On the day of Pentecost Peter quoted from the prophet Joel:
In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
(Acts 2:17ff, quoting from Joel 2:28-32).
Peter quoted these words as evidence that God had commenced a new work among His people, and there would be direct communication channels between God and His people.
I had never considered very seriously the possibility that God would speak to me in dreams. Although I was often aware that I had been dreaming, I rarely remembered even the slightest details of my dreams, except for one recurring dream I had had several times. After reading Jack Deere's excellent book Surprised by the Voice of God my mind was opened to the possibility that God might communicate in this way. I began to think about Elihu's words in Job 33:14-15
For God does speak—now one way, now another—
though man may not perceive it.
In a dream, in a vision of the night,
when deep sleep falls on men
as they slumber in their beds ...
Soon after I had a dream that was extremely vivid, and the next morning I could recall it like I never had previously. In my dream I was having a conversation with the Lord and He gave me explicit instructions about something I should do. When I woke up my recollection was so clear that I knew this was God speaking to me "in a dream, in a vision of the night". I acted immediately on what He had told me and followed His instructions to the letter. Although it wasn't clear to me at the time why I was being instructed to do this particular thing it became quite clear to me afterwards and makes perfect sense to me today.
I began to think about my recurring dream, and if this too was the voice of God. I prayed about it and was given insight into it's meaning. Once I understood what it meant, the dream stopped.
I am now more receptive to the possibility that God might choose to communicate with me in dreams. If I recall a dream I take it seriously and pray about it's meaning. I still rarely recall my dreams, but at least now I believe I am receptive to hearing God's voice when He chooses to reveal Himself to me "in a dream, in a vision of the night".
Monday, September 26, 2005
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Intimacy with God (4)
Another way God communicates with His people is through other individuals. From my own experience I can provide countless examples of this, because it seems that this is either a way God chooses to speak with me very often, or I may be more receptive to hearing His voice in this way than in other ways.
Many times when I have been teaching/preaching I have had an insight which has come to me while I've been on my feet, part-way through my exhortation/lecture/sermon. I've departed from my prepared notes and gone with the new thought or insight. I used to be amazed when someone would come up to me after the service and say something like "There was one thing in your talk which really helped me a lot" or "I've been praying about something, and I felt God gave me an answer when you said ..." Of course, the "one thing" which really impacted these people was always the insight I'd been given while speaking.
I said "I used to be amazed" when this happened, but it has happened so often now that I almost expect it to happen, and I can often (although not always) recognise the "insight" as being a word from the Lord for someone. I've shared this with other speakers/teachers and discovered that many others have had this same experience.
The same phenomenon happens to me, as well as through me. Very often when I pray about something the answer will come to me through another person. It may come in an exhortation/sermon, or through a private conversation, or a book. Several weeks ago I'd seen a reference to a book somewhere and thought at the time that the next time I was in a Christian bookstore I'd look out for it. About two weeks later I was at the bookstore with my wife. We'd gone specifically to buy some books which someone had asked me to get for them. While I was there I had this thought in the back of my mind that there was something I was going to look out for, but I couldn't think what it was. As I wandered around the store I prayed "Lord, what was it?" and minutes later I literally tripped over a small pile of books on the floor which had just come in and not been put on the shelves. There it was! The book I wanted to check out was right on the top! Without looking inside I knew that the Lord obviously wanted me to read that book, so I bought it immediately. And yes, it contained some great material which I believe I was meant to read.
If you want God to speak to you this way, or through you, then you have to make yourself receptive to Him speaking in this way. The more God speaks to or through me, the more receptive I become. Some times when I'm praying a person will come to mind. I will always then pray for that person, and sometimes I will contact them immediately or soon after. I remember praying one day in my car when someone came to mind that I hadn't spoken with for quite a long time. I phoned him immediately on my mobile phone. He started crying and said "You won't believe this, but I was just praying that God would put me in touch with someone I could talk to who would understand, and while I was praying your call came!"
A couple of years ago I was very busy with a lot of things happening in my life, at work, in church, practically everywhere. I kept getting a thought that I should study a particular subject (let's just call it xyz), but it wasn't related to anything I was writing or speaking about, so I thought it might be an unnecessary distraction, a time-consuming tangent. So I prayed about it and asked "Lord, should I study xyz, or should I wait till another time when I have more time". A couple of weeks later I received an email from a close friend in another country. He said "while we were worshipping in church this morning you came into my mind, and I had a thought that you should be studying xyz. That sounds weird to me, but does it make any sense to you?" Of course, it made perfect sense and God was speaking to me through my friend with a very specific answer to my prayer. I commenced a study of the subject, and found that it provided some enormously powerful tools for me in my Christian life.
However, for God to have been able to speak to me through my friend, He had to speak through someone who was receptive to Him doing that. If, when my friend had that thought about me during worship at church, he put it out of his mind by thinking "that's weird!" and simply dismissed it, then I would never have received that word from the Lord through him (and God might never have used him again in that way). But my friend is receptive to that. He knows from his own experiences that God does stuff like that, and so he doesn't dismiss anything as "weird" - he passes it on. And God can use him because he does.
Many times when I have been teaching/preaching I have had an insight which has come to me while I've been on my feet, part-way through my exhortation/lecture/sermon. I've departed from my prepared notes and gone with the new thought or insight. I used to be amazed when someone would come up to me after the service and say something like "There was one thing in your talk which really helped me a lot" or "I've been praying about something, and I felt God gave me an answer when you said ..." Of course, the "one thing" which really impacted these people was always the insight I'd been given while speaking.
I said "I used to be amazed" when this happened, but it has happened so often now that I almost expect it to happen, and I can often (although not always) recognise the "insight" as being a word from the Lord for someone. I've shared this with other speakers/teachers and discovered that many others have had this same experience.
The same phenomenon happens to me, as well as through me. Very often when I pray about something the answer will come to me through another person. It may come in an exhortation/sermon, or through a private conversation, or a book. Several weeks ago I'd seen a reference to a book somewhere and thought at the time that the next time I was in a Christian bookstore I'd look out for it. About two weeks later I was at the bookstore with my wife. We'd gone specifically to buy some books which someone had asked me to get for them. While I was there I had this thought in the back of my mind that there was something I was going to look out for, but I couldn't think what it was. As I wandered around the store I prayed "Lord, what was it?" and minutes later I literally tripped over a small pile of books on the floor which had just come in and not been put on the shelves. There it was! The book I wanted to check out was right on the top! Without looking inside I knew that the Lord obviously wanted me to read that book, so I bought it immediately. And yes, it contained some great material which I believe I was meant to read.
If you want God to speak to you this way, or through you, then you have to make yourself receptive to Him speaking in this way. The more God speaks to or through me, the more receptive I become. Some times when I'm praying a person will come to mind. I will always then pray for that person, and sometimes I will contact them immediately or soon after. I remember praying one day in my car when someone came to mind that I hadn't spoken with for quite a long time. I phoned him immediately on my mobile phone. He started crying and said "You won't believe this, but I was just praying that God would put me in touch with someone I could talk to who would understand, and while I was praying your call came!"
A couple of years ago I was very busy with a lot of things happening in my life, at work, in church, practically everywhere. I kept getting a thought that I should study a particular subject (let's just call it xyz), but it wasn't related to anything I was writing or speaking about, so I thought it might be an unnecessary distraction, a time-consuming tangent. So I prayed about it and asked "Lord, should I study xyz, or should I wait till another time when I have more time". A couple of weeks later I received an email from a close friend in another country. He said "while we were worshipping in church this morning you came into my mind, and I had a thought that you should be studying xyz. That sounds weird to me, but does it make any sense to you?" Of course, it made perfect sense and God was speaking to me through my friend with a very specific answer to my prayer. I commenced a study of the subject, and found that it provided some enormously powerful tools for me in my Christian life.
However, for God to have been able to speak to me through my friend, He had to speak through someone who was receptive to Him doing that. If, when my friend had that thought about me during worship at church, he put it out of his mind by thinking "that's weird!" and simply dismissed it, then I would never have received that word from the Lord through him (and God might never have used him again in that way). But my friend is receptive to that. He knows from his own experiences that God does stuff like that, and so he doesn't dismiss anything as "weird" - he passes it on. And God can use him because he does.
Angels
Some discussion about my last post has begun on the Truth Alive forum.
Feel free to wander on over and join in.
Feel free to wander on over and join in.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Intimacy with God (3)
As conversation prayer is more than talking to God. It also means listening to God. It's a two-way conversation, but all too often people don't hear God speaking because we're either too busy talking, or we just don't expect God to say anything. After all, God only ever spoke to the prophets and people in Bible times - He just doesn't talk to anyone today (or so the mainstream Christadelphian view would have it).
But there's not a shred of Biblical evidence for the idea God stopped talking to His people 2,000 years ago. In fact, all the evidence in the New Testament is that with the coming of His Son the way He relates with his people has changed for ever. The way into the Holiest place has been made open; we can now approach the throne of grace boldly; His sons and daughters will prophesy like never before; we have entered a new age in God's dealings with humanity. Cessationism - the idea (not unique to Christadelphians) that God communicated directly with His people for a brief period of time in the first century and then ceased this communication less than 100 years later - is based on some ingenious interpretation of Scripture which completely ignores the most obvious meaning. Perhaps I can deal with that at some other time.
Over the next few posts I would like to explore some of the ways God communicates with His people, including:
- through His Word (this is where cessationists would start - and end - but I'll leave this one to later)
- through angels
- through other people
- through dreams and visions
- by placing things in our hearts
- by speaking directly
I believe in angels. I believe they are "ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation" (Heb 1:14). I believe they are God's agents, working in our lives to manipulate circumstances for our good. In Biblical times they appeared as men (and women?) to communicate messages from God to His people. Sometimes they were immediately recognised as being angels. Sometimes not.
I've met angels (and you probably have too). I've not always recognised them as angels. I remember one time when I was wrestling with a problem and needed to make a decision that I met a young man at a seminar who came up to me after a session for a private chat. He seemed to know that I needed to talk about something, and almost immediately went straight to the heart of it and offered some very wise advice. I never saw him again, but I took his advice and it proved to be the right thing to do.
I told this story once when speaking at a conference and was approached by several people afterwards with similiar stories. I remember one story told by someone who had recently moved to a new city and was feeling quite anxious about settling in a new place and getting things set up so his wife and children could follow. Someone came up to him on the train on his way to work one morning, and called him by name (he assumed that he must have met him at church on the previous Sunday, but couldn't remember him. Who else would know his name?) The stranger told him not to worry, that everything was going to be fine, and that this is where God wanted him to be. He was right, and everything went well; but he never saw that man again and was convinced that it was an angel.
You've probably heard of similar stories, and may have some of your own.
"Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:2)
But there's not a shred of Biblical evidence for the idea God stopped talking to His people 2,000 years ago. In fact, all the evidence in the New Testament is that with the coming of His Son the way He relates with his people has changed for ever. The way into the Holiest place has been made open; we can now approach the throne of grace boldly; His sons and daughters will prophesy like never before; we have entered a new age in God's dealings with humanity. Cessationism - the idea (not unique to Christadelphians) that God communicated directly with His people for a brief period of time in the first century and then ceased this communication less than 100 years later - is based on some ingenious interpretation of Scripture which completely ignores the most obvious meaning. Perhaps I can deal with that at some other time.
Over the next few posts I would like to explore some of the ways God communicates with His people, including:
- through His Word (this is where cessationists would start - and end - but I'll leave this one to later)
- through angels
- through other people
- through dreams and visions
- by placing things in our hearts
- by speaking directly
I believe in angels. I believe they are "ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation" (Heb 1:14). I believe they are God's agents, working in our lives to manipulate circumstances for our good. In Biblical times they appeared as men (and women?) to communicate messages from God to His people. Sometimes they were immediately recognised as being angels. Sometimes not.
I've met angels (and you probably have too). I've not always recognised them as angels. I remember one time when I was wrestling with a problem and needed to make a decision that I met a young man at a seminar who came up to me after a session for a private chat. He seemed to know that I needed to talk about something, and almost immediately went straight to the heart of it and offered some very wise advice. I never saw him again, but I took his advice and it proved to be the right thing to do.
I told this story once when speaking at a conference and was approached by several people afterwards with similiar stories. I remember one story told by someone who had recently moved to a new city and was feeling quite anxious about settling in a new place and getting things set up so his wife and children could follow. Someone came up to him on the train on his way to work one morning, and called him by name (he assumed that he must have met him at church on the previous Sunday, but couldn't remember him. Who else would know his name?) The stranger told him not to worry, that everything was going to be fine, and that this is where God wanted him to be. He was right, and everything went well; but he never saw that man again and was convinced that it was an angel.
You've probably heard of similar stories, and may have some of your own.
"Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:2)
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Ducks and dodgy theology
The following comments on the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) were posted to a Christadelphian forum by bro Cliff York. Cliff's comments about being in relationship with God rather doing something to earn God's favour tie in nicely with my thoughts about intimacy with God, and I liked them so much I'm posting them here (with Cliff's permission).
When the lawyer (ie. one governed by law, not grace) asked the question "Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life" - he actually answered his own question. One cannot "DO" anything to inherit the family's values - one must "BE" - ie. be related in some way to the Testator to receive the inheritance. What does a child "DO" to inherit anything from his father? Nothing. He must simply "BE" a child of the Father. And in the case of adoption, such a child is "deemed to be" a child of the Father.
