The Magnificat is the traditional name for Mary's song of praise in Luke
1:46-55. It's always been a reading associated with the advent season.
This
portion of Scripture takes place after the angel Gabriel has visited
Mary and told her what God is going to do through her getting pregnant
and giving birth to the long-awaited Messiah, and after Mary has gone to
stay with her cousin Elizabeth who is expecting a child also, who we
later discover is John the Baptist. The two women are well aware that
God is about to do great and mighty things through them - and through
the babies they will bring into the world.
Reading
Mary's song it sounds very like one of the Old Testament psalms. It is
one of the great songs of praise found in the Bible.
Consider the power and beauty of the words with me.
"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour." (verses 46-47)
Mary
praises God, the God she has presumably known and loved her whole life.
The God of her fathers, and her father's fathers. The God of the Old
Testament. Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel. It is this God that she
"magnifies" or "praises" or "glorifies". Not only does he praise him,
she rejoices in him. One of the sure signs that our relationship with
God is on the right track is when we actually enjoy being in his
presence, in reading his Word, in prayer and in worship. The Shorter
Catechism famously states "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy
him forever" which put simply means it is when we glorify him and enjoy
him that we are fulfilling the main purpose of our lives.
"for
he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now
on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done
great things for me, and holy is his name." (verses 48-49)
The song then goes on with a number of reasons why Mary
is so moved to praise God and rejoice. Mary realises that God is her
Saviour and that he is now acting in the decisive period of redemptive
history to bring about salvation through the child Mary is carrying in
her womb. We might say in passing that the fact that Mary herself knew
she was in need of a Saviour suggests that the Roman Catholic teaching
about Mary's sinlessness is somewhat wide of the mark. Only those in
trouble need rescuing.
The remainder of the song from
verses 50-55 is one statement after another about what God has done, is
doing and will do for his people. He shows "mercy" (verse 50), and
strength (verse 51). And how we need both of these divine attributes in
our Saviour? Without mercy he would not be inclined to save. Without
strength he would not be able. But blessed be God for he is both
merciful to save and powerful to save.
In his saving
action he turns the world upside down. He scatters the proud, he brings
the mighty down to earth, while he raises up the poor and the humble. He
feeds his servants, but sends other away empty-handed. This is a true
assessment of the very different King and kingdom that this represents
compared to the puppet king Herod and the Roman overlords who then ruled
the world. In God's decisive action in sending the Messiah to be
Israel's true king and the Saviour and Lord of the world, Mary knew
nothing would ever be the same again. We do well to remember the
political edge to the gospel in our day. Mary's song was a challenge to
the powers and authorities in the real world, both then and now.
As
we come to the climax of the advent season, maybe we will catch a fresh
glimpse of God's glory, God's saving plan, and God's love for his
people, and make Mary's words our own (as Timothy Dudley-Smith
paraphrased them): "Tell out my soul, the greatness of the Lord; in God
my Saviour shall my heart rejoice!"
Saturday, 16 December 2017
Wednesday, 13 December 2017
The Season of Waiting
We spend a lot of our lives waiting. We wait in train stations, airports, at bus stops, and in traffic jams. We wait to be seen at the doctor or the dentist. We wait for visitors to arrive and sometimes for visitors to go. We wait for things to arrive in the post or in our computer's inbox.
We spend so much time waiting that the word is an adjective we use to describe various nouns. So we have waiting rooms and waiting areas. We have waiting lists and waiting times.
For me waiting is often a frustration. I see it too often as synonymous with just wasting time.
But waiting is not always a bad thing. It depends how we use the waiting time. Much of the joy in life comes from the pleasure that comes after a period of waiting for something good to happen. I'm thinking of some of life's key moments, like waiting during your engagement for the wedding day and waiting during pregnancy for the child's birth.
For many people, advent is just the boring wait until Christmas, like waiting in a queue before you get in to see an exciting film or show. Necessary but dull.
This advent I'm trying to use the waiting time positively, to consider the state of the world and the state of my own life, and recognise afresh the need for the Saviour, just as much in 21st century Britain as in 1st century Palestine.
God's idea to put the world to rights when all else had failed, by coming to the world himself as a baby to save it, must be the most beautiful, loving and audacious thought ever to have entered the divine mind.
As one Christmas carol puts it:
Sacred Infant, all divine,
What a tender love was Thine,
Thus to come from highest bliss,
Down to such a world as this.
Tender love indeed because he comes not to get anything from us, but to give us everything he has. He loves us and wants us to love him too. That's it. It's all he wants and it's the only thing we could possibly give him. As another carol says:
And waiting to celebrate his birth once again is no waste of time. It is an act of love and an honour.
We spend so much time waiting that the word is an adjective we use to describe various nouns. So we have waiting rooms and waiting areas. We have waiting lists and waiting times.
For me waiting is often a frustration. I see it too often as synonymous with just wasting time.
But waiting is not always a bad thing. It depends how we use the waiting time. Much of the joy in life comes from the pleasure that comes after a period of waiting for something good to happen. I'm thinking of some of life's key moments, like waiting during your engagement for the wedding day and waiting during pregnancy for the child's birth.
For many people, advent is just the boring wait until Christmas, like waiting in a queue before you get in to see an exciting film or show. Necessary but dull.
This advent I'm trying to use the waiting time positively, to consider the state of the world and the state of my own life, and recognise afresh the need for the Saviour, just as much in 21st century Britain as in 1st century Palestine.
God's idea to put the world to rights when all else had failed, by coming to the world himself as a baby to save it, must be the most beautiful, loving and audacious thought ever to have entered the divine mind.
As one Christmas carol puts it:
Sacred Infant, all divine,
What a tender love was Thine,
Thus to come from highest bliss,
Down to such a world as this.
