The Cross and the Kingdom (11)

The Didache was probably written in the 2nd century. About the celebration of the Lord’s supper it says:

"Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.

And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever."

The Didache makes no mention of the Last Supper, or of the “body” or “blood” of Christ. It appears that for the earliest Christians the "breaking of bread" was a communal meal and was not viewed as a "memorial" of Christ's death.

It wasn't until Augustine of Hippo (355-430 AD) who was heavily influenced by Neo-Platonism and Greek and Roman rhetoric that the concept of “original sin” was developed. Augustine argued that the effects of “the Fall” were transmitted to Adam’s descendants who inherited his guilt. (He was also the first to demand that the “sacrament” of Eucharist had to be performed by ordained clergy in order to be valid.

For the first time the atonement began to be tied to the celebration of the Lord’s supper, the validity of the sacraments [and sacraments performed by dissidents were regarded as invalid], and the authority of religious leaders). He laid the groundwork for theologians such as the fourth century Gregory of Nyssa who argued that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to Satan, and the eleventh century Anselm of Canterbury who developed a “satisfaction” theory, arguing that the debt was in fact paid to God. Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin further refined these theories into the view that Jesus’ death was necessary to meet the demands of divine justice.

The Cross and the Kingdom (10)

THE LAMB OF GOD

The Gospel of John records an incident when John the Baptist saw Jesus coming towards him and he said: ""Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29-35).

This is not the only time in the New Testament that Jesus is referred to as a lamb. Other places are:

The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth." (Acts 8:32, quoting Isaiah 53:7)

For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. (1 Corinthians 5:7)

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. (1 Peter 1:18-19)

The Revelation refers to "the Lamb" about 30 times, including the following verses which speak of a slain lamb, or the blood of the lamb:

"a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain" (5:6)

"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain" (5:12)

"These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (7:15)

"They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony" (12:11)

"... the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." (13:8)

In most places in The Revelation the term "the Lamb" is used as a title, rather than being a metaphorical reference to a slain animal. For example, chapters 19 and 21 refer to the Lamb's marriage and to his bride - hardly part of a slain lamb analogy!

So what do these passages mean?

It is commonly assumed that the slain lamb analogy is a reference to a sacrificial animal under the Law of Moses which was therefore a "type" of Christ, and that as the blood of the animal made an atonement for sins so the shedding of Christ's blood in crucifixion was a sacrificial atonement for sin.

However, there are a number of problems with this assumption.

1. Almost all the NT references are alluding to the Passover lamb. The passage in 1 Corinthians is explicitly to "Christ our Passover" (strictly speaking, the word "lamb" is absent in the Greek - the translators have inserted it as it is implied) and 1 Peter speaks about being redeemed (set free, liberated) - an allusion to freedom from Egyptian slavery which Passover celebrates (and in the context of 1 Peter it is freedom from "the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers", almost certainly referring to Pharisaic Judaism).
2. The Passover lamb was not sacrificed as an atonement or for the forgiveness of sins.
3. It is sometimes assumed that the slain lamb analogy is an allusion to the Day of Atonement when Israel's sins were forgiven and blood was sprinkled on the Ark of the Covenant in the Most Holy Place. However, it was a goat that was slain on the Day of Atonement, not a lamb.
4. For the daily sin offerings bulls and goats were most frequently sacrificed. Hence Hebrews says "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (10:14). If a lamb was offered it had to be a female lamb (e.g. Lev 4:32; 5:6). Lambs were also offered as burnt offerings, but when they were they were distinguished from sin offerings (e.g. Lev 12:6 "a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering"; Num 6:14 when a Nazirite completed his vow he was to bring "a year-old male lamb without defect for a burnt offering, a year-old ewe [female] lamb without defect for a sin offering, a ram without defect for a fellowship offering ..."). Burnt offerings and fellowship offerings were not for atonement or forgiveness of sins.
5. The Isaiah 53 reference to a lamb is to a sheep being led to its shearers or for slaughter, but not necessarily being led to the altar as a sacrificial victim. The metaphor (" like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer") were both in reference to the sheep/lamb being "silent" - "so he did not open his mouth". We should not push the metaphor beyond what the prophet clearly intended. The sheep/lamb was "before the shearer", not "before the priest". The metaphor was about being silent like a sheep, not being sacrificed as an offering.
   
   

So what did John the Baptist mean when he said "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"?

Geza Vermes, professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford University and a renowned scholar and expert in the Judaism and Aramaic of the time of Jesus, has pointed out that the title Lamb of God does not necessarily refer to the metaphor of a sacrificial animal. He points out that in Galilean Aramaic the word talya (literally "lamb") had the common meaning of "male child". This is akin to "kid" meaning "child" in modern colloquial English. The female equivalent of talya was talitha, literally "ewe lamb" and figuratively "girl" (the word is found in the narrative of the daughter of Jairus. Mark 5:41). It is a term of endearment. Thus, "Lamb of God" could have been a colloquial way of saying "Son of God" or "God's Kid".

Understood this way John the Baptist was saying "Look, the dear child of God, God's little pet-lamb, the one who will remove sin!"

The Cross and the Kingdom (9)

“AN ATONING SACRIFICE”

The NIV refers to Christ as “an atoning sacrifice” or “sacrifice of atonement”, while other translations used words such as “propitiation”, a term almost never heard in conversation outside a theological context.

These expressions are translations of a small group of words related to mercy which together occur only eight times in the NT (three times in Hebrews).

hileos

The Greek word hileos originally meant cheerful, or joyous and eventually acquired the additional meaning of benevolent, gracious or merciful. It occurs twice in the NT.

• Matt 16:22 “Never, Lord”. The Greek here is hileos soi, Kyrie and literally means, “Be merciful to yourself, Lord”.
• Heb 8:12 (quoting Jer 31:31-34) “I will forgive their wickedness” or “I will be merciful with regard to their iniquities” or “I will pardon them”.

hilasterion

• Rom 3:25 “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood.”
• Heb 9:5 “Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.”

Related to hileos (merciful) is the Greek hilasterion which literally means mercy seat, the lid or cover of the Ark of the Covenant, where God promised to meet His people (Ex 25:17, 22; 29:42; 30:36) and where God was said to appear in a cloud (Lev 16:2). The mercy seat was called the kapporet in Hebrew - a word which always referred to the lid or cover of the Ark, and which the Septuagint Greek translates with the word hilasterion.

It was from between the cherubim above the mercy seat where God spoke to Moses (Num 7:89). The Holy of Holies was later referred to as the house of the kapporet (1 Chron 28:11).

God was said to be “enthroned between the cherubim” i.e. above the lid of the Ark (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; 1 Chron 13:6; Psalm 80:1; 99:1; Isa 37:16).

The Hebrew word kapporet is derived from a primitive root kaphar meaning “to cover”. While it refers literally to a cover the word also figuratively refers to the covering of sin, hence condone, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), reconcile, or make atonement. This has led to some confusion about whether the hilasterion in Rom 3:25 refers to the mercy seat, or to the “sacrifice of atonement” whose blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat on the Day of Atonement. The word kapporet in Hebrew always referred to the lid or cover of the Ark, and the only other place where the word occurs in the NT (Heb 9:5) it is undeniably referring to the literal lid of the Ark of the Covenant (“place of atonement” NIV).

In a similar way the Greek word thysiasterion (from thysiazo = to sacrifice) means an altar or place of sacrifice. The word does not refer to the sacrifices themselves. Hence hilasterion refers to the place where God met His people, not to the blood sprinkled there. The NIV translation “sacrifice of atonement” in Rom 3:25 is clearly wrong. Paul is actually saying that Christ is the true meeting place between God and His people, of which the mercy seat above the Ark was a type. It was through Christ that God’s mercy was demonstrated. Christ now occupies the place that the mercy seat occupied in the OT - the central place where reconciliation occurs that restores the relationship between God and his people so that they “meet” together.

As God “sat enthroned between the Cherubim” above the mercy seat, so “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form … the head over every principality and authority” (Col 2:9-10). The risen and exalted Christ is the embodiment of God’s kingly authority.

hiloskomai

The Greek word hilasterion is derived from hiloskomai which also occurs in only two places in the NT.

• Luke 18:13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner”.
• Heb 2:17 “For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.”

The Greek word hiloskomai occurs eleven times in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It always has God as the subject and means to have mercy. Seven times it translates the Hebrew word salah which means to forgive.

The word is used in the Septuagint of Psalm 79:9 “deliver us and forgive our sins for your name’s sake”. In his story about the tax collector Jesus went on to say “I tell you that this man, rather than the other [the Pharisee], went home justified before God” (v. 14). The Pharisee’s attitude was fairly typical and is reflected in a story in the Talmud about a rabbi who was confident that if the saved numbered only “a hundred, I and my son are among them; and if only two, they are I and my son” (b. Sukkah 45b). Paul similarly declared himself “as for legalistic righteousness, faultless” (Phil 3:6). This parable demonstrated that what matters to God is a reliance on His mercy, and declares that human self-righteousness is of no benefit.

A footnote in the NIV to Heb 2:17 offers an alternative translation: “and that he might turn aside God’s wrath, taking away the sins of the people”. However, there is no reference in the context to an appeasement of an angry deity and God is not said to be the recipient of an atonement. In my view the NIV footnote here is simply wrong and without any support. The KJV’s “to make reconciliation for” works better within the context. Jesus is said to be a “merciful [Gk. eleemon, compassionate, merciful] and faithful high priest”. The next verse says: “because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (v. 18). The best way to interpret hiloskomai in this context would be to say that Jesus is a compassionate and faithful high priest, able to empathise with His people, to help them and have mercy on their sins.

hilasmos

Finally we come to the word hilasmos which is translated in the NIV as “atoning sacrifice” and in the KJV as “propitiation”. We have seen that the central concept of this word-group is mercy and so when we come to look at the two occurrences of this word in the NT we should expect to see something of the same emphasis.

• 1 John 2:2 “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
• 1 John 4:10 “… he loved us and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”

Again we find a footnote in the NIV offering an alternative translation: “He is the one who turns aside God’s wrath, taking away our sins”. However, as we saw when we looked at the NIV’s treatment of the word hiloskomai there is no justification for this interpretation either within the context or in the meaning of the word itself. The Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible uses this word ten times to translate derivatives of the Hebrew verb kipper which means “to cover over” (the word for a skullcap or head covering, for example, is kippah) and refers to sins being “covered”. Sins which are “covered” are effectively unseen to God, and therefore forgiven.

So in 1 John we should read the word hilasmos in the sense of our sins being covered: “He is the covering for our sins …” There is a similar thought in James 5:20: “whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins” and 1 Peter 4:8: “love covers over a multitude of sins”. Both writers are almost certainly alluding to Proverbs 10:12 “love covers over all wrongs”. Here the Greek word for “cover(s) over” is kalypto which translates the Hebrew kasah - the words are different but the concept is the same. In these texts the writers are referring to human forgiveness covering over sins in others, while in 1 John 2:20 and 4:10 the writer is referring to God sending His Son to cover our sins.

In all these texts we find the fundamental principle is one of God’s mercy, covering over our sins and forgiving them. There is nothing in the context or the meanings of the words themselves to suggest that Christ’s death was necessary to “appease” a God who was angry or wrathful, or to satisfy any of God’s demands. The translators have sometimes (especially in the NIV) interpreted the words rather than literally translated them and have consequently given us a misleading translation. By interpreting some of the words in this group as “sacrifice of atonement” and “atoning sacrifice” they have also wrongly inserted the concept of “sacrifice” into texts where it does not belong. The death of Christ has therefore been wrongly viewed in a similar way to the sacrifices (sometimes human) which were offered to pagan gods to turn away their wrath. To the contrary, Christ demonstrated the love, mercy and graciousness of God and revealed Him as a God which was quite unlike the pagan gods who demanded sacrifices to appease them. By contrast, God’s love is generous and abundant (“not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world”). And by juxtaposing “sacrifice” and “atonement” the translators have also given the wrong impression that “atonement” (to be “at one” with God) or “reconciliation” comes only through a human sacrifice - a totally unBiblical concept.

The Cross and the Kingdom (8)

THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST (2)

There are a significant handful of references in the NT to Christ dying for us, although no where near as many as we should expect if the emphasis given to "the blood of Christ" by many evangelists and preachers was correct.

In fact there are only nine places where the NT explicitly says Christ died for us, or words to that effect.

Romans 5:6
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 14:15
If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.

1 Corinthians 8:11
So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.

1 Corinthians 15:3
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit

2 Corinthians 5:14-15
For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

1 Thessalonians 5:10
He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him.

Hebrews 9:15
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

In a previous post I referred to John the Baptist's "lamb of God" sayings and said I would come back to them. John said the lamb of God "takes away the sin of the world". What did he mean?

I think there are three possibilities. He could “take away” our sins by:

(a) cancelling our sin, i.e. paying the price for it, or dying in our place instead of us (but as we've seen from Ezekiel 18 dying in someone else’s place isn’t a Biblical concept), or

(b) by abolishing sin, i.e. remove the Law and it’s no longer possible to break it, or

(c) removing the cause of sin, i.e. taking away whatever it is that makes us sin.

I think (b) and (c) have the strongest Biblical case going for them. The whole point of “grace” is to enable us to overcome. This is where people often get “mercy” and “grace” confused and think that grace is the same as God being merciful and forgiving us, but the distinction is quite clear in Heb 4:16 “Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need”. Our sins are forgiven because of God’s mercy, and we are enabled to overcome further sin by God’s grace. This is also what Jude 24 says “[He] is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy”.

So to “take away sin” is another way of saying that He will abolish or remove sin by enabling us (by grace) to overcome it. Paul says in Acts 20:24-28 that for him “the gospel of God's grace” was essentially what he taught when he went about “preaching the kingdom”. That would explain why we find him using the word “grace” about 60 times in his letters while hardly using the word “kingdom”. And for Paul the exaltation of Christ was absolutely necessary for the enabling of grace. For example, in Eph 4:7-8 he says “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men."

Paul also emphasises Jesus’ exaltation in the “humbling” text in Phil 2 (almost certainly a quotation from an ancient hymn). The climax seems to be in verses 9-11: “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place …” The “therefore” connects it with the preceding verse “he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross!” The cross was the means to and reason for His exaltation. Incidentally, this means that Jesus’ “humbling” was demonstrated in His death, not His birth (as trinitarians suggest). This text is about exaltation, not incarnation. And He was exalted to a position He had never held before. It was an “exaltation”, not a “return” to a position He had previously held.

Paul follows this quotation of an ancient hymn in Phil 2 with another "therefore" which leads into his practical application. "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed ... continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." (v. 12-13). Jesus' humbling was the means to and reason for His exaltation. His exaltation enabled Him to give the gifts of grace to His followers (Eph 4:7-8) and it is this grace which enables God to work in us for our salvation.

The basis of Paul's theology is that Christ died "for us" so that through His death and exaltation we would be given the means to be victorious over sin. That is why the triumphant Christ is a much stronger theme in Acts and in Paul's writings than the sacrificial Christ.

In my next message I will take a look at the texts that say Christ's death was "an atoning sacrifice".

The Cross and the Kingdom (7)

Why did Jesus have to die?

Was there no other way for God to save mankind?

The death of Christ is often explained either as a debt being paid - that is, His death paid the price of our sin - or as one innocent person dying in the place of other guilty people who have been condemned to die (that is, as a substitute). These are two different metaphors, but they often get confused and used together in explaining the 'atonement', or how Christ's death brings about our salvation. It's one thing to speak about a 'debt' being forgiven, but to then mix this up with a capital punishment for a criminal offense would be to confuse the metaphors.

If we stick to the language of debts being paid then Jesus must have paid the debt to someone - if indeed He paid a debt. This is quite different from someone dying as a substitute in place of another for a crime.

Paul used a variety of metaphors from the marketplace, the slave trade, the law courts and the Temple, because no one analogy is adequate or complete in itself. No one metaphor was adequate for him, and no metaphor should be pushed too far.

However, Jesus himself never spoke of His death as an 'atonement'. The Gospels record only one brief saying which possibly alludes to His death in atonement-theology terms - the 'ransom saying' of Mark 10:45 (parallel Matt 20:28), which may, or may not, be a reference to His death (to give ones life in service does not necessarily mean to die). Jesus' references during the last supper to His blood being shed to seal the new covenant are the language of covenants, not atonement. So it's actually doubtful whether Jesus ever referred to His own death as an atonement.

On the other hand, Jesus spoke frequently of God's forgiveness, His abundant generosity, and His graciousness. There is nothing in any of His parables, stories or sayings which suggests that a price of any kind had to be paid to secure God's forgiveness. The stories which refer to debts being forgiven all emphasise the undeserved kindness shown by the one forgiving the debt. If any debt was owed by Adam or his descendants because of his sin or theirs, then the debt was owed to God. If Jesus death was to pay a debt then the debt must have been paid to God, and that would put God in the position of demanding the death of His own Son in order to satisfy a debt to Himself. The other alternative would be Anselm's satisfaction theory which had the debt being paid to the devil, which I personally think is absurd.

If Jesus suffered the penalty for the crimes committed by others, then He suffered the punishment for sins which was due. There is no need for forgiveness then, because the sentence has been carried out. We are free, not because we have been forgiven, but because someone else took our place.

