movement, every denomination. And we need to find them, and tip them over.

We find them, first of all, by looking to the Bible. Protestants are people of the book. We're Protestants basically because we believe that the Word forms the Church, not the other way around. It's not just as simple as that, but i think that's a decent summary. We're not saved by handling snakes, or wearing a tie, or reading the King James, but by trusting Christ for salvation, as it tells us in the Bible. Would that guy go to Hell if he stopped handling snakes? No! Will your church be Ichabod if you try something new this weekend? No! But we all have this golden calfs that we can't see beyond. The subjects of this film's are fairly obvious, but only because they're not the same as ours.

We're all like Solomon, we don't know how to come in or how to go out. We all need the wisdom that's from above. And we need protecting from extra Biblical practices, because what we practice is what we believe. We need to know the Bible well enough so that we don't think that just because Paul handled a snake in Malta, we all do. It's the same thing that leads to advocates of homosexuality pulling random verses out of Leviticus to argue with. They could save time by simply tweeting, 'i don't understand how the Bible works.' But we, people of the book, should. Practice like this should drive us back to our Bibles, humble and childlike, making sure we are the people of the book we say we are.

'People say, if I come to your church you'll throw a snake on me.' Well that would put me off! But what extra Biblical expectations put people off coming to your church or to mine? What they have to wear? What they have to do? We may not handle snakes, but if there's something outside the Gospel that puts visitors off, what can we do about it? What sacred cows must we tip? Where are our snake boxes and flaming bottles?

A Man Aflame for God

Luther's principles in religion and ethics must be constantly borne in mind if he is at not to appear unintelligible and even petty. The primary consideration with him was always the pre-eminance of religion. In a society where the lesser breed were given to gaming, roistering and wenching, the Diet of Worms was a veritable Venusburg - at a time when the choicer sort were glorying in the accomplishments of man, strode this Luther, entranced by the songs of Angels, stunned by the wrath of God, entranced by the wonder of creation, lyrical over the divine mercy, a man aflame for God. For such a person there was no question which mattered much save this: How do i stand before God?

He never would shirk a mundane task such as exhorting the elector the repair the city wall to keep the peasants' pigs from rooted up the village gardens, but he was never supremely concerned about pigs, gardens, walls, cities princes or any and all of the blessings and nuisances of this mortal life. The ultimate problem was always God, and man's relationship to God. For this reason political and social reforms were a matter of comparative indifference. Whatever would foster the understanding, dissemination and practice of God's Word should be encouraged, and whatever impeded it must be opposed. This is why it's futile to to inquire whether Luther was a democrat, aristocrat, autocrat or anything else. Religion was the chief end for him, everything else was peripheral.

Here I Stand. Roland Bainton, P214 (paragraph mine)

Along with being simply the nicest feeling book i've ever held in my hands, Bainton's biography of Luther is one of the most helpful. Luther was something of a mystery to people even in his own time, even before he started to reform. Some felt he spent too much time in confession, naming every little sin, instead of going out and doing the work of a monk. If this is madness, it's an ailment i want, frankly. Then, when the Reformation took hold, some felt he didn't got far enough, while some felt he went too far. He remains something of a mystery today, it's hard to fit him into a box. Is that just because he was 'a man aflame for God?' I wonder if we're so unused to seeing men make their every decision based on the proclamation of God's Word, rather than political or social expediency that it seems strange to us. If that's the case, it says much more about us than it does Luther.

The Church of England and Relevance

The first paragraph of Saturday morning's BBC website article sums it up well.

'A decision by the Church of England to allow gay men in civil partnerships to become Bishops has prompted criticism from both liberals and conservatives.'

Why? Because 'the announcement would allow gay clergy to become Bishops only if they remain celibate.' Quite apart from the simply impossibility of ever enforcing this stipulation, it's hard ignore the dangerous path that the CofE is on, and we mustn't ignore it, we must take heed of the warning it gives us.