Tender love indeed because he comes not to get anything from us, but to give us everything he has. He loves us and wants us to love him too. That's it. It's all he wants and it's the only thing we could possibly give him. As another carol says:
What can I give Him, poor as I am?
...Yet what I can I give Him: give my heart.And waiting to celebrate his birth once again is no waste of time. It is an act of love and an honour.
Thursday, 9 November 2017
Without Jesus
What are we without Jesus?
By "we" I mean those of us who claim to be Christians, those who believe in him, who try to follow him.
And by "without" I don't mean separate from him in a way connected to salvation. I mean when we try to be Christians without his spirit, without his example, without his teaching and without his grace.
First, we can be moralists. We can become obsessed with doing right (or more often doing wrong) and our faith can quickly become a soul crushing weight of things to do and things to avoid doing. And that's just when we look at ourselves.
When we turn that same attitude on other people. we can be judgemental. The same obsession and fear of anyone doing something we consider wrong can ruin relationships and block opportunities there might have been for genuine gospel conversations.
Taken to an extreme, we can become the religious thought police. The phrase was coined by George Orwell in 1984 but the same attitude is present in many Christians. Whereas moralism and judgementalism often manifest themselves with regard to ethics and behaviour, the Christian thought police are more interested in people's beliefs and doctrines. Rather than appreciating that, on many secondary or fringe issues, there are a range of legitimate viewpoints among Christians, the thought police pursue a narrow path of what they consider orthodox and oppose anyone who disagrees with them on any doctrinal point.
As an evangelical Christian myself, I think it fair to say that these three tendencies are all dangers that evangelical Christians are sometimes drawn towards when they take their eyes off Jesus and how he lived and dealt with others.
But there are also dangers in acting "without Jesus" for our liberal brothers and sisters
We can become amateur social workers or aid workers whose activities while laudable in helping those in need can become indistinguishable from their secular counterparts. Jesus and his good news of personal salvation, social change and cosmic renewal are the only distinct things we have to go people.
In a similar fashion, liberals can become political activists with their eyes totally focused on the political and economic problems in this world and little thought of the spiritual problems that beset us all as human beings or that the only way to really address those issues is by the renewal of the Holy Spirit and faith in Jesus Christ.
At times evangelicals have been guilty of teaching a truncated gospel which is all about the next life with little to say about the current state of the world. But liberals too often, if they teach anything substantive at all, teach an equally truncated gospel with little to say about sin, atonement and salvation—in short a "gospel" without the good news of Jesus Christ and what he has done for us.
Jesus taught the truth, Jesus wanted people to live good lives, Jesus helped people without falling into any of these traps.
All we have is Jesus. And the gospel—the message of who he is and what he has done—is the only distinctive thing we have to give people.
You know the old Oxfam proverb: 'Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.'
We need a similar motto as Christians. 'Tell a man how to live, and you alienate him for one day; give a man Jesus and you change him forever.'
By "we" I mean those of us who claim to be Christians, those who believe in him, who try to follow him.
And by "without" I don't mean separate from him in a way connected to salvation. I mean when we try to be Christians without his spirit, without his example, without his teaching and without his grace.
First, we can be moralists. We can become obsessed with doing right (or more often doing wrong) and our faith can quickly become a soul crushing weight of things to do and things to avoid doing. And that's just when we look at ourselves.
When we turn that same attitude on other people. we can be judgemental. The same obsession and fear of anyone doing something we consider wrong can ruin relationships and block opportunities there might have been for genuine gospel conversations.
Taken to an extreme, we can become the religious thought police. The phrase was coined by George Orwell in 1984 but the same attitude is present in many Christians. Whereas moralism and judgementalism often manifest themselves with regard to ethics and behaviour, the Christian thought police are more interested in people's beliefs and doctrines. Rather than appreciating that, on many secondary or fringe issues, there are a range of legitimate viewpoints among Christians, the thought police pursue a narrow path of what they consider orthodox and oppose anyone who disagrees with them on any doctrinal point.
As an evangelical Christian myself, I think it fair to say that these three tendencies are all dangers that evangelical Christians are sometimes drawn towards when they take their eyes off Jesus and how he lived and dealt with others.
But there are also dangers in acting "without Jesus" for our liberal brothers and sisters
We can become amateur social workers or aid workers whose activities while laudable in helping those in need can become indistinguishable from their secular counterparts. Jesus and his good news of personal salvation, social change and cosmic renewal are the only distinct things we have to go people.
In a similar fashion, liberals can become political activists with their eyes totally focused on the political and economic problems in this world and little thought of the spiritual problems that beset us all as human beings or that the only way to really address those issues is by the renewal of the Holy Spirit and faith in Jesus Christ.
At times evangelicals have been guilty of teaching a truncated gospel which is all about the next life with little to say about the current state of the world. But liberals too often, if they teach anything substantive at all, teach an equally truncated gospel with little to say about sin, atonement and salvation—in short a "gospel" without the good news of Jesus Christ and what he has done for us.
Jesus taught the truth, Jesus wanted people to live good lives, Jesus helped people without falling into any of these traps.
All we have is Jesus. And the gospel—the message of who he is and what he has done—is the only distinctive thing we have to give people.
You know the old Oxfam proverb: 'Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.'
We need a similar motto as Christians. 'Tell a man how to live, and you alienate him for one day; give a man Jesus and you change him forever.'
Friday, 22 September 2017
The Christian Critique of the Politics of Left and Right
I came across these interesting articles discussing both conservatism and liberalism from the Christian point of view and identifying the problems Christians might have with both the politics of the Right and the Left as traditionally understood.