When the lawyer (ie. one governed by law, not grace) asked the question "Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life" - he actually answered his own question. One cannot "DO" anything to inherit the family's values - one must "BE" - ie. be related in some way to the Testator to receive the inheritance. What does a child "DO" to inherit anything from his father? Nothing. He must simply "BE" a child of the Father. And in the case of adoption, such a child is "deemed to be" a child of the Father.
Jesus is pointing out to the Lawyer that we are to be Human Beings, not Human "doings".
Question? How does a Duck glorify God? Answer: by being a duck!! *
Q? How do we glorify God? Answer: by "being" who God created us to be: authentic, genuine, caring "offspring" of His.
When the Lawyer asked, "and who is my neighbour" - he did what we so often do... he actually wanted to know where his obligations ended.
By using the word "certain" in this (and in any of His teachings) [ie "a certain man" "a certain priest" etc] Jesus wants us to identify with the character - He is saying, "this could be you or me. I could put your name here in this story".
I believe that Luke was the man Jesus had in mind as the Samaritan - after all, Luke was not a Jew, and he was a doctor!! And this story is only recorded by Luke out of all the Gospel writers.
When the priest and the levite (who incidently were the part of that group who were custodions of the "Truth" in Israel, so their "theology" was "correct") saw the man in the gutter, they wondered what would happen to themselves if they even touched the man.
When the Samaritan (the hero of the story, who incidently had "dodgy Theology") saw the man, he wondered what would happen to the man if he did not touch him.
The Samaritan was not concerned what would happen to himself if he had anything to do with the man in the gutter. That is how I see our role in the Brotherhood. So often we see B/S who are concerned what will happen to themselves if they fellowship "Bro so and so." That is not religion (cp James 1:27). And such an attitude is based on fear of what "others" will say or do to you.
The Samaritan put his fears to one side (after all, how did he know that the man in the gutter was not a decoy for an ambush?) and in LOVE ministers to a man who has been abused and left for dead.
What do we do on our community for those who have been spiritually abused and cast out of our institution and left for dead on the road that leads from Jericho to Jerusalem? May the Lord greatly increase the number of Samaritans in our midst.... urgently!!
The work of a priest is to "have compassion on the ignorant and on those who are out of the way" says Paul, yet it was only the Samaritan who showed these Christ qualities in the parable. The priest and the Levite were too concerned about what others might think of them if they even touched the poor abused man.
And it was because the priest and the levite were bound by the Law that they could not touch the man lest they be defiled. The Samaritan was able to operate outside of the Law, and get off his ass, and be of benefit to the poor abused man.
Who was neighbour to whom? We are often told that the Good Samaritan was neighbour to the man in the gutter. But Jesus reveals that it was the man in the gutter who accepted help from his neighbour, the Samaritan.
What he was saying to the lawyer was, "I am your neighbour, you are the man in the gutter, you have been abused and neglected, and left for dead by those who are bound by law. Are you prepared to allow me (a man who you will shortly accuse of being a Samaritan. cp John 8:48) to be your neighbour? Can I bind up your wounds and take you to a House of Therapy (Matthew 24:45) and pay the price of your redemption?
One of the highlights of this story for me, is the proof that God is not so concerned about our Doctinal Correctness as He is concerned about our State of Being.
The Priest and the Levite were Doctrinally "pure" - but were totally useless to God.
The Samaritan, on the other hand, was a man with "dodgy Theology" and yet it was he who did the Will of God.
It is possible to be absolutely "correct" and at the same time to be totally "wrong". Let us therefore learn to become the best Human Beings that God has created us to be. And let our "pattern" be the son of Man who never let others do His thinking for Him, but He had His ears open always to the Father and His breathings.
Your Brother
Cliff
* I first heard this comment about ducks glorifying God from my friend David Jose, and I'm guessing that Cliff may have heard it from the same source.
Steve
* I first heard this comment about ducks glorifying God from my friend David Jose, and I'm guessing that Cliff may have heard it from the same source.
Steve
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Intimacy with God (2)
"Most Christians for most of the Christian centuries have learned to pray by praying the Psalms" writes Eugene Peterson in the Introduction to Psalms (NavPress, 1994).
He goes on to describe the difficulties a lot of people encounter when trying to pray and with trying to find the right prayer "language". "Faced with the prospect of conversation with a holy God who speaks worlds into being, it is not surprising that we have trouble ... Untutored, we tend to think that prayer is what good people do when they are doing their best. It is not. Inexperienced, we suppose that there must be an 'insider' language that must be acquired before God takes us seriously in our prayer. There is not. Prayer is elemental, not advanced, language. It is the means by which our language becomes honest, true and personal in response to God. It is the means by which we get everything in our lives out in the open before God."
He goes on to say: "In English translation, the Psalms often sound smooth and polished, sonorous with Elizabethan rhythms and diction. As literature, they are beyond compare. But as prayer, as the utterances of men and women passionate for God in moments of anger and praise and lament, these translations miss something. Gramatically, they are accurate. The scholarship undergirding the translations is superb and devout. But as prayers they are not quite right. The Psalms in Hebrew are rough and earthy. They are not genteel. They are not the prayers of nice people, couched in cultured language."
From my own experience there was a major change in the way I prayed which started about 7 or 8 years after I was baptised, when I was in my early twenties. I was praying one day when I suddenly realised that someone was listening - I was aware of the presence of God for the first time. Until then I had struggled with trying to find the right kind of language for my prayers, which were often formal, structured and polite. I addressed God as "thee" and "thou" and used Jacobean language as best I could (which meant saying things like "dost" instead of "do", "seemeth" instead of "seems", etc). I had been raised on the King James Bible, so I had a pretty good handle on the archaic English, but it somehow made my prayers feel irrelevant to real life.
I began to pray conversationally, to speak with God as though He was right there beside me, listening (He was!) The more I did this the more I became aware of His constant presence, and so the more I talked with Him. Instead of praying at set times, I began to talk with Him whenever and wherever I wanted to. Conservations with God became part of whatever I did - my work, entertainment, friendships, and all of life. In time I became aware that not only was God always present, He was also with me as my friend. I learned that I could talk with my friend about absolutely anything! After all, He knew about everything that was going on in my life because He was there, so why not talk with Him about it? I discovered that nothing was taboo; there was no subject about which I could not talk with God.
This realisation lifted a huge burden from my shoulders. I did not have to carry anything alone. God would never abandon me, or refuse to listen. From the Psalms (especially, later, in Eugene Peterson's translation) I learned that we could tell God exactly how we felt, even when what I was feeling was not necessarily "holy" or Christian. If I felt angry, I could tell God (even if I felt angry with God!). If I was finding it hard to pray, I could talk with God about it. At the times when I wasn't feeling "spiritual" God wanted to hear about it.
So, if you're having trouble praying, I would recommend you get hold of a translation of the Psalms like Peterson's (The Message) and see how others prayed with "raw honesty and detailed thoroughness", and then do the same. Forget about using some archaic language, and just talk with God in the same language you use with everyone else, everyday (the same as Jesus did - the language He used for prayer was the same language He used in the street. Hebrew and Greek did not have a special way of addressing God. "Thee" and "thou" as terms for God but not for anyone else, is a late English religious peculiarity).
Remember, Paul says "pray continually" (1 Thess 5:17) and to pray about everything (Phil 4:6). Start with short prays, and often, rather than trying to fit it all in one long prayer. Pray as things come to your mind rather than trying to remember them later at "prayer time". Tell God how you're feeling, whether it's good or bad. Tell Him why you feel that way. Tell Him how you want to feel. Thank Him for every good thing that comes your way, not matter how "unimportant" it might seem (thank Him for when you find a parking space in a busy shopping mall; thank Him for the phone call from a friend that comes just when you're feeling lonely or down; thank Him for the friendly smile someone gave you in passing; thank Him for the sunset that just makes you want to say "wow" and make it "wow Lord!).
He goes on to describe the difficulties a lot of people encounter when trying to pray and with trying to find the right prayer "language". "Faced with the prospect of conversation with a holy God who speaks worlds into being, it is not surprising that we have trouble ... Untutored, we tend to think that prayer is what good people do when they are doing their best. It is not. Inexperienced, we suppose that there must be an 'insider' language that must be acquired before God takes us seriously in our prayer. There is not. Prayer is elemental, not advanced, language. It is the means by which our language becomes honest, true and personal in response to God. It is the means by which we get everything in our lives out in the open before God."
He goes on to say: "In English translation, the Psalms often sound smooth and polished, sonorous with Elizabethan rhythms and diction. As literature, they are beyond compare. But as prayer, as the utterances of men and women passionate for God in moments of anger and praise and lament, these translations miss something. Gramatically, they are accurate. The scholarship undergirding the translations is superb and devout. But as prayers they are not quite right. The Psalms in Hebrew are rough and earthy. They are not genteel. They are not the prayers of nice people, couched in cultured language."
From my own experience there was a major change in the way I prayed which started about 7 or 8 years after I was baptised, when I was in my early twenties. I was praying one day when I suddenly realised that someone was listening - I was aware of the presence of God for the first time. Until then I had struggled with trying to find the right kind of language for my prayers, which were often formal, structured and polite. I addressed God as "thee" and "thou" and used Jacobean language as best I could (which meant saying things like "dost" instead of "do", "seemeth" instead of "seems", etc). I had been raised on the King James Bible, so I had a pretty good handle on the archaic English, but it somehow made my prayers feel irrelevant to real life.
I began to pray conversationally, to speak with God as though He was right there beside me, listening (He was!) The more I did this the more I became aware of His constant presence, and so the more I talked with Him. Instead of praying at set times, I began to talk with Him whenever and wherever I wanted to. Conservations with God became part of whatever I did - my work, entertainment, friendships, and all of life. In time I became aware that not only was God always present, He was also with me as my friend. I learned that I could talk with my friend about absolutely anything! After all, He knew about everything that was going on in my life because He was there, so why not talk with Him about it? I discovered that nothing was taboo; there was no subject about which I could not talk with God.
This realisation lifted a huge burden from my shoulders. I did not have to carry anything alone. God would never abandon me, or refuse to listen. From the Psalms (especially, later, in Eugene Peterson's translation) I learned that we could tell God exactly how we felt, even when what I was feeling was not necessarily "holy" or Christian. If I felt angry, I could tell God (even if I felt angry with God!). If I was finding it hard to pray, I could talk with God about it. At the times when I wasn't feeling "spiritual" God wanted to hear about it.
So, if you're having trouble praying, I would recommend you get hold of a translation of the Psalms like Peterson's (The Message) and see how others prayed with "raw honesty and detailed thoroughness", and then do the same. Forget about using some archaic language, and just talk with God in the same language you use with everyone else, everyday (the same as Jesus did - the language He used for prayer was the same language He used in the street. Hebrew and Greek did not have a special way of addressing God. "Thee" and "thou" as terms for God but not for anyone else, is a late English religious peculiarity).
Remember, Paul says "pray continually" (1 Thess 5:17) and to pray about everything (Phil 4:6). Start with short prays, and often, rather than trying to fit it all in one long prayer. Pray as things come to your mind rather than trying to remember them later at "prayer time". Tell God how you're feeling, whether it's good or bad. Tell Him why you feel that way. Tell Him how you want to feel. Thank Him for every good thing that comes your way, not matter how "unimportant" it might seem (thank Him for when you find a parking space in a busy shopping mall; thank Him for the phone call from a friend that comes just when you're feeling lonely or down; thank Him for the friendly smile someone gave you in passing; thank Him for the sunset that just makes you want to say "wow" and make it "wow Lord!).
Friday, September 16, 2005
Intimacy with God (1)
In yesterday's post I said that many Christadelphians are saying "there has to be something more!" and are searching for a closer personal relationship with God. Over the next few posts I want to share some of the things I have discovered from my own experiences which I hope will be helpful.
A friend recently emailed me and reminded me that bro Geoff Watson once gave some wonderful talks on the father heart of God and there is a book of the same title by Floyd McClung, Jr. Here is a quote from that book:
"Negative childhood experience is not the only factor that can hold us back in our understanding of God as a Father. Many people experience an emotional or mental block when they try to call God ''Father'' because they do not know him personally. There is a difference between knowing about God and knowing Him personally. John 1:12 says, ''To all who received Him, who believed in His name, He gave power to become children of God''. To become a child of God, we must believe that Jesus Christ came as God's son, died, and was resurrected so that our sins could be forgiven. We need then to ask Him to forgive us and to become Lord of our lives. We need to dedicate our lives to learning and obeying God's word, and worshipping Him alone.
Other people have difficulty relating to God as Father because they have been taught all their lives to respect Him, and to them that means addressing Him as ''thou''. To use an informal term such as ''Papa'' or ''Father'' seems disrespectful to them. Yet the Bible teaches us to call God ''Father'' when we pray (Matt 6:9), and that He wants to have a close, intimate relationship with us, His children.
Some of the most common hindrances to our comprehension of the Father heart of God are emotional wounds. These injuries often result in ''scar'' tissue which makes us hesitant to fully trust Him as Father.'' (p14- 15)
A friend recently emailed me and reminded me that bro Geoff Watson once gave some wonderful talks on the father heart of God and there is a book of the same title by Floyd McClung, Jr. Here is a quote from that book:
"Negative childhood experience is not the only factor that can hold us back in our understanding of God as a Father. Many people experience an emotional or mental block when they try to call God ''Father'' because they do not know him personally. There is a difference between knowing about God and knowing Him personally. John 1:12 says, ''To all who received Him, who believed in His name, He gave power to become children of God''. To become a child of God, we must believe that Jesus Christ came as God's son, died, and was resurrected so that our sins could be forgiven. We need then to ask Him to forgive us and to become Lord of our lives. We need to dedicate our lives to learning and obeying God's word, and worshipping Him alone.
