Generous Justice (Repost)

Generous Justice
Timothy Keller
Hodder & Stoughton 2010

I have recently re-read this book and have to say I still agree with my own review of it from a couple of years ago. I think it is worth reposting.

I've pretty much enjoyed everything I've ever read by Tim Keller and Generous Justice is no exception. It seems to me that Keller's central thesis in this book is crucial in our time to the health, vitality and witness of the churches, particularly the evangelical churches, who perhaps need to hear this message most. Keller's thesis is simply that doing justice, in our daily lives as Christians at a personal, social and societal level, is a necessary outworking of the grace of God we have experienced through the gospel.

Keller writes in the introduction for example: "There is a direct relationship between a person's grasp and experience of God's grace, and his or her heart for justice and the poor...I have observed over decades that when people see the beauty of God's grace in Christ, it leads them powerfully towards justice." (p. xix).

It is immediately apparent that Keller wants to challenge several wrong views. To begin with he challenges the secular voices that claim that the Bible is somehow a hindrance to establishing justice in our world. But more interestingly from my point of view, he also challenges the still all-too-typical evangelical mindset that sees the church's true biblical role as "saving souls" and teaching correct doctrines, especially salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone. For too long there has been a false dichotomy in many churches between the evangelical gospel of salvation and the so-called liberal gospel of social justice. Keller is a Reformed theologian and minister of an evangelical Presbyterian church, yet he correctly sees that social justice is fundamental to the church's mission, not as a replacement for the gospel (which is where liberal Christians go wrong) but as a necessary outworking of the gospel.
The rest of the book explores a variety of angles of justice to give a rounded picture of the biblical material.

To begin with, Keller looks to define "justice" and finds that in the Bible it is about far more than simply punishing sinners. Again, too often in evangelical circles, "justice" is restricted to enforcing morality and punishing wrongdoers and we can end up looking simply like the religious equivalent of the "hang 'em and flog 'em brigade"! No, biblical justice is more akin to "social justice" that looks after the poor, the widow and the fatherless. It is about doing what is right for everyone and about living in a "harmonious peace" (as Keller defines the key Hebrew concept of shalom) with our fellow human beings and with all creation. It is about fair treatment of immigrants. It is about making sure workers are paid fair wages and work in decent conditions. The list of applications of the biblical principles could go on and on. Keller also points out that justice in biblical terms is not about doing the bare minimum of good for others, it should be generous. Why? Because when we act like that we reflect God's own character. The Scriptures say that God is on the side with the weak, the poor and the oppressed. And as we claim to be the people of God, so should we.

Later chapters highlights material from the Old Testament, especially the prophets, and the New Testament, especially the teachings of Christ himself, that all back-up the point of view outlined. Keller's treatment of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was a particular highlight.

A later chapter in the book called "How Should We Do Justice?" is very practical and very challenging. In it, Keller gets down to the nitty-gritty of actually putting the theory into practice and I found it useful when he talks about three levels of doing justice called "relief, development and social reform" and how Christians are called to involvement at all three levels. Relief is immediate help given to someone in need. Development is longer term involvement to help someone in need improve things so the need no longer exists. Social reform challenges governments to change the law and/or society to stop the situation that caused the need from happening in the first place. In the example of the old proverb, relief is giving a man a fish, development is giving a man a fishing rod and teaching him to fish, social reform questions the government why the poor have to live off fish while others have plenty to eat.

The book ends with a chapter where Keller links peace, justice and beauty and reiterates the link between the gospel of grace and living out a gospel life of grace that seeks justice for others (in the true biblical scope) and closes with a final challenge to us as Christians. In essence, if we have received so much blessing from God's hand, shouldn't we be more willing to bless others from our hands? In Keller's own words:

Proverbs 14:31 says, "He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker." The God of the Bible says, as it were, "I am the poor on your step. Your attitude towards them reveals your true attitude toward me." A life poured out in doing justice for the poor is the inevitable sign of any real, true gospel faith.

Now, if that doesn't challenge any Western Christian who reads it, what will?

Merry Christmas

With only a few hours to go before Christmas Day in the UK, I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and send you a Christmas blessing:

May the joy of the angels,
the eagerness of the shepherds,
the perseverance of the wise men,
the obedience of Joseph and Mary,
and the peace of the Christ child
be yours this Christmas.

Amen.

Dangerous Freedom

A year ago today, Glasgow was shocked by the tragic accident in which a bin lorry went out of control, killing a number of Christmas shoppers and injuring many more.

Today we remember those who lost their lives and those still alive whose lives will never be the same again.

It is not often I quote Roman Catholic archbishops, but I still recall the words of Philip Tartaglia at the funeral of some of the victims. I thought he managed to convey a deep theological truth in his words of comfort, and touched on something of the relationship between divine providence and human freedom that still resonates with me. It certainly challenges the "God did this/blame God" mentality that many people seem to accept, sadly even many Christians, whenever tragic loss of life occurs. The archbishop said:

God created us for life and freedom. And in this life we are free. We move as we wish. We are not puppets on a string, not robots controlled from afar. At the same time we are not indestructible, not immune from forces which are too much for us. Our bodies cannot survive everything here on earth. These are the limitations of the human condition.*

Great freedom gives us the scope for great joy, love and compassion, but it also gives scope for great evil, danger and loss. We saw the dangers last year on the streets of Glasgow, but we saw also great love and compassion in the response of the people of Glasgow afterwards and it is in the human capacity to love that we find the deepest reason for why God has granted the sometimes dangerous but priceless gift of freedom.

__

* Philip Tartaglia's funeral address was reported in The Scotsman on 3rd January 2015.

Advent

Today is Advent Sunday. The beginning of a new Christian year and the period when many Christians focus their thoughts on the future "coming" of the Lord ("coming" is what "advent" means).

This takes place in a twofold sense. First, of waiting and looking forward to Christmas and perhaps placing our selves in the position of the nation of Israel waiting for the Messiah to come and then celebrating that coming at Christmas. But secondly, of waiting and looking forward to Jesus the Messiah coming again at the end of time, to judge the world, save his people, and usher in the new heavens and the new earth that is the Christian hope - not so much "life after death", but life after life after death as Tom Wright memorably puts it.

It is this hope and expectation that Paul says the whole of creation, not just God's people, is longing for (see Romans 8:18-30).