As I see it, the only way we can understand forgiveness is to see it as a gracious act of God in NOT demanding payment or punishment for our sins. If we use the metaphor of a debt, then the debt is paid and is not forgiven. If we use the language of capital punishment then the sentence has been carried out and the guilty party has a substitute who dies in their place, but the crime is not forgiven. Neither of these analogies explains what actually happened: God chose to forgive our sins even though there was absolutely nothing we could do to merit or deserve His forgiveness, and even though it would be impossible for us to find a substitute who could suffer the punishment which our sins deserved.

As I see it, Jesus' death was a demonstration of how far God's love would go in order to save us, not what God demands in order to be satisfied. Several Scriptures point us in this direction:

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Galatians 2:20
The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Ephesians 5:2
Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

1 John 3:16
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.

1 John 4:9
This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

1 John 4:10
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

John 13:1
Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.

The death of Christ is primarily a demonstration of the love of God. It was not an act to appease an offended deity. It was not a mechanistic or legalistic sacrifice to satisfy the requirements of any religious law. It was not a demonstration of what "the flesh" deserved. It was an act of love. As the shaliach, the agent or emissary of God, Jesus was demonstrating in His own life and death the love of God, effectively doing what God could not do himself.

William Barclay puts it very beautifully in The Plain Man Looks at the Apostles' Creed:
"But why the death of Christ? If Jesus had stopped before the cross, it would have meant that there was some point beyond which the love of God would not go, some limit to his love. But in Jesus [i.e. through His agent - my comment] God says: 'You may disobey me; you may grieve me; you may be disloyal to me; you may misunderstand me; you may batter me and bruise me and scourge me; you may treat me with savage injustice; you may kill me on a cross; I will never stop loving you.' This means that the life and death of Jesus are the demonstration and the proof of the limitless, the undefeatable, unchangeable, unalterable, infinite love of God." (My emphasis).

This is the most beautiful summary I have ever read of the motivation beyond the cross.

The Cross and the Kingdom (6)

THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST (1)

It’s actually surprising how little the NT says about the death of Christ in a sacrificial sense. In fact, almost all the references to the sacrifice of Christ are in Hebrews, in a very specific context related to the tabernacle and the Day of Atonement. Paul rarely uses sacrificial language, and when he does it could just as well be in reference to sacrifices in his own life (as in “I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith” Phil 2:17; cf 2 Tim 4:6 ) or to sacrifices made by fellow-believers (“I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God.” Phil 4:18)

In fact, apart from Hebrews (which I will come to) there are only a handful of places where the NT refers to Christ's death as a sacrifice:

Romans 3:25
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

Ephesians 5:2
Live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

The Ephesians 5:2 text is remarkable in that Paul uses precisely the same language to describe charitable gifts made by Christians (Phil 4:8). He obviously is not thinking of it in terms of an atonement which could take away sin. So that leaves only Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2; 4:10 where Christ's death is referred to as "an atoning sacrifice" (and I will come back to look at them in detail later).

In addition to these texts there are a few more which speak of the blood of Christ (ignoring the Hebrews texts for now):

Ephesians 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace

1 Peter 1:2
To God's elect ... who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood.

1 Peter 1:18-19
For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

We can see from this that the emphasis of the NT is NOT on the death of Christ as any form of vicarious sacrifice, i.e. Jesus did not die in our place, or as a substitute, or in any way to suffer a penalty for our sins. He did, however, die FOR us, but what does that mean? If I say I will do something for you I may mean I will do it instead of you (e.g. you don’t have to do that – I’ll do it for you), but equally I could mean I will do it to benefit you (e.g. let me do that for you).

The language of sacrifice in Hebrews is interesting. The context is clearly the Day of Atonement so any reference to a sacrifice has to be in that context. Heb 9:22 says “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” There are two statements there which, if meant in a general way, would simply be untrue. First, not “everything” was cleansed by blood. Some things were cleansed by water (hence baptism, hand-washing, mikvahs, etc). Second, forgiveness was possible without the shedding of blood. However, in the context it’s clear that the writer meant that “everything” in the tabernacle was cleansed by blood (the furniture etc), and that on the Day of Atonement there was no forgiveness without shedding of blood (although there was at other times). So the context makes these statements quite specific – otherwise they would simply be untrue.

On the Day of Atonement the High Priest went into the Most Holy Place, and I believe that’s what is behind the argument in Hebrews . It was about one man going into the Holiest place for the benefit of all.

The NT writers (especially Hebrews) are telling us that Jesus’ death was the means by which He could be exalted and enter “the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation” (9:11). His death was “necessary” in order to pass from “this creation” and enter heaven: “For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence” (9:22).

His death wasn’t “necessary” in order for God to forgive us, because God can (and does) forgive without sacrifice or shedding of blood. It wasn’t “necessary” to take away our sin. It wasn’t “necessary” as a penalty or as a vicarious sacrifice. It was actually not possible under the Law to die for the sins of another person - to pay the penalty for their sins. This is spelled out clearly and thoroughly in Ezekiel 18 where God says “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.” On this basis the doctrine that we are somehow punished for the sin of Adam is clearly wrong. "The son will not share the guilt of the father". We do not share Adam's guilt! "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die" (v. 21). Here the basis of forgiveness and freedom from guilt is repentance not sacrifice.

Jesus therefore could not have died "in our place" or to pay the penalty for our sins. He could not have died to remove the guilt of Adam's sin. Only Adam could die for Adam's sin. "The soul who sins is the one who will die."

However, Jesus death was “necessary” in order to be exalted, to sit at God’s right hand and to enter heaven as our High Priest. Christ died for us, i.e. to benefit us, but didn’t die in our place. As a result of His exaltation we now have the outpouring of the Spirit. Ephesians 4:7-8 makes this clear: “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men". John 7:39 says something similar: “By this he meant the Spirit, which those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.” In other words, without Jesus' ascension and exaltation there could be no outpouring of the Spirit. Without His exaltation we would have no intercessor at God’s right hand, to whom all authority in heaven and earth has been given. There are many “benefits” coming to us as a result of His exaltation.

It seems to me there was nothing “mechanical” or “legalistic” about the death of Christ. It wasn’t “required” or “demanded” or made “necessary” by any law of God’s own making.

In a subsequent message (number 8 in this series)I will take a look at the handful of references in the NT to Christ taking away sins, and come back to the texts about Christ being "an atoning sacrifice".

The Cross and the Kingdom (5)

THE CRUCIFIXION

Jesus was crucified on a charge of sedition (Luke 23:2; Matt 27:11, 29, 37; John 19:12, 14). It was a political execution.

He was crucified alongside others sentenced for political crimes (“malefactors” or “robbers” interprets a word which refers to insurgents, not thieves). Earlier Jesus quoted Isaiah 53:12 “It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment" (Lk 22:37).

On the way to His crucifixion Jesus made a rather strange statement which is best understood as a riddle. (A riddle is a saying whose meaning is not obviously known. It requires pondering and the answer may become apparent only after it is explained or some related event reveals its meaning in the meantime. A famous Biblical example is Samson's riddle in Judges 14:12ff).

"A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' Then they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!" and to the hills, "Cover us!" For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?" (Lk 23:27-31).

This riddle about the green and dry tree is pointing us towards the events that would fall on Jerusalem within a generation. Josephus records how that so many people were crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem during the siege of AD 70 that the Romans had to cut down every tree to make crosses and the surrounding countryside was stripped bare of timber. Jesus told this riddle in the context of His prediction that a terrible time was coming. In this riddle He is effectively saying "If they treat an innocent man like this without provocation, imagine what they will do when they are provoked or given a reason". In this riddle Jesus was saying that He was a kind of forerunner of what was to come. As the green tree He was the first (or out-of-its-time) tree to be cut down. When the tree is dry or dead ("the time will come") it will be treated even more severely. So Jesus is saying that His death by crucifixion was just the first of many, and he was therefore identifying Himself with the fate of His people.

The crucifixion of Jesus was a political execution which foreshadowed the terrible things which would be inflicted on the people of God in the near future. His death was representative of God's people Israel, and He identified Himself with them.

This is clearly the meaning and emphasis which is attached to the crucifixion by the writers of the Gospels and Acts. Jesus Himself predicted that He would be "delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified" (Luke 24:7). Peter said it was "wicked men" who put him to death by nailing him to the cross (Acts 2:23). Paul said it was "the rulers of this age" who crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8). The consistent message is that the first Christians believed that the crucifixion of Jesus was a political murder. It was the unjust act of wicked sinful men. There was nothing in this message about God requiring or demanding a human sacrifice as necessary for the salvation of mankind, although that meaning may have been attached to the crucifixion later.

The canonical Gospels record seven sayings of Jesus while He was dying on the cross*. If Jesus' death was primarily an atonement for the sins of God's people this might have been the ideal time to say so. Instead the only thing in these seven sayings about the Gospel is Jesus' conversation with one of the criminals crucified with Him. The criminal asked a favour: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" , to which Jesus replied "I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:42-43). This political insurgent was being crucified probably because some act of insurgency had been thwarted or a plot had been uncovered or he was condemned because of his political associations. Whatever his involvement had been in overthrowing the Romans he had clearly failed. Beside him is a man who has also appeared to fail. Crucified on the charge of being "king of the Jews" - effectively a charge of treason - it would appear that Jesus too had failed. There could be no Kingdom with the King dead. Yet from this remark recorded by Luke we realise that this condemned political activist understood more about Jesus' message than did many of His disciples. He realised that Jesus was yet to come into His Kingdom, and that Jesus would have to be rescued from the cross or resurrected in order to do so. He knew that all was not over for Jesus.

In Jesus reply the emphasis should be on the word "today". The insurgent had asked "remember me when ..." and Jesus replied "I say to you today ..." He was telling this dying man that his future in the coming kingdom was assured and that he could die with this assurance. What a blessing it must have been to have died with no uncertainty about his future!

This conversation on the cross reminds us that to the very last Jesus' message was about the Kingdom. Isaiah 53 is frequently quoted by Christians to show how the death of Jesus as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind was predicted by the prophet. Strangely though, when Jesus quotes from Isaiah 53:12 Himself (in Lk 22:37) it is to say that He will be "numbered with the transgressors". (Some manuscripts also insert at Mark 15:27 "They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left, 28 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones"). Even when Peter quotes Isaiah 53 later it was to encourage his readers to follow in Jesus' steps: "Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 'He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth' [from Isa 53:9]. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats" (1 Peter 2:21-23). Although Isaiah 53 seems to be the ideal prophecy to quote with respect to the crucifixion the NT writers, and Jesus Himself, quote it only with reference to His keeping company (or being crucified) with transgressors, and to His non-retaliation. It seems that the first Christians did not think of Isaiah 53 in the way later Christians do, as a prophecy of Jesus suffering as an atonement for the sins of the world, or at least if they did then they didn't quote it in the NT with this meaning. The Gospel accounts of the crucifixion would have been the ideal place to quote Isaiah 53, yet the Gospel writers don't take this opportunity and are silent.

The emphasis of the Gospels is that Jesus was falsely accused and executed as a political activist on a charge of treason because of His preaching a message about the Kingdom. To the very end He was identified with a coming Kingdom, and His final conversation reflected this. His immediate followers spoke of his unjust murder at the hands of wicked men. It seems that the emphasis for the first Christians was on Jesus' resurrection and exaltation as the most significant events in our salvation, rather than his death.


* The traditional order of the sayings is:

1. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34)
   
2. Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43)
3. Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (John 19:26-27)
4. Eli Eli lama sabachthani? ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46 // Mark 15:34)
   
5. I thirst (John 19:28)
6. It is finished (John 19:30)
7. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46)

Picture is Crucifixion of Christ, by Diego Velázquez 1632 (in the public domain).

The Cross and the Kingdom (4)

THE DEATH OF JESUS IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

We might reasonably expect that the first recorded preaching done by the immediate disciples of Jesus would contain the 'core' of the Gospel message. The Acts of the Apostles would therefore be a good source for determining what the first Christians believed and taught.

It's surprising then to discover that Acts says almost nothing about the death of Christ. There are, in fact, only two references in Acts to Jesus' death:

Acts 2:36
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Acts 4:10
"Then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed."

The apostles' preaching in Acts puts a greater emphasis on the exaltation of Jesus than it does on the “sacrificial death” of Jesus. Matthew’s Gospel ends with Jesus saying that “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (28:18) and we discover in Acts that the apostolic kerygma* focused more on this exaltation of Jesus than it did on His death. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be any hint at all of an atonement or sacrificial death in Acts, with the possible exception of Acts 20:28 which I discuss below. The primary message is exaltation. For example in Acts 2:36 Peter says: “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." The crucifixion is mentioned almost only in passing – the message here is exaltation, not atonement.

The only mention of "the blood of Christ" with any theological significance is in Acts 20:28 where some translations suggest it is the blood of God with which the church was bought. For example, the NIV has "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood". Although some manuscripts have "church of the Lord" and some later ones have conflated this into "of God and the Lord" the evidence tends towards "of God" as the most reliable reading. However, the Nestle-Aland Greek text proposes the reading "the blood of his own" (rather than "his own blood") and a note in the NIV Study Bible adopts this reading saying this is "a term of endearment ... referring to His own Son".

This is therefore one of the only explicit statements in the earliest apostolic teachings which refers to the atoning nature of Christ’s death and it is made almost in passing without any explanation or emphasis. The church was "bought" or "obtained" or "acquired" by the blood of the Son but we get no explanation of what that means.

On the other hand, what we do get in Acts is a consistent and repeated emphasis on the exaltation of Jesus (e.g. 2:33, 36; 5:31), and this carries over into the NT letters (which I will come to later). In Acts much is made of Jesus' authority. Baptism, preaching and healing are done "in the name of Jesus" (the expression occurs twelve times in Acts, and only twice thereafter), perhaps building on the claim in 2:21 that "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved". In Acts there is "power" in the "name of Jesus". Jesus' Lordship is emphasised: for example, "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (2:36) and "Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all" (10:36). The expression "the Lord Jesus" occurs more often in Acts than in any other book.

Acts 4:33 provides a cameo of the apostolic kerygma: "With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all." This stands in stark contrast with those evangelists and preachers who insist that the core of the Gospel is the death of Christ as a sacrificial, atoning or substitutionary act on behalf of those He came to save. However, instead of saying "Jesus died for you" (as we might expect) the apostles clearly and consistently taught "Jesus was resurrected" and "for you" may be implicit but is not explicitly stated until we get to the later NT writings. The words "resurrection" and "raised from the dead" occur more often in Acts than in any other NT book, with the exception of the treatise on resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15.

So while we might expect the apostles to have taught that Christ died for us, that His death was necessary to enable us to be forgiven, or that our salvation is assured because of His supreme act of sacrifice, we actually find none of this in Acts. What we do find is that they taught that Jesus was raised from the dead and exalted to the highest position, at the right hand of God, and that as a result of His exaltation power has been given to those He has called. Jesus is acknowledged as the "Lord of all" and there is power in His name. If we were to look for one word to describe the effects of Jesus' death and resurrection it would be "power" or "authority" rather than "atonement", "forgiveness" or "salvation".


*kerygma is the Greek word used in the NT for "preaching" and is the technical theological term generally used to describe what Jesus or the apostles publically preached rather than what they may have believed or taught privately.

The Cross and the Kingdom (3)

THE DEATH OF JESUS IN JOHN'S GOSPEL

John's Gospel appears to have more to say about the theological significance of Jesus' death than the Synoptic Gospels. Apart from the record of the actual crucifixion the following list is of all the possible references in John to Jesus' death.

a. The Lamb of God sayings

John 1:29
John [the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

John 1:36
When he [John] saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"

Lambs were sacrificed daily as burnt offerings “to make atonement” (Lev 1:4). Lambs were also slain at Passover although the Passover lamb is never said to make atonement. John almost certainly was therefore not thinking of Jesus as a "Passover lamb".

John is more likely to have Isa 53:7 in mind (“he was led like a lamb to the slaughter”) as the lamb here is used metaphorically of the suffering servant who “will bear [the] iniquities” of many (v. 11).

Another possibility is that this is an allusion to the ram which was sacrificed in place of Isaac (Gen 22:8).

John says this lamb “takes away the sin of the world”. 1 John 3:5 uses a similar expression: “he appeared so that he might take away our sins”. To “take away sin” can mean either:

(a) to remove it by making atonement for it, or
(b) bearing the penalty attached to the sin, or
(c) to abolish sin.

I will come back to these possibilities later.

b. The “lay down his life” sayings

John recorded a number of sayings where Jesus is said to "lay down his life" for others. I think the following list covers them all.

John 10:11, 15, 17-18 “the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep”.

John 15:13 “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (but cp. v. 12 “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you” which shows that this saying is intended for the disciples and not necessarily referring to Jesus’ death as an atonement.)

The use of the same expression in 1 John 3:16 provides an insight into its meaning. “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” The next verse offers an example of how we “lay down our lives for our brothers”. “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” If John is here suggesting that by meeting our brothers’ material needs we are “laying down our lives” for them, then there is no implication of sacrificial death in these words. (See also John 13:37, 38 where Peter offers to lay down his life.)

The Greek word tithemi occurs 96 times in the NT. It is translated: lay (up, aside, or down, or as ‘lay a foundation’), appoint, put, set, ordain, commit, advise, purpose, settle. It doesn’t necessarily mean “to die” and its use elsewhere seems to be against this. It seems almost certain from the way this word is used elsewhere that Jesus is saying that He "laid aside" His life in the sense that His life was fully devoted to the needs of others and He laid aside all self-interest. He was referring to His life of service, not to His death.

c. The “lifted up” (hypsoo) sayings

John recorded several sayings where Jesus referred to being "lifted up" and this is often understood to be a reference to His being "lifted up" on the cross.