Other people have difficulty relating to God as Father because they have been taught all their lives to respect Him, and to them that means addressing Him as ''thou''. To use an informal term such as ''Papa'' or ''Father'' seems disrespectful to them. Yet the Bible teaches us to call God ''Father'' when we pray (Matt 6:9), and that He wants to have a close, intimate relationship with us, His children.
Some of the most common hindrances to our comprehension of the Father heart of God are emotional wounds. These injuries often result in ''scar'' tissue which makes us hesitant to fully trust Him as Father.'' (p14- 15)
Thursday, September 15, 2005
"There has got to be something more!"
I recently met up with an old Christadelphian friend and had a long chat over coffee. Although we've moved in quite different Christadelphian circles for many years we had made very similar observations about the condition of the brotherhood. One thing in particular struck me as being very significant: we both very frequently meet Christadelphians who say to us "there has got to be something more than this!" These people know "the Truth" as Christadelphians understand it. They attend meetings regularly. They are often heavily involved in ecclesial activities. They are not "fringe" Christadelphians, but very definitely are in the Christadelphian mainstream. Yet time and time again they admit to having deep feelings of dissatisfaction about their faith. Very often these people say they have difficulty praying. They long for a closer relationship with God, but haven't found it through doing daily Bible readings or attending meetings. They may prefer traditional forms of worship, with hymn singing and a predictable programme, but they don't find the worship helps them to connect with God.
Sometimes I feel that this confession of their dissatisfaction is really a cry for help. They realise that many Christians have a close, personal relationship with God and enjoy intimacy with their Creator, and they expect that of all Christians Christadelphians should have everything God has on offer because, after all, "we have the Truth". Yet they realise that something is missing.
This experience is so common amongst many Christadelphian ecclesias that it has become "standard teaching" in some circles to say that a personal relationship with God is not possible. I even had one young man tell me that "having a personal relationship with God is just Evangelical jargon - it's not possible".
But it is possible, and there are many Christadelphians, former Christadelphians and Christians of other persuasions who will tell you from their own experiences how it came about for them. If you are one of those people who know that there has got to be something more and you are thirsting for closer intimacy with God; if you long for a deep personal relationship with God but don't know how to have it, then you are not alone and there are people who can help.
I urge you to make contact with people who discovered that there is something more, and it is within reach. Feel free to email me privately at christadelphian.blogger@hotmail.com and I'd be more than happy to share my own experience with you and to help you find that "something more" for yourself.
Sometimes I feel that this confession of their dissatisfaction is really a cry for help. They realise that many Christians have a close, personal relationship with God and enjoy intimacy with their Creator, and they expect that of all Christians Christadelphians should have everything God has on offer because, after all, "we have the Truth". Yet they realise that something is missing.
This experience is so common amongst many Christadelphian ecclesias that it has become "standard teaching" in some circles to say that a personal relationship with God is not possible. I even had one young man tell me that "having a personal relationship with God is just Evangelical jargon - it's not possible".
But it is possible, and there are many Christadelphians, former Christadelphians and Christians of other persuasions who will tell you from their own experiences how it came about for them. If you are one of those people who know that there has got to be something more and you are thirsting for closer intimacy with God; if you long for a deep personal relationship with God but don't know how to have it, then you are not alone and there are people who can help.
I urge you to make contact with people who discovered that there is something more, and it is within reach. Feel free to email me privately at christadelphian.blogger@hotmail.com and I'd be more than happy to share my own experience with you and to help you find that "something more" for yourself.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
First Principles (2)
From what I've posted here already about the foundations of New Testament Christianity, it seems that Christadelphians have generally either glossed over the fundamentals, ignored them completely, or got the emphasis wrong. In their place Christadelphians have a systematic theology called "first principles". Just how important are these first principles?
Going back to the building analogy, I said there are five foundation principles in the New Testament. On these foundations Jesus and the apostles taught kingdom-ethics and kingdom-dynamics - principles for living a victorious Christian life, proclaiming the Gospel, and advancing the kingdom.
As part of building this "Temple" - the house of God - there is a great deal of information in the Bible which provide helpful tools. The Word of God is full of stories, illustrations and accounts of lives which provide positive and negative examples for living under God's authority. To make sense of this wealth of information we need to put it all in its historical and social contexts. The more we understand about the cultures, beliefs and practices of the people in the Bible, the more benefits we will gain from reading and studying their stories. Just having this information is not in itself life-saving or transforming. The accumulation of facts and information will not necessarily make any difference in our lives. But once we are converted all this information begins to provide tools and resources which will aid us in our Christian life.
As part of sorting this information so that it makes sense to us later in history and in different social and cultural contexts, and speaking different languages, we will inevitably want to arrange the information into a kind of "framework". That's where systematic theology can be helpful (arranging doctrinal facts in a systematic way). Creeds and statements of faith are a way of summarising systematic theology. However, we must remember that these facts are part of the framework. To use our building analogy again, much of this is scaffolding. It is useful, even important, when erecting a building - but it is not in itself the building. Eventually the scaffolding will have no relevance or usefulness and will be taken down. We need to realise that a lot of the things which we may now consider to be important are only valuable for now in helping to erect the building, and one day will be discarded.
In my opinion many Christadelphians have placed too much emphasis on the "scaffolding" - the arrangement of facts and information about how God works - and the "tools", and have neglected laying a good foundation. Too much effort has gone into the scaffolding and not enough into the building. It's important to have the tools well maintained and in good repair, but only if they are going to be used in doing something constructive. And too much effort has gone into tearing down the work of other men rather than contributing to the building - the tools have even been turned into weapons.
Paul uses this analogy in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15
"By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."
One day the scaffolding will be torn down and destroyed and only the Temple will remain. By God's grace I hope most Christadelphians will themselves be saved, but it's possible that a lot of their efforts will be lost because they have focussed too much on the scaffolding and the tools and not enough on the building.
Going back to the building analogy, I said there are five foundation principles in the New Testament. On these foundations Jesus and the apostles taught kingdom-ethics and kingdom-dynamics - principles for living a victorious Christian life, proclaiming the Gospel, and advancing the kingdom.
As part of building this "Temple" - the house of God - there is a great deal of information in the Bible which provide helpful tools. The Word of God is full of stories, illustrations and accounts of lives which provide positive and negative examples for living under God's authority. To make sense of this wealth of information we need to put it all in its historical and social contexts. The more we understand about the cultures, beliefs and practices of the people in the Bible, the more benefits we will gain from reading and studying their stories. Just having this information is not in itself life-saving or transforming. The accumulation of facts and information will not necessarily make any difference in our lives. But once we are converted all this information begins to provide tools and resources which will aid us in our Christian life.
As part of sorting this information so that it makes sense to us later in history and in different social and cultural contexts, and speaking different languages, we will inevitably want to arrange the information into a kind of "framework". That's where systematic theology can be helpful (arranging doctrinal facts in a systematic way). Creeds and statements of faith are a way of summarising systematic theology. However, we must remember that these facts are part of the framework. To use our building analogy again, much of this is scaffolding. It is useful, even important, when erecting a building - but it is not in itself the building. Eventually the scaffolding will have no relevance or usefulness and will be taken down. We need to realise that a lot of the things which we may now consider to be important are only valuable for now in helping to erect the building, and one day will be discarded.
In my opinion many Christadelphians have placed too much emphasis on the "scaffolding" - the arrangement of facts and information about how God works - and the "tools", and have neglected laying a good foundation. Too much effort has gone into the scaffolding and not enough into the building. It's important to have the tools well maintained and in good repair, but only if they are going to be used in doing something constructive. And too much effort has gone into tearing down the work of other men rather than contributing to the building - the tools have even been turned into weapons.
Paul uses this analogy in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15
"By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."
One day the scaffolding will be torn down and destroyed and only the Temple will remain. By God's grace I hope most Christadelphians will themselves be saved, but it's possible that a lot of their efforts will be lost because they have focussed too much on the scaffolding and the tools and not enough on the building.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
First Principles
Using an analogy of a building to describe the kingdom of God (as the Bible frequently does, in particular the analogy of a Temple) the foundations of the building or Temple are the fundamental principles which I outlined in earlier messages:
1. God is love
2. We are saved by grace
3. God forgives
4. God grants repentance
5. God reigns
Much of Jesus' teaching concerns the ethics of the kingdom - how we live in the kingdom of God, and the characteristics God is developing in us for the work He has planned for us in the future when the kingdom is consummated. Jesus and the writers of the New Testament also concentrate on what Jack Hayford and others have appropriately called kingdom dynamics - the principles which, when applied, enable us to be successful in preaching the Gospel and advancing the work of the kingdom.
So Christianity - the application of the teachings of Jesus (the gospel of the kingdom) - consists primarily of:
- the foundation principles of the kingdom
- the ethics of the kingdom
- kingdom dynamics
This is the "gospel" or good news which Jesus and His disciples taught.
To Christadelphians the starting point, or foundations, are what they call "the first principles". Where do these first principles fit in with this? The first principles are defined in the various statements of faith: the most common being the Birmingham Statement of Faith or the Birmingham amended Statement of Faith (the very fact that the Birmingham Statement of Faith has been amended more than once illustrates that to some Christadelphians the first principles changed or weren't properly defined in the first place).
The first principles defined in the statements of faith include the following:
1. God is one. There is only one "person" in the Godhead.
2. Jesus is the Son of God, but did not pre-exist before His birth and is not the second person of the Godhead.
3. the Holy Spirit is the power of God, but is not a person in the Godhead.
4. as a result of Adam's sin all mankind was sentenced to die and to live a life under the curse of sin and with a human nature "prone to sin".
5. Jesus' death provided a way for God to forgive people for their sins, provided they live a life of obedience thereafter, by condemning sinful nature and declaring God to be righteous in sentencing mankind to death.
6. at death both body and soul die, awaiting the resurrection. There is no conscious existence in death.
7. the devil is within each human being, and is not a supernatural being or fallen angel. Jesus destroyed the devil in Himself when He died.
8. Jesus will return to the earth and establish the kingdom of God on earth in the land promised to Abraham (Israel), with Jerusalem as its capital, and will eventually subdue the whole earth (including the use of force to bring the whole into subjection).
9. the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
10. by understanding the "first principles" (although in a lot more detail to what I have outlined here), and by then being baptised by full immersion in water, a person can move from being "in Adam" to being "in Christ". Provided they then live a life of obedience to the commandments of Christ they may be acceptable at the Judgment and granted a place in the Kingdom of God at the second coming of Christ.
11. obedience to the commandments of Christ includes refusing to participate in war or joining a police force, refusing to take part in politics (including refusing to vote in elections) and, in some countries (such as Australia, but not in Canada or the UK), refusing to sit on a jury.
The emphasis is on "correct doctrine" (although number 11 above are core "ethics" which have made it on to the list of first principles), and salvation is possible only for those people who understand and agree with these first principles. "That the way to obtain this salvation is to believe the Gospel they preached, and to take on the Name and service of Christ, by being thereupon immersed in water, and continuing patiently in the observance of all things he has commanded, none being recognized as his friends except those who do what he has commanded" (BaSF clause 16).
The statements of faith say little, or nothing, about the foundation principles upon which Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom or Paul's Gospel of Grace are based. The closest the Birmingham SoF gets to referring to God's love is a statement "That God, in his kindness, conceived a plan of restoration which, without setting aside His just and necessary law of sin and death, should ultimately rescue the race from destruction, and people the earth with sinless immortals" (clause 6, my emphasis).
Grace gets a mention only in passing: "That at the close of the thousand years, there will be a general resurrection and judgment, resulting in the final extinction of the wicked, and the immortalization of those who shall have established their title (under the grace of God) to eternal life during the thousand years" (cluse 29, my emphasis). However, the statement that the saints have "established their title (under the grace of God)" is an oxymoron. If they have "established their title" then it is no longer by grace!
Forgiveness does get a mention (clause 12: "All who approach God through this crucified, but risen, representative of Adam's disobedient race, are forgiven").
Repentance also gets a mention (clause 11: "That the message he delivered from God to his kinsmen, the Jews, was a call to repentance from every evil work ... ").
The majority of clauses in the Birmingham SoF deal with "the kingdom of God" (clauses 17 to 30 - 14 clauses out of 30). As I've mentioned before, it's good that Christadelphians emphasise the kingdom of God, because this is the good news that Jesus preached. But in emphasising only the future aspects of the kingdom and ignoring the present reality which was the main content of Jesus' teachings, Christadelphians are really teaching only a "half Gospel".
While the Christadelphian statements of faith, in my opinion, are correct in endorsing orthodox Christian doctrines such as the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and His resurrection from the dead on the third day, they have the wrong emphasis and because they were born out of doctrinal controversy the language is largely defensive or argumentative. Consequently they are generally considered to be useless as documents for teaching or explaining the Gospel (which is presumably why preaching and missionary organisations rarely use them as preaching tools). They are, however, regarded as authoritative in determining who will be admitted to membership and communion.
So what place should the "first principles" take in teaching and explaining the Good News, and how important are they really? Stay tuned.