This advent, I look forward to singing the great advent hymn "O come, O come, Emmanuel" looking back to the preparation for Christmas and waiting for the Messiah's birth, but the words also help us look forward to Christ's second coming in triumph and glory, when he will make all things new and finally "close the path to misery" as the hymn puts it, once and for all.

The Usefulness of Church Buildings

I have often heard preachers say that according to the Bible "the Church is people, not buildings." Of course such a statement is perfectly true and accurate. The Church according to the New Testament is people. The word translated as "church" (ekklesia) in English bibles really means a "gathering" or "assembly" [of people]. It was applied by New Testament writers to the gathering or assembly of Christians as God's "saints" or "holy people". For this reason, William Tyndale, when he first translated the New Testament into English used the word "congregation" to accurately translate ekklesia.

However, when it came to the translation of the King James Bible in 1611, the King insisted that the word "church" be used rather than congregation or assembly because he was keen to emphasise the powerful institution of which he saw himself as the head on earth, and the tradition of using "church" in English bibles has continued to the present day.

In New Testament times there were no "church buildings". Churches met mainly in people's homes or perhaps sometimes in the open air. And so preachers are correct to point out to us modern Christians, who have grown up with at least 1500 years of a culture in which "church" has come to mean the building where a congregation gathers to worship God as well as serve other people, that when we read "church" in the Bible, we should be thinking of a "congregation" or "assembly" meaning a gathering of God's people and certainly not buildings or even institutions in the modern sense.

Thus far so good. But where problems can arise is in the implications that preachers then want to draw out from the truth. Most preachers I would say simply want to remind us that people are more important than bricks and mortar and that is fine. Who could object to that? However, some people seem to suggest that because the church is people not buildings then somehow buildings do not matter. That implication is not true. Even worse, is where we go a step further and the undertone is that if we are at all interested in our buildings we are somehow less spiritual than those who seem to have no attachment whatsoever to their place of worship. I think that view is open to serious criticism because it is inherently judgemental of others, prideful of self, and can be spiritually manipulative.

Let me clear: I agree that the Church is people and people are more important than buildings. Always. But a congregation having a church building is a good thing and is extremely useful to the work of the congregation and I will go into a few particulars as to why this is. As so often in life, if a good thing is misused, the answer is not to reject the good thing entirely, but to reform its use so that also becomes good.

Here are five reasons why it matters that a congregation has a good and useful building to call home and operate from.

1. Because we are physical beings and places matter. God has made us a unity of body and spirit and so, to put it plainly, spaces matter. We are not incorporeal spirits. We are, literally, "of the earth" (which is what Adam means in Hebrew by the way). We are grounded in physical surroundings. And so the place we inhabit, individually and corporately as a congregation is important. Now it is true that we can gather anywhere to worship God. We can gather in a school hall, in a living room, in an open field and we will still be the church. But that does not mean that it is not better to have a dedicated building for worship, teaching, outreach and service. The analogy I would make is eating a meal. I can perfectly well eat lunch at my desk at work, grab a sandwich and eat on the train, even eat a cold tin of beans sitting in the rain at a campsite. These are all ways that validly constitute eating a meal. But that is not to say that eating a meal in a lovely bistro or at my own dining table at home is not better or preferable. So the first reason why church buildings matter is because they create (or should create) a warm, comfortable, suitable place to conduct the church's activities in a better way than other ad hoc alternatives.

2. Because a church building is more conducive to worship. A building that is designed for the purpose for which it is used is much more likely to meet those needs than a building which is not. The fact that most church buildings are designed for the worship of God and for the church's other activities almost always makes them more useful than a generic, utilitarian hall. The advantages in having a church building in this regard are many. They include acoustics designed to enhance the experience of congregational singing, decor and artwork which helps create an atmosphere conducive to worship and makes use of Christian symbolism to emphasise that the building is there for Christian purposes, church furniture designed to enhance or aid the conduct of worship services, e.g. pulpit, communion table, baptismal font, etc. While I agree that none of these things are essential, this does not mean that they are useless. While it is true that a church can meet in a school hall or a disused cinema or any large room with seating, this does not mean that such places are as good as a dedicated church building.

3. Because a building is a landmark in a local area. Another advantage in having a recognised church building is that it forms a landmark for those in the local area outside of the church. A building is a physical reminder that the church is there for people in a much more tangible way than a fellowship that only meets in people's homes or in a hired hall once a week. Again, if the church has to operate in this way, there is no problem with that, but the question is whether it is not preferable and beneficial to have a dedicated building. The answer to that is very obviously, "yes." It is all too easy for a church without a building to "disappear" from the awareness of outsiders. "Where exactly does that group meet? And when? I'm not sure." It is hard enough to get outsiders to come to events without it being unclear exactly where and when meetings are held. Having a building grounds the church in a community and makes a statement that the congregation is committed to that area.

4. Because they allow a church to conduct a full range of activities. One of the most significant advantages in having a church building is that the congregation is able to decide for itself what events and meetings to hold without having to consult with anyone else. For a church using a hired hall, this is not the case. Such a church may be very restricted in what activities it can put on or host during a typical week. But a fellowship with its own building is free to have as many services, bible study groups, prayer meetings, social events, or any other meeting they feel would be beneficial.

5. Because we should not despise the good gifts God has given us. My final point is not so much regarding the usefulness of having a church building, but rather to point out the fact that every congregation with a building should see it as a good gift given to it by the Lord. As such the correct attitude is one of thankfulness and determination to be good stewards of a crucial resource, not despising the gift, or thinking it a matter of indifference whether a congregation has a place to call its own or not.

In closing, I would say the relationship between a congregation and its building is very similar to that of a family and its home. It is very true that the family is not the house where they live, and the family is infinitely more important than their house. It is also true that the family exists whether or not it even has a house. A homeless family is still a family. But it is not at all true to say that having a house is of no consequence to the family at all. Such a statement would be absurd. Almost everything that family life consists of is helped, accommodated and facilitated by having a home. A homeless family is not, all other things being equal, in as happy a position as a family that has a home to live in. I don't think the situation is all that different for God's family.

So, let us be thankful for the buildings God has given us; let us look after them and appreciate them; and let us use them for the work and witness of the church, to his glory.

Time for a New Political Party in Scotland?

