‘Steve Chalke’s new book is rooted in good scholarship, but its clear, punchy style makes it accessible to anyone and everyone….’

So begins the front cover commendation of ‘The Lost Message of Jesus’ by the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright. If he’d said ‘liberal’ instead of ‘good’ I’d be right with him.

When liberal theologians are unclear they don’t pose the same threat as they do when they can be understood. But liberal theology in the hands of an accessible communicator like Steve Chalke is a recipe for disaster. This book is just that.

I guess I’ll need to substantiate such an accusation. But let me reassure you that I’m not alone in being worried about the views expressed in this book and in articles defending his views written by Steve Chalke on the Oasis web site. Controversy has raged and it prompted Jonathan Stephen, the Director of Affinity to write, ‘the bottom line is that the ‘lost message’ which the author has rediscovered turns out to be none other than a classic, liberal, social gospel, re-packaged for a 21st Century, post-modern generation’ [’Chalkegate’, www.affinity.org.uk].

However, not all of the content is bad. He has useful things to say about compassion for the disadvantaged, preaching the cosmic implications of Christ’s work and our neglect of the social and political implications of being followers of Christ. But it is perhaps Chalke’s presentation of and opposition to the doctrine of penal substitution that has caused so much disquiet. The Christian press has been awash with articles pleading for further clarification, despairing of his views or challenging his confusion. The Evangelical Alliance has already hosted one public debate and there may be more. However, on reading the book I suspect that it’s not only penal substitution that’s under attack. Since truth is related as a coherent whole it ought to be the case that if we alter one aspect of God’s truth it will begin to have ramifications in other aspects. In other words what we think about the cross is not unrelated to what we think about sin and what we think about God. Consequently there are in fact three dominant areas where Chalke’s thought is now at odds with the Bible.

1. The book undermines the holiness of God

In his introduction to chapter 3 Chalke asks a perceptive question. He ponders, ‘How did the church, which should be the living demonstration of the most liberating, life-affirming and radical message the world has ever heard, get itself into a position where it’s perceived to burden its population with a message of unremitting doom and gloom?’ [p43] His answer is that we’ve forgotten the love of God. He may well be right. However, his mistake is to assume that love is the pre-eminent attribute of God’s character. So Chalke writes,

‘The fact is, however else God may have revealed himself, and in whatever way he interacts with the world he has created, everything is to be tempered, interpreted, understood and seen through the one, primary lens of God’s love’ [p63].

In isolating love from the other attributes of God’s character he strips down God’s moral character to nothing but love. And so the love he describes is bereft of holiness and therefore God’s inaccessible purity and exacting demands. In so doing Chalke undermines the holiness of God. As one review of this book put it,

‘as we read through the book we find that God’s white-hot moral purity and indignation at sin have been airbrushed out of the picture’ [Sach & Ovey, ‘Have we lost the message of Jesus?’ Evangelicals Now, June 2004]’.

The Bible’s view is that God’s settled hostility to sin and his anger towards the sinners responsible for it is part of the eternal gospel. In Revelation 14 the angel flies throughout the world declaring that the time has come for the Son of Man to swing the sickle of his judgement and harvest the world. Paradoxically, if we fail to grasp the holiness of God expressed in judgement we’ll never do justice to his love exercised towards us in salvation.

2. The book undermines the sinfulness of man

He does so in two ways.

First, Chalke thinks that humanity is essentially good. He writes, ‘While we have spent centuries arguing over the doctrine of original sin, pouring over the Bible and huge theological tomes to prove the inherent sinfulness of all humankind, we have missed a startling point: Jesus believed in original goodness! God declared that all his creation, including humankind, was very good. And it’s this original goodness that Jesus seeks out in us’ [p67].

Chalke seems to have forgotten the effects on our human nature from our rebellion in Genesis 3. After the fall humanity is essentially evil. Jesus reaffirms this in his dialogue with the religious leaders of his day. In Mark 7 he argued that religious defilement was not caused by failure to observe the religious customs of the day but rather due to the sinful depravity of that factory of wickedness, the human heart. Jesus’ expose isn’t comfortable but if we’re honest we know it’s accurate.