1. God is love
2. We are saved by grace
3. God forgives
4. God grants repentance
5. God reigns
Much of Jesus' teaching concerns the ethics of the kingdom - how we live in the kingdom of God, and the characteristics God is developing in us for the work He has planned for us in the future when the kingdom is consummated. Jesus and the writers of the New Testament also concentrate on what Jack Hayford and others have appropriately called kingdom dynamics - the principles which, when applied, enable us to be successful in preaching the Gospel and advancing the work of the kingdom.
So Christianity - the application of the teachings of Jesus (the gospel of the kingdom) - consists primarily of:
- the foundation principles of the kingdom
- the ethics of the kingdom
- kingdom dynamics
This is the "gospel" or good news which Jesus and His disciples taught.
To Christadelphians the starting point, or foundations, are what they call "the first principles". Where do these first principles fit in with this? The first principles are defined in the various statements of faith: the most common being the Birmingham Statement of Faith or the Birmingham amended Statement of Faith (the very fact that the Birmingham Statement of Faith has been amended more than once illustrates that to some Christadelphians the first principles changed or weren't properly defined in the first place).
The first principles defined in the statements of faith include the following:
1. God is one. There is only one "person" in the Godhead.
2. Jesus is the Son of God, but did not pre-exist before His birth and is not the second person of the Godhead.
3. the Holy Spirit is the power of God, but is not a person in the Godhead.
4. as a result of Adam's sin all mankind was sentenced to die and to live a life under the curse of sin and with a human nature "prone to sin".
5. Jesus' death provided a way for God to forgive people for their sins, provided they live a life of obedience thereafter, by condemning sinful nature and declaring God to be righteous in sentencing mankind to death.
6. at death both body and soul die, awaiting the resurrection. There is no conscious existence in death.
7. the devil is within each human being, and is not a supernatural being or fallen angel. Jesus destroyed the devil in Himself when He died.
8. Jesus will return to the earth and establish the kingdom of God on earth in the land promised to Abraham (Israel), with Jerusalem as its capital, and will eventually subdue the whole earth (including the use of force to bring the whole into subjection).
9. the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
10. by understanding the "first principles" (although in a lot more detail to what I have outlined here), and by then being baptised by full immersion in water, a person can move from being "in Adam" to being "in Christ". Provided they then live a life of obedience to the commandments of Christ they may be acceptable at the Judgment and granted a place in the Kingdom of God at the second coming of Christ.
11. obedience to the commandments of Christ includes refusing to participate in war or joining a police force, refusing to take part in politics (including refusing to vote in elections) and, in some countries (such as Australia, but not in Canada or the UK), refusing to sit on a jury.
The emphasis is on "correct doctrine" (although number 11 above are core "ethics" which have made it on to the list of first principles), and salvation is possible only for those people who understand and agree with these first principles. "That the way to obtain this salvation is to believe the Gospel they preached, and to take on the Name and service of Christ, by being thereupon immersed in water, and continuing patiently in the observance of all things he has commanded, none being recognized as his friends except those who do what he has commanded" (BaSF clause 16).
The statements of faith say little, or nothing, about the foundation principles upon which Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom or Paul's Gospel of Grace are based. The closest the Birmingham SoF gets to referring to God's love is a statement "That God, in his kindness, conceived a plan of restoration which, without setting aside His just and necessary law of sin and death, should ultimately rescue the race from destruction, and people the earth with sinless immortals" (clause 6, my emphasis).
Grace gets a mention only in passing: "That at the close of the thousand years, there will be a general resurrection and judgment, resulting in the final extinction of the wicked, and the immortalization of those who shall have established their title (under the grace of God) to eternal life during the thousand years" (cluse 29, my emphasis). However, the statement that the saints have "established their title (under the grace of God)" is an oxymoron. If they have "established their title" then it is no longer by grace!
Forgiveness does get a mention (clause 12: "All who approach God through this crucified, but risen, representative of Adam's disobedient race, are forgiven").
Repentance also gets a mention (clause 11: "That the message he delivered from God to his kinsmen, the Jews, was a call to repentance from every evil work ... ").
The majority of clauses in the Birmingham SoF deal with "the kingdom of God" (clauses 17 to 30 - 14 clauses out of 30). As I've mentioned before, it's good that Christadelphians emphasise the kingdom of God, because this is the good news that Jesus preached. But in emphasising only the future aspects of the kingdom and ignoring the present reality which was the main content of Jesus' teachings, Christadelphians are really teaching only a "half Gospel".
While the Christadelphian statements of faith, in my opinion, are correct in endorsing orthodox Christian doctrines such as the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and His resurrection from the dead on the third day, they have the wrong emphasis and because they were born out of doctrinal controversy the language is largely defensive or argumentative. Consequently they are generally considered to be useless as documents for teaching or explaining the Gospel (which is presumably why preaching and missionary organisations rarely use them as preaching tools). They are, however, regarded as authoritative in determining who will be admitted to membership and communion.
So what place should the "first principles" take in teaching and explaining the Good News, and how important are they really? Stay tuned.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Do you want to discuss something?
I'm aware that this weblog is being discussed on forums such as BTDF and CTA. If anyone would like to discuss anything with me directly or privately please feel free to email me at christadelphian.blogger@hotmail.com
Sunday, August 28, 2005
“Many are called but few are chosen”
In response to my last post, where I said "remnant theology is wrong", some people will undoubtedly reply "but Jesus' said 'Many are called but few are chosen'."
Indeed, in two places in Matthew’s Gospel we read of Jesus saying these words (Matthew 20:16; 22:14). This saying appears to be contrary to the idea of God’s overflowing generosity which we see repeatedly throughout Jesus’ teachings. It appears that Jesus is saying that only a small number of people are actually chosen by God to enjoy His Kingdom and that even many of those who respond to His invitation will be rejected. This is so radically different from the rest of Jesus’ teachings that we need to look at this saying carefully in its context.
In actual fact Jesus is only recorded as saying these words on one occasion. While the King James Version (KJV) also places them at Matthew 20:16, most translations do not include it here. It seems that the KJV is based on a manuscript which incorrectly included the saying here, as the best and most ancient manuscripts omit it.
So we need to look at the one place where Jesus used these words: at the end of the parable about the wedding feast (Matthew 22:14).
This is quite different to another parable about a wedding recorded in Luke 14:16-24 so we shouldn’t confuse the two. A dominant theme in Matthew’s Gospel is the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God because of Israel’s rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. This is highlighted in the words “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit” (Matthew 21:43). It is this message which is being emphasized in this parable.
The parable is in two parts. In the first part (verses 1-10) the people who are invited to the wedding ignore the invitation so the invitation is extended to anyone the king’s servants can find – good or bad – so the wedding hall is filled with guests. The message here is clearly a reference to Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, and therefore His kingdom, and the invitation going to the Gentiles instead.
The second part of the story (vv. 11-14) has a very unexpected twist. The king notices one guest without an appropriate wedding garment, and has him bound and thrown outside. There are two unusual features of this twist.
(1) It seems strange that someone who was invited at very short notice would be criticized for not dressing appropriately; and
(2) the consequences seem overly harsh in the circumstances.
However, this is no ordinary wedding: it is the King’s son! It would have been a great honour to have been invited and it seems that everyone else had time to dress appropriately. So the harsh treatment of the one person who didn’t take the honour seriously may not have been overly harsh after all (although we must remember that Jesus often used exaggeration for emphasis).
The story ends then with the punchline: "For many are invited, but few are chosen” (verse 14). If many people were thrown out of the wedding hall and only a few allowed to remain then this saying would clearly refer to those who remained for the banquet. However, in the story many stay for the banquet and only one is rejected. If this saying referred to the fact that one person was “not chosen” because he wasn’t properly dressed then it would have been more accurate to say “many are invited and most are chosen, but a few will be rejected”. Obviously Jesus has something else in mind.
A parable usually has one main point, or two at the most. The closing line, the “punch line” (also called the “end-stress”), relates to this main point. In this story the main point is that the people who were originally invited to the wedding banquet rejected this invitation and therefore others were invited in their place. The final line takes us back to this point. Many people make the mistake of interpreting this line to mean “many are called (from the world), but few are chosen (from those who are called)”. This interpretation has no connection to the context.
The “many” who are called, or invited, refers to the second group to be invited. The story makes it clear that a large number were included in this second invitation. “'Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.” On the other hand the first group appears to be relatively small: “one to his field, another to his business”. So the saying is better interpreted “many are called (from the world) but few are chosen (from the world)” and there is a contrast between being called and being chosen (there is possibly even a play on words in the Greek, where the word “called” or ‘invited” is kletos and the word chosen is eklektos).
The word “chosen” (Greek eklektos) has the meaning of being “picked out”. It is a great honour to be “chosen” or “hand-picked”. In this story the ones who were “hand-picked” to be at the wedding banquet were those who were initially invited. From all the people in his realm the king chose these people to celebrate with him on this special occasion. But they treated this honour with contempt, and so they too were rejected.
The person in the second part of the story had a similar attitude. Although he came to the wedding he did not take the honour seriously of being invited to such a special occasion. He was very casual in his attitude, and in this way was similar to those earlier who casually chose to carry on with their business rather than answer the king’s summons.
We could paraphrase it this way: “It is a great privilege to be invited, and many have been invited; but it is an even greater honour to be hand-picked, and only a few have that honour – so don’t take it lightly.”
This story emphasizes the great honour which is offered to us when God invites us to the celebration in the kingdom of His Son. Israel suffered severely because they rejected that honour, and those who come into the church “casually” without considering what an enormous honour it is will also be treated severely. While we are saved by grace we must never take grace lightly. We have been given a wonderful privilege.
Indeed, in two places in Matthew’s Gospel we read of Jesus saying these words (Matthew 20:16; 22:14). This saying appears to be contrary to the idea of God’s overflowing generosity which we see repeatedly throughout Jesus’ teachings. It appears that Jesus is saying that only a small number of people are actually chosen by God to enjoy His Kingdom and that even many of those who respond to His invitation will be rejected. This is so radically different from the rest of Jesus’ teachings that we need to look at this saying carefully in its context.
In actual fact Jesus is only recorded as saying these words on one occasion. While the King James Version (KJV) also places them at Matthew 20:16, most translations do not include it here. It seems that the KJV is based on a manuscript which incorrectly included the saying here, as the best and most ancient manuscripts omit it.
So we need to look at the one place where Jesus used these words: at the end of the parable about the wedding feast (Matthew 22:14).
This is quite different to another parable about a wedding recorded in Luke 14:16-24 so we shouldn’t confuse the two. A dominant theme in Matthew’s Gospel is the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God because of Israel’s rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. This is highlighted in the words “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit” (Matthew 21:43). It is this message which is being emphasized in this parable.
The parable is in two parts. In the first part (verses 1-10) the people who are invited to the wedding ignore the invitation so the invitation is extended to anyone the king’s servants can find – good or bad – so the wedding hall is filled with guests. The message here is clearly a reference to Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, and therefore His kingdom, and the invitation going to the Gentiles instead.
The second part of the story (vv. 11-14) has a very unexpected twist. The king notices one guest without an appropriate wedding garment, and has him bound and thrown outside. There are two unusual features of this twist.
(1) It seems strange that someone who was invited at very short notice would be criticized for not dressing appropriately; and
(2) the consequences seem overly harsh in the circumstances.
However, this is no ordinary wedding: it is the King’s son! It would have been a great honour to have been invited and it seems that everyone else had time to dress appropriately. So the harsh treatment of the one person who didn’t take the honour seriously may not have been overly harsh after all (although we must remember that Jesus often used exaggeration for emphasis).
The story ends then with the punchline: "For many are invited, but few are chosen” (verse 14). If many people were thrown out of the wedding hall and only a few allowed to remain then this saying would clearly refer to those who remained for the banquet. However, in the story many stay for the banquet and only one is rejected. If this saying referred to the fact that one person was “not chosen” because he wasn’t properly dressed then it would have been more accurate to say “many are invited and most are chosen, but a few will be rejected”. Obviously Jesus has something else in mind.
A parable usually has one main point, or two at the most. The closing line, the “punch line” (also called the “end-stress”), relates to this main point. In this story the main point is that the people who were originally invited to the wedding banquet rejected this invitation and therefore others were invited in their place. The final line takes us back to this point. Many people make the mistake of interpreting this line to mean “many are called (from the world), but few are chosen (from those who are called)”. This interpretation has no connection to the context.
The “many” who are called, or invited, refers to the second group to be invited. The story makes it clear that a large number were included in this second invitation. “'Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.” On the other hand the first group appears to be relatively small: “one to his field, another to his business”. So the saying is better interpreted “many are called (from the world) but few are chosen (from the world)” and there is a contrast between being called and being chosen (there is possibly even a play on words in the Greek, where the word “called” or ‘invited” is kletos and the word chosen is eklektos).
The word “chosen” (Greek eklektos) has the meaning of being “picked out”. It is a great honour to be “chosen” or “hand-picked”. In this story the ones who were “hand-picked” to be at the wedding banquet were those who were initially invited. From all the people in his realm the king chose these people to celebrate with him on this special occasion. But they treated this honour with contempt, and so they too were rejected.
The person in the second part of the story had a similar attitude. Although he came to the wedding he did not take the honour seriously of being invited to such a special occasion. He was very casual in his attitude, and in this way was similar to those earlier who casually chose to carry on with their business rather than answer the king’s summons.
We could paraphrase it this way: “It is a great privilege to be invited, and many have been invited; but it is an even greater honour to be hand-picked, and only a few have that honour – so don’t take it lightly.”