I think the time is now right for a new political party to be formed in Scotland. This new party should be distinctively Scottish, unashamedly Unionist, a champion of personal liberty and offer a centre-right alternative to the left wing hegemony in Scotland. This principled stance would place the party in stark contrast to the SNP which is nationalist of course, with deeply authoritarian tendencies, and appears now to be firmly entrenched on the political left (more for expedience than principle).

In my view this new party should replace the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats north of the border, and these old parties should be disbanded. A number of Labour supporters might also be attracted to a party that puts the Union front and centre of its thinking on constitutional matters.

The new party would need a new name of course as part of a new identity. "The Unionist Party of Scotland" sounds like a good name to me and has strong echoes of the pre-1965 "Unionist Party" which was the name of the old, independent Scottish party of conservatism before it was subsumed into the UK Conservative Party. The pre-1965 Unionist Party is still the only party to gain more than 50% of the vote in Scotland (at the 1955 election) even after the 2015 general election's seismic event.

In the wake of the general election results in Scotland, in which the Scottish National Party gained 56 out of 59 seats (95% of seats) on the basis of just shy of 50% of the vote, I think the time is right for a fundamental re-alignment in Scottish politics and the formation of a new political party to replace some of the ineffective parties we have at the moment. This re-alignment is in the national interest, if for no other reason than to prevent the country becoming effectively a nationalist fiefdom in terms of its elected representatives.

As a result of the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, it is clear that the minority 45% who voted "Yes" have largely coalesced around the SNP, while the 55% majority vote is split among Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, with probably a few also switching directly to voting SNP this time. This gives the SNP a massive electoral advantage. As has been pointed out, in a two-way referendum question, 45% is a fairly large defeat; but in a general election 45% of the vote will produce a big win in a three or four party system. (Of course the SNP went even beyond this figure in the general election getting close to 50% of the vote, albeit on a reduced turnout.)

Although this will probably be the high water mark of SNP support (though recent polls suggest support may even have increased since the General Election), I certainly do not foresee their share of the vote dropping below say 40% nationally in the next 5–10 years.

At the present time, the unionist vote is split at least three ways, with the Labour Party currently gaining about 25% support, the Conservative Party on around 15% support and the Liberal Democrats bottoming out at around 5%.

In my view, the "Conservative" or "Tory" brand is finished in Scotland, being irredeemably tainted by association with the hated Thatcher government in the 1980s. This does not mean that centre right politics have nothing to offer the Scottish people. With a good leader in Ruth Davidson and other decent parliamentarians like Murdo Fraser, the problem with the Scottish Conservatives is not people, but the toxic branding of the party.

The time is right to decide where conservatism goes in the future. In my view they have two options. The current Conservative Party can carry on as is, gaining around 15% of the vote, splitting the Unionist vote and being the third or fourth party in Holyrood while returning 1 or 2 MPs to Westminster. Or it can seek to break with the past (a hard thing for conservatives to do admittedly) and seek to take centre right politics forward in a new way in Scotland.

If, God forbid, in the future Scotland ends up as the high tax, high public spending, authoritarian socialist utopia of SNP dreams, the need for a realistic alternative to the left wing hegemony will only become greater in future years. But such is the visceral reaction against the Tories for many Scots that the case for achieving desired objectives for a good society by non-socialist means cannot properly be presented to the people for them to consider on merit.

For other reasons, the Liberal Democrats also look like a spent force. They really offer nothing distinctive from what is already found in either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party and any caché from being "not Labour" in Conservative areas and "not Conservative" in Labour areas has been blown away, probably for good. In addition, the core liberal commitment to personal freedom is equally shared by the other Unionist parties, particularly by modern, moderate conservatives.

The Labour party is in a different position. Their long term future still remains in doubt. In five years' time, if you add 10% on the Labour vote and deduct 10% off the SNP, then you are looking at Labour on 35% and SNP on 40% with everything to play for. Perhaps, but perhaps not. It is simply not yet clear whether the 2015 election was merely a deep hole from which Labour can bounce back or whether it was an indicator of terminal decline. The fact is that apart from constitutional issues, there is little difference politically between the SNP and Labour anyway. The two leading parties are both vying for more or less the same spot on the political spectrum. It is inconceivable at the moment to imagine a merger between Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives as they have fundamental differences that run deeper than their agreement that Scotland should be part of the United Kingdom. So this new party will not include Labour, though it may attract Labour members and many "Labour" voters. But a strong Unionist Party would offer a clear choice to the electorate, being distinct from what Labour and the SNP offer.

So what does the new party need in order to succeed? I would suggest the following four elements would be a good start.

1. The Party must be independently Scottish

At the moment the unionist parties in Scotland are perceived as being the Scottish "branch offices" of English parties. This needs to be changed in principle and in practice. The new party must be inherently Scottish in identity. Its first duty must be to Scotland and the Scottish people and it must be a wholly independent entity from any party in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It should seek election to local councils in Scotland, to the Scottish Parliament as a potential Scottish government or coalition partner, and to the United Kingdom Parliament as a separate political party representing Scottish unionists. This means the party will have its own policies and agendas that do no necessarily align with English parties, and though it may forge alliances with other parties, it will never place any partnership with others above its solemn covenant with the Scottish people.

Such a move would allow the party to make a serious challenge to the SNP's mantra that only it somehow represents the best interests of the Scottish people or has the right to the mantle of Scottish patriotism, both of which seem to have had quite a bit of traction in the public mind. I believe this alone would take a significant bite out of the SNP vote, especially in rural Scotland.

A Scottish moderate centre-right party would likely be an ally of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons, but it should not take the Tory whip and always remain an independent bloc of MPs within Parliament. A Conservative government in the UK would find friends in this new party and could likely rely on its support on many issues, but could not depend on unconditional support. Good Scottish friends would still be free to offer constructive criticism or disagreement where needed.

2. The Party must be staunchly Unionist

The new party should position itself as a unabashed defender of the Union with the rest of the United Kingdom because the Union has always been and always will be in Scotland's best interests. Modern unionism has to move beyond defending the status quo, even though the strength the Union has been shown time and again over the past 300 years, and go on the attack to promote the Union in Scotland and champion a permanent federal settlement between the four nations of the UK. The party should aim to be the "natural home" of the majority "No" voters in the referendum in 2014.

A positive future for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom would be one of the main ideological divides between the new party and the SNP.