However, either crucifixion or exaltation (or both) may be implied by hypsoo.

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.

John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

John 12:32 - 34 But I, when I am lifted up from [ek = out of] the earth, will draw all men to myself." He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this 'Son of Man'?"

As this last text suggests that Jesus being "lifted up" related to his death we need to take a closer look at it. First we should note that Jesus used the Greek word ek, meaning out of when he said He would be lifted up out of the earth. It seems most likely that Jesus is here referring to His exaltation and His ascension "out of" the earth and into heaven.

However, it seems certain from John's editorial comment that "He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die" that Jesus had crucifixion in mind rather than exaltation. We should note however that the Greek word translated "he said this" in verse 33 is lego and refers to a systematic discourse. In other words John is actually saying ‘Jesus said all this …’ referring to the preceding discourse, not just the few preceding words. The preceding discourse was about Jesus being "glorified", during which He said "the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." In other words, Jesus is saying that His death would be necessary in order for His exaltation or glorification and to produce "many seeds". It follows therefore that when He referred to all men being "drawn" to Himself that He was referring back to the "many seeds" that would be produced as a result of His glorification.

It's possible that this text is referring to Jesus being "lifted up" in crucifixion, but it's equally possible (and in my opinion actually more likely) that He was referring to His exaltation and glorification after His death.

The Cross and the Kingdom (2)

THE DEATH OF JESUS IN THE SYNOPTICS

a. Jesus’ predictions of His death

There are three major explicit predictions by Jesus of His death and resurrection:

1. Following Peter’s confession (Matt 16: 13-23 // Mk 8:31 // Lk 9:18-22)

2. Following the transfiguration (Matt 17:22-23 // Mk 9:31 // Lk 9:44)

3. Following the conversation with the rich young man (Matt 20:17-19 // Mk 10:32-34 // Lk 18:31-33. Only Matthew’s account specifically mentioned crucifixion as the means of death).

In addition to these incidents Jesus explicitly predicted His crucifixion just prior to His anointing at Bethany (Matt 26:1-5). While the anointing is recorded by Matthew, Mark and John only Matthew records the crucifixion saying.

None of these predictions of His death give a reason for it in terms of atonement or salvation. Jesus simply declared that he will be betrayed and killed, without stating a reason for it or attaching any theological significance to it. He did not attempt to explain why he "had to die".

b. The parable of the tenants

All three synoptics record this parable about a landowner and his tenants (Matt 21:33-46 // Mark 12:1-12 // Luke 20:9-19 ) . The landowner sends various servants to collect his share of the harvest, and each in turn are beaten or killed. Finally he sends his son, expecting the tenants to respect his son. All three accounts say: “they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance’” and “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard this parable, they knew he was talking about them”.

One significant aspect of this story is that the son represents the landowner as his agent. According to the well-known Jewish principle of agency (shaliach) by rejecting the son they were in effect rejecting the father. This is spelled out in Luke 10:16 “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." Jesus is the shaliach, the agent or emissary of God, but not God Himself, although He acts with the full authority of God. Jesus was no doubt suggesting by this parable that His impending death would be a direct assault on God's agent and, by implication, an attack on God Himself. However, besides this implication that Jesus was God's agent and that the religious leaders of His day were in direct opposition to God, Jesus attaches no other significance to the death of the son. There is no hint here that it was necessary as an atonement or "for the sins" of anyone. The son in the parable was the victim of a murder. There is no other implied connection to "sin".

c. The ransom saying

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (Gk. lytron) for many”. (Matt 20:28 // Mark 10:45 )

The only other occurrence of “ransom” in the New Testament is 1 Tim 2:6 (antilytron) and there is insufficient information in either text to determine exactly what was meant by "ransom". The word can denote the price paid to free slaves while the related verb lytroo can mean deliverance in a general way without implying anything about payment. While the “ransom saying” may be saying that deliverance of many was accomplished at great cost, this saying does not specify to whom the ransom is paid. In fact, in the absence of anything to say the ransom was paid to someone we should conclude that the saying simply means that deliverance comes at a great cost, without drawing the conclusion that something was paid to someone.

This saying may, or may not, be a reference to His death - to give ones life in service does not necessarily mean to die. We often speak of someone giving their life to a cause or mision, without necessarily implying they have died - we mean that their life has been devoted to the cause. So in the 'ransom saying' Jesus could easily be saying that His life was devoted to being a liberator or redeemer. In fact, by saying that He came "to serve" almost rules out death. One cannot serve if they are dead. You can, however, devote your life to service and the context almost demands that this is the intended meaning.

d. Other sayings

There are several sayings and metaphors which imply suffering and rejection and resurrection, including:

The Temple saying
“Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”
John 2:19-22 cp. Mt 26:61 // Mk 14:58; Matt 27:39 // Mk 15:29

The Jonah saying
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"

Matt 12:38-40; 16:1-2; Lk 11:29-32

The baptism metaphor
"Can you ... be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" Mk 10:38-39

"I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!"Lk 12:50

The cup metaphor
"Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"

Matt 20:22-23 // Mk 10:38-39; Matt 26:39 // Mk 14:36 // Lk 22:42; John 18:11.

These sayings are primarily eschatological while none of them necessarily suggest atonement. They are predictions of suffering, death and resurrection but no further meaning is attached to them. None of these sayings suggest why Jeus would suffer and die, nor do they imply His death was "necessary" in order for sins to be forgiven. There is one more incident in the Synoptics which is generally understood to be a reference to Jesus' death: the last supper and the prayers over the bread and wine. I have commented on this fairly extensively in another series of articles, but I will come back to it later and examine it in this context.

In my next message I will look at how John's Gospel deals with a different set of sayings.

The Cross and the Kingdom (1)

The synoptic Gospels consistently tell us that Jesus’ mission was to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (e.g. Matt 4:23; 9:35; Mk 1:15; Lk 4:43; 8:1). The Kingdom of God is mentioned over 100 times in all four canonical Gospels. While the death of Jesus is recorded in detail in all the Gospels, very little is said about it in terms of an atonement or sacrifice. In fact, even while dying on the cross rather than speaking about the significance of his death as an atonement Jesus instead discussed the coming Kingdom with one of the men crucified with Him (Lk 23:42-43) and gave him an assurance of the grace of God.

Theologians and evangelists who preach the death, burial and resurrection as the whole Gospel struggle to find the Gospel in the gospels and in the teachings of Jesus. No wonder then that the popular New International Version translates evangelion as “Gospel” throughout the New Testament except when referring to the teachings of Jesus – there it is translated “good news”. In other words, the subtle implication is that Jesus simply spoke of “good news” while Paul taught the real Gospel! Hence C.S. Lewis declared that the Gospel is not in the gospels! [1]

A tract entitled “What is the Gospel?” (published by The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, 1980) declares that Jesus “came to do three days work, to die, be buried and raised” and that “He came not primarily to preach the Gospel . . . but He came rather that there might be a Gospel to preach.” Yet Jesus declared that He was commissioned for the very purpose of proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom (“I came to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom ... that is the reason why I was sent” Luke 4:43).

We cannot separate the crucifixion of Jesus from the teachings of Jesus. The Gospel is not declared in the event while absent from the sayings. On the contrary, for Jesus the crucifixion was a decisive event in the end of the present evil age. He encountered head-on the religious and political leaders of His day, refusing to use their weapons, and He ultimately had the victory.

So what is the connection between the cross and the kingdom? Jesus Himself said that He was sent for the purpose of preaching the kingdom, not to die. So why did Jesus have to die?

In this series of articles I hope to explore what the New Testament says about the death of Christ and how we might benefit from it. I will explore Biblical terms such as "the blood of Christ", "Christ died for us", "sacrifice" and "atonement". In particular I want to look at what Jesus said about His own death and the significance attached to it by the Apostles and the first Christians. I especially want to look at how Jesus saw His own death in relation to His preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom.

In writing these articles I am conscious of the fact that thousands of others before me have attempted to explain the reasons for the death of Christ. I'm also acutely aware of the fact that the Bible itself does not give us a detailed explanation. I agree with the comments of these two scholars:

“In spite of the rich variety of imagery employed in the NT for coming to terms with Jesus’ death, the history of reflection on the cross is littered with attempts to discern its significance in narrow terms. In reality, just as the crucifixion of Jesus is the most historically certain of the events of Jesus’ life, it is also the most widely interpreted.”

Joel Green
Death of Jesus in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Intervarsity Press 1992, p. 153

“To believe that God raised Jesus from the dead is also to believe that Jesus died for the sins of all. The theory of orthodox Christianity notwithstanding, the New Testament presents no authoritative theory of the atonement, in terms of why Jesus' death may have been necessary for the forgiveness of sins. What is clear is that, in view of Jesus' death, the Christian conscience does not condemn Christians for their shortcomings, as if they were guilty of transgression, but, instead, admonishes and encourages them to act consistently with what they are: the people of God (see Rom.8:1-17,31-34; Heb.10:1-25). This, again, is the maturity of life in God's kingdom: not fear, which has to do with punishment, but love, which comes from faith and hope (see I Jn. 4:18).”

Robert Hach
Restoring the New Testament Pattern

My spiritual roots are in a community which has attempted to define in rather dogmatic terms why Christ died and has consequently and repeatedly divided over the issue. In tackling this subject I am not proposing to defend any particular interpretation, or even to attempt a new one. Rather, I hope to take a fresh look at the subject by returning to the Biblical texts and endeavouring to capture the simplicity of the apostles' teaching.

[1] Introduction to J. B. Phillips’ Letters to Young Churches, Fontana Books, pp. 9, 10

The Body of Christ

When Paul wrote "you are the body of Christ" (1 Cor 12:27) or "in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others" (Rom 12:5) what did he mean? What exactly is the "Body of Christ"?

We take a lot for granted. For example, in the two places where Jesus spoke about the "church" (ekklesia) we assume we know what He was talking about. It's obvious isn't it? He was referring to groups of people who meet in tidy buildings, in rows of chairs neatly set out; following the same order of services they have since the apostles (4 hymns, 2 readings, an exhortation, prayers, breaking of bread and announcements); with elected arranging brethren, presiding brethren, rostered organists, etc.

Except that's clearly not what Jesus understand by "church"/ekklesia. Even if He was thinking 1800 years into the future His audience obviously couldn't have had that vision in their minds when they heard Him speak of church/ekklesia.

So what did He mean? When Jesus referred (only twice) to the ekklesia He used a word which was used in the LXX Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible to refer to Israel as God's community. It was a word which meant (to a Jewish audience) "the people of God", and it was a word which included the whole community. So in Matthew 18 when Jesus spoke about being reconciled with a brother, He said we should first enlist the help of a trusted friend, if necessary get one or two others involved, and then if really necessary we should get the help of the whole community of God's people in order to be reconciled with a brother.

So we find in the Hebrew Bible that on important occasions when God's people presented themselves before God that they did so as HOUSEHOLDS. Passover was to be kept by the whole household. When the tithe was presented to the Lord the whole household had to be there to eat together "in the presence of the Lord" (Deut 14:22-27). When the Philippian jailer was converted his whole household was baptised and joined the community of God's people (Acts 16:33). The (unbaptised) children of believers are "holy" (1 Cor 7:14).

Scripture is screaming out to us in these verses and elsewhere that God is interested in families, households and communities. The community of God's people includes new converts, those who have passed down the Word of God for generation after generation, parents, their children who are also "holy", single people, the Sunday School, the Youth Group, the elderly with dementia in nursing homes, and all those in the care of God's people. Together they make up the "congregation of Israel", the ekklesia, the community of God's people, the Body of Christ.

The Lord's table - thanksgiving

I think we have such an emphasis on "atonement" in our theology that we might have missed the point about the bread and wine by seeing them as symbols of the literal body and blood of a human sacrifice.

However, I believe Jesus is actually picking up on a very strong theme in the Hebrew prophets.

Here are just a few verses where the prophets talk about the kind of sacrifices God desires.

Having already said that the time would come when Israel "will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol" (Hos 3:4) Hosea went on to preach about what God wants when sacrifice is unavailable. He said "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" (6:6).

In chapter 14 he spells it out further:

1 Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God.
Your sins have been your downfall!

2 Take words with you
and return to the LORD.
Say to him:
"Forgive all our sins
and receive us graciously,
that we may offer the fruit of our lips. [a]

[a] Or offer our lips as sacrifices of bulls

Reading the Hebrew literally (as the NIV footnote does above) we realise that the sacrifices of bulls are to be replaced by "our lips" i.e our words/prayers.

When he was inside the fish Jonah prayed and said "with a song of thanksgiving, [I] will sacrifice to you" (2:9).

Micah 6 has a similar view on sacrifice:

6 With what shall I come before the LORD
and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?

7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

Amos has a similar message (chapter 5):

21 "I hate, I despise your religious feasts;
I cannot stand your assemblies.

22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.

23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.

24 But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!

The prophetic theme here is consistent. God would abolish sacrifices and remove the Temple and priesthood and replace them with "thanksgiving", the "sacrifice of praise" and a people who would act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God, when God's justice and righteousness would prevail.

Malachi 1 even suggests that the time would come when the Temple doors would be shut and the Gentiles (nations) would bring a "pure sacrifice" of prayer (symbolised by "incense" see Rev 5:8).

10 "Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you," says the LORD Almighty, "and I will accept no offering from your hands. 11 My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.

Jesus' message of the coming kingdom reached a climax when He cleared the Temple, indicating that the time had come for the sacrifices to end. Almost immediately thereafter He has a meal with His disciples when He says the usual prayers (thanksgiving) over the bread and wine and says "do this" as a memorial. Do what? Offer thanks. Acknowledge God. Offer to God our lips as sacrifices of praise.

Little wonder then that the earliest word the church coined for the re-enactement of the last supper was "eucharist" which means "thanksgiving"! This partly comes from Paul's expression that we share a "cup of blessing/thanksgiving". The point of the bread and wine is that they are about giving THANKS in place of offering the body and blood of bulls. So Jesus said of the items over which the blessing/thanksgiving would be said "THIS is my body and blood" i.e. thanksgiving under the new covenant replaces the body and blood of bulls under the old covenant.

So much of what Jesus did and said was grounded solidly in the preaching of the prophets about the coming kingdom, and the cleansing of the Temple and the last supper were "eschatalogical moments" in which Jesus was declaring that they had reached a climax in God's dealings with humanity. But if we overlook the immense influence of the prophets in how Jesus understood His own role we miss these beautiful connections.

Disproportionate grace

An Australian ecclesia recently decided to "dissociate" itself from another ecclesia because they don't like the "disproportionate emphasis on the doctrine of grace" by the other ecclesia.

A "disproportionate emphasis on the doctrine of grace" sounds like an oxymoron to me. "Grace" is all about God's abundant, overflowing, overwhelming, infinite, disproportionate generosity!

Paul used the word "grace" about 80 times in his letters. John says “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17) and “from the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another” (1:16). Luke said “all spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words [or words of grace] that came from his lips” (Luke 4:22). Paul said he taught "the gospel of grace" (Acts 20:24). Many of Jesus stories and parables emphasised the disproportionate nature of God's generosity. If we don't understand disproportionate grace we really don't understand the Gospel.

Members of the ecclesia concerned would no doubt benefit by reading some of the following helpful books:

Law and Grace by Christadelphian author W.F. Barling

Conviction and Conduct by Christadelphian author Islip Collyer

Legalism vs. Faith by Christadelphian author David Levin

The Grace Awakening by Charles Swindoll

What's So Amazing About Grace? by Philip Yancey

Spiritual leadership (5)

Edward Fudge

SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP (5)

We have been considering three fundamental truths of spiritual leadership.(1) Spiritual leadership involves lowly service, not legal power. Therefore we must not confuse spiritual leadership with political position. (2) Spiritual leaders exercise grace-gifts from God, not worldly qualifications. Therefore we dare not focus on worldly achievements when choosing spiritual leaders. (3) The Bible identifies gifted people, not legal qualifications. Therefore we should not confuse technical qualifications with spiritual characteristics.

Scripture nowhere provides a single, uniform list of qualifications for spiritual leaders. There are two New Testament passages which people often read in that fashion, written by Paul to his co-workers Timothy (1 Tim. 3:1-7) and Titus (Titus 1:5-9). However, when we read these passages carefully, we discover that they differ in several significant ways. Paul gives Timothy a description of the individual gifted for the episkopes ("oversight," "episcopacy" or "bishopric"), the work of overseeing or watching over other believers. He sends Titus a description of the person gifted to serve as a presbyteros ("senior," "elder" or "presbyter"). Christian scholars differ as to whether elders and bishops served in one position or two in the first century.

These two passages also contain different descriptives. Of the 30-35 traits mentioned in the two lists, only five are the same in Greek. If Paul were listing official qualifications, we would expect his lists to be identical. In addition, the descriptives Paul does give are often negative in form (don't pick this kind of person). The named traits are almost always relative as to quality (no precise threshold given). And there is no attempt to define these sometimes ambiguous terms. Paul is certainly not listing formal qualifications for an office, but is rather giving informal descriptions of those who are divinely gifted for the ministry of spiritual leadership.
______________

Copyright 2008 by Edward Fudge. You are encouraged to share this gracEmail freely, widely and in its entirety (including this final paragraph).

Legalism - a way of life

I received this today by email from a friend. I don't know where it originated (so I hope I'm not breaching copyright by posting it here).