First, a discussion of Liberalism (left wing politics): http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/001-the-problem-with-liberalism
Then an equally interesting critique of conservatism (right wing politics): http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/04/the-problem-with-conservatism
These are fairly long and detailed reads, but they helped me remember that the way of Jesus is not the same as any secular political philosophy. Although written against the backdrop of American politics, in which the poltiical spectrum is much further to the right than in the UK, they are still relevant to the British political system as well.
First, a discussion of Liberalism (left wing politics): http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/001-the-problem-with-liberalism
Then an equally interesting critique of conservatism (right wing politics): http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/04/the-problem-with-conservatism
These are fairly long and detailed reads, but they helped me remember that the way of Jesus is not the same as any secular political philosophy. Although written against the backdrop of American politics, in which the poltiical spectrum is much further to the right than in the UK, they are still relevant to the British political system as well.
Wednesday, 20 September 2017
The Case for a Universal Basic Income
For a while I've been interested in the political policy known as the Universal Basic Income (also known as the Basic Income Guarantee or a Negative Income Tax).
It is usually thought of as a left wing policy, but it is interesting that many on the Right of the political spectrum also advocate this policy.
For example, I came across a couple of interesting articles on why the classical liberal economist Friedrich von Hayek supported a basic universal income.
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income#.oz0pbd2:3cP6
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income
Hayek was a leading free market economist (it is said Margaret Thatcher used to carry around a copy of his book The Road to Serfdom in her handbag), but he maintained that in a free society there should be a basic income floor that no one is permitted to fall below.
Having seen that F. A. von Hayek seemed to favour a universal basic income, I've found a few other interesting pieces that also argue for the policy. As these show, there is a right-wing case for this policy as well as a left-wing case.
The free market Adam Smith Institute in the UK and the libertarian Cato Institute in the United States are both organisations coming at this policy from the Right of the political spectrum.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/a-neoliberal-case-for-a-basic-income-or-something-like-it
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee
As can be seen from the video below, even the arch-free marketeer, Milton Friedman, advocated something like a universal basic income, though Friedman's idea was actually a kind of "negative income tax."
Similarly, Charles Murray, the conservative political scientist, is a supporter of the basic income, as he speaks about in this speech at the American Enterprise Institute:
Maybe the Universal Basic Income could be a policy around which left and right could come to an agreement?
It is usually thought of as a left wing policy, but it is interesting that many on the Right of the political spectrum also advocate this policy.
For example, I came across a couple of interesting articles on why the classical liberal economist Friedrich von Hayek supported a basic universal income.
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income#.oz0pbd2:3cP6
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income
Hayek was a leading free market economist (it is said Margaret Thatcher used to carry around a copy of his book The Road to Serfdom in her handbag), but he maintained that in a free society there should be a basic income floor that no one is permitted to fall below.
Having seen that F. A. von Hayek seemed to favour a universal basic income, I've found a few other interesting pieces that also argue for the policy. As these show, there is a right-wing case for this policy as well as a left-wing case.
The free market Adam Smith Institute in the UK and the libertarian Cato Institute in the United States are both organisations coming at this policy from the Right of the political spectrum.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/a-neoliberal-case-for-a-basic-income-or-something-like-it
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee
As can be seen from the video below, even the arch-free marketeer, Milton Friedman, advocated something like a universal basic income, though Friedman's idea was actually a kind of "negative income tax."
Similarly, Charles Murray, the conservative political scientist, is a supporter of the basic income, as he speaks about in this speech at the American Enterprise Institute:
Maybe the Universal Basic Income could be a policy around which left and right could come to an agreement?
Friday, 8 September 2017
My Ideal Bible Translation
It is something of an understatement to say that there is no shortage of Bible translations in the English language. The popular website Bible Gateway lists over 50 English translations either of the whole Bible or of the New Testament and there are probably at least as many other English translatons not included on that site. New translations or revisions of existing translations seem to come out every other year or two.
It is true that not all translations you can find online are readily available as printed bibles or are widely used in churches, but even so there are a lot of translations out there, and there are also a few translations that are not available online but only in print.
Even so there are around twenty widely available translations in common use in English speaking churches.
With all this choice, you would think there would be a Bible out there to suit every English reader.
I had a think about what I look for in my ideal translation and came up with 10 items on my "shopping list."
1. The most fundamental requirement is that it would be more at the formal equivalence end of the translation spectrum, with text as close to the form and content of the original Hebrew and Greek as possible and as free as necessary to be intelligible in English. The NIV is about as far as I would go on the spectrum. The NASB and KJV are the most literal (formal equivalent) translations in general use and the ESV and NRSV are not too far behind them, though much more readable.
2. Though I love the Authorised Version, my ideal bible would be a translation in modern English. I don't want to have to translate my into the language we actually speak in the 21st century.
3. The translation should be based on the best available Hebrew and Greek texts. For me, this would probably be the standard NA/USB text, which is supported by the best textual evidence. All modern translations—except the KJV and the NKJV)—are based on the critical NA/UBS texts.These include conservative evangelical versions such as the NASB, ESV and NIV and I have to accept that the people who produced these bibles know what they are doing.
4. The translation should be free of theological bias and probably be the work of a committee rather than an individual translator. Most versions show some bias in places. The ESV and NIV are sometimes accused of biased in favour of Calvinism and evangelical positions. The NRSV and REB are sometimes accused biased in favour of liberal positions, though I think bias is often exaggerated both ways. There is less room for bias the more literal or formal equivalent a translation is as they are less interpretative than functional equivalent translations tend to be.
5. A translation should be gender accurate, in line with the original languages, but need not be "gender neutral." Some older translations show gender bias in favour of the male gender.
6. The ideal translation will be readable and quotable and be widely enough known to carry weight when discussing what the Bible says with others.