Within a federal UK, each constituent nation should have a high level of economic and social autonomy, while pooling resources where this is deemed to be advantageous. Foreign affairs and defence would be the two most obvious areas for the federal government, but some tax and benefits may also best be organised at the British level.

Emphasising the need for a strong union that is elastic enough to allow the four nations to do things their own way is the best way to counter the narrowness of nationalism, which can only look increasingly outdated in a modern, globalised world.

3. The Party must be a champion of Liberty

One of the disturbing trends of the SNP government at Holyrood is how authoritarian its tendencies are. The SNP as a party of the left believes in the nanny state which will not only look after its citizens, but tell them how to live their lives and make sure they do so, backed up by the the State's power to punish non-conformity.

The prime example of this at the moment is the "Named Persons Scheme" whereby every child in Scotland will be appointed with a State Guardian to look after their interests. This guardian (most likely a health or education professional) will have sweeping powers that can be exercised without parental consent and even without parental knowledge.

The new party should be at the forefront of a campaign to keep the Scottish people free from the tyranny of the nanny state and lefty do-gooders in the SNP.

The new party should position itself as being on the side of the ordinary person and against the politically correct elites.

Similarly the party should oppose any future schemes to erode civil liberties such as attempts to abolish the need for corroboration in criminal law, any attempt to introduce compulsory ID cards, and so forth. The new party should champion traditional freedoms enjoyed by all the British people and oppose all moves which threaten freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion or freedom of assembly.

For the SNP, the only "freedom" they value is the false freedom of independence from the rest of the United Kingdom. For the new party, "freedom" must first and foremost be championed for the people against a centralising, interfering State.

The principle for this stance is simple. Liberty is supremely valuable and needs to be defended. Lord Acton observed that "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." That should be the principle running through the new party like letters through seaside rock.

A strong stance on personal liberty against the power of the state would likely attract many liberal-minded Scots.

4. The Party must offer a moderate centre-right vision for Scotland

There is a "social democratic" consensus in Scottish politics. The two main parties in Scotland for the last 40 years are both centre-left parties (the SNP and Labour) which are in essential agreement on all political, economic and social issues, except for the question of Scotland's place in the United Kingdom. Both essentially see the State as the great benefactor of the people and the solution to any problem confronting Scotland lying in higher taxation and public spending. Because of this, the parties of the left are willing to give the State almost limitless power and resources to achieve their objectives.

Scotland needs a voice that proclaims a different narrative and a different vision: a one-nation, moderate, centre-right political viewpoint. A voice that points out that the State is no more a guarantor of the common good that any other flawed human institution. A voice that stands up for the importance of non-State institutions that are also working for the common good, often better than the State, including most importantly: the family, churches and other faith groups, community groups, charities, businesses and many other non-state associations and organisations. A voice that points out that when the State becomes too big, rather than promoting the welfare of the nation, it gets in the way of the nation's welfare. A voice that challenges the consensus that high levels of taxation are automatically in the public interest.

In short, Scotland badly needs a political voice that offers a centre-right alternative to the left wing consensus. That voice cannot be the Conservative Party because too few Scots are willing to listen to it, often due to historical events and a collective recollection of how bad the 1980s were in much of Scotland's industrial heartland. Whether the recollection is fair and accurate or not is beside the point. A new voice is needed to give centre-right ideas a fair hearing, that the best way forward for the Scottish people, including the poorest in the country, lies in a small but efficient government, low taxation, a thriving economy, and maximum freedom for the individual consistent with social harmony and the common good. Scotland needs a party which stands up for traditional values and is proud of our past; a party which is wary of changing long-cherished institutions and values our Judeo-Christian heritage as the non-negotiable foundation of our way of life; a party which is pro-family, pro-business, and for ordinary working people; a party which is willing to look after the interests of rural Scotland and farming communities and protect the environment as a heritage for future generations.

Although the Conservative Party might be finished in Scotland this does not mean that conservatism (with a small c) should not have an important part to play in the future of Scottish politics. Indeed, if only to give a different point of view, such a voice is vital in a healthy, liberal democracy.

I think a new party with these principles and with policies to match them would be attractive to many Scots and could make a significant impact electorally on Scottish politics. I think it would likely garner almost all the current Scottish conservative vote, most of the Liberal Democrat vote (such as it is) and an increasing share from floating voters as they tire of SNP rhetoric and under achievement.

It is too late to change anything for the 2016 election, but looking ahead to the next General Election and next Scottish Parliament election after 2016, I am convinced this is where Scottish liberalism and Scottish conservatism needs to go.

The Politician's Dilemma

The current argument among the leaders of the Labour Party about whether they should back or oppose the Conservative plans on welfare reform poses a fundamental question for a democratic politician. Should you stick to your principles or listen to the electorate?

For readers who do not know the background to this, the Conservatives have just announced plans in their Budget to introduce cuts to several welfare programmes in the UK. The Labour Party is the party that traditionally supports the welfare state and would oppose such cuts which will be hard hitting on many of the poorest people in society.

The acting Labour leader, Harriet Harman, has suggested that Labour should not vote against the new measures and the reason she gives is that Labour has lost the argument over welfare reform - the Conservatives just won the general election.

I have to say that my first reaction to oppose Ms Harman's stance, not so much on the issue itself, but on the rationale given for it. (I am no great fan of the tax credits system and would favour root and branch reform of the entire tax and benefits system to something much simpler, much more efficient and more likely to help those in need - a national basic income - but that's another story.)

If someone, even a politician, believes in something - believes in a set of principles and policies that flow from those principles, why should they change their mind because the electorate did not back their party in the last election? The reasons why Labour lost the 2015 election are many, but I am willing to stick my neck out and say that Tory welfare reform proposals (which were kept deep and dark in the election campaign) is not one of them.

But suppose they were? Does that mean the losing party has to abandon their views and simply adopt what the winning party's platform was?

I didn't notice the SNP giving up on seeking independence after losing the referendum and nor should they. I didn't notice the Tories abandoning conservatism after losing three general elections in a row from 1997 to 2005. I don't think the Labour Party ought to abandon social democracy because of 2010 and 2015 either. Otherwise what is the point of the Labour Party? Just to be a nominal "alternative" to the Conservatives?