Spiritual Leadership (4)

Edward Fudge

SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP (4)

The mission of spiritual leadership is the transformation of God's people into the likeness of Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:7-16). It is not to construct buildings, create programs, attract crowds or to build an institution. However, the transformation of human beings is a supernatural result, which cannot be achieved through mere human planning or power. It requires supernatural means, in the form of grace-gifts bestowed on every member of Christ's body (1 Cor. 12:27-31). And the method of spiritual leadership is lowly service, performed in the meekness of Christ, in the power of God and to his glory (Mark 10:42-45; 1 Peter 4:10-11).

For all these reasons, we dare not focus on any human marker of worldly success -- whether academic, business, professional or financial -- when selecting leaders for the church of God. Such fleshly qualifications contribute nothing toward spiritual leadership. Indeed, they might get in the way, insofar as they tempt leaders and followers alike to lose sight of the divine mission, means and method of spiritual leadership as revealed in Scripture.

We do not create spiritual leaders by selecting people and ordaining them to leadership roles. Instead, we look among God's people and recognize individuals whom God has gifted for this service. Such people have a heart set on the mission of facilitating transformed lives. They rely already on the means God provides for this task -- grace-gifts to be exercised in his power and to his glory. They trust the divine method of spiritual leadership, which is humble service in the footprints of Jesus himself. The people whom God has gifted for spiritual leadership are clearly recognizable -- not by worldly markers of success, but by traits that identify them as intimates of the Savior, filled with his Spirit, committed to his service and devoted to his glory.
___________________

Copyright 2008 by Edward Fudge. You are permitted and encouraged to distribute this gracEmail as widely as possible, but only in its entirety, unchanged and not-for-profit.

Spiritual Leadership (3)

Edward Fudge

SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP (3)

What does spiritual leadership look like, when one realizes that it involves lowly service and not legal power? Paul describes its conduct under three different circumstances: correcting a wrongdoer; encountering a controversialist and dealing with a divisive person.

If required to correct a fellow-Christian who is doing wrong, the person who thinks he or she has legal power will usually be rude, domineering, harsh and perhaps self-righteous. Instead, Paul tells Timothy: “Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity” (1 Tim. 5:1-2).

Similarly, controversy often brings out the worst in people, especially those filled with self-importance because of their supposed authority or position of power. So Paul writes: "Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone . . . patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness" (2 Tim. 2:23-25).

Even if God's leader is kind, patient and gentle as Paul instructs, controversialists are sometimes rough, short-tempered and unkind -- and persistently so in each respect. When encountering such a divisive individual, the spiritual leader whose role is to serve and not to assume power or assert authority will have as little as possible to do with that one, and will seek to avoid his or her presence. This is Paul's counsel: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11).
______________

Copyright 2008 by Edward Fudge. You are encouraged to share this gracEmail freely, widely and in its entirety (including this final paragraph).

Spiritual Leadership (2)

Edward Fudge

SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP (2)

The first scriptural truth we observe is that spiritual leadership involves lowly service, not legal power. This truth raises a caution -- Do not confuse spiritual leadership with political position. Jesus leaves no room for confusion on this point (Mark 10:42-45). Secular rulers "lord it over" their subjects and "exercise authority" over them. "But it shall not be so among you," Jesus continues. Instead, "whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all." This is the pattern set by Jesus himself, the "Son of Man," who "came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Peter applies the same truth when instructing spiritual leaders among his churches (1 Peter 5:1-5). He exhorts senior leaders ("the elders among you") to "shepherd the flock of God that is among you." They will be "exercising oversight," but, if they obey the apostolic instruction, "not domineering over" those in their charge, but "being examples to the flock." Spiritual leadership is moral in nature and it is done primarily by example and by teaching.

It is entirely possible that these "elders" are not office-holders at all, but rather senior Christians who are highly-respected for their lives of faith and service. As Peter continues his encouragement, he uses the word "elders" in a relative sense regarding age and experience. "Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders." Believers of every age are told to "clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’”
______________

Copyright 2008 by Edward Fudge. You are encouraged to share this gracEmail freely, widely and in its entirety (including this final paragraph).

Spiritual Leadership (1)

The following article by Edward Fudge arrived today as a gracEmail®

It is very relevant to a series I wrote earlier on characteristics of Christian leaders. It is numbered (1) so I'm expecting it will be a series.

Very many churches suffer today from a lack of spiritual leadership. That diagnosis is true across denominational lines. It fits both urban and rural churches. It applies equally to rich and poor, to people of all races, without regard to their country, state or province, town or village. The truth is that we all can benefit from a fresh look at biblical teaching on this subject. For the next few gracEmails, I would like to challenge us to consider three fundamental truths of spiritual leadership.

The first truth is that spiritual leadership involves lowly service, not legal power. This truth raises a caution -- Do not confuse spiritual leadership with political position. Jesus teaches this in clear language, as we will see. Peter applies the principle in writing his churches. Paul describes it in action under a variety of circumstances as he instructs and guides his proteges and trainees Timothy and Titus. The apostle shows what spiritual leadership looks like when correcting a wrongdoer, encountering a controversialist and dealing with a divisive person. We will consider his guidance for each situation.

The second truth is that spiritual leaders exercise grace-gifts from God, not worldly qualifications. This truth also raises a caution -- Do not focus on worldly achievements when choosing spiritual leaders. Too often, churches focus on educational degrees, professional expertise or financial success when seeking out spiritual leaders. Yet not one of those elements has any necessary relationship to spiritual maturity, worthiness of imitation, Christlikeness or ability to teach, model and inspire others toward godliness and Christian maturity. When churches use improper standards for selecting spiritual leaders, they are almost certain to come to spiritual stagnation (even if the institutional church thrives).

The third truth is that the Bible identifies gifted people, not legal qualifications. This creates a caution -- Do not confuse technical qualifications with spiritual character. Scripture does not provide a single, uniform list of "qualifications" for spiritual leaders. Two texts which people sometimes try to convert into such a list of legal or technical qualifications are found in First Timothy and Titus. Yet a close reading reveals that the descriptions in these two passages differ from each other, as do the very names or terms used of the servant-leadership role envisioned. Further, the descriptives found in these two epistles are often negative in form, almost always relative as to quality, and incapable of precise definition -- a task which Scripture never does for us or even suggests that we should try to do for ourselves. God willing, we will consider these three basic truths and corresponding cautions one by one in upcoming gracEmails.
______________

Copyright 2008 by Edward Fudge. You are encouraged to share this gracEmail freely, widely and in its entirety (including this final paragraph).

Orthodoxy and orthopraxy

There is currently a discussion on the Facebook group "Christadelphians Worldwide" about the question "what's important (and what's not)?"

Duncan Heaster posted some excellent thoughts in response to something I'd written elsewhere, and with his permission I have reproduced them below.

"Practical teaching without sound theology is as impoverished as sound theology without practical teaching. The New Testament doesn’t make the distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy [good practice] that we often do, nor is there any hint in the Scriptures, as far as I can see, that God will forgive bad behavior more readily than poor theology, or vice versa. We need to teach them both and teach them well.” — Steve Cook

It needs to be read a few times for it to sink in. I suspect one of the barriers to accepting what you say here is the idea folk have that the word "doctrine" refers only to theology and the propositional statements which can accompany it, positive and negative- e.g. one God, no heaven going, Kingdom on earth, devil didn't fall off the 99th floor etc.

Reality is that Biblically, 'doctrine' means simply 'teaching'- and the 'teaching' of the inspired writers was largely about intensely practical things. Thus the perceived difference between 'doctrine' [as many understand the word] and 'practice' is actually false. Teaching is practical- for the NT isn't given to just ivory tower theology for the sake of it. Indeed the whole of the NT is a collection of missionary documents- preaching, letters to new converts etc. And even when there is pure theology taught, this is always in a practical context- it is the springboard for action, not an end in itself. The way the two sections of Romans tie together is a nice example - 1-11 is the theology, the theory, and 12-16 is the practical outcome of it.

Christadelphianism has some good theology, that's why I am a Christadelphian and not in some other group, but the challenge is to articulate all that true theology in practical terms. If that's not done, then the true theology hasn't been believed in the sense it is intended to be believed- it's simply been assembled and protected in a glass case. The talent has to be traded, not wrapped up and 'preserved' in the earth.

Jonah 2:9 contains the enigmatic statement that those who "hold to empty faiths" (Heb.) "forsake their own hesed". Hesed basically refers to the capacity a superior has to show mercy, grace and love to someone in an inferior position. For over 20 years I wondered what Jonah was really getting at. I think I then grasped it- those who hold to empty faiths forego the capacity to show hesed, favour to others- the implication being that the result of the one true faith is that we are empowered to show hesed, love, favour, grace, mercy, to others. And this ties in perfectly with 1 Pet. 1:22- we obey the truth unto, with the result that, we show "unfeigned love of the brethren". This is how and where true doctrine comes to its ultimate term- love of others.

AD381 by Charles Freeman

This new book by historian Charles Freeman looks good.

"'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics.' Emperor Theodosius"

In 381 AD, Theodosius, emperor of the eastern Roman Empire, issued a decree in which all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This edict defined Christianity; all other interpretations were now declared heretical. Moreover, for the first time in a thousand years of Greco-Roman civilization, free thought was unambiguously suppressed. Yet surprisingly, this political revolution, intended to bring inner cohesion to an empire under threat from the outside, has been airbrushed from the historical record. Instead, it has been claimed that the Christian Church had reached a consensus on the Trinity which was promulgated at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

This groundbreaking new book shows that the Council was in fact a shambolic affair, which only took place after Theodosius’s decree had become law. In short, the Church was acquiescing in the overwhelming power of the Emperor. Freeman argues that the edict and the subsequent suppression of paganism not only brought an end to religious and philosophical diversity throughout the Empire, but created numerous theological problems for the Church that have remained unsolved. The year AD 381, Freeman concludes, marked “a turning point which time forgot.”

The Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and the Word (3)

Some Christadelphians argue that the Holy Spirit was given to certain people in Biblical times so that they could perform miraculous signs to prove that their message was truly from God. They then go on to argue that seeing as we now have the Word of God in its final and complete form (i.e. in the Bible), there is no further need for these authenticating miraculous signs, and therefore no further need for the Holy Spirit.

However, this argument lacks Scriptural support.

For example, John the Baptist (of whom Jesus said: "among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist" [Matthew 11:11]) was "full of the Holy Spirit even from birth" (Luke 1:15). If the Holy Spirit was given to individuals for the purpose of authenticating their message through miraculous signs then we should expect that this man who was the greatest of the prophets (and indeed the greatest among those born of women!) and who was full of the Holy Spirit from birth would have performed some outstanding miraculous signs. Yet we are told very specifically in Scripture that "John never performed a miraculous sign" (John 10:41).

A couple of things puzzle me. The Christadelphian writer I quoted in an earlier post also wrote: "When God pours out his Spirit, He gives unmistakable signs so that others can see and believe."

However, this is not what I see in Scripture. David had the Holy Spirit (Psalm 51:11; Mark 12:36; Acts 1:16; 4:25), but what "unmistakable signs" did he do "so that others can see and believe"? John the Baptist was full of the Holy Spirit from birth, but what "unmistakable signs" did he do "so that others can see and believe"? What about those in the early Corinthian church who Paul quite specifically said could not speak in tongues or perform miraculous signs, yet were filled with the Holy Spirit? What "unmistakable signs" could they do "so that others can see and believe"?

Some Christadelphians resort to emotional arguments when it becomes clear that their position lacks Biblical evidence. For example, I've had Christadelphians say to me "if you have the Holy Spirit then why don't you go into hospitals and heal everyone? If you were truly a loving and compassionate person you would use this gift to eradicate suffering." This question and its accompanying comment not only lack logic, they actually ignore the Biblical evidence. If anyone could go into hospitals and heal all the sick then it would have been our Lord Himself. Yet Jesus didn't heal all the sick people He encountered, even when He had the opportunity. In Acts 3:1-10 we read of a man who had been crippled from birth and who was carried every day to the Beautiful Gate at the Jerusalem Temple. Anyone going into the Temple had to pass through this gate. It was the perfect place to beg. This would have meant that Jesus passed him every time He went into the Temple, and every time He passed up the opportunity to heal this man. Did Jesus lack love and compassion?

In 2 Timothy 4:20 we read Paul saying that "I left Trophimus sick in Miletus". Paul clearly had the Holy Spirit, yet he didn't use this gift to heal a fellow-missionary who was sick. Either he couldn't heal him, or he wouldn't. Did Paul lack compassion?

The assertion that someone who has the Holy Spirit should go into hospitals and heal all the sick is not only contrary to the examples of people full of the Holy Spirit such as Jesus, Paul and John the Baptist, but is based on the false assumption that the Holy Spirit enables its recipients to perform miracles and to heal the sick. John didn't perform miracles, and Jesus and Paul didn't heal all the sick they encountered. Paul explained very clearly to the Corinthians that while all believers have the [Holy] Spirit, they do not have the same kinds of gifts: "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit" (1 Cor 12:4). He explained that there are different "manifestations" of the Spirit. Through some people the Spirit is manifested in miracles, through another in healings, through others in faith, words of wisdom, or knowledge. Paul went on to ask the questions "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?" (vv. 29-30). Obviously not everyone can work miracles. Not everyone speaks in tongues. We can't all heal the sick. Yet everyone in the body of Christ has the [Holy] Spirit (e.g. see verses 3 and 7).

The Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and the Word (2)

In my previous post I referred to a theory advanced by one Christadelphian writer and widespread in Christadelphianism that the Bible uses the term Spirit to mean a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus created by the impact of the gospel on an individual" while the term Holy Spirit means "God's power ... given in the first century for specific purposes".

This theory does not explain the many Scriptures I quoted in my previous post where the terms "the Spirit" and "the Holy Spirit" are used interchangeably. But if we accept the theory as reasonable for a moment and apply that writer's definitions to the parallel Gospel accounts then we will see that it is impossible for these texts to have both meanings at the same time.

For example, in Matt 3:16 we read that after Jesus' baptism they saw "the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. " If the popular Christadelphian theory is correct then Matthew meant that a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus (or God) created by the impact of the gospel on an individual" descended on Jesus. That would hardly make sense, and would be difficult to reconcile with the parallel account (Luke 3:22) which says that "the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove" and would therefore mean that "God's power ... given in the first century for specific purposes" descended on Him. So what was it that descended on Jesus? Was it God's power, given for specific purposes, or was it a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus (or God) created by the impact of the gospel on an individual"?

As another example, Matt 12:43 refers to "David, speaking by the Spirit" while Mark 12:36 says David was speaking by the Holy Spirit. So was David speaking by God's power, given for specific purposes, or by a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus (or God) created by the impact of the gospel on an individual"?

John 7:39 refers to "the Spirit, which those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." How could this mean the "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus created by the impact of the gospel on an individual" and not the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost or "God's power ... given in the first century for specific purposes"?

In John 14:17, 26; 16:15 the "Counsellor" (parakletos) is also called "the Spirit of truth", simply "the Spirit" and "the Holy Spirit". How could the Counsellor be both a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus created by the impact of the gospel on an individual" and "God's power ... given in the first century for specific purposes" at the same time? How we are able to tell when the Counsellor is "a mental and moral disposition" and when it is "God's power", or can it be both at the same time?

When Jesus said "But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt 12:28) did He drive out demons by the "mental and moral likeness" of God, or by "the power of God"? If the latter, then why did our Lord use a term that we should understand to mean "a mental and moral likeness"?

Once we put this theory to the test we see that the Christadelphian distinction between Spirit and Holy Spirit cannot be applied consistently through Scripture and that in many instances an attempt to apply the distinguishing definitions makes the texts nonsensical.

The Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and the Word (1)

There is a theory which is widespread throughout Christadelphianism that in the Bible the terms "Spirit" and "Holy Spirit" mean different things. One Christadelphian writer explained the perceived difference this way:

The Spirit is a "mental and moral likeness of the Lord Jesus created by the impact of the gospel on an individual" while the Holy Spirit is "God's power ... given in the first century for specific purposes".

In this post I'd like to dispel these myths and demonstrate that the Bible uses the terms "Spirit" and "Holy Spirit" interchangeably and that any distinction between them is artificial and unBiblical.

By comparing the following parallel accounts in the Gospels we see that the Gospel-writers understood "Spirit" and "Holy Spirit" to mean the same thing.

1. Matt 3:16 "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. " (cp. John 1:32 "Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.")

cp. Luke 3:22 "and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. "

2. Matt 4:1 "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil."

cp. Luke 4:1 "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert."

3. Matt 10:20 "for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you."

cp. Luke 12:12 "for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.

4. Matt 12:31 "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ."

cp. Mark 3:29 "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." (cp. also Luke 12:10).

5. Matt 12:43 "He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'?"

cp. Mark 12:36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." '.

6. Luke 2:26 "It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Christ."

cp. the next verse (27) "Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts."

When we read further in the New Testament we see that other writers also meant the same thing by the terms "Spirit" and "Holy Spirit".

For example, 1 Cor 12:3 "Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit."

Also, Jude 20 "But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit." Cp. Eph 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions."

Again, 2 Cor 1:21-22 "Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Cp. Eph 1:13-14 "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, which is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory."

The similarity between these passages is striking. The writers obviously saw no difference between 'the Spirit (of God)' and 'the Holy Spirit.'

The following passage shows that some other terms have the same meaning and are also used interchangeably:

Rom 8:9-11 "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, which lives in you."

I believe therefore that it is demonstrable that in Scripture these terms have the same meaning:

• the Spirit
• the Holy Spirit
• the Spirit of God
• the Spirit of Christ
• Christ in you

Other texts show that the NT writers thought of 'the Spirit of God' or 'Holy Spirit' as the same as 'the Spirit of Christ' or 'Spirit of Jesus'. For example:

Acts 16:7 "When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to." Cp. the previous verse "Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia."