7. My ideal translation will be available in British English. It is sad that so many excellent modern translations such as the NASB, NKJV, CSB and NET are only available in American English, which though not a massive issue is a visual distraction every time you come across words like honour and Saviour. The KJV, NRSV, ESV and NIV are all available in British English editions.
8. A personal preference is for pronouns and other nouns referring to deity not being capitalised. It is done out of respect and honour for God and I acknowledge that, but it is not something that comes from the original languages or the historic English bibles such as the KJV. It is a later addition. I think it looks cluttered on the page and sometimes imposes an interpretation onto the text about who is being referred to in the text. This affects the NASB and most editions of the NKJV. Interestingly, although the HCSB used capitals in its earlier editions, its new revision the CSB has stopped capitalising the pronouns and it reads much better for it in my view.
9. On a similar note of preference, I don't really like red-letter editions either, though I can undertsand why some people like to be able to identify Jesus' actual words in the text. Here there is also an issue because it is not always clear which verses are Jesus' words. The best known example is probably John 3. Does Jesus' speech to Nicodemus end in verse 15 or carry on through the well-known words of verses 3:16-18 as well? Interestingly, there is now available a Blue-Red-Gold Bible which has the words of Christ in red, the direct speech of God (the Father?) in blue and references to the Holy Spirit in gold/dark yellow! You can see the BRG Bible online at Bible Gateway: look up Exodus 3 and John 3 in this version to get an idea of how it looks. In my view, black letter bibles are to be preferred, not least because "all Scipture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16) not just the direct speech parts!
10. Good textual notes are another personal preference. I am not talking about study bible type notes or even cross-references. I mean notes on where the text is difficult, where the evidence for the correct text is divided, where more than one translation is possible. These notes I view as integral to how a good translation works. Two translations stand out in this regard. The NKJV has the best notes on textual variants, especially in the New Testament as it lists every occasion where the Textus Receptus, Majority Text and Critical Text (NA/UBS) differ from each other and offers translations of the other texts. The NET Bible includes over 60,000 translators notes which discuss translational and interpretative issues in some depth. It is closer to a study bible feel because some pages have more notes than biblical text, but the notes are a great help, which is one reason I really like the NET Bible.
If you compare these ten criteria against the main English versions, none of them perfectly meets all of them. But then no translation is ever perfect. I wish the NASB, CSB and NET were available in British editions—and indeed were better known in the UK—and I wish the NASB did not use capitals for pronouns. I wish more translations had notes as good as the NKJV and NET. I refer to many versions when doing studies, but my main Bibles are currently the NIV, the ESV. the NKJV and the venerable KJV itself.
It is true that not all translations you can find online are readily available as printed bibles or are widely used in churches, but even so there are a lot of translations out there, and there are also a few translations that are not available online but only in print.
Even so there are around twenty widely available translations in common use in English speaking churches.
With all this choice, you would think there would be a Bible out there to suit every English reader.
I had a think about what I look for in my ideal translation and came up with 10 items on my "shopping list."
1. The most fundamental requirement is that it would be more at the formal equivalence end of the translation spectrum, with text as close to the form and content of the original Hebrew and Greek as possible and as free as necessary to be intelligible in English. The NIV is about as far as I would go on the spectrum. The NASB and KJV are the most literal (formal equivalent) translations in general use and the ESV and NRSV are not too far behind them, though much more readable.
2. Though I love the Authorised Version, my ideal bible would be a translation in modern English. I don't want to have to translate my into the language we actually speak in the 21st century.
3. The translation should be based on the best available Hebrew and Greek texts. For me, this would probably be the standard NA/USB text, which is supported by the best textual evidence. All modern translations—except the KJV and the NKJV)—are based on the critical NA/UBS texts.These include conservative evangelical versions such as the NASB, ESV and NIV and I have to accept that the people who produced these bibles know what they are doing.
4. The translation should be free of theological bias and probably be the work of a committee rather than an individual translator. Most versions show some bias in places. The ESV and NIV are sometimes accused of biased in favour of Calvinism and evangelical positions. The NRSV and REB are sometimes accused biased in favour of liberal positions, though I think bias is often exaggerated both ways. There is less room for bias the more literal or formal equivalent a translation is as they are less interpretative than functional equivalent translations tend to be.
5. A translation should be gender accurate, in line with the original languages, but need not be "gender neutral." Some older translations show gender bias in favour of the male gender.
6. The ideal translation will be readable and quotable and be widely enough known to carry weight when discussing what the Bible says with others.
7. My ideal translation will be available in British English. It is sad that so many excellent modern translations such as the NASB, NKJV, CSB and NET are only available in American English, which though not a massive issue is a visual distraction every time you come across words like honour and Saviour. The KJV, NRSV, ESV and NIV are all available in British English editions.
8. A personal preference is for pronouns and other nouns referring to deity not being capitalised. It is done out of respect and honour for God and I acknowledge that, but it is not something that comes from the original languages or the historic English bibles such as the KJV. It is a later addition. I think it looks cluttered on the page and sometimes imposes an interpretation onto the text about who is being referred to in the text. This affects the NASB and most editions of the NKJV. Interestingly, although the HCSB used capitals in its earlier editions, its new revision the CSB has stopped capitalising the pronouns and it reads much better for it in my view.
9. On a similar note of preference, I don't really like red-letter editions either, though I can undertsand why some people like to be able to identify Jesus' actual words in the text. Here there is also an issue because it is not always clear which verses are Jesus' words. The best known example is probably John 3. Does Jesus' speech to Nicodemus end in verse 15 or carry on through the well-known words of verses 3:16-18 as well? Interestingly, there is now available a Blue-Red-Gold Bible which has the words of Christ in red, the direct speech of God (the Father?) in blue and references to the Holy Spirit in gold/dark yellow! You can see the BRG Bible online at Bible Gateway: look up Exodus 3 and John 3 in this version to get an idea of how it looks. In my view, black letter bibles are to be preferred, not least because "all Scipture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16) not just the direct speech parts!