Lets look at the policy for a minute. The CofE will ordain gay men in civil partnerships providing they remain celibate. Why? If it supports, officially and institutionally, gay marriage, then there's no reason they shouldn't be Bishops. I'm not clear on why they have to be married at all to be honest, are single heterosexuals allowed to be Bishops? That's a genuine question. But back to the main point. If the CofE sees no problem in two men, or two women being married, then those two men or two women should be afforded the same rights that any other married couples should be.

So why the celibacy clause? Why take away from these marriages the one thing that makes marriage unique? Why take away from these marriages what God has given to marriages? Unless...

Unless it's just a concession to keep conservatives happy. Unless it's just something for the CofE leadership to point to for people who don't want to be led by a gay Bishop. If demanding celibacy concedes, or even defines, that gay marriage is an oxymoron, why ordain gay men as Bishops?

It seems to be, as an outsider, that the CofE is trying as hard as it can, to be all things to all men. To be relevant, But if you try to be all things to all men, you end up being nothing to anyone. Liberals aren't happy because the Church is demanding celibacy from those who have been given the right to be married, and conservatives aren't happy because they see no way you can take the Bible seriously and call two men or two women a marriage. In chasing relevance they become irrelevant to all. What a mess.

The Gospel, the Biblical Gospel of the virgin birth, perfect life, vicarious death and glorious, bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth will always be relevant. It speaks to the greatest need of every man, woman and child who ever lived. The Church of England simply can not continue down this path. If gay marriage is ok, ordain married gay men, and let them be married. If not, don't. It's not that complicated is it? If the Gospel is relevant to all everywhere, preach the Gospel and don't be ashamed of it.

Imagine a Britain where the Church of England was true to it's Gospel roots. Where every little church, in every little village was a Gospel station. Where the Church uses it's privileged position in society to preach the Gospel. If the Queen can manage it, why not Archbishops?

Should the Church be Conservative?

Should the church be conservative? Yes and no, absolutely, and absolutely not. Here's why.

The Church should be conservative.

The Church has been entrusted with a deposit, the Gospel, to proclaim and protect for the next generation. We don't have a theory to improve or a hypothesis to prove, but a truth to pass on. We must protect these truth, as generations before us have protected it. Who will preach the Gospel in 2080 if we get it wrong in 2012? Who will preach to our grandkids if our kids think Jesus is just one way among many? Every so often in history, one group has had to call us back to a particular truth, whether it was the Church Fathers, the Reformers or the Puritans, each one had a slightly different emphasis as a result of which truth was under attack at the time. But they always brought us back to the book, to the Bible.

We must also, in our faith, be brought back to the Bible, this is where we are conservative, this is where our faith and practice stand or fall. This will always make us look odd to the outside world. In a society where, for shame, old fashioned has turned into an insult, being led by an old book will look weird at best.

The church should be conservative when it comes to who leads and speaks at it's meetings. Every evangelical church that i've come across has some kind of system whereby teachers and leaders are recognised. We don't let men in off the streets to teach. Whether that's seminary training within a denomination or the recognising of gifts within a local body, it has to happen.

The church must be conservative when it comes to protecting and proclaiming the Gospel.

The Church should not be conservative.

We worship a guy who got murdered, we worship a man who was God, born to a virgin. How can any of that lead to being conservative!? We worship a God who loves us so much that He gave us His Son to die in the most brutal way we can imagine. How can we be conservative within our four walls? let's throw open the doors and invite 'whosoever' in. Let's go to the highways and hedge and compel people to join us. Let's live in such a way that people say to us, 'let us join you, for God is with you!' Let's say to those without money, come and eat food without price or payment.

We must not, ever, be conservative in our love, or with our lives. The men who have done the most for the Kingdom in their four score and ten have been the men who have counted their lives cheap, and flung them away for the sake of the Gospel. The ones who have, far from being conservative, 'let goods and kindred go.' We must not be conservative in how we love, or we love. Imagine how Mary, Joseph and Jesus would have smelt the morning after Jesus' birth. What would you think about people about that? The Gospel calls us to love 'them,' to serve 'them' and to lay our lives down for 'them.'