Also, Phil 1:19 refers to "the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ." Are we to conclude that this is a diffferent 'Spirit' to the help-giving Spirit referred to elsewhere? e.g. Rom 8:26 "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness"; 2 Tim 1:14 "Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you–guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit which lives in us."

Consequently, I believe that to say God dwells in us, or Christ dwells in us, is the same as saying the Holy Spirit dwells in us. This is confirmed by the following texts:

John 14:16-18 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth (referred to as "the Holy Spirit" in verse 26). The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."

It is through the parakletos, the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit, that Jesus comes to us. Cf. verse 23 "Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him."

The same concept (i.e. that God 'dwells' in the church and the believer through the Holy Spirit) is found in the following places:

• 1 Cor 3:16-17 "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple."

• cp. 1 Cor 6:19-21 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, which is in you, which you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

• cp. 2 Cor 6:16 "What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

• Eph 2:22 "And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

• Cp. Eph 3:16-17 "I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith."

• 1 John 4:13 "We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit."

This selection is by no means exhaustive, but it is more than adequate to demonstrate that it is quite wrong to make an artificial distinction between the Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit. The Bible uses both terms to mean the same thing, but never uses the term "Spirit" to mean "the Bible" (more on that later).

Permission needed to start a new ecclesia - IMPORTANT UPDATE

I reported earlier that a motion has been proposed for the Business session of the 2008 Australian Christadelphian Conference which would require new ecclesias to obtain the permission of five other local ecclesias in order to be recognised as a bona fide ecclesia meeting on the basis of the Unity Agreement.

Fortunately common sense has prevailed and the ecclesia proposing this has now withdrawn their motion.

This is very encouraging indeed. It tells me that we don't have to put up with the bullying intimidation of a vocal minority, and that the voices of moderate Christadelphians can still have an effect in stopping the progressive spread of extremism and fundamentalism in the Christadelphian community.

I've also heard that one or two ecclesias in the Brisbane area who were previously members of the G13 have now distanced themselves from that pressure group. The G13 was a group which met to discuss other (uninvited) ecclesias to devise ways of either bringing them into line with their own views or excluding them from the wider fellowship of the Christadelphian community. Such groups are described in clause 44 of the Ecclesial Guide as "collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life".

It's very encouraging to see that some ecclesias which were previously associated with this bunch of bullies have come to their senses and withdrawn from the group.

I am sure that these two recent developments have partially come about as a result of blogs like this and the considerable number of Christadelphians who have been saying "enough is enough" and making it clear that such conduct is un-Christadelphian and unacceptable. Let's hope that these moderate Christadelphians will have an even louder voice in the future and that the controlling and intimidating elements in the Christadelphian community will eventually be silenced.

Christadelphian SWOT analysis (4) - the Holy Spirit

In this message, for the first time in this series, I will look at an area of Christadelphian theology where the weaknesses seriously outweigh the strengths. The subject for consideration in this message is the Holy Spirit.

STRENGTHS - the Christadelphian view of the Holy Spirit is that it is the power of God, and not the third person of the trinity. One Christadelphian publication describes the Holy Spirit this way: "by His Holy Spirit, the expression of His power, He [God] controls the affairs of the world according to His ultimate purpose with mankind" and goes on to say "It [the Holy Spirit] is the power by which God achieves His ends, both physical and spiritual" (Fred Pearce, Who are the Christadelphians? Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association Ltd).

Christadelphianism has correctly taught that the trinitarian understanding of the Holy Spirit as a 'person' in the Godhead has no basis in the New Testament or the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Christadelphian theology understands the Holy Spirit to be one with God, and not as a distinct person within the Godhead (The Holy Spirit is "His invisible power or energy breathed forth from His presence, and of like nature with His Glorious Person ... God and His Spirit cannot be separated. They are both one. The sun and the light that comes from the sun are both one. So God, and the Spirit that comes from God, are both one. God is the centre and glorious substantial form of the Spirit that fills heaven and earth." The Christadelphian Instructor questions 17 and 18).

WEAKNESSES - While Christadelphians generally explain the relationship between the Father and Son quite well, Christadelphian teaching about the role and purpose of the Holy Spirit seems to be rather inadequate. Christadelphian literature rarely explains how God "achieves His ends" through the Holy Spirit (especially not His "spiritual" ends), and sometimes restricts the activities of the Holy Spirit to "power concentrated through an individual or angel for the purpose of a specific miraculous event or activity" (The Testimony: The Distinctive Beliefs of the Christadelphians, Vol. 58, No. 691, July 1988, page 254).

This rather limited view and emphasis on the miraculous does not adequately explain how we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Rom 15:16; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2) or how God can "strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being" (Eph 3:16-19). It does not come to terms with the numerous New Testament references to the continuous activity of the Holy Spirit, such as these:

• "God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5)
• God and Christ "live" in by the Holy Spirit (e.g. 1 Cor 6:19-21; Eph 2:22; 1 John 4:13; John 14:16-18, 23).
• The Holy Spirit brings about our rebirth and renewal (Titus 3:5)
• By the Holy Spirit we receive hope (Rom 15:13) and joy (Rom 14:17; 1 Thess 1:6)

It is not enough to say the Holy Spirit is "the power of God". The Holy Spirit is the indwelling presence of God which enables us to become what God intended us to be. Yet Christadelphians rarely explain this well (a notable exception is the excellent work by Christadelphian writer Edgar Wille: The Holy Spirit - an Expository Survey of New Testament Teaching).

OPPORTUNITIES - the Christadelphian understanding of God is definitely on the right track. It correctly understands God to be One, and Jesus as the Son of God who was begotten in the womb of Mary and not before creation. Christadelphian theology could benefit enormously by taking into account how the work of God and Christ in bringing believers to maturity is accomplished through the Holy Spirit.

THREATS - there are definite signs that Christadelphians are losing members to churches and denominations which have a greater emphasis on the operation of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life. Perhaps this is because of a void in Christadelphian teaching and practice. It has been said that as a body without breath is dead, so a church without the Spirit of God is spiritually dead. This maxim would explain why those who leave Christadelphianism often complain of the lifelessness, the stifling rigidity, the dullness and morbid legalism of parts of the Christadelphian community. If this threat is not addressed Christadelphians are likely to continue losing members.

Christadelphian SWOT analysis (3) - prophecy

Continuing with the 'SWOT analysis' theme in this message I will look at the Christadelphian approach to prophecy.

STRENGTHS - a major part of the most widely used Christadelphian statements of faith is devoted to the interpretation of prophecy. The Christadelphian approach to prophecy focuses on three things: (1) the second coming of Christ; (2) the kingdom of God on earth; and (3) the restoration of Israel. None of these things are unique to Christadelphians of course, and with an increasing interest in eschatology (study of the 'end times') in mainstream Christianity more and more Christians are coming to accept the importance of some things which have always been important to Christadelphians. I personally agree that these three things are important and valuable for Bible study, and I believe it's good that Christadelphians have always recognised this.

WEAKNESSES - in some parts of the Christadelphian community certain interpretations of prophecy have been elevated to the status of 'essential to be believed'. For example, some ecclesias insist on belief in John Thomas's continuous historic interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, and regard several details of his prophetic interpretation as 'core doctrines'. I've heard some Christadelphians demand that John Thomas's interpretation of Ezekiel 38, including his view that Rosh is Russia and that Tarshish is Britain and the USA, should be recognised as fundamental Christadelphian doctrine and anyone holding an alternative view should be 'rejected' (which may mean exclusion from the platform and ecclesial positions, or even disfellowship). I know of at least one 'Central fellowship' ecclesia which demanded belief in Thomas's view that judgment would be at Mt Sinai as a condition for fellowship.

This emphasis on prophecy has sometimes led to outrageous interpretations of prophecy being advocated as Christadelphian teaching, when it may only be the opinion of a few. In my own lifetime I've attended public Christadelphian lectures which claimed, for example, that "Man will never walk on the moon" and that "Britain will never enter the Common Market". I've heard Christadelphians publicly predict dates for the second coming (a 'tradition' which began with John Thomas who set a date for the second coming more than once). I've seen Christadelphian advertising saying "the rise of Russia is a sign of Christ's second coming" as well as "the fall of Russia is a sign of Christ's second coming"!

This all contributes to a public perception that Christadelphians are a group of crackpots and that their interpretations of prophecy are nothing more than guesswork and speculation based on the daily newspaper.

OPPORTUNITIES - some Christadelphian commentators such as Harry Whittaker have made substantial contributions to the interpretation of prophecy. While maintaining a focus on the three key areas I listed above, these scholars have helped to draw the brotherhood's attention back to the methods of interpretation rather than just rigidly adhering to the ideas of one man. I believe there is an opportunity here to build on this and to re-look at many of the 'uncertain details' while exploring further the rich sources of Biblical prophetic material and examining many of the prophetic texts which have been glossed over in the past. It would be especially valuable, in my opinion, to study the issues which were important to the prophets (such as justice and equity) rather than just reading prophecy as a way of predicting the future.

THREATS - Christadelphians have lost much of their credibility because they have allowed or advocated some 'loony' interpretations of prophecy, some of which have easily been proven to be wrong. It has practically become part of the Christadelphian tradition to interpret current events in the light of questionable interpretations of prophecy and to make very shaky predictions based on a very narrow reading of Scripture (John Thomas, for example, said it was his "maturest conviction" that Rome would never be the capital of Italy!). Christadelphians will continue to lose credibility if they do not shake themselves free of what one brother called the "Christadelphian parlour game" of predicting future events and if they do not take a fresh look at the real social and religious concerns of the prophets.

Christadelphian SWOT analysis (2) - the Kingdom of God

In this message I will do a brief SWOT analysis on the Christadelphian understanding of the Kingdom of God.

STRENGTHS - traditional Christadelphianism has emphasised that the Gospel is the "good news of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ". It has rightly focussed on Jesus' teaching that the Kingdom of God will be established on the earth and that our hope is the resurrection of the body. NT Wright, the Bishop of Durham, recently published a book titled Surprised by Hope in which he explained that the hope of Christianity is the resurrection and the restoration and regeneration of the earth, and not some disembodied state in heaven. His teaching is readily catching on apparently (for example, at this years Spring Harvest gathering in the UK several teachers said that there is no immortal soul, no heaven when we die and no torments in hell and there was an emphasis on physical resurrection and the coming kingdom of God).

It's great to see mainstream Christianity accepting to some degree a truth which Christadelphians (and others) have always understood.

WEAKNESSES - Christadelphian teaching on the Kingdom of God concentrates almost totally on the future consummation of the Kingdom and says very little about the present aspects of the Kingdom. It ignores almost completely the Scriptures which speak of how Christians in this age experience the "powers of the coming age". It also tends to focus on the details of the Kingdom, including the events prior and subsequent to the 'second coming', the building of 'Ezekiel's temple' and the boundaries of the Kingdom. Disagreements about some of these details have also been the cause of divisions in the Christadelphian community.

It seems to me that a potential Christadelphian influence for good on the wider Christian community has been significantly thwarted by the divisions, infighting and negativity.

OPPORTUNITIES - as mainstream churches look closer at the subject of the Kingdom of God, particularly in Jesus' teachings, there is an opportunity for groups such as Christadelphians to join in the dialogue with a spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation in helping our Christian friends to come to a clearer understanding of truth.

There is also an opportunity for Christadelphians to learn from other believers about the present aspects of Kingdom living, and to have a more complete understanding of the subject and a greater experience of God's grace.

THREATS - if Christadelphianism continues to ignore or neglect the present Kingdom realities there is a very real possibility that members may shift to denominations which teach both the coming Kingdom and the present realities. There are some signs that this shift has already begun.

Christadelphian SWOT analysis (1) - Christology

We're currently at the Australian Restoration Fellowship Conference in Brisbane and I'm writing this message during one of the few breaks in a intensive programme. Each day we've had 7 sessions and all the speakers have come with different perspectives. At times it has been quite challenging as we've been presented with information and ideas which we may not have seriously considered before, as the speakers and participants come from a variety of denominational backgrounds. Yet the atmosphere here is very 'united' as we celebrate the things we have in common, discuss various ideas with respect for each others point of view, and embrace the opportunity to share where God has taken us in our individual study of the Bible.

One of the things that has really impressed me is that participants who come from the various denominations represented here have all spoken of Christadelphianism respectfully, sometimes admiringly, always lovingly and with great sensitivity, even when discussing where they disagree. This has prompted me to think about the things which Christadelphians have to offer to other Christians, as well as some of the things that Christadelphians could learn from others. I though I would do a 'SWOT' analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) as a short series of messages.

In this message I'd like to comment on Christadelphian Christology - that is, the Christadelphian view(s) of the nature of Christ and His relationship to the Father.

STRENGTHS - It's interesting that there have been some very definite trends in theological scholarship over recent years towards a Christology which is remarkably similar to core Christadelphian teaching on the subject. Scholars such as James Dunn have challenged the 'orthodox' view of the pre-existence of Christ and an increasing number of theologians are coming out and saying that the Trinity is not Biblical, cannot be explained in Biblical terms, and was not the belief of the first Christians. Christadelphians have generally done a good job in explaining the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and in dealing with the various Scriptures which have been quoted in support of the Trinity or pre-existence. Of course, Christadelphians are not alone in this, although they have probably produced more literature on the subject than other non-trinitarian groups.

I've have taken note that at this Conference a number of people have commented favourably on the contribution that Christadelphians have made to study of this subject, and some have remarked that their own ideas have been directly or indirectly influenced by Christadelphianism.

WEAKNESSES - despite having the same core beliefs it is indeed tragic that Christadelphians have splintered over the doctrine of the nature of Christ, almost always over matters which are extremely technical and often beyond the comprehension of the rank and file of members. There has been a great deal of bitterness and anger between brethren of different 'fellowships' and some divisions which were created generations ago still haven't been been healed. This is to the shame of Christadelphians. At this Conference I've heard people remark that it's staggering almost beyond belief that Christadelphians who understand Christology so well have divided over minor technical issues rather than standing united and presenting a strong case to other Christians.

The Christadelphian disputes over the 'sinfulness' or otherwise of Jesus' human nature, whether He needed to 'offer for Himself' and whether His human nature was the object of God's wrath have, in my opinion, often degraded into personal attacks where the beauty of the core doctrines has been lost in the muck that has been thrown around.

OPPORTUNITIES - as Christians in mainstream churches examine the challenge that has been created by the trend amongst theological scholars towards a more Biblical Christology, and as they wrestle with these theological issues, there is an opportunity for those who have held to a Socinian-unitarian position (such as Christadelphians) to weigh into the dialogue with a spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation. We should adopt the attitude that we are helping our Christian friends to come to a clearer understanding of truth, rather than attacking them for their 'apostacy'.

There is also an opportunity for Christadelphians to learn from other believers, whether they are trinitarian or non-trinitarian, to clarify their own thinking, to 'fine tune' their theology and to adopt a healthy respect for the enormous scholarship that has been done in other areas.

THREATS - If Christadelphians don't dump their baggage which has been accumulated over generations of infighting and schism and adopt a gentler method of explaining their views, they may become useless to God as His witnesses to these truths and become an irrelevancy. Some serious work has to be done to not only repair the breaches of the past but to put an end to the divisive spirit which created them in the first place.

I will praise You in this storm

This is one of my favourite songs from Casting Crowns (words by Mark Hall/music by Mark Hall and Bernie Herms).

It is based on themes taken from Scriptures such as Job 1:21 ("The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised") and perhaps Psalm 150:2 ("Praise him for his acts of power").

To me this song captures some of how I've felt when I've wrestled with why God doesn't "reach down" and "fix" things, why sometimes He takes away people that we love, and why in the midst of the storms of life His voice sometimes seems to be just a whisper.

Just over three years over ago I lost one of my closest friends in a tragic accident, and my wife Stephanie lost her only brother. Barely a day goes by when we don't think of him and miss him dearly. Mike had suffered some terrible injustices in recent years and was just getting his life back when it was snatched from him. I couldn't understand why God would allow this accident to happen when life was just coming good again. It seemed to me that God's timing was all wrong - it made no sense at all to me.

This Scripture had real meaning for me at the time: "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised". These are the words of Job when everything had been taken from him, yet he praised God. I think I learned from Job's experience that God's ways may not make sense to us, they may seem to be untimely or even unjust, and we may struggle to find meaning in what He does. Yet if we praise Him in our storms we find comfort in the knowledge that He is in control and we are reminded that He is with us, even if we don't clearly hear His voice.

I hope this song will speak to you as well.

Fellowshipping an out-of-fellowship person (2)

This is Cliff's response to comments made about an earlier message.

Firstly, who is the Brother who is in Pine Rivers who has been "dis-fellowshipped"?

Why was he "dis-fellowshipped?"

By whom was he "dis-fellowshipped?"

By God? Does God recognise men's "dis-fellowships?"

By Jesus? Does Jesus recognise men's "dis-fellowships?"

If the brother under discussion was "dis-fellowshipped" (a totally non Biblical terminology) by men, and if those who are "spiritual have restored such a one in the spirit of meekness" (cp Gal 6) surely this should be reason to rejoice, just as the Father in the parable of Luke 15 rejoiced when the prodigal returned home.

It is interesting that it is the elder Brother in Luke 15 who refused to come and eat at the Father's table of Grace when he learned that the prodigal was also eating there. And the prodigal was welcome at the Table of the Father (Lord) without the Elder Brother even being consulted or giving his consent.