10. Good textual notes are another personal preference. I am not talking about study bible type notes or even cross-references. I mean notes on where the text is difficult, where the evidence for the correct text is divided, where more than one translation is possible. These notes I view as integral to how a good translation works. Two translations stand out in this regard. The NKJV has the best notes on textual variants, especially in the New Testament as it lists every occasion where the Textus Receptus, Majority Text and Critical Text (NA/UBS) differ from each other and offers translations of the other texts. The NET Bible includes over 60,000 translators notes which discuss translational and interpretative issues in some depth. It is closer to a study bible feel because some pages have more notes than biblical text, but the notes are a great help, which is one reason I really like the NET Bible.
If you compare these ten criteria against the main English versions, none of them perfectly meets all of them. But then no translation is ever perfect. I wish the NASB, CSB and NET were available in British editions—and indeed were better known in the UK—and I wish the NASB did not use capitals for pronouns. I wish more translations had notes as good as the NKJV and NET. I refer to many versions when doing studies, but my main Bibles are currently the NIV, the ESV. the NKJV and the venerable KJV itself.
Tuesday, 29 August 2017
A Vision for the Local Church (Remix)
Originally I wrote most of this piece nine years ago for a parish church magazine. As my current church comes together to discuss the future this coming Saturday, I have remixed it and updated it as a personal vision for what our local church could be like.
I have been thinking a lot recently about the church. Not so much the church worldwide or nationally, but our local church. I’ve been thinking about and asking myself a lot of questions about us. Hard questions, like why don’t more people want to come and worship with us, or even better, join us and become part of the church family. We give thanks for those who do come with all our hearts. But why don’t more people come?
After all, I think we are a welcoming and friendly congregation and I know how eager we are to see more people coming along to our services and other events. We are a strong and committed congregation – strong in our faith and committed to doing God’s work in our part of the city. And I believe we are a loving and caring church too.
But there’s a hard fact that we have to face. In the past three years we have been shrinking as a congregation. Recently some have left because they do not want to stay in the Church of Scotland. I believe many others left before that because they were not happy with the ministry of our soon to be departed minister. Most of us stayed put and wait upon the Lord's leading for the next part of our story to be written.
I know full well that if God wills it, he can send a revival and save a thousand souls. He can fill our church with new life and new Christians by the hundreds if he wants to. And we pray that he will! But, what if God is waiting until we show our willingness to change and go further as a congregation to bring people to Christ? God has always also worked through the work and witness of his people. Sometimes he waits until we give our lives to his service and to mission. He might be waiting to act until we decide what our priority is as a church, until we decide we are willing to change ourselves and the way we do things, so that he can then do a new thing through us. As he said to the prophet Isaiah:
“Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.“ (Isaiah 43:18-19, NIV)
The question we all have to face is whether we are ready and willing to change, to give up certain things, to have “dead wood” cut away from the stump of the tree so that new growth can flourish?
What things do I have in mind? Well I don’t have all the answers. I think this is a discussion we need to have with each other within our congregation. We all need to be willing to give and take, learn from each other, and take up different ideas. Here are just a few ideas to get the discussion started.
Faith. Unless we have a real, living faith in Jesus Christ ourselves, unless we know Christ as our Saviour and Lord, brother and friend, how can we really tell other people about him? Unless we understand the gospel, believe it and live it out in our lives, how can we really tell anyone outside the church that we have good news for them? This means that opening up the Scriptures, whether in Sunday preaching or midweek Bible study, must be at the heart of what we do.
Worship. We need to worship God in accordance with God’s word. But are there parts of our worship that people from outside the church would find hard to understand, or difficult to engage with? Do we have things that are merely our traditions rather than God’s commands? Could we do worship differently at some of our services if this would be more interesting or easy to understand for people who are not used to going to church? Is it a good use of our resources to have two Sunday services following almost exactly the same format?
Communication. Those of us who have been going to church for years are comfortable with church language that we use all the time. Do we need to take time to consider that not everyone knows what our church language means or how our church works? Can we find ways of communicating the truth of God’s word in ways that are more meaningful to people who are not used to reading the Bible or going to church? Should we better at explaining how our church is governed and what decisions have been made?
Prayer. Prayer has always been central to our congregation life and we need to go on in prayer if we want to become a growing congregation again. The apostles were constantly telling Christians in New Testament times to pray for one another. Do we need any new systems to enable us to pray for each other and for what we need as a congregation? Do we need to think of ways to boost our prayer life beyond the traditional prayer meeting?
Fellowship. If the churches in the New Testament were anything they were communities. We are God’s family and we need to be as close to each other as any blood family. Are we ready to share our lives with each other, allowing each other to see and to share in our joys and sorrows? Or are we too proud to let our guard down? Too scared of what people will think of us, to be really honest with each other when we have problems, doubts, sadness, or pain? If we don’t live as a family, as God’s community, really loving each other and showing it, how can we convince anyone outside the church that we really love them?
Service. One of the most effective ways of touching the lives of those outside the church is by helping and caring for them in practical ways. In this Jesus is our prime example. As well as teaching people, Christ helped people in very practical ways. He cured the sick, he fed the hungry, he comforted the broken. How can we find ways of doing that for people that we want to reach and bring into God’s kingdom? Equally how can we serve those who have limited or no material needs? How do we ensure that everyones gifts for service are recognised, encouraged and developed to their maximum potential?