The electorate is never wrong they say. That is the nature of democracy. But does that mean a politician's principles should be blown around by whatever direction the electoral wind comes in? I don't think so. The problem with Labour last time was the leader wasn't liked and the party's programme wasn't a clear vision that the people could tap into. Both those problems can be sorted without abandoning Labour principles.

The Church and the Kingdom of God (Repost)

Have you ever wondered why the Four Gospels refer many times to "the Kingdom of God" (or "the Kingdom of heaven" in Matthew) while they only mention the church a few times, whereas Acts and the Letters from the apostles mention the church many times and the Kingdom of God is seldom mentioned? In fact "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of heaven" is mentioned in 83 verses in the Gospels and in only 14 other verses in the rest of the New Testament. "Church" on the other hand is mentioned in only two verses in the Gospels, but in 71 verses in the rest of the New Testament.

Why the massive switch from a "Kingdom" focus in Jesus' ministry in the Gospels to a "Church" focus in the ministry of the apostles?

And what exactly is the difference is between the Church and the Kingdom (if any)?

Do you think they are two ways of describing the same thing maybe? Is the church the Kingdom of God by another name?

These are the questions we're going to have a quick look at in this post.

The first thing I think we need to sort out are our definitions. If we define Church and Kingdom correctly this will help us establish the similarities and differences between the two and enable us to answer some of our questions.

A reasonable definition of “Kingdom of God” is: all spheres on earth where God’s reign and rule (or God’s government) is accepted and embraced. The Kingdom of God is already in existence through Christ, though the fullness of the Kingdom still lies in the future. On the other hand, a reasonable short definition of “Church” is: the community of all who have faith in Jesus Christ.

It is clear therefore that though there is a close relationship between Church and Kingdom, they are not the same thing. The Kingdom of God is not a synonym for the Church. The Kingdom of God – or God’s sovereign reign and rule – is an idea or concept, a state of being, a way of viewing life and the world, and a goal towards which all of history is building and moving and which Christ lived and worked to bring about. The Church is the people who are committed to following Christ, and in so doing they are people who accept the Kingdom idea and work for its growth and further realisation in history.

If we were to put it in military terms, the Church might be compared to a country's army and Christ might be compared to country’s leader and the army’s commander-in-chief. In those terms, the Kingdom of God would be both the goal or objective of the war and the totality of the territory or people where the war aims have already been established and accepted.

The Kingdom of God is therefore both a different and a much wider concept than the Church. The Kingdom includes every area of life that is under the rule and authority of God. If God rules in a person’s life, they are in the Kingdom. If God rules a home, it is part of the Kingdom. Where a business is run on biblical principles, it is also part of the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God includes every human activity that is done according to his will. And God intends his Kingdom to grow and expand into every facet and area of life.

This expansion can take place either as a person enters the Kingdom as a new citizen through faith in Jesus (the Bible calls this being “born again” into the Kingdom) or as Kingdom citizens bring different parts of their lives under the will of God. As we have seen this can include personal relationships, family life, work, hobbies and leisure activities, political and civic life, art and cultural life, as well as, of course, spiritual and church life. The Kingdom of God becomes a present reality when a sphere of life is ruled according to the Word of God.

The Church’s role is to work to help build the Kingdom. One of the problems of our time is that rather than seeing the Church (the community of believers) existing to help with the Kingdom project, there is a tendency to see the Church existing for its own benefit and for its own growth. And rather than the Church being the Kingdom vanguard in the world, often it has become a spiritual retreat from the world. What’s wrong with that? Well, to go back to our military analogy, it would be like working to recruit and train for the army as an end in itself, rather than as a precursor to going into battle and making the King's war objectives a reality!

The community of Christ’s people is critical to the God’s Kingdom project, but it is a huge mistake to confuse the project with the personnel. The Church must never be an end in itself. It must always be working to establish the kingdom of God. When Jesus comes back he does not just want to find a holy Church, but a Church that has established the kingdom of God as a reality in the world.

So why did the apostles switch focus from the Kingdom to the Church? I think the answer is that once Christ had inaugurated the Kingdom, the focus had to switch from the concept and project to the establishment of the people through whom the Kingdom project would be continued. That is not to say that the apostles’ forgot about the Kingdom. Quite the opposite – they realised that the Church had to be established to advance the Kingdom, just as an army must be recruited and trained before it can implement the King’s war objectives. There can be no Kingdom of God without the Church, so the Church is the focus of the apostles, but even then, not as an end in itself, but as the divinely appointed agent to work with him for the Kingdom.

The Church That Christ Builds (Repost)

The following is the text of a sermon preached on 18 May 2008.

We gather here tonight one week after Pentecost, that wonderful miraculous day when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Christ’s church, and we gather as part of Christ’s church. We also gather knowing that the highest court of our own denomination, the General Assembly is meeting in Edinburgh this week, and that our own minister, Howard, is going to play his part in making the decisions that will affect the church this year and perhaps for many years to come.

And so on a night like this, we look not at this or that Christian writer’s latest book on “How to do Church” nor do we look at reports of this or that General Assembly committee, but we turn instead to some words about the Church that come from higher authority than even the General Assembly. We turn to again at part of what our Lord Jesus Christ, the King and Head of the Church, himself taught about the Church in Matthew 16:18 where we find the words we are going to concentrate on this evening:

“And on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

There are five things for us to have a look at in these words of Christ tonight.

There is a building: “My Church.”
There is a builder: Jesus Christ says “I will build my Church.”
There is a foundation: “On this rock I will build”
There is opposition and danger: “The gates of hell”
And there is the promise of safety and security: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

So first, there is a building: “My Church.” Before any of the rest of this verse can be properly understood, it is crucial that we understand what this building, the Church is. It is a very special kind of building you see. It is a building not made of bricks or stone or marble or wood. It is a temple, but not one built by human hands, not one we can see standing on the earth. There is no cathedral, no temple, no chapel, no church building that you can see anywhere in the world and point to it or photograph it on holiday and say of it: “You see that place? That is the Church Christ is talking about in this verse.

No, the building being talked about by Jesus here, the building that he calls “my Church” is a great company of men, women and children. It is a spiritual building consisting of everyone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The word usually translated “Church” in English bibles here is the Greek word Ekklesia. And that’s a very interesting word. Literally it means “A Calling out” in the sense of people being called out to form “a gathering” or “an Assembly”. The Church is a group of people.

When William Tyndale first translated the New Testament he translated this verse as: “And
upon this rock I will build my congregation: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The New Jerusalem Bible translates it: "And on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it."