This story emphasizes the great honour which is offered to us when God invites us to the celebration in the kingdom of His Son. Israel suffered severely because they rejected that honour, and those who come into the church “casually” without considering what an enormous honour it is will also be treated severely. While we are saved by grace we must never take grace lightly. We have been given a wonderful privilege.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
But it can't be for everyone!
In my previous post I said there were two main movements which developed early on in the first century of the Christian church:
1. Exclusivism
2. Gnosticism
I commented on Gnosticism - the belief that salvation was obtained by understanding certain truths which were hidden from those with a superficial knowledge. A modern counterpart to Gnosticism is that we are saved by having "correct doctrine" and that only those people who believe "the truth" as it is defined by the particular group will be saved. Some Christadelphians come perilously close to being Gnostics in this sense.
The main heresy which Paul resisted was Exclusivism. We encounter this movement in Paul's writings whenever he dealt with the problem of "the Judaisers". While many people think of Paul's writings to be dealing with legalism versus grace, the problem with the Judaisers was not so much one of legalistic observance of law as it was of exclusivism. Several New Testament scholars over recent years have contributed a great deal in this area, including E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, and others. They have shown that Paul's argument with the Judaisers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism but was rather about the status of Gentiles in the church. It was a controversy about whether Gentiles should be accepted into the new covenant people of God as Gentiles or whether they should first convert to Judaism and become Jews. Christianity, after all, was a Jewish religion.
Now, whether or not these new perspectives in contemporary New Testament scholarship on Paul's theology are totally correct, they certainly highlight what was a very real concern of Paul's.* Some members of the church were refusing to acknowledge other converts as genuine believers and required that they do "something more" in order to be accepted. The same doctrine exists today amongst those Christians who refuse to acknowledge other believers as genuine unless they adopt the beliefs and practices of their group or denomination. In it's denominational form it manifests as the view that "only Christadelphians/Jehovah's Witnesses/non-Trinitarians/Trinitarians can be saved". I've seen it go further amongst Christadelphians with the declaration that only members of certain Christadelphian fellowships can be saved! This attitude has produced what we could call "remnant theology" i.e. the view that only "a remnant" will be saved and that most believers are really deluded and only a handful really know "the Truth" which is essential to salvation. (I've actually heard of one Christadelphian fellowship who, when their numbers had dwindled to only 8 people, claimed that they would be the only 8 to be saved "just like Noah's ark"!)
But remnant theology is wrong. God's offer of salvation is inclusive, not exclusive. He is generous with his grace and offers life and life in abundance. Jesus' parables are often about the generosity of God and the lengths to which He will go to secure the salvation of a sinner. In The Revelation John sees a vision of the saved: "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language" (7:9). This is hardly remnant theology.
* For a good summary of whether the issue was exclusivism or legalism in Paul's writings see this article by Mark M. Mattison.
1. Exclusivism
2. Gnosticism
I commented on Gnosticism - the belief that salvation was obtained by understanding certain truths which were hidden from those with a superficial knowledge. A modern counterpart to Gnosticism is that we are saved by having "correct doctrine" and that only those people who believe "the truth" as it is defined by the particular group will be saved. Some Christadelphians come perilously close to being Gnostics in this sense.
The main heresy which Paul resisted was Exclusivism. We encounter this movement in Paul's writings whenever he dealt with the problem of "the Judaisers". While many people think of Paul's writings to be dealing with legalism versus grace, the problem with the Judaisers was not so much one of legalistic observance of law as it was of exclusivism. Several New Testament scholars over recent years have contributed a great deal in this area, including E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, and others. They have shown that Paul's argument with the Judaisers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism but was rather about the status of Gentiles in the church. It was a controversy about whether Gentiles should be accepted into the new covenant people of God as Gentiles or whether they should first convert to Judaism and become Jews. Christianity, after all, was a Jewish religion.
Now, whether or not these new perspectives in contemporary New Testament scholarship on Paul's theology are totally correct, they certainly highlight what was a very real concern of Paul's.* Some members of the church were refusing to acknowledge other converts as genuine believers and required that they do "something more" in order to be accepted. The same doctrine exists today amongst those Christians who refuse to acknowledge other believers as genuine unless they adopt the beliefs and practices of their group or denomination. In it's denominational form it manifests as the view that "only Christadelphians/Jehovah's Witnesses/non-Trinitarians/Trinitarians can be saved". I've seen it go further amongst Christadelphians with the declaration that only members of certain Christadelphian fellowships can be saved! This attitude has produced what we could call "remnant theology" i.e. the view that only "a remnant" will be saved and that most believers are really deluded and only a handful really know "the Truth" which is essential to salvation. (I've actually heard of one Christadelphian fellowship who, when their numbers had dwindled to only 8 people, claimed that they would be the only 8 to be saved "just like Noah's ark"!)
But remnant theology is wrong. God's offer of salvation is inclusive, not exclusive. He is generous with his grace and offers life and life in abundance. Jesus' parables are often about the generosity of God and the lengths to which He will go to secure the salvation of a sinner. In The Revelation John sees a vision of the saved: "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language" (7:9). This is hardly remnant theology.
* For a good summary of whether the issue was exclusivism or legalism in Paul's writings see this article by Mark M. Mattison.
There must be something more!
Throughout the history of the church there have been groups which have argued that "it can't really be that simple!" and have found creative ways of making the Gospel more complicated, sometimes completely obscuring the original message in the process.
It's a trend which began in the first century, even before the New Testament was completed. There were two main movements which developed early on:
1. Exclusivism
2. Gnosticism
I'd like to comment first on Gnosticism. The underlying ideologies in Gnosticism began even before Christianity and may have entered the church through Jewish Gnostics who converted to Christianity. The word gnostic comes from the Greek gnosis "to know" and the Gnostics were thus named because they believed all was not what it appeared to be on the surface and in order to be saved you had to have a special "knowledge" of the "hidden truths". John's writings appear to have been written to counter this directly, and he encourages his readers with the reassurance that they do indeed know the truth, and that yes, it really is very simple! It's possible that in some of Paul's writings he dealt with Gnosticism as a secondary problem, although his main concern was exclusivism, which I'll comment on in a later post.
Now, while I'm not suggesting that Christadelphianism has adopted any of the uniquely Gnostic doctrines, I am concerned about the emphasis (especially in some Christadelphian circles) on the need for knowledge and correct doctrine as being "essential for salvation". This actually drives some people away from Christ because they may feel inadequate about their academic or intellectual ability to grasp all the fine details. I've met a lot of young people who have delayed baptism (some never getting baptised at all) because they "don't know enough". While Jesus demanded a decision from his listeners and called them to repentance stressing the urgency of a response, Christadelphians typically have a long learning process before anyone can be baptised. The process can take years, and some people have even been denied baptism because they were confused, uncertain, or lacked knowledge about fine details.
No wonder that both John and Paul resisted the trend towards gaining knowledge as a means of salvation.
It's a trend which began in the first century, even before the New Testament was completed. There were two main movements which developed early on:
1. Exclusivism
2. Gnosticism
I'd like to comment first on Gnosticism. The underlying ideologies in Gnosticism began even before Christianity and may have entered the church through Jewish Gnostics who converted to Christianity. The word gnostic comes from the Greek gnosis "to know" and the Gnostics were thus named because they believed all was not what it appeared to be on the surface and in order to be saved you had to have a special "knowledge" of the "hidden truths". John's writings appear to have been written to counter this directly, and he encourages his readers with the reassurance that they do indeed know the truth, and that yes, it really is very simple! It's possible that in some of Paul's writings he dealt with Gnosticism as a secondary problem, although his main concern was exclusivism, which I'll comment on in a later post.
Now, while I'm not suggesting that Christadelphianism has adopted any of the uniquely Gnostic doctrines, I am concerned about the emphasis (especially in some Christadelphian circles) on the need for knowledge and correct doctrine as being "essential for salvation". This actually drives some people away from Christ because they may feel inadequate about their academic or intellectual ability to grasp all the fine details. I've met a lot of young people who have delayed baptism (some never getting baptised at all) because they "don't know enough". While Jesus demanded a decision from his listeners and called them to repentance stressing the urgency of a response, Christadelphians typically have a long learning process before anyone can be baptised. The process can take years, and some people have even been denied baptism because they were confused, uncertain, or lacked knowledge about fine details.
No wonder that both John and Paul resisted the trend towards gaining knowledge as a means of salvation.
It's really very simple!
Coming from a Christadelphian perspective the reaction to the Five Foundations I've just outlined might be "but it's not that simple!"
But it is. Here is how the Bible itself puts the Gospel in a nutshell:
What Jesus taught
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." … Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people." (Matthew 4:17, 23)
"Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness." (Matthew 9:35)
What Jesus told His disciples to teach
"He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:46-47).
What the apostles taught
They [the Twelve] went out and preached that people should repent." (Mark 6:12)
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
"First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." (Acts 26:20)
"However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me - the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace. Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again." (Acts 20:24-25).
Yes, it really is that simple!
So here are the five foundations of the Gospel of the Kingdom (in a nutshell):
God is love and everything He does is driven by His love for His creation and His desire that everyone will be saved. The whole Bible is summed up in the commandment to love God and to love our neighbour, and we can love in this way because God first loved us, demonstrated His love to us, and showed us through Jesus how to love. Because of His love for us God wants to give us the Kingdom. It is His gift to us. There is nothing we can do to earn, merit or deserve it, but He gives it to us as His gift. All we need to do is turn to God, to repent or change our direction, and God will provide all the resources we need to live the Christian life, the kingdom life. When we turn to God He forgives us for everything we have done wrong in the past, and continues to forgive our mistakes and failings. When we turn to God we begin to live under His reign, under the authority or Lordship of Jesus, in the kingdom of God. As we grow by God's grace, with the help He provides, we develop a character which reflects His characteristics: we becoming loving, forgiving and gracious to other people, and we take the Good News of the Kingdom even further.
But it is. Here is how the Bible itself puts the Gospel in a nutshell:
What Jesus taught
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." … Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people." (Matthew 4:17, 23)
"Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness." (Matthew 9:35)
What Jesus told His disciples to teach
"He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:46-47).
What the apostles taught
They [the Twelve] went out and preached that people should repent." (Mark 6:12)
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
"First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." (Acts 26:20)
"However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me - the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace. Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again." (Acts 20:24-25).
Yes, it really is that simple!
So here are the five foundations of the Gospel of the Kingdom (in a nutshell):
God is love and everything He does is driven by His love for His creation and His desire that everyone will be saved. The whole Bible is summed up in the commandment to love God and to love our neighbour, and we can love in this way because God first loved us, demonstrated His love to us, and showed us through Jesus how to love. Because of His love for us God wants to give us the Kingdom. It is His gift to us. There is nothing we can do to earn, merit or deserve it, but He gives it to us as His gift. All we need to do is turn to God, to repent or change our direction, and God will provide all the resources we need to live the Christian life, the kingdom life. When we turn to God He forgives us for everything we have done wrong in the past, and continues to forgive our mistakes and failings. When we turn to God we begin to live under His reign, under the authority or Lordship of Jesus, in the kingdom of God. As we grow by God's grace, with the help He provides, we develop a character which reflects His characteristics: we becoming loving, forgiving and gracious to other people, and we take the Good News of the Kingdom even further.
Friday, August 26, 2005
God reigns (2)
Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom centred on the call to repentance and the blessings of the Kingdom. His message emphasised the blessings we would receive "in this life" (including forgiveness, having the favour of God and receiving healing) as well as "in the Age to Come, eternal life" (Luke 1829-20). Focal to His message was the Kingdom-ethic: living according to "the golden rule", loving our neighbour (and understanding "neighbour" to mean those who were formerly our enemies), and developing a new sense of justice and fairness based on the standard of grace.
Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom was not a message that "God is King", but rather in the Kingdom this is how you should live. It was primarily ethical rather than theological. If anything was said about Kingship it was rather that Jesus is King. Matthew's Gospel begins with the declaration that Jesus was "born king of the Jews" (2:2) and Luke's with the angelic announcement that "the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end" (1:32-33).
Paul uses the Roman Imperial title Lord to declare that a Christian is someone who confesses "Jesus is Lord" (Romans 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3), and says elsewhere that while there is "One God" there is also "One Lord" (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:5), Jesus Christ.
Jesus now rules as King. In His own words He said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18). Paul said He is seated at God's "right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come." (Eph 1:20-21) "In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. " (Col 2:9-10) He has been given this position until "the end", "when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power" (1 Cor 15:24).
To submit to the authority of Jesus as Lord, as King of the Kingdom of heaven, is honouring to God: "The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him" (John 5:22-23).
Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom was not a message that "God is King", but rather in the Kingdom this is how you should live. It was primarily ethical rather than theological. If anything was said about Kingship it was rather that Jesus is King. Matthew's Gospel begins with the declaration that Jesus was "born king of the Jews" (2:2) and Luke's with the angelic announcement that "the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end" (1:32-33).
Paul uses the Roman Imperial title Lord to declare that a Christian is someone who confesses "Jesus is Lord" (Romans 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3), and says elsewhere that while there is "One God" there is also "One Lord" (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:5), Jesus Christ.
Jesus now rules as King. In His own words He said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18). Paul said He is seated at God's "right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come." (Eph 1:20-21) "In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. " (Col 2:9-10) He has been given this position until "the end", "when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power" (1 Cor 15:24).
To submit to the authority of Jesus as Lord, as King of the Kingdom of heaven, is honouring to God: "The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him" (John 5:22-23).