For a long time it has seemed to me that small groups is a biblical and practical way to cover several of these issues in one solution, particularly fellowship, prayer and studying the Bible. But I am aware that for others the current large midweek prayer meeting and Bible study for the whole church is also a valuable and important part of our church life. Perhaps we need to move beyond an either/or mindset to a both/and mindset?
Coming up with ideas is a human skill. Coming to agreement and moving forward together as congregation is the work of the Holy Spirit. Let us pray for his guidance in the days ahead.
I have been thinking a lot recently about the church. Not so much the church worldwide or nationally, but our local church. I’ve been thinking about and asking myself a lot of questions about us. Hard questions, like why don’t more people want to come and worship with us, or even better, join us and become part of the church family. We give thanks for those who do come with all our hearts. But why don’t more people come?
After all, I think we are a welcoming and friendly congregation and I know how eager we are to see more people coming along to our services and other events. We are a strong and committed congregation – strong in our faith and committed to doing God’s work in our part of the city. And I believe we are a loving and caring church too.
But there’s a hard fact that we have to face. In the past three years we have been shrinking as a congregation. Recently some have left because they do not want to stay in the Church of Scotland. I believe many others left before that because they were not happy with the ministry of our soon to be departed minister. Most of us stayed put and wait upon the Lord's leading for the next part of our story to be written.
I know full well that if God wills it, he can send a revival and save a thousand souls. He can fill our church with new life and new Christians by the hundreds if he wants to. And we pray that he will! But, what if God is waiting until we show our willingness to change and go further as a congregation to bring people to Christ? God has always also worked through the work and witness of his people. Sometimes he waits until we give our lives to his service and to mission. He might be waiting to act until we decide what our priority is as a church, until we decide we are willing to change ourselves and the way we do things, so that he can then do a new thing through us. As he said to the prophet Isaiah:
“Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.“ (Isaiah 43:18-19, NIV)
The question we all have to face is whether we are ready and willing to change, to give up certain things, to have “dead wood” cut away from the stump of the tree so that new growth can flourish?
What things do I have in mind? Well I don’t have all the answers. I think this is a discussion we need to have with each other within our congregation. We all need to be willing to give and take, learn from each other, and take up different ideas. Here are just a few ideas to get the discussion started.
Faith. Unless we have a real, living faith in Jesus Christ ourselves, unless we know Christ as our Saviour and Lord, brother and friend, how can we really tell other people about him? Unless we understand the gospel, believe it and live it out in our lives, how can we really tell anyone outside the church that we have good news for them? This means that opening up the Scriptures, whether in Sunday preaching or midweek Bible study, must be at the heart of what we do.
Worship. We need to worship God in accordance with God’s word. But are there parts of our worship that people from outside the church would find hard to understand, or difficult to engage with? Do we have things that are merely our traditions rather than God’s commands? Could we do worship differently at some of our services if this would be more interesting or easy to understand for people who are not used to going to church? Is it a good use of our resources to have two Sunday services following almost exactly the same format?
Communication. Those of us who have been going to church for years are comfortable with church language that we use all the time. Do we need to take time to consider that not everyone knows what our church language means or how our church works? Can we find ways of communicating the truth of God’s word in ways that are more meaningful to people who are not used to reading the Bible or going to church? Should we better at explaining how our church is governed and what decisions have been made?
Prayer. Prayer has always been central to our congregation life and we need to go on in prayer if we want to become a growing congregation again. The apostles were constantly telling Christians in New Testament times to pray for one another. Do we need any new systems to enable us to pray for each other and for what we need as a congregation? Do we need to think of ways to boost our prayer life beyond the traditional prayer meeting?
Fellowship. If the churches in the New Testament were anything they were communities. We are God’s family and we need to be as close to each other as any blood family. Are we ready to share our lives with each other, allowing each other to see and to share in our joys and sorrows? Or are we too proud to let our guard down? Too scared of what people will think of us, to be really honest with each other when we have problems, doubts, sadness, or pain? If we don’t live as a family, as God’s community, really loving each other and showing it, how can we convince anyone outside the church that we really love them?
Service. One of the most effective ways of touching the lives of those outside the church is by helping and caring for them in practical ways. In this Jesus is our prime example. As well as teaching people, Christ helped people in very practical ways. He cured the sick, he fed the hungry, he comforted the broken. How can we find ways of doing that for people that we want to reach and bring into God’s kingdom? Equally how can we serve those who have limited or no material needs? How do we ensure that everyones gifts for service are recognised, encouraged and developed to their maximum potential?
For a long time it has seemed to me that small groups is a biblical and practical way to cover several of these issues in one solution, particularly fellowship, prayer and studying the Bible. But I am aware that for others the current large midweek prayer meeting and Bible study for the whole church is also a valuable and important part of our church life. Perhaps we need to move beyond an either/or mindset to a both/and mindset?
Coming up with ideas is a human skill. Coming to agreement and moving forward together as congregation is the work of the Holy Spirit. Let us pray for his guidance in the days ahead.
Saturday, 26 August 2017
A Fellowship of Differents
A Fellowship of Differents
Scot McKnight
Zondervan, 2014
Scot McKnight
Zondervan, 2014
I have read a number of books by the American New Testament scholar, Scot McKnight, and have never found one that wasn't both interesting and useful. His book A Fellowship of Differents was no exception. As the title might suggest, the theme of the book is that the Christian Church is supposed to be a fellowship of people who are all very different from one another. Different sexes, races, nationalities, social classes and temperaments all coming together in a shared life as God's new community and new humanity through faith in Jesus Christ.
The book's subtitle is "Showing the World God's Design for Life Together" and that captures one of the book's key themes - the importance of sharing life together as Christians. As the author makes clear, God's church is intended to show the world a new way of being human and form a new community composed of followers of Jesus, and most importantly, that this isn't some high-flying spiritual theory - it is meant to be lived out in practice at each local gathering or congregation of Christ's people, namely at the local church where you go on Sunday morning or to events during the week.