So this Church that Christ talks about is a congregation or community of people, not a collection of buildings or any human institution calling itself a church. It is not any particular denomination or branch of the church. It is not the Church of Scotland, or the Free Church of Scotland, or the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, or the Episcopal Church, or the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church or any Charismatic Church. And it is not the Russian or Greek Orthodox Churches or the Roman Catholic Church. None of these bodies are the “Church” that Christ referred to. None of them can claim to be definitively "His Church"though any and probably all of have members who are indeed part of the church Christ refers to here.

The Church in this verse consists of all true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. It consists of all of God’s chosen people. It is the body of Christ, the flock of Good Shepherd, the Bride of the Lamb. It is the “one holy, Catholic and Apostolic church” that the Nicene Creed talks about.

It includes everyone who has repented of sin, and turned to Christ in faith. This membership of this Church is made up of all who have been washed in Christ’s blood, all who have been clothed in Christ’s righteousness, all who have been born again and sanctified by Christ’s Spirit.

J. C. Ryle says of it: "The Church of our text is one that makes far less show than any visible church in the eyes of men, but it is of far more importance in the eyes of God."

All the denominations, groups and fellowships we find in the world are visible churches. They are all human institutions to some extent, and they are all imperfect manifestations of Christ’s own church to some extent. But the Church of this verse is invisible, and it is not a human institution. It is an assembly or gathering of people from all over the world and throughout all of human history who form the covenant people of God, the people he chose, the people he saves, the people who have faith in him and follow him as their Lord.

J. C. Ryle gives an illustration of the difference between the various visible churches in the world and the one true, but invisible church made up of God’s chosen people who live by faith in Christ. He says that the visible churches of this world, be they Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Independent, Baptist, Charismatic, Reformed or Methodist are “the scaffolding behind which the great building is carried on.” The denominations are the scaffolding around the true Church of Christ, which is being built in the background.

Think of a mighty cathedral shrouded in scaffolding and plastic sheeting. The scaffolding is what is visible, but it is not itself the building being built. It is merely what can be seen, while within and behind the scaffolding, the real building work is going on. I think that’s a brilliant illustration. All this that we see around us, is merely scaffolding, while the real building work of saving souls and rescuing lives, of drawing men and women into a living covenant relationship with God and with fellow Christians is slowly, silently, relentlessly going on in the background.

The great congregation of the redeemed is the Church Christ talks about in this verse. Outside of this church, the body of Jesus Christ, the faithful congregation of all believers, there is no salvation. By definition this must be so since only believers in Christ can be saved.

Second, there is a builder: Jesus Christ. “I will build my Church…” says Christ. No one else can or will build it for him. He must build it with his own hands.

The prophet Zechariah said of the coming Messiah in Zechariah 6:12-13:

“Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."

The Messiah will build the temple of the LORD. Not one part of the Church can be built without his work and his blessing.

It is Christ who calls the members of the Church to leave the world’s way and follow him. It is Christ who breathes spiritual life into sinners who were by nature dead in trespasses and sins. It is Christ who washes away their sins. It is Christ who gives them peace. It is Christ who gives them eternal life. It is Christ who grants them the gifts of repentance and faith. It is Christ who enables them to become God’s children.

He is the Alpha and Omega, the Author and Perfecter of faith. He is the life. He is the King and Head. From Him every part of the mystical body of Christians is supplied with all they need. Through Him they are strengthened for duty. By Him they are kept from falling. He preserves them to the end, and presents them faultless before the Father’s throne with exceeding great joy. He is all in all to all believers.

It is true that he does often carry on his work through subordinates, through human beings. He works through the preaching of his word, through the circulation and reading of the Scriptures, through Christian literature, through providential circumstances, through prayer, through church discipline, through fellowship and human friendships, through evangelism and mission. He works through all these things, but it is always Christ who is at work to build his Church.

Preachers preach, theologians write and discuss, but only the Lord Jesus Christ can build his Church. Not TV evangelists, not Popes, not even General Assemblies. Christ alone builds it.

Christ is the builder because of who he is and what he has done for his people. And that leads us to the next part of this verse.

Third, there is a foundation that Christ builds his Church on. “And on this rock I will build my Church.”

This is the most controversial part of this verse. There have been many different views put forward for what this foundation is that Christ will build on. The Roman Catholic Church of course say that the Church is built on the foundation of St Peter, the first pope, and on all the popes who have succeeded him to the office of Bishop of Rome. I don’t think it is too strong to say that such a view is totally without biblical warrant. Even if you interpret the verse to mean that Christ will build his church on the witness and work of the apostles and on Peter as the leading apostle, there is no way this verse can be used to justify the papacy. There’s no way these verses can be wrested to mean that. But actually, I don’t think that Christ was saying he would build his church on Peter at all.

Jesus says, “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.” Notice that Christ did not say, “You are Peter and on you I will build my church.” And the rest of the New Testament does not give any real support for this either. Although we have two letters written by Peter in the New Testament, much more of the New Testament was written by John and especially by the apostle Paul for example. And far from being the infallible leader that the Church could be built on, though Peter was transformed by Christ and was one of the first leaders of the church, he was not perfect. He got things wrong. In Galatians 2:11, Paul says:

“But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong.”

Now of course “Peter” means rock and so that’s why the Catholic Church have used this verse to justify the doctrine of papal supremacy and papal succession. In effect they say that the verse says: “You are rock and on this rock I will build my Church.” But it’s very interesting when you look at the actual Greek words of our verse because two different words are used for “rock” in the sentence. Christ calls Peter “Petros” which is a masculine word referring to a stone or small rock, but when he says that he will build his church on “this rock” he uses the different word “Petra” which is a feminine word, referring to a large mass of rock, like a cliff or a mountain.

Also, it seems to me that Peter cannot be the foundation upon which the Church is built, because of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:11:

“For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

I believe Christ’s meaning is properly conveyed if we translated the verse as “You are a stone, and on this rock I will build my church.” I believe what he meant was really “You are Peter – a little rock – but on the immovable rock of the truth that you have confessed – I will build my Church.” In other words, I think this verse teaches that Christ builds his Church on the truth of Peter’s confession, on the doctrine that Jesus is God’s Messiah and the Son of the Living God. These two truths lie at the heart of the Christian message, the gospel.