Thursday, August 25, 2005
An appeal to Christadelphians
I have recently been publicly accused of attacking Christadelphians on this weblog. The criticism came from someone who has frequently criticised other Christadelphians who have differing views on some matters, so it appears to me to be somewhat hypocritical to be accusing me of attacking Christadelphians when it is what my critic apparently does all the time. It is a further reminder to me of just how deeply divided is the Christadelphian community, and, as our Lord said, "a kingdom divided against itself will not stand".
The purpose of this weblog should be apparent by now: it is not to attack Christadelphians but to appeal to them to repent of the behaviour that has divided the community for many years; to take a fresh look at what the Gospel is all about; to focus on the things that are really important (instead of the endless squabbles over minor details); and to work together instead of against each other in proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom.
On a personal note I should say that I have been involved with the Christadelphian community all my life and many of my friends are Christadelphians. But I also understand the deep frustration and despair experienced by those who have seen the community tear itself apart, turn on some of its most committed members, and lose focus of the message it was called to proclaim.
The purpose of this weblog should be apparent by now: it is not to attack Christadelphians but to appeal to them to repent of the behaviour that has divided the community for many years; to take a fresh look at what the Gospel is all about; to focus on the things that are really important (instead of the endless squabbles over minor details); and to work together instead of against each other in proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom.
On a personal note I should say that I have been involved with the Christadelphian community all my life and many of my friends are Christadelphians. But I also understand the deep frustration and despair experienced by those who have seen the community tear itself apart, turn on some of its most committed members, and lose focus of the message it was called to proclaim.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Foundation 5: God reigns
The Kingdom of God is the rule of God. "The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all" (Psalm 103:19).
Jesus said nothing about what we might call "the politics of the kingdom". He is silent about the geography, organisation and laws of the future kingdom - the consummated or eschatalogical kingdom. Instead His preaching compelled people to repent, to come under the rule of God and so to enter the kingdom now.
When Jesus taught that the kingdom is God "is near" or "has come upon you" He was teaching the coming of the eternal into the temporal - that God is present in a very real and dynamic way and that everyone needs to make a decision: to either come under the rule of God, or to remain in the kingdom of Satan. More than anything else Jesus' teaching demanded that everyone make a decision. Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom was a message that God has invaded human history and not only has everyone now been called on to come under the rule of God, but they are also enabled by grace to realise a new standard of righteousness. The kingdom is present in a new and unexpected way, and has entered history without transforming history. The righteousness of the reign of God can be experienced in the present evil age, qualitatively if not quantitatively.
Many of Jesus' parables highlighted the radical nature of the Kingdom of God - that it is a totally different from the ethics and standards of the present age. Parables like the workers in the vineyard, the Pharisee and the publican, and others like them show that lives are turned upside down by the ethics of the Kingdom of God. So much of Jesus' teaching was ethical and His ethics are Kingdom ethics - the ethics of the reign of God.
In the person of Jesus we see the embodiment of the ethics of the kingdom. He not only taught how to live under the reign of God, He demonstrated it. Although He is the King, He lived under kingship. So paradoxically He was the Servant-King, as Graeme Kendrick put it in a much-loved hymn. "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve" (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). He taught the Twelve about leadership: "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all" (Mark 9:35). He even brought Himself down to the level of his disciples in identifying with them and said "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you" (John 15:15).
Jesus said nothing about what we might call "the politics of the kingdom". He is silent about the geography, organisation and laws of the future kingdom - the consummated or eschatalogical kingdom. Instead His preaching compelled people to repent, to come under the rule of God and so to enter the kingdom now.
When Jesus taught that the kingdom is God "is near" or "has come upon you" He was teaching the coming of the eternal into the temporal - that God is present in a very real and dynamic way and that everyone needs to make a decision: to either come under the rule of God, or to remain in the kingdom of Satan. More than anything else Jesus' teaching demanded that everyone make a decision. Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom was a message that God has invaded human history and not only has everyone now been called on to come under the rule of God, but they are also enabled by grace to realise a new standard of righteousness. The kingdom is present in a new and unexpected way, and has entered history without transforming history. The righteousness of the reign of God can be experienced in the present evil age, qualitatively if not quantitatively.
Many of Jesus' parables highlighted the radical nature of the Kingdom of God - that it is a totally different from the ethics and standards of the present age. Parables like the workers in the vineyard, the Pharisee and the publican, and others like them show that lives are turned upside down by the ethics of the Kingdom of God. So much of Jesus' teaching was ethical and His ethics are Kingdom ethics - the ethics of the reign of God.
In the person of Jesus we see the embodiment of the ethics of the kingdom. He not only taught how to live under the reign of God, He demonstrated it. Although He is the King, He lived under kingship. So paradoxically He was the Servant-King, as Graeme Kendrick put it in a much-loved hymn. "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve" (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). He taught the Twelve about leadership: "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all" (Mark 9:35). He even brought Himself down to the level of his disciples in identifying with them and said "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you" (John 15:15).
Monday, August 22, 2005
Repentance (2)
I asked in my previous post "But what does it mean to repent?", and quoted three Scriptures which say that repentance is initiated by God, i.e. God leads us towards repentance.
The etymology of the Greek words for "repent" and "repentance" (metanoeo and metanoia) suggests the meaning "a change of mind or thinking". This is sometimes picked up by Christadelphians who go on to say that repentance means to change our theological ideas - it is a thing of the head rather than the heart. So "true repentance" to these Christadelphians means that we have to "change our mind" about the nature of Christ, the state of the dead, and just who/what is the devil. Repentance and conversion, to them, is primarily an intellectual experience without necessarily any change in behaviour. A good living, law abiding, honest and sincere Christian (for example) is condemned to perish until they "change their mind" and renounce the trinity, heaven-going at death, a supernatural devil, etc. Once they make the intellectual shift and are baptised/re-baptised there probably isn't much they have to change about their lifestyle or behaviour. This illustrates yet again how Christadelphianism is primarily an intellectual religion, but not necessarily life-changing. Most ecclesias are really out of their depth and unable to cope with people who have "issues" such as addictions, drug or alcohol dependancies, mental health issues, marriage or relationship problems, or who struggle with homosexuality, etc. Christadelphianism has the ability to change someone's ideas but largely lacks the power or means to help someone change their life. Fortunately, some Christadelphians and ecclesias realise when they are out of their depth and have the good sense to send "problem people" to other churches and denominations which have the experience and the means to help them.
The Bible uses the terms repent and repentance to describe a "turning" from a sinful lifestyle to a relationship with God. It is a radical change in a person's life as a whole. This is especially true in Jesus' teachings where the Kingdom is not only "near" but has arrived and is "the day of salvation". Forgiveness and salvation come to those who repent and thereby enter the kingdom.
I believe it's a real pity that so many Christadelphians have the mistaken idea that what God wants is their mind and nothing else counts so long as they have the right doctrinal understanding. This wrongly placed emphasis has led to many divisions within the Christadelphian community, over which idea or interpretation is most correct. In the process the behaviour of the protagonists has sometimes been appalling and unGodly, and sinful behaviour has been excused because it was committed by people who were defending "correct" doctrine. As a result the Christadelphian community has now found itself in a condition from which it needs to repent - to turn from its sinful ways and turn to God and embrace His mercy, grace and forgiveness.
The etymology of the Greek words for "repent" and "repentance" (metanoeo and metanoia) suggests the meaning "a change of mind or thinking". This is sometimes picked up by Christadelphians who go on to say that repentance means to change our theological ideas - it is a thing of the head rather than the heart. So "true repentance" to these Christadelphians means that we have to "change our mind" about the nature of Christ, the state of the dead, and just who/what is the devil. Repentance and conversion, to them, is primarily an intellectual experience without necessarily any change in behaviour. A good living, law abiding, honest and sincere Christian (for example) is condemned to perish until they "change their mind" and renounce the trinity, heaven-going at death, a supernatural devil, etc. Once they make the intellectual shift and are baptised/re-baptised there probably isn't much they have to change about their lifestyle or behaviour. This illustrates yet again how Christadelphianism is primarily an intellectual religion, but not necessarily life-changing. Most ecclesias are really out of their depth and unable to cope with people who have "issues" such as addictions, drug or alcohol dependancies, mental health issues, marriage or relationship problems, or who struggle with homosexuality, etc. Christadelphianism has the ability to change someone's ideas but largely lacks the power or means to help someone change their life. Fortunately, some Christadelphians and ecclesias realise when they are out of their depth and have the good sense to send "problem people" to other churches and denominations which have the experience and the means to help them.
The Bible uses the terms repent and repentance to describe a "turning" from a sinful lifestyle to a relationship with God. It is a radical change in a person's life as a whole. This is especially true in Jesus' teachings where the Kingdom is not only "near" but has arrived and is "the day of salvation". Forgiveness and salvation come to those who repent and thereby enter the kingdom.
I believe it's a real pity that so many Christadelphians have the mistaken idea that what God wants is their mind and nothing else counts so long as they have the right doctrinal understanding. This wrongly placed emphasis has led to many divisions within the Christadelphian community, over which idea or interpretation is most correct. In the process the behaviour of the protagonists has sometimes been appalling and unGodly, and sinful behaviour has been excused because it was committed by people who were defending "correct" doctrine. As a result the Christadelphian community has now found itself in a condition from which it needs to repent - to turn from its sinful ways and turn to God and embrace His mercy, grace and forgiveness.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Foundation 4: God grants repentance
The message of John the Baptist was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near" (Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15) or, as Luke puts it, "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (3:3). After John was put in prison Jesus commenced His public ministry with the same message (Matt 4:17; Mark 1:14-15).
Thereafter the call to repent was a key feature of Jesus teaching. For example:
- "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Luke 5:32)
- "…unless you repent, you too will all perish" (Luke 13:3,5)
- "there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent … In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Luke 15:7, 10)
- "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him" (Luke 17:3)
- "They [the Twelve] went out and preached that people should repent." (Mark 6:12)
In fact, as noted in a previous post about forgiveness, the Good News the disciples were commissioned to preach was one of repentance and forgiveness: "repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47).
It was also a key theme of the apostles’ preaching in Acts, starting with Peter’s Pentecost address: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
- "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord" (Acts 3:19)
- "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel" (Acts 5:31)
- "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)
- "I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus" (Acts 20:21)
- "First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." (Acts 26:20)
The writer to the Hebrews calls repentance a foundation (a "first principle"): "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God …" (6:1)
Peter says the antithesis of "perishing" is coming to repentance: "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Pet 3:9).
It’s clear enough that repentance is a foundation of Jesus’ and the apostles’ preaching, and therefore of Christianity. But what does it mean to repent?
There are three important Scriptures which reveal that human repentance is, in fact, initiated by God:
(1) When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18)
(2) "Those who oppose him [a servant of the Lord] he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25).
(3) "Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?" (Romans 2:4)
These Scriptures show that repentance is not a precondition to God’s favour produced by human effort. It is a gift from God.
Thereafter the call to repent was a key feature of Jesus teaching. For example:
- "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Luke 5:32)
- "…unless you repent, you too will all perish" (Luke 13:3,5)
- "there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent … In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Luke 15:7, 10)
- "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him" (Luke 17:3)
- "They [the Twelve] went out and preached that people should repent." (Mark 6:12)
In fact, as noted in a previous post about forgiveness, the Good News the disciples were commissioned to preach was one of repentance and forgiveness: "repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47).
It was also a key theme of the apostles’ preaching in Acts, starting with Peter’s Pentecost address: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
- "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord" (Acts 3:19)
- "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel" (Acts 5:31)
- "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)
- "I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus" (Acts 20:21)
- "First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." (Acts 26:20)
The writer to the Hebrews calls repentance a foundation (a "first principle"): "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God …" (6:1)
Peter says the antithesis of "perishing" is coming to repentance: "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Pet 3:9).
It’s clear enough that repentance is a foundation of Jesus’ and the apostles’ preaching, and therefore of Christianity. But what does it mean to repent?
There are three important Scriptures which reveal that human repentance is, in fact, initiated by God:
(1) When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18)
(2) "Those who oppose him [a servant of the Lord] he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25).
(3) "Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?" (Romans 2:4)
These Scriptures show that repentance is not a precondition to God’s favour produced by human effort. It is a gift from God.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
God forgives - postscript: Forgiveness and healing
There are three passages in the New Testament which reveal a connection between forgiveness and healing.
(1) James 5:15, in the context of giving instructions about how the elders of the church are to pray for a sick person, says: "If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." The next verse emphasises the connection: "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed."
(2) A similar connection is made in John 5:14 following the healing of a man at the pool of Bethesda. 'Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you".'
If it were just from these two passages alone that we learn about the connection between sickness and sin, or forgiveness and healing, then we might conclude that sickness was the consequence of sin and that to be healed of all disease we must first repent and be forgiven. The incident recorded in John about a man born blind reveals that the disciples (and no doubt Jewish society at large) believed that disease was the result of sin: 'His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"' (John 9:2). Jesus dispels this myth with the words: '"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life' (v. 3).
What then do we make of the first two passages I quoted? The James 5 passage teaches that unconfessed sin can be a barrier to healing, and the experience of many Christians in healing ministry (as well as healthcare professionals) has been that guilt can be a contributing factor to sickness. James counsels confession as a way of receiving forgiveness and finding healing from the burden of guilt and its physical consequences. The story in John 5 is about a man with many negative attitudes (I can go into this further at a later time perhaps), who blamed others for his condition and refused to accept any personal responsibility. After Jesus healed his physical condition He counselled him to "stop sinning", to get rid of the negative attitudes which kept him in bondage for years, or else his sinful attitudes would get him back where he was, and worse.