Somehow, McKnight manages to make this a practical look at what church should really be like and a theological reflection on why this should be so. Above all, it is realistic about what our expectations of our local church should be.
At a time when my own local church is facing issues of people leaving because the denomination to which we belong is deemed by them to be unworthy of their continued membership and support, I was particularly struck by a profound quote in the book from Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "Those who love their dream of a Christian community more than the Christian community itself become destroyers of that Christian community though their personal intentions may be ever so honest, earnest, and sacrificial" (p.112, from Life Together). McKnight's point is that we cannot desert the real churches that we find down the street from where we live in pursuit of an imaginary church where everything is perfect: perfect doctrines, perfect worship, perfect people. Such a quest is not only delusional, but damaging to the real church.
I was also fascinated and moved by a passage where McKnight describes a "typical" church service in New Testament times, maybe in a Roman city like Rome or Pompeii. The passage is too long to quote (pp. 100-102), but it describes a Roman woman going along to a church meeting in a rich person's house, seeing people from all different Roman classes sitting together and sharing in a meal together (in these times communion was taken as part of an actual meal, not in the ritualised form of "meal" we find in most modern churches). Such an act was revolutionary in Roman society where it was unthinkable for wealthy patricians and common slaves to sit at a table for a meal which celebrates God's grace for people through the death of the Messiah on the cross, and they take the bread and wine as equals and—perhaps even more amazingly—as a family gathering together.
Throughout the book, the author blends teaching with examples of real people in real churches, which also help to keep the book grounded in practical realities as the discussion moves through a number of different subjects including grace, love, communion, holiness, new life and the Holy Spirit—and there are useful insights on each of these subjects along the way.
This book would be great for anyone interested in the importance of their local church, maybe especially for anyone who is a bit jaded and needs to be reminded that the events in that building you go to, and the interactions you have with the people there (yes, even the odd ones, the strange ones, the ones who are as unlike you as you can imagine), despite how it might seem, are actually God's chosen mechanism for changing the world and making a new humanity. Think about that next Sunday and every Sunday in your local church.
Tuesday, 23 May 2017
Manchester Bombing
Last night it appears that a suicide bomber detonated a device at the Manchester Arena near the end of a pop concert. The reports today indicate that 22 people were killed and around sixty people have been injured; it is believed that some of the casualties were young children. We do not yet know the identity or motivation of the bomber, though there is already speculation that this has the hallmarks of another so-called Islamic State atrocity.
Our prayers are with the victims, the emergency services and the health care professionals.
Every time there is a terrorist attack like this my first thought is that we must carry on as before and somehow just soak up the deaths and the maiming and the terror as a society because we believe in freedom and there's a price to pay for that belief in a world when so many fanatics hate freedom. If we give in to the haters, if we change things, then we are letting the terrorists win. They want to foment conflict between communities. They want war between Islam and the West. They want all Muslims to think as they do. They want us to think all Muslims are like them.
Our hardest fight is against their evil ideology. But we will fight on, and we will win, because our love for life and our fellow human beings is a lot stronger than their barbaric hatred. They do not know the mentality of the British people if these fanatics think otherwise.
My second thought is what do we do about these things? Can anything be done without giving the terrorists what they want?
There no easy answers. I know what we must not do. We must not turn ourselves into a police state and destroy the very freedom the terrorists also hate. There is no level of security high enough to stop attacks like this anyway. And we must not blame innocent people for the crimes of guilty people just because they share the same religion or have the same ethnic background. To do so would be unjust, counterproductive and make our country into the kind of place the terrorists long for.
One thing we can do is explore what makes people do these things and seek to counter their ideology. This is especially important if we can reach people before they reach the would-be terrorist stage You cannot seek to change people's minds or stop people ending up thinking a certain way until you understand them. And this both a political and a theological understanding. We then must put effort into countering these ideas and showing why they are wrong. We need the help of good Muslims to achieve this, including Islamic theologians and preachers.
But the other thing we must do is show zero tolerance of incitement to violence. Notice I do not say zero tolerance of "extremism". Extremism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In a free country, anyone should be able to believe anything they want, however extreme or unpleasant we may find it. But, as soon as someone inciting others to acts of violence, the law needs to step in without pussyfooting around for fear of being labelled racist. We need to impose long prison sentences on anyone who is proven to have incited, aided or sheltered terrorists. This includes anyone who knows about terrorist plans and does nothing to try to stop it.
Our hearts are with the victims in Manchester today. Our heads need to be focused on defeating terrorism in ways which do not destroy the very things we cherish most about our society and culture.
Our prayers are with the victims, the emergency services and the health care professionals.
Every time there is a terrorist attack like this my first thought is that we must carry on as before and somehow just soak up the deaths and the maiming and the terror as a society because we believe in freedom and there's a price to pay for that belief in a world when so many fanatics hate freedom. If we give in to the haters, if we change things, then we are letting the terrorists win. They want to foment conflict between communities. They want war between Islam and the West. They want all Muslims to think as they do. They want us to think all Muslims are like them.
Our hardest fight is against their evil ideology. But we will fight on, and we will win, because our love for life and our fellow human beings is a lot stronger than their barbaric hatred. They do not know the mentality of the British people if these fanatics think otherwise.
My second thought is what do we do about these things? Can anything be done without giving the terrorists what they want?
There no easy answers. I know what we must not do. We must not turn ourselves into a police state and destroy the very freedom the terrorists also hate. There is no level of security high enough to stop attacks like this anyway. And we must not blame innocent people for the crimes of guilty people just because they share the same religion or have the same ethnic background. To do so would be unjust, counterproductive and make our country into the kind of place the terrorists long for.