But here's the kicker. We can only be liberal with our love when we're conservative with our truth. We can only afford to love all when the truth of the Gospel is well proclaimed and well protected. Our love is only worth a snap of our fingers when it flows from the right understanding of the historic, transcendent Gospel. Love without truth will make us soft, truth without love will make us hard. Our conservatism in regard to the truth and liberalism with love have to held in the right balance and got in the right order.

Be conservative with the truth today. Beware novelty. Don't be conservative with your love today, beware cold orthodoxy. I want to get here. I want to love 'them,' because of what i read in the morning. I want to live liberally because of the conservative doctrine that should be filling my heart. When the Holy Spirit leads us in truth and love, we'll not go far wrong.

Happily Ever After

We love stories don't we? I wonder if one of the reason the Olympics Opening Ceremony was better received than the Closing was that it told a story. We like stories because we're caught up in one, and despite post modern attempts to deconstruct it, we need to be involved in one.

Stories, as any five year old can tell you, need a beginning, middle and end. The Bible's full of stories will endings, but some of them stop, well, they just stop. What do we do at the end of Jonah, with the shorter ending of Mark or the way Luke stops telling us about Acts? I think those books finish in that way to turn the attention to the reader and make us think about our response.

Jonah
Jonah tells the story of a disobedient prophet who enjoys and shares the grace of God despite his best efforts. In chapter 4, just after Nineveh has repented and God has turned His anger away Jonah sets up on a hill to watch the action. He makes a booth out of a plant the shade him, but God sends a worm to kill the plant. Jonah stamps his foot and gets upset about the loss of the plant, and God looks at him and asks whether or not He should pity Nineveh. We never get an answer from Jonah, we're supposed to work it out for ourselves. What do we do with God's challenge to Jonah? Do we care about the lost or not?

Mark
If we take the shorter ending of Mark as the end of the original text, then it ends with the women at the tomb being terrified because they had been told Jesus was risen. Douglas Moo offers a couple of a couple of alternatives, maybe the last page of Mark was torn off and lost, or that Mark died before writing the end, or this was where he meant to finish. Why? To turn around and look at us. Mark wants us to consider who Jesus is, and this is the final part of his evidence.

Acts
The way Luke finishes Acts is sort of out of character with the rest of his work. His Gospel and his history are so well organized that i can't believe he'd end it like that. So what happened? Maybe he died, maybe his plan was to write another installment later, or maybe he meant to turn the spotlight on us. The Gospel had reached Rome. It had gone from Jerusalem, through Judea and Samaria to the ends of the earth. Are we going to join in? Jesus had led Paul to Rome, the Gospel was at the heart of the world, now what about you, reader? Will you take part in Paul's mission, in Jesus' mission to spread the Gospel around the world?

Don't Lose Focus on Sunday Mornings

Sunday morning's service was busy. We had the usual welcome and announcements to make, offering to collect and message to be preached. We also had a separate offering for our mission trip to Utah, a baby dedication,  baptisms and people coming into membership. It felt like a lot to fit into an hour and a quarter, and more than that, if felt like a lot was going on apart from the preaching!


How do we avoid losing focus on a Sunday morning. How to keep from slipping out of our busy week into a busy Sunday morning and end up not meeting with God at all? 


First of all, i believe our Sunday mornings are bathed in prayer. We pray throughout the week and throughout the morning, asking God to be honoured and God to speak during our meeting time. The best way to lose focus on God, is to stop praying. When we don't pray, we're liable to work in our own strength, pointing people toward our own wisdom and trying have our needs met. 


Secondly, everything we did on Sunday pointed backwards and forwards to the Gospel. We gave our money joyfully to support the cause of Gospel in Greenville and beyond. We welcomed new members to our church, covenanting with them. We baptised, and we were reminded of Christ's death and resurrection as believers went under the water and rose back up again. We sang songs that reminded us of the depth of our need and the fulfillment of Christ.


And finally, the Gospel was preached. The Bible was opened and God's man was God's mouthpiece. Everything we did was driven by the Gospel, everything we did served the Gospel. 


The main thing is the keep the main thing the main thing. As the Gospel bears fruit in people's lives, it will produce busier church services. And that is good, and Sunday was very good. If the Gospel is the centre, the church will grow, and God will be honoured, and focus will not be lost.