(3) Finally, Matthew 8 records Jesus' healing ministry - "When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick" - and then adds a quotation from Isaiah: 'This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases"'(verses 16-17). The Isaiah 53 quote is about the Suffering Servant carrying our sorrows - our transgressions and iniquities - and Peter quotes it with this meaning in 1 Peter 2:21-24. Matthew, however, says this prophecy about the Suffering Servant carrying our sins was fulfilled when Jesus healed people's diseases. I believe we are meant to conclude from this that Jesus heals the whole person - He takes away our sin and our diseases. Sometimes we find healing of physical conditions when we receive forgiveness as we are released* from our guilt and the underlying conditions which contributed to our physical suffering.
* The word "forgiveness" in Greek literally means "to let go" and can have the meaning of "release" in some contexts.
(1) James 5:15, in the context of giving instructions about how the elders of the church are to pray for a sick person, says: "If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." The next verse emphasises the connection: "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed."
(2) A similar connection is made in John 5:14 following the healing of a man at the pool of Bethesda. 'Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you".'
If it were just from these two passages alone that we learn about the connection between sickness and sin, or forgiveness and healing, then we might conclude that sickness was the consequence of sin and that to be healed of all disease we must first repent and be forgiven. The incident recorded in John about a man born blind reveals that the disciples (and no doubt Jewish society at large) believed that disease was the result of sin: 'His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"' (John 9:2). Jesus dispels this myth with the words: '"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life' (v. 3).
What then do we make of the first two passages I quoted? The James 5 passage teaches that unconfessed sin can be a barrier to healing, and the experience of many Christians in healing ministry (as well as healthcare professionals) has been that guilt can be a contributing factor to sickness. James counsels confession as a way of receiving forgiveness and finding healing from the burden of guilt and its physical consequences. The story in John 5 is about a man with many negative attitudes (I can go into this further at a later time perhaps), who blamed others for his condition and refused to accept any personal responsibility. After Jesus healed his physical condition He counselled him to "stop sinning", to get rid of the negative attitudes which kept him in bondage for years, or else his sinful attitudes would get him back where he was, and worse.
(3) Finally, Matthew 8 records Jesus' healing ministry - "When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick" - and then adds a quotation from Isaiah: 'This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases"'(verses 16-17). The Isaiah 53 quote is about the Suffering Servant carrying our sorrows - our transgressions and iniquities - and Peter quotes it with this meaning in 1 Peter 2:21-24. Matthew, however, says this prophecy about the Suffering Servant carrying our sins was fulfilled when Jesus healed people's diseases. I believe we are meant to conclude from this that Jesus heals the whole person - He takes away our sin and our diseases. Sometimes we find healing of physical conditions when we receive forgiveness as we are released* from our guilt and the underlying conditions which contributed to our physical suffering.
* The word "forgiveness" in Greek literally means "to let go" and can have the meaning of "release" in some contexts.
Foundation 3: God forgives
Forgiveness is such a fundamental teaching of Jesus that when He was preparing His disciples to send them out into the world to preach the Gospel He said "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations" (Luke 24:47). So "the Gospel of the Kingdom" or what Paul later called "the Gospel of Grace" was the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness.
Yet God's forgiveness was not new or unique to the teachings of Jesus. In the Old Testament we find it is in the nature of God that He is "a God forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" (Ex 34:7, and many others like it). We find many prayers for forgiveness in the OT. Yet His forgiveness is never automatic and on occasions He refused to forgive and the prophets even asked that sometimes God would not forgive (Isa 2:9; Jer 18:23).
What we find in the teachings of Jesus is a shift in the way people are forgiven. The scribes were indignant that Jesus forgave sins (Mark 2:7) because the OT taught that God alone can forgive sins. But this wasn't the only thing about Jesus' teaching on forgiveness that was radical. Jesus also taught that God's forgiveness cannot be effectively received except by those who are ready to forgive others.
- "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors ... For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." (Matt 6:12-15)
This is not to say that our readiness to forgive someone can be regarded as a meritorious precondition for God's forgiveness, but rather that forgiveness of others is a characteristic of the new life in Christ and is a daily sign of the forgiven sinner's gratitude.
In the parable of the two debtors (Matt 18:23-35) Jesus' final comment makes it clear that the remission of a debt is a parable of forgiveness in the kingdom of heaven and that through the Kingdom which Jesus inaugurated God's rule has already been established in a new way. Forgiveness is still initiated by God but it now extends to the community of God's people - His Kingdom - whose members are to forgive one another without limit (Matt 18:22; Luke 17:3-4).
The normal NT verb for "forgive" is aphiemi, and the noun is aphesis. While Paul uses this word a few times he more often uses a different word - charizomai (which is connected with charis, grace) - which means to "give freely or graciously as a favour". He uses this word in the sense of "forgive" to bring out the truth that Christians ought to be forgiving people. For example, when writing about a man who has been punished enough he says "you should forgive (charizomai) and comfort him" (2 Cor 2:6-7). The motivation for this is spelled out in Col 3:13: "forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you."
In two of his speeches in Acts Paul says that forgiveness is the climax of the Gospel.
- "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you." (Acts 13:38)
- Jesus said to Paul: "I am sending you to them [the Gentiles] to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." (Acts 26:17-18)
The Gospel of the Kingdom is the Gospel of grace, the Gospel of forgiveness. It is preached not only be teaching about God's forgiveness which is freely given , but through a demonstration of forgiveness by a forgiven people who reflect what God has done for them by then doing it for others.
Yet God's forgiveness was not new or unique to the teachings of Jesus. In the Old Testament we find it is in the nature of God that He is "a God forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" (Ex 34:7, and many others like it). We find many prayers for forgiveness in the OT. Yet His forgiveness is never automatic and on occasions He refused to forgive and the prophets even asked that sometimes God would not forgive (Isa 2:9; Jer 18:23).
What we find in the teachings of Jesus is a shift in the way people are forgiven. The scribes were indignant that Jesus forgave sins (Mark 2:7) because the OT taught that God alone can forgive sins. But this wasn't the only thing about Jesus' teaching on forgiveness that was radical. Jesus also taught that God's forgiveness cannot be effectively received except by those who are ready to forgive others.
- "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors ... For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." (Matt 6:12-15)
This is not to say that our readiness to forgive someone can be regarded as a meritorious precondition for God's forgiveness, but rather that forgiveness of others is a characteristic of the new life in Christ and is a daily sign of the forgiven sinner's gratitude.
In the parable of the two debtors (Matt 18:23-35) Jesus' final comment makes it clear that the remission of a debt is a parable of forgiveness in the kingdom of heaven and that through the Kingdom which Jesus inaugurated God's rule has already been established in a new way. Forgiveness is still initiated by God but it now extends to the community of God's people - His Kingdom - whose members are to forgive one another without limit (Matt 18:22; Luke 17:3-4).
The normal NT verb for "forgive" is aphiemi, and the noun is aphesis. While Paul uses this word a few times he more often uses a different word - charizomai (which is connected with charis, grace) - which means to "give freely or graciously as a favour". He uses this word in the sense of "forgive" to bring out the truth that Christians ought to be forgiving people. For example, when writing about a man who has been punished enough he says "you should forgive (charizomai) and comfort him" (2 Cor 2:6-7). The motivation for this is spelled out in Col 3:13: "forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you."
In two of his speeches in Acts Paul says that forgiveness is the climax of the Gospel.
- "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you." (Acts 13:38)
- Jesus said to Paul: "I am sending you to them [the Gentiles] to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." (Acts 26:17-18)
The Gospel of the Kingdom is the Gospel of grace, the Gospel of forgiveness. It is preached not only be teaching about God's forgiveness which is freely given , but through a demonstration of forgiveness by a forgiven people who reflect what God has done for them by then doing it for others.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Foundation 2: We are saved by grace
In theory Christadelphians believe we are saved by grace, but in practice there is an emphasis on "working out our salvation" through attendance at meetings and Bible Schools, doing the daily Bible readings, and, perhaps more importantly, having "correct doctrine". Someone who errs from the accepted "first principles", even in a minor detail, is at risk of being disciplined at least and disfellowshipped at worst. The details are so important that Christadelphians in North America have been divided for 100 years over whether to use the Birmingham Statement of Faith, or the Birmingham amended Statement of Faith as their basis of fellowship. Most Christadelphians on both sides of the divide would believe almost exactly the same about the "fundamentals" but they cross their "t"s and dot their "i"s differently and so refuse to break bread with each other.
In Australia there have been disfellowships of whole ecclesias (and groups of ecclesias) over doctrinal differences which are too complex for the average Christadelphian to understand. This is the result of placing enormous importance on getting "essential doctrines" exactly right. Getting it right is a "work", and Christadelphians generally believe that you cannot be saved if you get the fundamental doctrines wrong. Taken to its logical conclusion, to many Christadelphians "right doctrine" is more important than "right behaviour" - so we have the absurdity where prominent teachers who are guilty of child abuse, adultery, and unChristian behaviour have been allowed to remain in fellowship while people who are found to have divergent views even on minor matters have been expelled from their ecclesia.
Consequently when Christadelphians discover the truth that we are really saved by grace it is usually a life-changing revelation. God saves us because He loves us, not because we have "correct doctrine". It is the Father's pleasure to give us the Kingdom (Luke 12:32). We don't earn salvation through understanding doctrines. We don't merit any favours because we have a better intellectual grasp of "the Truth" than others. God gives salvation to whoever He pleases. It is a gift - a totally undeserved, unmerited gift.
Once we grasp this truth a huge burden is lifted from our shoulders. We are free to "grow in grace and knowledge" (2 Peter 3:18), to change our ideas as God reveals new things to us. We don't have to struggle alone to be "acceptable" to God - instead He empowers and enables us by His grace to keep us from falling and to present us before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy (Jude 24).
That's why the good news of the Kingdom is the same as the Gospel of Grace - it is by His grace that He gives us the kingdom, not by our own efforts or correct understanding or right doctrine.
In Australia there have been disfellowships of whole ecclesias (and groups of ecclesias) over doctrinal differences which are too complex for the average Christadelphian to understand. This is the result of placing enormous importance on getting "essential doctrines" exactly right. Getting it right is a "work", and Christadelphians generally believe that you cannot be saved if you get the fundamental doctrines wrong. Taken to its logical conclusion, to many Christadelphians "right doctrine" is more important than "right behaviour" - so we have the absurdity where prominent teachers who are guilty of child abuse, adultery, and unChristian behaviour have been allowed to remain in fellowship while people who are found to have divergent views even on minor matters have been expelled from their ecclesia.
Consequently when Christadelphians discover the truth that we are really saved by grace it is usually a life-changing revelation. God saves us because He loves us, not because we have "correct doctrine". It is the Father's pleasure to give us the Kingdom (Luke 12:32). We don't earn salvation through understanding doctrines. We don't merit any favours because we have a better intellectual grasp of "the Truth" than others. God gives salvation to whoever He pleases. It is a gift - a totally undeserved, unmerited gift.
Once we grasp this truth a huge burden is lifted from our shoulders. We are free to "grow in grace and knowledge" (2 Peter 3:18), to change our ideas as God reveals new things to us. We don't have to struggle alone to be "acceptable" to God - instead He empowers and enables us by His grace to keep us from falling and to present us before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy (Jude 24).
That's why the good news of the Kingdom is the same as the Gospel of Grace - it is by His grace that He gives us the kingdom, not by our own efforts or correct understanding or right doctrine.
God is love - postscript
I recently heard an account of when Mother Teresa was was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, "for work undertaken in the struggle to overcome poverty and distress, which also constitute a threat to peace." She refused the conventional ceremonial banquet given to laureates, and asked that the funds be diverted to the poor in Calcutta. When Mother Teresa received the prize, she was asked, "What can we do to promote world peace?" Her answer was simple: "Go home and love your family."
Foundation 1: God is Love
I was raised in a fundamentalist "hard line" Christadelphian ecclesia which boasted that it preserved the teachings of the "pioneers" - meaning, of course, the Christadelphian pioneers John Thomas, Robert Roberts, and others of their generation. (I later discovered through my own reading of these "pioneers" that the Christadelphianism in which I was raised was actually built on an edited version of pioneer writings, and that most people actually didn't know about a lot of things which John Thomas had written and would have disagreed with them if they had known. I believe that John Thomas would be unwelcome - perhaps even be disfellowshipped - if he turned up in some Christadelphian ecclesias today).
Ecclesias like this one claimed to be based on "sound doctrine" and denigrated Christadelphians "on the other side" (meaning Christadelphians with whom they would not fellowship) as "weak". One of the criticisms of these other Christadelphians, and of Christians generally, was that spoke too much about "love" and it was usually said with a tone that implied that "love" was just a shallow concept based on lightweight theology, for "weak" Christians who hadn't grown beyond the "milk" of the Word. Those who had moved on to the "meat" of the Word spent more time debating the nature of Christ, the doctrine of the Atonement, the inevitability of sin, resurrectional responsibility, and "important" doctrines which inevitably became reasons for dividing from other Christadelphians who held different views, didn't understand these matters at such a "deep" level, or who simply didn't care. I rarely heard the word "love" used in a positive way.
That's why it came as a profound revelation to me when I discovered that "love" was, in fact, the most important teaching of the Bible.
- Jesus said that the whole of the Law and the Prophets hung upon the commandment to love (Matt 22:36-40).
- John said that the teachings of Jesus could be summarised in the commandment to love (1 John 3:23).