I agree with J C Ryle: “It was not Peter, the erring, unstable man, but the mighty truth which the Father had revealed to Peter. It was the truth concerning Jesus Christ Himself which was the rock. It was Christ’s mediatorship, and Christ’s Messiahship. It was the blessed truth that Jesus was the promised Saviour, the true Surety, the real Intercessor between God and man. This was the rock, and this the foundation, upon which the Church of Christ was to be built.”

When read in this light, we see that the rock solid foundation upon which the Church is built is not any person, not even the apostles personally, but on the truths concerning Jesus Christ that the apostles taught. This ties in much better with the rest of the New Testament and with other parts of Christ’s own teaching. For example in Matthew 7:24:

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.”

The gospel message that Christ is God’s chosen King and the Redeemer of his people is, I believe, the rock, upon which Christ builds his church.

Fourth, there is opposition and danger to this Church. Christ says that “the gates of hell” will try to oppose the Church that Christ builds.

In Bible times, cities were surrounded by walls. The gates by which they were entered were the principal places for holding courts, transacting business, and deliberating on public matters. The gates were where people made their plans, drew up their designs, negotiated deals and so on. The “gates of hell” it seems to me, refers to the plans and designs of Satan and his hellish minions against God and his purposes. The “gates of hell” are Satan’s evil plans against the Church.

It seems to me that the expression “the gates of hell” is a way of describing the spiritual forces in the heavenly realms that Paul mentions in Ephesians 6:12:

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”

The Puritan commentator Matthew Henry wrote:

“The gates of hell are the powers and policies of the devil's kingdom, the dragon's head and horns, by which he makes war with the Lamb; all that comes out of hell-gates, as being hatched and contrived there. These fight against the church by opposing gospel truths, corrupting gospel ordinances, persecuting good ministers and good Christians; drawing or driving, persuading by craft or forcing by cruelty, to that which is inconsistent with the purity of religion; this is the design of the gates of hell, to root out the name of Christianity.”

History shows that Christ was correct in his view that the gates of hell – the powers of darkness – will always keep on trying to destroy his people. Such has been the case throughout history – both Old and New Testaments, and throughout this present gospel age. And the opposition and Satanic persecution of Christ’s people will go on until the end of the age.

The history of the Church, in all periods of history, is a story of conflict and war. This war between good and evil, between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of this world, has been going on since the beginning when Satan rebelled against God. It is one of the central and recurring threads that runs through the entire Bible. As far back as Genesis 3:15 we get the first glimpse of the war between Christ and Satan and between God’s people and Satan’s followers:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

That was true then and it is true now. The Church is always under attack by Satan. He hates Christ’s Church more than anything, except maybe the Holy Trinity. He hates us with an undying and virulent hatred. He is always stirring up opposition and trouble for Christians. The Church is the pillar of the truth and the guardian of the holy gospel that is able to make men wise unto salvation, and so Satan never tires of seeking to prevent the Church from spreading the gospel message and witnessing to Son of the living God to the world.

As J. C. Ryle says:

“Warfare with the powers of hell has been the experience of the whole body of Christ for six thousand years.”

There is no peace treaty between heaven and hell. The Church is always at war, never at peace with the world or the Prince of this world. It is always at war, always militant, always fighting. Its battle never ends. As Martin Luther said:

“Cain will go on murdering Abel as long as the Church is on the earth.”

Satanic opposition can come in hundreds of different ways. There can be direct assaults of course. There can be false teachers, heretics, who are thrown into the church lives wolves among sheep, to confound and confuse God’s saints with false doctrine and wrong teaching on how we should live.

But sometimes Satan’s opposition can be far more subtle. In fact I would say usually Satan’s opposition is far more subtle.

Do you ever get the feeling that when you try to get close to God or decide you’re going to do something for God, that you suddenly start to have problems you never had before? I know I do. It’s no accident that when I’m getting ready to take a service that’s precisely the time I seem to get a cold, or get toothache, or have something happen that distracts me from my purpose. It’s no accident that when a church decides it’s really going to concentrate on mission and outreach that it suddenly finds it’s members under attack from illnesses, bereavements, family problems, trouble in the workplace, falling out with friends. Satan doesn’t fight clean and fair. He fights dirty. And when Christians decide they are really going to live committed lives to their Lord and Saviour, Satan will do anything he can to stop that from happening.

That’s the gates of hell trying to rise up and stop us from being effective, obedient, loyal Christians.

But far from being surprised or scared when such things happen to us, actually we should expect it and rejoice when such opposition or persecution comes our way, for it means we are on the right track in our Christian lives. A church which faces no opposition or Satanic attack should be the one that is scared, not a church which does face the gates of hell rising against it.

Remember Christ’s words when such opposition comes and take heart. This is Matthew 5:10-12, part of the Beatitudes:

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

And then also think about these words in 1 Peter 4:12-14:

“Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.”

Things happen to us in life. Not everything is plain sailing. We go through hard times of suffering and loss and pain. Or we go through times of being mistrusted, disliked, mocked, and even hated because we have faith in Jesus Christ. The gates of hell are real and I don’t think there’s any Christian who is immune from such attack. It happens to us all.

Fifth, there is Christ’s promise of security and safety for his Church. “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

Take heart, Christians! Because as well as Christ’s warning about the gates of hell, there is also a promise that Christ makes to us in this verse, a promise all of us need to cling to and remember. Yes, the gates of hell will try to rise up and destroy us, but they cannot and will not succeed. The forces of evil will do battle with the Church, but they will never prevail against it. They will fight, but they cannot win. That is Christ’s promise to each and every Christian believer.

Have you ever thought about the emblem that came to symbolise the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches throughout Europe? It’s still the symbol used on the badge of the Church of Scotland to this day. It’s the burning bush. The first impression might be that this is a very strange symbol to choose. But actually it’s highly appropriate, not only because it symbolises God’s presence with this covenant people, but because that bush is always in the flames, always under fiery attack, but not consumed, never destroyed. “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

Only Christ’s church receives this promise from its King and Head. Other empires and earthly kingdoms rise and fall in human history. Think of the once mighty empires of the Persians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings. Think of, in more recent times, the great empires of France and Britain. None of these earthly powers has stood the test of time. But Christ’s church stands and grows for ever. “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of our God and of his Christ” as the Book of Revelation says.