One thing we can do is explore what makes people do these things and seek to counter their ideology. This is especially important if we can reach people before they reach the would-be terrorist stage You cannot seek to change people's minds or stop people ending up thinking a certain way until you understand them. And this both a political and a theological understanding. We then must put effort into countering these ideas and showing why they are wrong. We need the help of good Muslims to achieve this, including Islamic theologians and preachers.
But the other thing we must do is show zero tolerance of incitement to violence. Notice I do not say zero tolerance of "extremism". Extremism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In a free country, anyone should be able to believe anything they want, however extreme or unpleasant we may find it. But, as soon as someone inciting others to acts of violence, the law needs to step in without pussyfooting around for fear of being labelled racist. We need to impose long prison sentences on anyone who is proven to have incited, aided or sheltered terrorists. This includes anyone who knows about terrorist plans and does nothing to try to stop it.
Our hearts are with the victims in Manchester today. Our heads need to be focused on defeating terrorism in ways which do not destroy the very things we cherish most about our society and culture.
Friday, 31 March 2017
God's Covenant Love (Repost)
One of the most important words used in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word "Chesed". It signifies God's covenant love for his people Israel. The word occurs some 245 times in the Old Testament, across 27 out of 39 Old Testament books, over a hundred times in the Psalms alone.
In older English translations, the word was often translated as "mercy" but actually the scope of the this word is wider and deeper than the word "mercy" or "compassion" conveys in English. Modern English translations usually try to convey the greater depth of richness and complexity in this word. They tend to use a number of different words and phrases to try to capture the essence of "Chesed". Taking a number of translations together gives us a good impression of what one of the key terms in the Old Testament means.
Below are a list of different translations together with the Bible translations in which they are found.
"mercy" - KJV, NKJV
"love" - NIV
"great love" - GNB, NCV, CEV
"faithful love" - CSB
"constant love" - REB
"lovingkindness" - ASV, NASB, AMP
"steadfast love" - RSV, ESV, NRSV
"loyal love" - NET, LEB
"unfailing love" - NLT
"loyalty" - CEB
"gracious love" - ISV
No one of these translations captures all the depth of meaning in chesed. But together they give a wonderful picture of God's covenant love. It is great, faithful, constant, steadfast, loyal and unfailing lovingkindness. It is the love that saves. The love that gives. The love that sends the Son to be our Lord and Saviour.
In older English translations, the word was often translated as "mercy" but actually the scope of the this word is wider and deeper than the word "mercy" or "compassion" conveys in English. Modern English translations usually try to convey the greater depth of richness and complexity in this word. They tend to use a number of different words and phrases to try to capture the essence of "Chesed". Taking a number of translations together gives us a good impression of what one of the key terms in the Old Testament means.
Below are a list of different translations together with the Bible translations in which they are found.
"mercy" - KJV, NKJV
"love" - NIV
"great love" - GNB, NCV, CEV
"faithful love" - CSB
"constant love" - REB
"lovingkindness" - ASV, NASB, AMP
"steadfast love" - RSV, ESV, NRSV
"loyal love" - NET, LEB
"unfailing love" - NLT
"loyalty" - CEB
"gracious love" - ISV
No one of these translations captures all the depth of meaning in chesed. But together they give a wonderful picture of God's covenant love. It is great, faithful, constant, steadfast, loyal and unfailing lovingkindness. It is the love that saves. The love that gives. The love that sends the Son to be our Lord and Saviour.
Monday, 9 January 2017
Wednesday, 4 January 2017
Festive Illness
I hope you had a great Christmas and I wish you a happy new year for 2017.
As for me, I've been ill since before Christmas with a heavy cold and then a chest infection which has been hard to shift. I'm hoping the second lot of antibiotics will do the trick, but I'm still coughing a lot today and have not yet made it back to work.
It was strange to have to miss going to church right through the festive period. I think I was last at church around 11th December. It's the first year I can remember when I don't think I sang a single Christmas carol or heard a Christmas sermon. And now I've missed the new year sermons as well.
It struck me that my Christmas experience this year was exactly that of most people in Scotland today - a Christmas without so much as "darkening the door" of a church. The big difference being that my absence was forced upon me by illness; most people's is voluntary. Many churches are looking to give a special welcome to visitors at Christmas, but relatively few come, which is sad for everyone.
I also got a glimpse into the lives of people who cannot get to church because of illness. It made me see how important it is to bring church to people who can't come to church. That is something I don't think most churches think about nearly enough.
As we come to Epiphany on 6th January, we continue to remember the message of Christmas, that God became a human being in that baby in the manger is good news for all year round, for all of humanity of every race and nation, and for all eternity.
As for me, I've been ill since before Christmas with a heavy cold and then a chest infection which has been hard to shift. I'm hoping the second lot of antibiotics will do the trick, but I'm still coughing a lot today and have not yet made it back to work.
It was strange to have to miss going to church right through the festive period. I think I was last at church around 11th December. It's the first year I can remember when I don't think I sang a single Christmas carol or heard a Christmas sermon. And now I've missed the new year sermons as well.
It struck me that my Christmas experience this year was exactly that of most people in Scotland today - a Christmas without so much as "darkening the door" of a church. The big difference being that my absence was forced upon me by illness; most people's is voluntary. Many churches are looking to give a special welcome to visitors at Christmas, but relatively few come, which is sad for everyone.
I also got a glimpse into the lives of people who cannot get to church because of illness. It made me see how important it is to bring church to people who can't come to church. That is something I don't think most churches think about nearly enough.
As we come to Epiphany on 6th January, we continue to remember the message of Christmas, that God became a human being in that baby in the manger is good news for all year round, for all of humanity of every race and nation, and for all eternity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)