So "Anonymous," by refraining from taking the emblems (at the Fathers Gracious Table at PRWC) when another was present at the same table whom you don't think should be there, who are you identifying with? The elder Brother!

This just highlights one of the major (and very important) differences between (some) modern Christadelphian's teachings and practices and Christ's teachings and practices.

For example, in Matthew 9:10 (also in Mark and Lukes records too, so the incident is more than significant; it is vitally important) we learn that "as Jesus reclined in the house, behold, many tax-collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, Why does your master eat with tax-collectors and sinners?"

This is exactly the same question as asked by some Christadelphians today! Different time and place - but the core issues are identical.

"Why do you eat (fellowship) with those whom we have dis-fellowshipped?"

The terms 'tax-collectors and sinners' were the appellations given to those "dis-fellowshipped" or "cast out" by the religious leaders of the day. Obviously Jesus did not have a problem having fellowship with those who had been "dis-fellowshipped" by the religious elite of His day. Remember, mealtimes in Israel were the equivalent of our modern "Breaking of Bread"... in those days you judged others by whom they had meals with. And Jesus says of this practice of having meals with "outcasts... "Do this in remembrance of me" (1 Cor 11). So "Anonymous", would you agree, to obey Jesus we must do what Jesus did?

As Jesus said in another teaching parable of His... "Go, and do likewise!"

To do other that what Jesus clearly taught us to do, as is the "main stream Christadelphian teaching" according to our "Anonymous" friend, is to actually disobey the Commandments of Christ.

Not only did Jesus eat with those the Pharisees (the Elder Brother group) called "sinners" (incidently, Jesus never used that term Himself to describe others - anytime He does use the term "sinners" it is only when He is quoting the Pharisees back to themselves or to describe them!!), He reclined with them too. This was more than just "a sip of wine and sliver of bread just before Midday on Sunday"- this was a full on, relaxed fellowship meal. True fellowship was being had at every level in each these Gospel records and on every occasion where Jesus "Broke Bread"- not just at a superficial "Spiritually Elite," "in the club" level.

It is interesting that the Gospel writers are careful to tell us that the Pharisees did not dare question Jesus about His Table Manners. But they were bold to talk to the disciples on the side, in an effort to drive a wedge in between them and Jesus Himself. After all, Jesus was totally defying their long established culture and traditions and teaching His Disciples to do exactly the same.

Jesus was fully aware of what motivated the Spiritual Snobs of His day, and He said in Matthew 11 "But to what shall I compare to this generation? It is like little children sitting in the markets and calling to their playmates, saying, We played the flute to you, and you did not dance! We mourned to you, but you did not wail!" [In other words, the Religious Leaders in Israel were dismayed that Jesus would not dance to their tune. Jesus refused to abide by any of the socially and religiously acceptable conventions and traditions which would Spiritually Abuse any who the Father had called. And this man is the one we are to copy in every way. That is what True Worship really is: imitating in every way the one who is the Boss! It has been truly said, that we become just like the God we worship.]

Jesus continued: "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon." [Have you ever noticed that Jesus NEVER corrected any of their false ideas about devils, demons and supernatural forces. He even stood up in their synagogues, using their platforms where they preached such false teachings, and never once took them to task or enlightened the audience about their misbeliefs in this area. Paul and the other Apostles did exactly the same, for the Kingdom message is about how you show God in action to your fellow by your actions, not by convincing your fellow of what you do not believe!]

The observations of the Spiritual Leaders in Jesus' day was that "the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they said, Behold a man who is a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners. But wisdom was justified by her children."

This man is more than our Redeemer and Saviour! He is the very pattern upon which we are to model our own lives. As He said, "wisdom is vindicated by the results" - and the massive results of Jesus' pattern for living, is that any one of us has been included by Grace within His "Forever" family. And to act petulantly and to refuse to take the very emblems of His life and power and mission and victory because someone else [who you might not agree with in some way] may also be present at the same table, is to snub the Lord of Heaven, slap Him in the face, and deny the very power that drew you and the "other" to that Table in the first instance.

Jesus whole life is one that denied "Guilt by Association" in any form for Holiness is far more powerful than sin any day. To act otherwise at His Table, (or at any time really, for worship is a 24/7 deal - not just a Sunday thing) is to "eat and drink condemnation to oneself," says Paul. (cp 1 Cor 11).

We declare, as we take Jesus into our lives, "Jesus, you are indeed the pattern for my life, so I eat this Bread (your Body Lord) and drink this wine (your life blood Lord) and it becomes an essential part of every living cell in my body - I am fully energised by you!!!" To then act towards others differently to the way Jesus taught, nay, commanded us to act, is to deny the very Lord who died for us all.

Jesus not only ate meals (had full on Fellowship) with those who had been cast out ("dis-fellowshipped"), He went out of His way (John 6:37; John 9) to have or renew fellowship with them, despite the written and oral traditions of His day. It cost Him His life in the end.

And that has ever been the pattern of the "Elder Brother" of the parable in Luke 15 to refuse to share the great love of Him who died for all, and to use "dis-fellowship" as a control mechanism to maintain religious control, (cp 3 John v9-11). Dis-Fellowship is the "iron fist enclosed in a not so velvet glove" (referred to in Matthew 24:49) to quote a much loved Brother who has gone before us.

It is so sad to see that the Diotrephian spirit still lives on - even in the 21st Century.

Whilst this may indeed be seen by some to be "main stream Christadelphian teaching" it is actually diametrically opposed to "main stream Christ teaching."

So the question is: who should we obey? God/Jesus, or men?

At the risk of disobeying (and even disappointing) men, I choose to obey God any day.

Fellowshipping an out-of-fellowship person (1)

This message arose out of comments on an earlier message about a proposal being put to the 2008 Australian Christadelphian Conference in Sydney to restrict the start-up of new ecclesias.

An anonymous person left a comment describing how he visited another ecclesia and would not participate in the breaking of bread because of the attendance there of a person who had been 'disfellowshipped' by another ecclesia. He wrote: "If a Brother has been disfellowshiped and you visit another meeting and he is there then the main stream Christadelphian teaching is not to partake of the emblems which happened on this day."

In earlier posts on 'fellowship' I have discussed the Christadelphian practices related to breaking of bread, so I won't go into that again right now. However, I challenge the notion that "main stream Christadelphian teaching is not to partake of the emblems" if a disfellowshipped person is present. In fact, the Ecclesial Guide specifically deals with this issue in section 42. Here is an excerpt:

"There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another. At the same time, they have reciprocal rights. Ecclesial independence is a principle essential to be maintained. But it is no part of that independence to say that no ecclesia shall consider a matter that another has decided upon, if that matter comes before the first ecclesia, and challenges their judgment, and, in fact, requires a decision. In the example already discussed, if a brother withdrawn from by one ecclesia applies for the fellowship of another, that other ecclesia is bound to consider the application, and it is no infringement of the independence of the first ecclesia that it should be so, subject to the rules and attitudes indicated. It would, in fact, be a renunciation of its own independence, were it to refuse to do so. Respect for the first ecclesia requires that it accept its decision until it sees grounds for a different view; and in the investigation of these grounds it ought to invite its co-operation, as already indicated. But the mere fact of the application imposes upon it the obligation to consider and investigate the matter, if there are prima facie grounds for doing so. The other ecclesia would make a mistake if it considered such a procedure an infringement of its independence, Such a view would, in reality, be a trammelling of the independence of every assembly; for it would then amount to this, that no assembly had the right to judge a case coming before them if that case happen to have already been adjudicated upon by another ecclesia. The judgment of one would thus be set up as a rule for all."

The writer of the Ecclesial Guide then goes on to say

"An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself. This is the independence not to be interfered with; but a similar right to judge must be conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful and proper procedure, would never offend an enlightened body anywhere."

A little later he deals with "cases where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second ecclesia will come to a different conclusion from the first" and says that each ecclesia should exercise their prerogative of independent judgment:

"let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot".

To do otherwise would be "to aggravate the misery of a perhaps very trumpery and unworthy affair by refusing to recognize each other, because they differ in judgment about one person".

Applying this to the situation mentioned, visitors to an ecclesia should recognise the right of that ecclesia to exercise "their prerogative of independent judgment" and to make their own decision about a person who may have been disfellowshipped elsewhere. To refuse to participate in the breaking of bread on such an occasion is not only rude and an affront to ones hosts, it also demonstrates a refusal to recognise the principle of non-interference laid out in the Ecclesial Guide. It undermines the principles of mutual respect, autonomy and the prerogative of independent judgment which are "mainstream Christadelphian teachings".

In a subsequent post I will also publish Cliff's response to the comment which was a reply to his.

House meetings

This message arose out of some comments on an earlier post reviewing Pagan Christianity? by Frank Viola and George Barna.

The authors of this book provide evidence that the earliest churches probably had a maximum attendance of around 35. That is based primarily on archaeological evidence. We know the first century Christians met in homes, we know the kinds of homes which were often used for such meetings, and we know how big they were. These gatherings were limited in size by the homes in which they met. As the Christian community in any area grew they would start new house-meetings.

According to the archaeological evidence, it was not until the early third century that Christians had any special buildings. The earliest identifiable Christian meeting place is the house-church of Dura Europos in modern Syria (pictured is the baptistery of the 3rd-century house church at Dura-Europos, now on display in the Yale University Museum, USA. This is the oldest Christian church ever discovered. The baptismal bath is visible. The surviving frescoes of the baptistry room are probably the most ancient Christian paintings.) It was simply a private home remodelled as a Christian gathering place around AD 232. This house was essentially a house with a wall removed between two bedrooms to create a large living area. This house could accommodate about 70 people (Pagan Christianity? page 14-15).

I don't think Viola and Barna are suggesting that our practice of meeting in special buildings is necessarily "wrong". They are simply saying that we cannot claim to be continuing or restoring a first century Christian practice if we do. The very nature of meeting in halls or special church-buildings affects the kind of meetings we have, and meetings in halls or special buildings have a remarkably different character to meetings held in homes around a meal table.

In my view, much of the intimacy of the early church/ekklesia was probably lost in the shift from homes to special buildings. Certainly the informality, spontaneity and full participation would have been lost as the church went to structured formal services.

Pagan Christianity

Book Review
Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of our Church Practices
by Frank Viola and George Barna

Speak of the paganisation of Christianity to most Christadelphians and their minds are almost certain to go to Easter and Christmas and the claims that they have pagan origins. Some might even be quick to point out that ecclesiastical vestments, adoration of saints, feast days and other elements of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity also have their roots in paganism.

This book however provides startling evidence that most of what Christians do in present-day churches is not rooted in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles. Christadelphians will almost certainly be shocked to discover that many of their regular practices had their origins well after the first century. What they cherish as a return to first century Christianity is in fact the accumulation of traditions which have little or nothing to do with apostolic practices.

The authors provide ample evidence that first century Christians met in homes and shared a common meal together. Their meetings were informal and everyone actively participated. Formal structured meetings, buildings specifically for church/ecclesial meetings, a 'sermon' or 'exhortation', even sitting in rows of chairs which all face the front where the 'action' takes place on the 'platform', are all practices which developed much later in Christian history. In fact, the shift from house-based informal meetings around a meal to formal meetings in a special building with a structured 'order of service' took place after the Council of Nicea. Ironically, the same church council which gave us the doctrine of the Trinity also gave us the framework for the modern Christadelphian memorial meeting!

Many ecclesial practices which Christadelphians assume are a 'restoration of first century Christianity' actually have little or no basis in Scripture. The authors of this book provide numerous examples of traditions and practices which originated much later, including the following:

- the earliest believers were baptised immediately after conversion. The practice of 'preparing' people for baptism by teaching them the 'doctrines of the church' began much later.

- the 'sermon' or exhortation is a relatively modern invention. We learn from 1 Corinthians that when the early church came together "everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation ... for the strengthening of the church" (1 Corinthians 14:26). The practice of only one person (always a man) addressing the church/ekklesia began well after the development of a professional clergy and largely as a result of doctrinal conflict (so that the priest/bishop/pastor could indoctrinate the church in orthodoxy, or 'correct doctrine').

- the practice of passing out the 'emblems' as tiny glasses of wine and a morsel of bread began with English Methodism. The earliest church celebrated 'communion' as a full meal, of which bread and wine was only a part. Everyone participated, including unbaptised children.

- 'dressing up' for church/meetings is a Victorian tradition. For centuries Christians wore their everyday clothes to church. There is absolutely no Scriptural basis for the practice of wearing ones 'Sunday best'.

- appointing or electing some brethren to leadership or management positions has no Biblical basis. The first Christians recognised people's gifts and acknowledged mature Christians as 'elders', but no one was given any special authority to 'rule' or 'manage' the church/ekklesia. Christadelphian 'Arranging/Managing Brethren' are simply a variation of the pagan practices which produced a professional 'clergy'.

I recommend this book to anyone who is serious about examining the practices of the first century Christians. You will certainly find it challenging in places. You may still wish to hold on to cherished traditions, but will have to confess that they are just that - traditions - and have no Biblical basis. I doubt very much that after reading this book anyone will continue to claim that Christadelphian meetings and structures are a 'restoration of first century Christianity'.

But this book is not primarily about tearing down cherished traditions. It provides valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of the first communities of Christians and is a useful resource for anyone wanting to know what church/ekklesia meant to the earliest disciples. It encourages a return to the simplicity of New Testament Christianity and to a fully functioning body in which all believers play an active role.

Permission needed to start a new ecclesia

The following motion has been proposed for the Sydney Christadelphian Conference 2008:

Proposed Motion # 5:

'That the Australian Christadelphian brotherhood adopts a practice that, prior to the formation of any new ecclesia, a representative of the proposed ecclesia contact the Central Fellowship ecclesias in their local area, for recognition as a bona fide ecclesia meeting on the Australian Unity Basis of Fellowship.'

Moved by South Brisbane

Seconded t.b.a.

Rationale, as provided by South Brisbane

Objective

To provide a framework for effectively assessing the bona fides of all new ecclesias seeking fellowship on the Australian Unity Basis.

Procedures

1 All new ecclesias wishing to be recognised as a Christadelphian ecclesia meeting on the Australian Unity Basis should write to the recorders of established ecclesias in the local area of the proposed new ecclesia, stating they meet on the Australian Unity Basis of Fellowship.

2 The proposed ecclesia's location will determine the number of established ecclesias to receive such a letter, but it is suggested a minimum of five ecclesias should be approached for recognition as a bona fide Christadelphian Ecclesia.

3 Ecclesias receiving such notice should consult one another, after determining their own position, and if no objection is communicated to the proposed ecclesia's representative within one month, the request should be accepted and the new ecclesia notified in writing by the local ecclesias involved.

4 If any objections are raised by the local established ecclesiae, discussions should take place in order to resolve the perceived impediments.

5 A reasonable time should be allowed for resolution of the difficulties on the basis of the Ecclesial Guide and the Unity Booklet.

This motion raises a number of interesting matters.

First, we need to question the intention of the motion. Never in the past has a new Christadelphian ecclesia in Australia (or anywhere else in the world as far as I am aware) needed to obtain the consent of other ecclesias in the area. So why now? What is the reason for changing the practice of more than 140 years? Is this motion designed to restrict new ecclesias starting up or to control the activities of new ecclesias? If so, why?

Second, the motion appears to be totally impractical. Let's take one Australian city as a hypothetical example. Newcastle currently has three Christadelphian ecclesias: Newcastle, Charlestown and Boolaroo. The last time I spoke at Charlestown ecclesia I was asked to sit on the platform for the entire meeting as the hall was literally filled to capacity and there were no spare seats in the congregation. This is a good sign of a healthy ecclesia, and because there is "standing room only" the ecclesia is considering extensions to their meeting place. However, another option they might consider is starting a new ecclesia as an 'offshoot'. Under this proposed motion they would need the consent of at least five ecclesias in the area. But there are only three ecclesias in the area! Under this proposed new rule they would have to look further afield to other cities for approval to start a satellite ecclesia. Charlestown is a well-established ecclesia with a solid reputation and was an original signatory to the Australian Unity Agreement. To suggest that they can't start a satellite ecclesia without the permission of other ecclesias is not only insulting to them, it raises the question as to what authority the other ecclesias might have which Charlestown lacks.

Third, this motion smells of fear, a controlling spirit, and authoritarianism.

Are some ecclesias afraid that new ecclesias might operate differently, and do they find this threatening? There was a recent example (in Brisbane) of an ecclesia sending out an appeal for people to move into their area and join them because they were declining so sharply in numbers that they were at risk of dying out. At the same time this same ecclesia was a party to a move to restrict the activities of a new ecclesia which was bursting at the seams and which was growing numerically almost week-by-week. Are they afraid that as they die out their remaining members will transfer to the new dynamic meeting? What do they find so threatening about this?

It smells of a controlling spirit because new ecclesias sometimes do things a bit differently from the older ecclesias in the area, and some traditionalists don't like this. Instead of an organ they might decide to use guitars and drums (God forbid!). Instead of 17th century hymns they might want to sing contemporary music! They might even drop "thees" and "thous" and Elizabethan English and pray to the Almighty in contemporary English!! Where will this lead? It must be stopped!!!