The promise does not apply to all visible churches in this world however. In New Testament times there were churches all over the Middle East and what is now modern day Turkey. Today, few of those churches remain in existence. In Bridgeton there used to be six or more churches in the area now covered by this one parish church. Individual churches can disappear and close. This is especially true of churches that depart from Christ’s teaching, from the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Christ warned the seven churches to whom letters were sent at the start of the Book of Revelation that if they did not pay heed to what the Spirit was saying to the churches, Christ would remove their lampstand from its place – in other words remove his presence and the light of his glory from them – so they would cease to be churches at all. So, although the promise does not apply to every individual church, especially churches that are not faithful to Christ in their teaching and service, the promise does apply to Christ’s own church, to the great congregation of true believers in him. Against them, the gates of hell cannot prevail.

Even if Satan stirs up persecution so that Christians lose their lives, the gates of hell shall not prevail against this Church, because for Christian martyrs, death is only a doorway into Christ’s presence and eternal blessedness in heaven.

No matter what the enemies of the church do, whether they be worldly rulers, enemies within the church, or the cosmic forces of evil that work behind our human enemies, God’s people, God’s church shall never be overthrown. We have Christ’s own promise for that.

As the apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:8-10:

“We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.”

We can go through the mill in our sufferings. God sometimes puts us right into furnace with its blistering heat and searing pain. God puts us through it, but never without a good reason, there is always a purpose behind it, even if we cannot begin to imagine what it could be.

Romans 8:28: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”

In the 19th century, French troops liberated the prison of the Holy Inquisition in Rome. In one of the cells, a prisoner – probably a Protestant who had been excommunicated from the Church of Rome – had scratched some words on the walls. They read: “Blessed Jesus, they cannot cast me out of Thy true Church.” Not one single believer can be snatched out of Christ’s hand by the Devil and all his minions however hard they try.

The question each of us must consider tonight is whether we are truly members of Christ’s Church. Not members of the Church of Scotland – for that membership can save no man or woman. But members of the body of Christ, part of Christ’s great congregation who trust and follow him and for whom he died to redeem and save. For membership in that Church guarantees salvation.

“And on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

Saving Faith (Repost)

Originally blogged on 25 February 2008

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1, NIV)

One of the most basic truths of the Christian gospel is that we are saved by grace through faith. We read this in the well-known words of Ephesians 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have saved, through faith—and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God—not of works, so that no-one can boast."

It is important to realise that when we talk about being saved by faith, what the Bible means is not that it is our faith—faith in something, no matter what—that saves us, but that it is Jesus Christ who saves those put their faith in him as their Saviour and Lord.

The Bible also calls having faith in Christ "believing in Christ". In Acts 16:31, Paul’s answer to the question, "What must I do to be saved?" is: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." At other times, this faith or belief is termed "trust"—"Trust in God, trust also in me" says Christ in John 14:1.

So, we are saved through faith, and we also know that the Bible is clear that the opposite also holds true, that "whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." (John 3:18).

Obviously in light of both of these teachings it is of some importance to understand what this "faith" – that is so important – actually is and what it isn’t! The classic definition of faith in Protestant theology, summing up what the Bible teaches, has been well stated by the German Lutheran Reformer, Philip Melanchthon:

"Saving faith involves three things: knowledge, intelligent assent, and trust."

Each of these elements matters: knowledge, intelligent assent and trust. It is hard to overstate how revolutionary this rediscovery of the biblical view of faith was in the 16th century, opposed as it was to the medieval Catholicism of the day.

There is an element of knowledge in faith, according to Protestantism. We do not have a blind faith in whatever the Church believes, even if we haven’t a clue what that is. (This is what the Catholic Church mistakenly believed.) We can only have faith where we know what we believe. The American preacher A W Tozer said: "Faith is the gaze of the soul upon a saving God." Far from being "blind faith", true faith starts with gazing upon God and seeing him as he really is. We don’t need to know everything but we do need to know at least some things. At the very least it would be hard to see how anyone can have faith in Christ who does not understand what Paul summarises as "the gospel" about what Christ did for us:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

The second element in faith is what Melanchthon called "intellectual assent". This just means that as well as knowledge what the Bible about Christ, we actually agree that what it says is true. There are many academics who know all there is to know about the biblical languages and what the biblical writers meant in the books of Scripture that they wrote, but they don’t actually believe that what the Bible says is true. They have knowledge without intellectual assent, and therefore cannot be said to have faith. This intellectual assent is the element of faith Christ emphasised when he said to Martha: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies and whoever lives and believes in me will never die," (John 11:25-26) and then asked her "Do you believe this?" In other words: "Do you accept this is true, what I’ve just told you?"

But important though knowledge and intellectual assent are, by themselves they are not what the Bible means by faith. According to the Bible, real faith, saving faith, is not just in the mind, it must also be in the heart. This is where the third element of faith comes in, the element of personal trust in Jesus Christ.

You see, there is a kind of faith that has the appearance of faith, but there’s something missing. It has no heart; it has no affection, no emotion to it. According to the Letter of James, even the demons can have this kind of false faith: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (James 2:19). The demons know and in their minds accept that there is a God—they "believe in God" in that sense—but they do not have faith in him!

To have real faith in Christ is to trust Christ with your salvation, your eternity, your whole life. Trust is to depend on him, to rely on him, to be committed to him and to be happy and contented to be so.

A patient who has been told that John Smith is a doctor and actually believes that he is a doctor, but who won’t take the medicine Dr Smith prescribes, doesn’t really have much real faith in Dr Smith because there is no trust or reliance.

The story is told of the 19th century acrobat, Blondin, whose death-defying feats on the tightrope made him very famous. Blondin used to put a tightrope up right across Niagara Falls. To fall from it would mean certain death. Huge crowds would gather and watch Blondin go out onto the rope and walk from one side of the Falls to the other. And then Blondin would offer anyone who wanted it, the chance to go on his back, piggy-back, and be carried across the falls.

No one ever took up the offer, except one man, Blondin’s manager, Harry Colcord. He made the trip on Blondin’s back many times. The crowd knew that Blondin was supposed to be able to do this, and they could see with their own eyes that it was true, but only Colcord had the faith to actually put his life in Blondin’s hands and be carried over safely.

Having true faith in Christ means we are willing to put our lives in his hands and let him carry us through life safely and over to eternity in heaven.