- Paul said that the three foundations of Christianity are "faith, hope and love" and "the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13).
- Paul said that the death of Christ was a demonstration of love (Rom 5:8). So did John (1 John 3:16).
- Jesus said that our salvation is the result of one simple truth: God so loved that He gave (John 3:16).
- John summed it up by saying "God is love" (1 John 4:8, 16).
Love is not simply something that God does. Rather, everything He does is motivated by love. It is not just one of His characteristics to be loving. Rather, it is the characteristic which is His very essence.
Any statement of faith then must be built upon this foundational truth: the whole purpose of God is the result of His love for His creation, and our response to His love is to be loving.
Ecclesias like this one claimed to be based on "sound doctrine" and denigrated Christadelphians "on the other side" (meaning Christadelphians with whom they would not fellowship) as "weak". One of the criticisms of these other Christadelphians, and of Christians generally, was that spoke too much about "love" and it was usually said with a tone that implied that "love" was just a shallow concept based on lightweight theology, for "weak" Christians who hadn't grown beyond the "milk" of the Word. Those who had moved on to the "meat" of the Word spent more time debating the nature of Christ, the doctrine of the Atonement, the inevitability of sin, resurrectional responsibility, and "important" doctrines which inevitably became reasons for dividing from other Christadelphians who held different views, didn't understand these matters at such a "deep" level, or who simply didn't care. I rarely heard the word "love" used in a positive way.
That's why it came as a profound revelation to me when I discovered that "love" was, in fact, the most important teaching of the Bible.
- Jesus said that the whole of the Law and the Prophets hung upon the commandment to love (Matt 22:36-40).
- John said that the teachings of Jesus could be summarised in the commandment to love (1 John 3:23).
- Paul said that the three foundations of Christianity are "faith, hope and love" and "the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13).
- Paul said that the death of Christ was a demonstration of love (Rom 5:8). So did John (1 John 3:16).
- Jesus said that our salvation is the result of one simple truth: God so loved that He gave (John 3:16).
- John summed it up by saying "God is love" (1 John 4:8, 16).
Love is not simply something that God does. Rather, everything He does is motivated by love. It is not just one of His characteristics to be loving. Rather, it is the characteristic which is His very essence.
Any statement of faith then must be built upon this foundational truth: the whole purpose of God is the result of His love for His creation, and our response to His love is to be loving.
Blogging again
The last two weeks have been incredibly busy for me, so I apologise to everyone who has logged on to my blog to read updates but saw that nothing was happening.
I promised to give you my own statement-of-faith / testimony and I started laying a foundation with what I believe Jesus and the apostles taught as being truly important. Over the last few years I have been studying the Bible as though I was coming to it for the first time. In other words, I have tried to put aside pre-conceived ideas (which I admit is difficult to do) and let the Word speak to me rather than looking for "proof" of a particular theology. In doing this I have come to the conclusion that there are about 5 fundamental concepts upon which the Bible (especially the New Testament) is written, and these concepts have formed the foundation for my own "statement of faith" which comes later.
First I would like to write a paragraph or two about each of these foundation concepts.
I promised to give you my own statement-of-faith / testimony and I started laying a foundation with what I believe Jesus and the apostles taught as being truly important. Over the last few years I have been studying the Bible as though I was coming to it for the first time. In other words, I have tried to put aside pre-conceived ideas (which I admit is difficult to do) and let the Word speak to me rather than looking for "proof" of a particular theology. In doing this I have come to the conclusion that there are about 5 fundamental concepts upon which the Bible (especially the New Testament) is written, and these concepts have formed the foundation for my own "statement of faith" which comes later.
First I would like to write a paragraph or two about each of these foundation concepts.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Daniel 2 and Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom
Daniel 2 is a good example of how Jesus' teachings about the kingdom provide additional information not found in the prophets.
Most (if not all) Christians believe "the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands" is Jesus Christ. "Not by human hands" is a fitting description of the One who was the Only Begotten of the Father, the virgin-born, Emmanuel, God with us. In "the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands" we see the first coming of the Messiah when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
We are told that "the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed". Jesus taught that the Kingdom was "near" (Matthew 4:17), had "come upon you" (Matthew 12:28), and was "among you" (Luke 17:21). We see in Jesus' ministry the purpose for the rock being cut out of the mountain, in establishing God's kingdom.
Nebuchadnezzar saw that "the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth". Through sayings such as the parables of the yeast and the mustard seed we learn that the growth and development of the kingdom is a process which has small beginings and establishes its presence without us being aware of any visible change. These are added details which were not revealed to Daniel, but may have been hinted at when Nebuchadnezzar saw the rock become a mountain (i.e. a process not an event).
Jesus struck the image 2,000 years ago (in the time of the fourth kingdom, as prophesied): when he "disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Col 2:15) and "he led captives in his train" (Eph 4:8). The decisive blow in smashing the image was made at the cross, and the process of grinding the kingdoms of men to powder commenced then.
However, Christadelphians generally miss Jesus' teachings about the present reality of the Kingdom. They have an eschatology grounded in the Prophets but lacking the New Testament dimension.
Most (if not all) Christians believe "the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands" is Jesus Christ. "Not by human hands" is a fitting description of the One who was the Only Begotten of the Father, the virgin-born, Emmanuel, God with us. In "the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands" we see the first coming of the Messiah when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
We are told that "the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed". Jesus taught that the Kingdom was "near" (Matthew 4:17), had "come upon you" (Matthew 12:28), and was "among you" (Luke 17:21). We see in Jesus' ministry the purpose for the rock being cut out of the mountain, in establishing God's kingdom.
Nebuchadnezzar saw that "the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth". Through sayings such as the parables of the yeast and the mustard seed we learn that the growth and development of the kingdom is a process which has small beginings and establishes its presence without us being aware of any visible change. These are added details which were not revealed to Daniel, but may have been hinted at when Nebuchadnezzar saw the rock become a mountain (i.e. a process not an event).
Jesus struck the image 2,000 years ago (in the time of the fourth kingdom, as prophesied): when he "disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Col 2:15) and "he led captives in his train" (Eph 4:8). The decisive blow in smashing the image was made at the cross, and the process of grinding the kingdoms of men to powder commenced then.
However, Christadelphians generally miss Jesus' teachings about the present reality of the Kingdom. They have an eschatology grounded in the Prophets but lacking the New Testament dimension.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Why life is such a struggle
For many Christadelphians life is a constant struggle. The focus in many ecclesias is on the extreme sinfulness of human nature, and members are encouraged to attend as many meetings as they can and study the Bible so that they can "build themselves up" to resist the temptation to sin. Very often when people fall into difficulties they are told it is because they neglected attending meetings, or didn't read the Bible often enough. While this has the positive effect of producing a community of people who know their Bibles quite well it also has the negative effect of generating further guilt in people who are already struggling. It also perpetuates the error that the struggle against sin is something a Christian has to do through their own efforts.
The passage I quoted earlier from Hebrews 6:4-6 is often interpreted by Christadelphians as having no relevance for Christians today, but applied only to first century belivers. "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
There are two major problems with this Christadelphian interpretation:
(1) It is wrong. Many Christadelphians deal with "difficult" passages in the Bible by saying that they applied only to the first century, but they have no systematic way of knowing how to determine which passages are first century specific and which have universal relevance. The only "rule" seems to be if it doesn't fit in with Christadelphian teaching then it must be first century specific.
(2) The struggle against sin is a struggle between believers and their own human natures and human nature is invariably the winner. (Some Christadelphians even teach a doctrine of "the inevitability of sin", saying that it is impossible to overcome sin). According to Christadelphian teaching God is a by-stander - He observes His people struggling but doesn't get involved because this would be to take away their free will and turn them into "robots". However, the overwhelming emphasis of the New Testament is that the struggle against sin is fought by God for the benefit of His creation and He enables His people to overcome so that they are "strong in the strength which God supplies".
Hebrews 6 teaches that God provides a "heavenly gift" which is a "taste" of the "powers of the coming age", the Holy Spirit, to those who have been enlightened. By denying this present involvement in the lives of believers, and God's empowering of His people, many Christadelphians (although not all) not only deny the provision of the Holy Spirit to aid and enable Christians to overcome sin, they also by implication deny that they have been "enlightened".
However, Scripture provides a wonderful promise that those who call upon the name of Jesus will not only be saved in the age to come but they will also have access to all the resources of heaven to enable them to be victors in this world too. It is a promise that God will provide all we need for our spiritual growth. To any Christadelphians reading this I want to encourage you to embrace God's promise, accept His free gift, and discover that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ, because He sets us free from sin and death (Rom 8:1-2).
The passage I quoted earlier from Hebrews 6:4-6 is often interpreted by Christadelphians as having no relevance for Christians today, but applied only to first century belivers. "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
There are two major problems with this Christadelphian interpretation:
(1) It is wrong. Many Christadelphians deal with "difficult" passages in the Bible by saying that they applied only to the first century, but they have no systematic way of knowing how to determine which passages are first century specific and which have universal relevance. The only "rule" seems to be if it doesn't fit in with Christadelphian teaching then it must be first century specific.
(2) The struggle against sin is a struggle between believers and their own human natures and human nature is invariably the winner. (Some Christadelphians even teach a doctrine of "the inevitability of sin", saying that it is impossible to overcome sin). According to Christadelphian teaching God is a by-stander - He observes His people struggling but doesn't get involved because this would be to take away their free will and turn them into "robots". However, the overwhelming emphasis of the New Testament is that the struggle against sin is fought by God for the benefit of His creation and He enables His people to overcome so that they are "strong in the strength which God supplies".
Hebrews 6 teaches that God provides a "heavenly gift" which is a "taste" of the "powers of the coming age", the Holy Spirit, to those who have been enlightened. By denying this present involvement in the lives of believers, and God's empowering of His people, many Christadelphians (although not all) not only deny the provision of the Holy Spirit to aid and enable Christians to overcome sin, they also by implication deny that they have been "enlightened".
However, Scripture provides a wonderful promise that those who call upon the name of Jesus will not only be saved in the age to come but they will also have access to all the resources of heaven to enable them to be victors in this world too. It is a promise that God will provide all we need for our spiritual growth. To any Christadelphians reading this I want to encourage you to embrace God's promise, accept His free gift, and discover that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ, because He sets us free from sin and death (Rom 8:1-2).
Friday, July 22, 2005
Secrets ("mysteries") of the kingdom
The first parable in this collection in Matthew 13 includes a reference to “the secrets (or mysteries) of the kingdom of heaven” (v. 11). This expression also occurs in Luke 8:10 and in Mark 4:11-12 where the singular “secret” is used rather than the plural form used in Matthew and Mark: He told them, ‘The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, “they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!”’(quoting Isaiah 6:9). Mark’s wording suggests a single “secret” while the others suggest a secret which has several aspects. What is this secret, or mystery?
In Daniel we find the concept of God revealing His secrets to human beings. God grants the king a dream that was meaningless to him but whose meaning was revealed in a vision to God’s servant (Daniel 2:19). Paul understood “mysteries” to be revealed secrets (Romans 16:25-27) – things which had been hidden for long ages but now revealed to God’s people. The secret is proclaimed to everyone, even though it is understood only by believers. That the kingdom would come was no secret, but how it would come was not previously revealed. This secret is revealed in this series of parables in Matthew 13, and elsewhere in Jesus' teachings.
From Jesus' teachings about the kingdom we learn that the Old Testament prophets had only part of the picture. They expected the present age - "the kingdoms of men" - to end with the coming of the Messiah, and the Messianic Age would be paradise restored. What they didn't know was that there would be two comings of the Messiah, and that His first coming would be quite different to what they expected. Jesus came as a King and began His rule at His first coming.
Christadelphians generally have concentrated on the Old Testament prophets for their understanding of the kingdom, rather than the teachings of Jesus. Consequently their expectations are similar to the Jews of Jesus' time (or before) and they have failed to understand the "secrets of the kingdom" which were revealed by Jesus. This is a great pity because as a group Christadelphians have realised that the kingdom is central to the Gospel, but by neglecting the present reality of the kingdom they have missed out on many of the benefits which Jesus said would come "in this age" to those who embraced His teachings.
In Daniel we find the concept of God revealing His secrets to human beings. God grants the king a dream that was meaningless to him but whose meaning was revealed in a vision to God’s servant (Daniel 2:19). Paul understood “mysteries” to be revealed secrets (Romans 16:25-27) – things which had been hidden for long ages but now revealed to God’s people. The secret is proclaimed to everyone, even though it is understood only by believers. That the kingdom would come was no secret, but how it would come was not previously revealed. This secret is revealed in this series of parables in Matthew 13, and elsewhere in Jesus' teachings.
From Jesus' teachings about the kingdom we learn that the Old Testament prophets had only part of the picture. They expected the present age - "the kingdoms of men" - to end with the coming of the Messiah, and the Messianic Age would be paradise restored. What they didn't know was that there would be two comings of the Messiah, and that His first coming would be quite different to what they expected. Jesus came as a King and began His rule at His first coming.
Christadelphians generally have concentrated on the Old Testament prophets for their understanding of the kingdom, rather than the teachings of Jesus. Consequently their expectations are similar to the Jews of Jesus' time (or before) and they have failed to understand the "secrets of the kingdom" which were revealed by Jesus. This is a great pity because as a group Christadelphians have realised that the kingdom is central to the Gospel, but by neglecting the present reality of the kingdom they have missed out on many of the benefits which Jesus said would come "in this age" to those who embraced His teachings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)