It smacks of authoritarianism because it suggests that a 'group' of ecclesias should be empowered to control the activities of other ecclesias in the area. There is already at least one case in Australia of a 'group' of ecclesias in an area banding together while excluding other ecclesias in the area which might see some things differently, and then attempting to impose their collective will on the excluded ecclesias (and it's significant that this proposed motion comes from one of the ecclesias which is a party to this 'group'). This motion, if adopted, would give more power to these 'groups' which Robert Roberts condemned as"collective despotism":

Ecclesial independence should be guarded with great jealousy with the qualifications indicated in the foregoing sections. To form "unions" or "societies" of ecclesias, in which delegates should frame laws for the individual ecclesias, would be to lay the foundation of a collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life. Such collective machineries create fictitious importances, which tend to suffocate the truth. All ecclesiastical history illustrates this. (Clause 44 of the Ecclesial Guide)

I would hope that the majority of ecclesias represented at the 2008 Conference will see this proposed motion for what it is and soundly reject it.

Exclusiveness in fellowship

Following on from my latest post, I recently received this message from a sister who has been through a painful experience. She has discovered that she is welcome to join a particular Christadelphian ecclesia but if she does the ecclesia will demand that she can no longer break bread with the people who taught her the Gospel and who baptised her, even though they believe the same things as she does! This attitude adopted by some Christadelphians to 'fellowship' is simply crazy, but the following letter from Lucy demonstrates this plainly enough. The names of the ecclesias and individuals involved have been deleted.

My dear beloved brothers and sisters!

On Thursday May 15th, I met with two members of the XYZ Ecclesia, who were sent to identify if my beliefs met with their standards. After two and a half hours of conversation, I was invited to their service, which I gladly accepted and attended May 18th. I was very pleased by the way I was welcomed, almost like well known sister, who you haven’t seen in a while. We studied the Word of God, and broke bread together. I was a very satisfied and happy by my visit, and that is what I, have expressed in my e-mail. On May 20th, I attended an invitation for dinner and Bible study. Every one called me their sister, and again I felt welcomed.

On Monday May 26th I was very surprised when I received a phone call, from a board member informing me of a meeting that was to take place with me to become a member of XYZ Ecclesia. What was surprising is that I have attended several meetings where we broke bread and as to my awareness I assumed that I was already welcomed as a sister in Christ. I was born in former Soviet Union, a Communist regime, where you were called in for a meeting when you were suspected of being an enemy to society and will be immediately sent to Siberia or if you prefer to retain your privileges you were to submit too and join the Communist party. Anyways I felt stressed, wondering why this meeting has been scheduled, and if I have done something wrong?
On Thursday May 29th, I attended the meeting where I was informed of whom I can, and can’t break bread with. I can honestly tell you that I fell in love with every brother and sister I met in XYZ Ecclesia however I could not understand the reasoning of this practice.

Anyways, I was given “The Ecclesia Guide” to check if we have same beliefs, which we did prior to this meeting. I was also given an address list of W Ecclesia with whom I am allowed to “Break Bread” with and was told I must have an answer by Sunday.

By the way, they did tell me that I am allowed to be in fellowship with everyone except, I have to follow the rules with whom I can “Break Bread”.

Last night, I couldn’t go to sleep at all, thinking what had happened earlier this evening! I looked into the Bible and I could not find a law stating with whom we can or can’t break bread with in Christ.

But I found, that Jesus Christ broke bread with 3000 and 5000 people and did not ask them if they even believed He was Messiah. And that at the Last Supper when He was giving instructions about "Breaking Bread" to every disciple HE actually broke bread with Judah Iscariot who betrayed Him several hours later.

I looked at "The Ecclesial Guide and Constitution of the ABC Christadelphians," and I read about all their beliefs, which are exactly like mine. But again, I did not see anything saying about with whom I am allowed to break bread. Except, in the section of "The commandments of Christ” number 12 says – “Grudge not; judge not; complain not; condemn not,” (James 5:9, Matt 7:1). And by choosing with whom we break bread with, we are JUDGING our brothers and sisters; we are breaking our own law.

It is very sad to know that we have become similar to the Pharisees, who have two laws; one is written and one is oral.

In Matt 23 says, "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3. So you must obey Moses and do everything he tells you. But do not do what they (Pharisees) do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

And in Deut.6:4 Yahweh said to Moses "1 Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2. Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. 8. And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today"

I have come to the conclusion that by choosing brothers and sisters whom you can or can’t “Break bread” with and who’s beliefs are exactly the same like yours and mine, has become an “obsessive tradition” or “religious idolatry”.

I am not willing to follow MAN'S rules, when I will be present on judgment day facing God, I want to no shame and excuses on this subject. One day all, of us will be there. Please remember that.

I do not judge anyone, I am speaking truth saying do not follow MAN’s rule, it is against God. I have no problem breaking bread with anyone in XYZ Ecclesia or any of my brothers and sisters around the world.

I love Yahweh, and I want to walk in His Will and no one MAN’s law or rules could stop me. It is sad, but I am coming to the conclusion that XYZ Ecclesia don't want to break bread with me unless I agree not to break bread with my brothers and sisters like **, ***, T ecclesia . I won't agree to such man made rule.

I still love all my brothers and sisters in Christadelphians Ecclesia around world. My prayers are with them. I'm happy many of them accept me still. May Yahweh open their hearts and their minds to see The Truth, as they preach; and ignore MAN'S LAW or ANY RULES.

I will continue to do what I was called to do, which is Preach the Gospel

Yahweh blesses you!

Sister Lucy

Censorship, disfellowship and statements of faith

The following message was recently posted on the Truth Alive forum. I thought it expressed very well what a lot of other people are also thinking. With the author's permission I am re-posting it here in full.


Dear friends,

Very often we can go through a set of traditions whilst making bold statements that suggest we alone hold the correct Biblical truths and that we follow the Bible and that we should check everything against the Bible. But when someone sincerely does do that and comes up with difficult questions it isn't liked and people don't want to answer them, because it's disruptive and challenging. But should churches be allowed to say 'we follow the Bible and you should check it out to see whether its true' and not allow people to do that.

Brother Dr John Thomas believed “no you shouldn't”, and people found him very disruptive and challenging and that is the history of the Christadelphian body. If you doubt that read his autobiography and the huge number of debates he was involved in. The problem has been the questions never ended where Dr John Thomas left off and no doubt had he lived longer he would have challenged more and come to different understandings. In his lifetime he changed many times and in fact was baptised three times as he changed views.

Robert Roberts believed that in his teachings he had reached a finality of truth and that was set in place and maintained by establishing the Birmgham Statement of Faith, which was later Amended to clarify things to what people believed reflected the original position of things. In other words the Christadelphian body has sought to censor the very freedom to think and question that Dr John Thomas wanted for himself. In fact that has always been the historical problem that Protestant Christianity has faced. By putting the authority onto a book and individual interpretation it has been inevitable that different people have balanced it a different way. I'm not saying we should be Catholic, but what I am saying is that we should learn from our history of our own non infallibility in these matters.

The reality is that the Christadelphian body has survived in its present form is as a direct result of the Statements of Faith, because they have broadly set out the original distinct Christadelphian doctrines. The idea that we are bound simply because we read the Bible independently for ourselves is not true, even though that is what I was given to believe as a youngster and told to do. In essence I was expected to read the Bible for myself, but come to see things in terms of tradition and expectation. That is in all honesty how social conditioning works and with time we may find things don't quite square with what we are told to believe or how things are actually done in comparison to what we read, the second being where my main objections have laid. It has kept the Christadelphian body in a time warp in many ways where any change to the way things are done leads to people feeling the balance is going to be upset.

The hidden cost of course has been in those people who have been disfellowshipped for asking too many questions and hidden feelings of suppression, because the unspoken rule is that you are not allowed to seriously question the way things are done. The problem that has led to is that the Christadelphian body has become very legalistic and very word bound and very much what scripture would term 'in the letter'.

However the Christadelphian body has changed and is changing., there is a greater understanding growing of the need for grace, the centrality of the teachings of Christ, the need for a more practical focus and a recognistion in the Care Groups that there are emotional situations that need to be understand. Our problem as a community and what we show is the limitation of the Bible alone without a recognition of the need for the Spirit of God. But we won't accept that, because if we did we would have to admit that our exclusivity was a problem, that you can't get to the right spirit merely by academic debate and that we have in fact treated a lot of people badly and that disfellowshipping lots of people wasn't the right way to go about things.

In its present form the Christadelphian body will not survive and already is dying and it's not merely because people don't want to follow God, although as we all know most people don't in the West. It's because it doesn't really answer people's spiritual longing for a real connection with God. It's too academic an approach, it's too emotionally disconnected and there's too little power. It's also led to a situation where most of the children of Christadelphians do not get baptised and very often there are a lot of people hanging in there simply because that is where they have their social connections.

It's a religion which very often creates beliefs in people, but not faith and the two things are very different. You can sustain belief in people by keeping reinforcing the same things over and over again like a kind of social reinforcement schedule and that's why many people believe if you don't go to some church you would lose your faith. That's because their faith hangs on going through a set pattern of behaviour, whereas faith is a lot more solid and a lot harder to destroy. It comes from a knowledge of God, not just a knowledge of the Bible. The difference is one has power, the other does not. We read in Hebrews 11 and its frequently quoted that 'faith is the the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. What is less frequently quoted is the later things in the chapter which people were able to do as a result of faith and how this is set out as the normal expected standard of the Christian walk.

The Christadelphian movement started from a very radical questioning of mainstream Christianity based upon textproof quoting and reached a level of complexity beyond many average men and women. To do that you need educated, well read people with high rational skills and it is very questionable that that was the first century approach anyway. For that to be universally available required the invention of printing, considerable time, health and nutrition that was not available for most of history.

Few people have ever had that kind of access to the Bible and they were more reliant upon pictures and communicated stories and what they understood in their own hearts. There are benefits to that though I am thankful for the scripture knowledge I have gained as a result, but it can be rather a one tracked thinking method that denies the role of experience or emotion. It therefore leads to our community suiting certain personality types and ways of thoughts and being very hard for other types of personality and ways of thoughts.

The experience that we have as a community has relevance, but to think we have all the truth and all the understanding is a very limited way of thinking in my opinion. That of course is why at every stage all the developments within the community have been fights to change a mindset. The perception that is held is that we come to the Bible without a mindset, without a conditioning, without any effect from our upbringing and social environments, when in fact there is a strong mindset at play within the community that does not allow certain thoughts to be held or raised. You see that when a difficult passage is read and people muse over its difficultness whilst saying 'of course we don't believe in this or that'.

For truly open minded thinking to occur we do have to consider the possible truth of these thoughts and the thoughts have to be allowed to be raised without the possibility of censure. To truly allow God to speak to us we have to not be frightened of whether other people think us heretical or not. That's what a full pursuit of truth is really like.

I'm not suggesting a perfect church exists, because it does not. We are works in progress. What I am saying is that we need to give people freedom to grow without fear of censure and we have to start realising what effect our conditioning and environment and history have upon us. I'm not perfect any more than you are, but dis-fellowshipping people is judging people and it is a way of stifling questions and progress and understanding. If we have the truth, if you think about it, it should be fairly easy to answer people's objections without needing to do that. We should have no fear of asking ourselves how much of our responses are thought out ones rather than conditioned ones.

I think there is a factor we need to be aware of - the fear that if we change our beliefs we somehow face losing our salvation. That's a very thought limiting idea. We have to realise instead that God isn't a God who seeks to frustrate the seeking heart and it is for this reason that grace is such an empowering truth.

I would welcome your thoughts on these ideas and maybe if we did we could come to a greater understanding even if it isn't possible for me to be formally accepted back into fellowship..

With much love and blessings in Jesus,

Tim.

ANYWAY

People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Be good anyway.

Honesty and frankness will make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

People need help but will attack you if you help them.
Help them anyway.

In the final analysis, it is between you and God.
It was never between you and them anyway.

Kent Keith, made famous by Mother Teresa*

*Kent Keith originated this poem in 1968, and Mother Teresa placed it on her children's home in Calcutta in a slightly different version. As a result, many have attributed it to Mother Teresa.

What do you do?

My apologies for not posting anything for a few weeks, but I have been incredibly busy working on some other projects. Hopefully I'll be blogging again soon.

In the meantime, here is something interesting.

Author and preacher Tony Campolo said that when his wife, Peggy, was at home full time with their children and someone would ask, "And what is it that you do, my dear?" she would respond, "I am socializing two Homo sapiens into the dominant values of the Judeo-Christian tradition in order that they might be instruments for the transformation of the social order into the kind of eschatological utopia that God willed from the beginning of creation."

Then Peggy would ask the other person, "And what do you do?"

From John Ortberg and Ruth Haley, An Ordinary Day with Jesus (Zondervan, 2001), p. 122

Post-Christian and Post-Christadelphian

A friend recently sent me the following quotation from Christian writer and speaker Charles Swindoll:

"We are living in what many have described as the Post Christian Era. That does not mean that there are no longer many Christians around. There may, in fact, be more true believers today than ever before. "Post Christian" simply means that the Christian Faith no longer plays a role in shaping public opinion and policy. Christian assumptions and commitments, once widely held, no longer have the presence and impact they once had".

My friend then added this comment of his own:

Translated, this would mean that "Post Christadelphian" describes those who no longer find that the traditional Christadelphian worldview satisfactorily plays a role in shaping their opinions and "policies." Christadelphian assumptions and commitments, once widely held, no longer have the presence and impact they once had. This does not mean that a "Post Christadelphian" is no longer a "Christadelphian." In reality, many Christadelphians today are readily admitting that they no longer feel that the traditional way of living a "Christadelphian" life, within a traditional Christadelphian "framework" equips them with the necessary "tools" to co-exist in a "Post Christian" society.

I thought this was a valuable insight.

A response to "Gossip: a case study"

I received a funny anonymous comment to my earlier post on this subject. It said:

"You speak and act like someone who is not a member of the Christadelphian Community, so is it any wonder that people make up these stories?

What I found really funny was the Freudian slip: "... is it any wonder that people make up these stories?"

Yes, that's what I've been suggesting: most of the gossip and rumours are made-up stories without a measure of truth in them. So why do people prefer the made-up stories in preference to the facts? I think the Bible has something to say about people with "itching ears" who prefer stories to the truth.

Gossip: a case study

In a recent message I wrote about the dangers of gossip and the way the internet has enabled gossip to travel faster and further than before and to be more easily 'manipulated'. In this message I want to give an actual example of how this can happen in the Christadelphian community.

Some time ago I became aware of an allegation that I had "withdrawn fellowship" from Christadelphians. Anyone who has read any of my messages on this blog about "withdrawing fellowship" or who knows me personally would know that the allegation is clearly nonsense.

I came across a "quotation" on a website which claimed to be something I had written. It was allegedly from a letter I had written when "withdrawing fellowship" from Christadelphians. I contacted its author (let's call him 'Ken'). I asked him to remove the statement as it was untrue. He refused, on the basis that he had received the information from "a reliable source" and it was claimed that the quotation was "unedited" and was my "own words".

I tried to track the untrue rumour to its source. This is what I uncovered. (By the way, I have changed the names of the people involved to hide their identities.)

1. 'Ken' obtained his information from 'Kathy', a "reliable source" of information and someone he obviously trusted. He has never personally seen the letter from which he quoted although he insisted that the quotation he put on a website was "unedited". Even though he had never even seen the entire 'letter' or seen the "quotation" in its context he was still confident that he knew what it meant. Even though I was allegedly the author of the unseen document he wouldn't believe anything I had to say about it.

2. I contacted 'Kathy'. She told me that she had seen a letter I had written to an ecclesia saying that I had 'withdrawn' from Christadelphians, and that this had come from a sister we both know ('Betty'). I immediately contacted Betty. She told me that she had never discussed the matter with Kathy, and had no knowledge of such a letter.

2. When I confronted Kathy with this information she changed her story. She said that she didn't get it 'directly' from Betty but from 'some brethren' to whom Betty had allegedly sent the letter. So that removes Kathy one more step from the alleged 'source' of the story.

3. After my enquiry Kathy contacted Betty again, wanting to get a copy of the letter she had allegedly sent to some unnamed brethren. Betty told her again that she had never seen the letter, didn't even know if it existed, and could therefore not have shown it or passed it on to anyone.

4. I told Kathy that I hadn't written a letter to any ecclesia resigning or withdrawing from Christadelphians. Kathy may have checked with the ecclesia who supposedly received this letter (I don't know) but she subsequently changed her story (again) to say that perhaps I hadn't sent a letter. So now she changed her story to say it may have been a different form of communication (although she really didn't know and had no evidence of any other communication) and perhaps this 'communication' had been sent to someone else and not the ecclesia she claimed. In other words, it was evident that the letter didn't exist, but she still wanted it to be true! From the change in her story it was obvious that she really had no detailed information whatsoever and was simply passing on some gossip she had heard but hadn't checked but wanted to be true (or she may have fabricated the whole thing - a sad and frightening possibility).

5. So the story went from me writing a letter (which Kathy claimed to have seen) to a named ecclesia resigning or withdrawing from them and Christadelphians in general, to some other form of communication (but Kathy couldn't say what or how) to someone else (but Kathy didn't know who).

6. Instead of having 'first hand' knowledge of this Kathy has now admitted that her information came from 'some brethren' (unnamed) who allegedly received it from Betty, who apparently or allegedly obtained it from someone else (but Kathy is not sure who), even though Betty denies this. That means the information was at least third hand by the time it reached Kathy, and she has no idea where it originated or how many hands it might have passed through before arriving in its final form.

7. Despite being presented with this Ken has refused to remove the "quotation" from the website. He still believes that his "unedited" quotation from Kathy was accurate.

Ken still insists that his 'quotation' is "unedited" and in my "own words" even though he has never actually seen the letter from which it allegedly came, his 'reliable source' of information (Kathy) has never seen the letter either (and now admits it may not exist), she won't say where she got the "quotation", and the person from whom Kathy's unnamed source allegedly obtained it (Betty) has never seen or even heard of it.

NO ONE has actually seen anything from me on the subject, and no one knows where the 'quotation' originated, or in what form, or in what context, or by whom, or if the source was trustworthy!

Yet Ken and Kathy obviously don't want the facts to stand in the way of a good story, and so they will keep telling it! Heaven help us.

Restoration Fellowship meeting on May 10

Those of you in the Brisbane area may be interested in getting along to the next Restoration Fellowship meeting on Saturday May 10 at:

Christian Faith Church
12 Thorn St, Ormiston

I will be speaking at 9.30 am on the subject:

"There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth - Jesus' teaching on the fate of the rejected".

Registration is at 9.00am and the day concludes at 3.00pm

Click here for an information brochure.

Weak men being bullied off the platform (poll results)

Thank you to the 104 people who voted in the poll. I'm not at all surprised that the overwhelming majority (98) voted "no" i.e. they haven't been "bullied off the platform" by women. However, I was surprised that were as many as 5 people who said they had been bullied off the platform, and one who said "maybe". No one who voted "yes" emailed me to tell their story, so we actually have no information at all as to the circumstances.

I did, however, receive a response from Jonathan Burke, the Christadelphian who triggered this poll by making comments on a Christadelphian forum which was discussing whether Christadelphian women should be permitted to speak at Christadelphian meetings.

I quoted two of his comments earlier:

"When you have women actively competing for time on the platform, you're going to end up with conflict. No two ways about it. It's easy to see what happens. Weak men are bullied off the platform, or only permitted to speak when the women permit them to."

"Man bullying by women has become an increasingly popular pastime in the churches, and it's unfortunate that it's creeping into the ecclesia."

Jonathan responded with the following clarification (these are just extracts from a longer communication, but I believe the sense is unaltered):

"... you didn't quote any statements from me saying that Christadephian brethren are being bullied off the platform. I said that bullying of men is happening in Christadelphian ecclesias, but I said nothing about Christadelphian brethren being bullied off the platform."

Well, apparently I made a wrong assumption when I thought a comment about men being "bullied off the platform" in a discussion about whether Christadelphian women should be on Christadelphian platforms was actually about something happening in Christadelphian meetings. Apparently Jonathan was thinking about situations in non-Christadelphian churches.

I was making a general statement, not confining this to any particular denomination, and not talking about any current situation.

So no, I wasn't implying that non-Christadelphian men are on the (Christadelphian), platform. I was saying that when women are actively competing with men for the platform, then you are going to end up with conflict, and when that happens weak men are bullied off the platform or only permitted to speak when the women permit them to. It's a standard, general, conditional statement.

He went on to tell me about his own experience in "a standard evangelical church" which he attended "twice a week, Sunday and Wednesday, for 2-5 hours a time, every week, for over 6 months" in which there was a "power struggle" which resulted in women taking over the church.

So to be fair to Jonathan Burke it's important that I clarify that he does NOT believe that Christadelphian men are being bullied off Christadelphian platforms by Christadelphian women. However, from his experience in "a standard evangelical church" (whatever that means) he obviously believes that there is the potential for this to happen in Christadelphian meetings and I guess he's encouraging vigilance against this kind of thing happening.

That makes it even more surprising that 5 or 6 people who voted in my poll felt that they had been "bullied off the platform" (assuming that the people who voted were genuinely Christadelphian men who genuinely felt that they had been bullied off the platform. This is an open site so anyone could have voted). Seeing the question was asking about "weak men" who had been bullied off the platform I am actually even more surprised that anyone would admit to being in that category.

I think we can confidently say that in reality there is no evidence of this sort of thing happening in the Christadelphian community (and Jonathan Burke isn't suggesting that there is), and despite the fears of some people that it could happen down the track there is no indication at this time that it will. Jonathan pointed out that one person who left a comment on my message is:

"under the strange impression that sisters are never allowed to speak on or off the platform in the Christadelphian community, whereas you and I both know that's not true and that there are ecclesias in Australia where sisters speak from the platform regularly (the fact that this is uncommon and unrepresentative of our community doesn't change the fact that it happens)."

And not just in Australia.

I have removed the poll results from the side panel, so here it is for those people who may have missed it.

If you are a Christadelphian man and a Speaker, have you ever been "bullied off the platform" by a woman?

Yes: 5 (4%)
No: 98 (94%)
Maybe: 1 (<1%)>

How big is the universe?

If you missed Cliff's comment on an earlier post it included a link to a video about the Hubble Deep Field.

It's well worth viewing, so here it is again.

Challenges facing Christadelphians (2)

OBSTACLES TO HEALING AND RESTORATION

In the comments on my last post in this thread I wrote:

"If we preach the kingdom without bringing healing and restoration we have only carried out half our mission - in fact, we probably haven't really preached the kingdom at all."

Linda responded beautifully to this by saying:

"Maybe that's a sign that the gospel has actually been preached - healing and restoration follows. The opposite would be true too. Where there is no healing and restoration, whatever it is that is being preached, isn't the kingdom."

In this message I'd like to look at some of the obstacles to healing and restoration.

Jesus always linked the Gospel of the Kingdom with Kingdom values. He said that the way people would recognise His disciples would be to observe how they treat each other: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35). John developed this idea by saying that if we do not not love it is because we don not really know God: "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 John 4:7-8). In other words, it doesn't matter how much we know ABOUT God - if we don't love then all our so-called knowledge is useless.

In Galatians 6:10 Paul advised that "as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers [household of faith - KJV]".

If we cannot do good to fellow-believers then we will be unable to do anything genuinely good for non-believers. The New Testament writers repeat this message constantly: we are to love one another, and love deeply (John 13:34, 35; 15:12, 17; Romans 12:10; 13:8; Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 4;2; 1 Thess 3:12; 4:9; 1 Peter 1:22; 3:8; 1 John 3;11, 23; 4;7, 11, 12; 2 John 5).

If Christadelphians cannot treat each other with love, and be courteous to each other, then there is absolutely no point in trying to love anyone else. And without love there is no point to the Gospel.

Jesus' Gospel-message was firmly grounded in the words of Isaiah and the Kingdom values which He taught are spelled out beautifully in His quotation of Isaiah 61:1-2 in the synagogue at Nazareth:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19)

These words encapsulate the prophets' message that one of the hallmarks of the Kingdom Age would be justice for all (e.g. Isaiah 9:7; Jeremiah 23;5; 31:23). To Jesus that meant justice for the oppressed and those who could not speak up for themselves.

There is no point in talking about the coming Kingdom if we don't practice Kingdom values in the here and now.

I believe that one of the most serious challenges facing the Christadelphian community today is the failure to treat other Christadelphians justly. There are two main areas of concern where Christadelphians sometimes deny their brothers and sisters justice. Our legal system talks about "natural justice". How much more important is it then that Kingdom-people live by the principles of God's justice and apply an even higher standard! Yet even the world's "natural justice" is sometimes denied to Christadelphians by fellow-Christadelphians. The two main areas of concern to me are gossiping, and discussions in secret (and they are clearly closely related).

Here are some examples.

There are several Christadelphian internet forums which have discussion boards open to the public for discussion and debate. At least one also has a 'private' area with restricted access. Some non-Christadelphians are allowed to join the discussions there, while some Christadelphians on the other hand are denied access. Some of the discussions are about the Christadelphians who are denied access. I recently put this question to one of the members of this "private" forum:

Do you think it is fair or brotherly to discuss someone behind their back and in a forum where they have no opportunity to answer or defend themself?

This is how he answered:

Romans 16:17-18 comes to mind. Exposing such within the community of God has always been done and condoned by scripture.

Here is what Romans 16:17-18 says (in the NIV):

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

In other words, this brother was saying that it's acceptable to "expose" someone if you judge them to be causing divisions or putting obstacles in the way of believers. If you first convince yourself that they are "causing divisions" then it's ok to talk about them on a discussion forum which is open to a large number of people, including non-Christadelphians. You don't have to allow them an opportunity to answer the allegation or to defend themselves. In a nutshell, they are guilty until proved innocent, and condemned without the opportunity to defend themselves. (See my notes on Romans 16:17 here and here.)

This kind of behaviour is not only contrary to what the world would consider "natural justice" it is also in violation of clear Scriptural principles. If the practice of Kingdom values begins with the household of faith, then we should do better than "natural justice" - we should give brethren the benefit of the doubt, presume innocence, treat them with a greater degree of fairness than the world would demand, and be more forgiving than most people would expect (we should forgive our brethren "seventy times seven" times). Rather than "exposing" weaknesses we should be praising their strengths. Instead of criticising faults we should be boasting about their achievements.

There is no place in the household of faith for "private" forums to discuss brethren behind their backs.

In earlier posts (here and here) I also raised the problem of groups which meet together specifically to discuss other ecclesias, and exclude these ecclesias from their meetings. These are no different in principle to the private internet forums which are so contrary to the clear teaching of scripture that fellow-brethren in Christ should be treated with respect, courtesy, brotherliness and love.

Any group, meeting or forum which facilitates gossip, slander and accusations against those for whom Christ died is a festering sore on the body of Christ.

Gossip is not a new problem. It has always been an issue amongst believers. John identified gossiping as one of the characteristics of the separatists. He identified Diotrephes as one of the people in the church who "will have nothing to do with us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church" (3 John 9-10). This 'cluster' of behaviour or characteristics has been common in the history of the brotherhood: refusing to welcome some believers, putting some out of the church ("disfellowshipping") and malicious gossip are all characteristics of the exclusivists or separatists.

Paul listed gossips amongst those who are "filled with every kind of wickedness" (Romans 1:29). He wrote of "quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder" as being signs of a church breaking down (2 Corinthians 12:20).

The internet has become a modern means of gossiping. Today we can spread news, good or bad, quicker and to more people than was ever possible in the past. I learned of the dangers of the internet quite early on. I received an email from a Christadelphian asking about my views on something or other. I had never met him or even heard of him before but as he was a brother in Christ I assumed he could be trusted. He promised to keep my response "confidential". Within two weeks I was receiving emails from around the world from people who had been forwarded my "confidential" reply.

One of the main problems with electronic communications is that a small part of an ongoing 'conversation' can be easily extracted, 'cut and pasted' into another document, and then quoted without its context in a way which gives it another meaning entirely. The Bible can be made to say "There is no God" if we 'cut and paste' some text without its context. In the same way I've seen people quoted "verbatim" and made to say something entirely different to what they intended to say within the context of the conversation. I've even seen "verbatim" quotes copied and pasted together with quotes by other writers and made to look like they are all from the same author. For example, I was once sent a document which was allegedly a series of "quotations" claiming to show "what Steve Cook believes, in his own words". Not only were some of the "quotations" taken out of their context and made to mean something quite different to what I intended, they were pasted together with "quotations" from some other anonymous or pseudonymous person which the person creating the document may have assumed was me (but wasn't), or which was simply a fabrication by a mischief-maker.

There is a recent example of a hefty file on a brother which contained some serious allegations being circulated worldwide. Everyone who was sent a copy of the file were given strict instructions that they were not to show it to the brother being accused! In other words, the brother was not allowed to see the allegations against him, know who made them, or what evidence there was. This is not only a denial of "natural justice" to such an extent that it would not be tolerated "in the world" (where he could have sued for slander, libel and defamation), but was a complete mockery of the high standards of Christ. Whether the allegations were true or not is really irrelevant. No one should be teated so unjustly, least of all one for whom Christ died.

Robert Roberts had this advice on gossip:

"The most effective way to stop the mouths of slanderers is to at once inform the slanderer that you will see the victim and inform him of what you have just been told, and who told you. You should believe no report to anyone's detriment without giving him or her an opportunity (by private enquiry of himself or herself) of contradicting it if it happens to be untrue. We always esteem such an application a kindness." (Quoted in "Christadelphian Answers" by Frank Jannaway, p 233)

Good advice, and if it was taken today by the owners, moderators and conveners of the various private internet forums and secret meetings then they would all be closed down and we would see a greater degree of Kingdom-justice in the Christadelphian community.

One Hope

I've just been hearing about this year's Spring Harvest gathering in the UK. Spring Harvest is the largest Christian conference in Europe, attended by about 45,000 people, and subscribes to The Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith.

This year the theme is One Hope - focussing on what it means to have a hope that is 'steadfast and certain' in a society where change is the only certainty. Here is what their website says about this years theme:

As we unpack the Big Story of God, we'll discover how HOPE is central to the Christian faith. We'll also discover what Jesus being the hope of the world really means. And how embracing Jesus - and the hope he offers - changes how we live and brings new vitality to our faith. Hope is God's big idea.

It seems to me that we spend our lives getting more and more scared of stuff. We get scared of the way the world's going, scared of stuff going on in our local community, even scared about some of the things happening in our local church.

The bible says we shouldn't be the scared people of God, we should be the hopeful people of God.

In fact, we should be the most hopeful people on God's good earth, because we've seen what happens and the end of the world, we've seen what happens at the end of history, and we know the ending of God's story is both happy and hopeful.'

The amazing thing about this years teaching, from the reports I've been hearing, is that the emphasis has been on physical resurrection and the coming kingdom of God.

Some of the teachers are saying that there is no immortal soul, no heaven when we die and no torments in hell. This is absolutely amazing! It's quite likely that Bishop N.T. (Tom) Wright has been very influential in encouraging this shift in thinking.

This is a very encouraging development and one we should get excited about!

Women know your limits

I thought this video might be relevant to the ongoing discussion of women's roles in church. It's not directly about church, but I've heard some of these sentiments expressed in a church context.

Post-Christadelphians

I was recently asked about the difference between an ex-Christadelphian and a post-Christadelphian. I've actually never used the term "post-Christadelphian" on this blog before, although I have used it on the Truth Alive forum. I don't use the term often, but as some people have made a bit of a fuss about it this may be a good time to provide an explanation for those who may be wondering about it.

Back in early 2006 I posted a message on Truth Alive about a series of articles on this blog on the history of Christadelphians and the kind of community people set out to create when they began the Believers Movement and then later the Christadelphian denomination. I noted that there had been a process of transition as people moved from one denomination or movement to another, and as the Christadelphian community itself then went through its own transition as it changed direction.

This got me thinking about the transitions many of us have made in our individual lives, perhaps from one denomination to another, from one fellowship to another, or from one "kind" of Christadelphian to another.

I had recently read a biographical work by Scottish novelist Ian Rankin (Rebus's Scotland). At one point he noted that he'd lived large chunks of his life outside Scotland, but thought of himself no less as a Scot. He used the term "Scot by formation" to describe how the influences at work in his early life had made him a Scot no matter where he lived or for how long he'd lived there.

This got me to thinking about how I am a Christadelphian "by formation". I attended Sunday School from when I was a week old. Went to at least 3 meetings every week well into adulthood. I've lost count of the number of Bible Schools I attended. I read Christendom Astray when I was 12, Eureka when I was about 17, and Elpis Israel somewhere in between. We did our Bible readings together as a family regularly. All of that had a strong influence on me and played a huge part in my "formation". I was raised in the Logos fellowship and left to join a Central ecclesia when I was in my early twenties. Years later my wife pointed out to me that I was still thinking like a Logos-Christadelphian. I wondered if people who are ex-Christadelphians still think like Christadelphians. If some people are Christadelphians by formation then the way they analyse and critique things, even what it means to be an ex-Christadelphian, is undoubtedly done by using thought processes they learned as Christadelphians.

From my recollection the term 'post-Christadelphian' arose during a conversation about some of the changes, developments and 'transitions' that are occurring in the Christadelphian community (and I think someone else in that conversation should actually get the credit for coming up with the term). We were discussing how that for some Christadelphians their spiritual journey may take them into another denomination, yet they may still hold on to core values and teachings and may 'think' like Christadelphians. By the same token, others may follow a similar spiritual path and remain within the Christadelphian community. The two 'groups' actually have a lot in common. We coined the term 'post-Christadelphian' to describe a person who has chosen to hold on to all that they regard as good in Christadelphianism while jettisoning the baggage which is holding back their spiritual growth, regardless of whether they maintain their membership of a Christadelphian ecclesia or not.

Several Christadelphians who are actively involved in the Christadelphian community and who maintain their membership of ecclesias welcomed the term and said it described how they thought of themselves.

The term post-Christadelphian suggests that for some people their involvement in the Christadelphian community has entered a new phase: they continue to be Christadelphians, maintain their commitment to the community, and hold on to the core teachings and values. For others, life beyond or after involvement in the Christadelphian denomination does not erase everything that went before. They endeavour to build on some of the foundations which they learned in their earlier Christadelphian lives, to distil from Christadelphianism some principles, practices and attitudes which are good and useful, and to grow in grace and knowledge without discarding everything from the past.

I personally think this is a useful term to describe what these different types of people have in common: a desire to grow while holding onto everything that is good and letting go of things that are obstacles to growth. It reflects the fact that an individual has made a conscious decision to grow rather than to lose their identity as part of a homogeneous 'group'.

Since then a Christadelphian in Sydney used an internet forum to spread the word that I had "withdrawn fellowship" from Christadelphians. This was completely untrue and even though I made my position clear to her I understand that she is still circulating this story (together with a lot of other material which is pure fabrication). Just for the record, I am actively involved in the Christadelphian community, I speak at Christadelphian meetings, I am the chairman of a Christadelphian committee, and I give quite a bit of time to a Christadelphian preaching organisation. 'Post' and 'ex' are not the same things.