Secondly, Chalke thinks that humanity is essentially free and waiting patiently to hear and embrace the offer of God’s new agenda. Chalke writes, ‘[unbelieving] people are desperate for a message that they can buy into, that they can see will make a difference to them and the world in which they live’.

But in John 8 Jesus described humanity as enslaved to their sinful desires. In Romans 5 Paul argued that humanity is powerless to change their sinful condition. And in Ephesians 2 Paul depicted humanity as spiritual corpses under the wrath of God. The Bible’s presentation of post fall humanity is considerably less flattering than Chalke’s. Inevitably ‘The Lost Message’ redefines repentance. No longer is it a repudiation of all that is wicked and evil in us and the acceptance of God’s way of living. Instead it has become reconnecting to God’s agenda and putting it at the centre of your life. In so doing we’re told that we’re being good to ourselves and bringing goodness into the world. This sounds an awful lot like the world’s agenda of self-fulfilment in a religious guise.

3. The book undermines the cross of Christ

Most controversially Chalke has rejected the doctrine of penal substitution. But his presentation of this precious doctrine is a woefully inadequate account of what the Bible teaches. He attacks a caricature of gospel preaching most of us wouldn’t allow in camp talks. In essence he rejects the idea that Jesus suffered the wrath of his Father. Chalke writes, ‘On the cross Jesus did not placate God’s anger in taking the punishment for sin, but rather absorbs its consequences and, in his resurrection, defeats death’ [Redeeming the Cross, www.oasistrust.org, p4].

In the article defending his book he makes it explicit that he prefers a model of the atonement popularised by Gustav Aulen called ‘Christus Victor’. That’s a legitimate biblical emphasis to the atonement but it’s reductionism to suggest that this comprehensively accounts for the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Chalke has four main complaints against the biblical doctrine of penal substitution, all of which are misplaced.

a. Chalke believes that penal substitution presents a view of the atonement unsupported by scripture and early Christian thought.

He writes, ‘In reality, penal substitution doesn’t cohere well with either biblical or Early Church thought’ [Redeeming the Cross, p2]. However, Chalke’s understanding of church history is weak. He’s under the impression that this doctrine was drafted by Anselm in the 11th Century, formed by Calvin in the 16th and settled by Hodge in the 19th. Dr Garry Williams has pointed out there is extensive evidence that a wide range of the Early Church Fathers taught this doctrine [Punished in our Place, www.geocities.com/the _theologian]. In addition, Chalke’s understanding of the scriptural material is poor. Greg Haslam, the Pastor of Westminster Chapel, has pointed out the sin bearing work of a substitute runs throughout the scriptures [The Lost Cross of Jesus, Christianity & Renewal, November 2004]. Jesus’ death is understood by the New Testament writers to fulfil the work of the Passover lamb, the lamb sacrificed on the Day of Atonement and the suffering servant of Isaiah. All of these three sacrificial offerings were substituted for sinners to placate and divert the wrath of God.

b. Chalke believes that penal substitution presents a view of God who is first and foremost concerned with retribution.

This leads him to claim that penal substitution is, ‘tantamount to cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed’ [Redeeming the Cross, p3]. His phrasing makes it look as though God in a fit of uncontrolled anger brought about the violent death of his Son who was an unwilling and innocent victim. However, Chalke has failed to account for the Trinitarian decision-making that lay behind this extraordinary act of self-sacrifice. The Father and Son were not two separate agents with their own distinct plans. They acted together in salvation. As John Stott has written, ‘We must never make Christ the object of God’s punishment or God the object of Christ’s persuasion, for both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative together to save sinners’ [The Cross of Christ, p151].

c. Chalke believes that penal substitution presents us with a hypocritical God who doesn’t practice what he preaches.

Chalke thinks that it’s inconsistent if God warns us not to be angry with each other but then burns with wrath himself. He argues that penal substitution is therefore hypocritical. Chalke is not the first person to make this accusation. The 16th Century theologian Socinus beat him to it and, if I remember correctly, was soundly trounced by the pen of Calvin. How do we rebut this claim? The Apostle Paul distinguished carefully between the different spheres of justice that operate within creation and between God and creation. In Romans 12 Paul explained that individuals were not to take revenge. However, the reason for that is precisely because one day God will. As Williams has written, ‘Where Chalke would have us infer that God would never do what he tells us not to do, Paul argues exactly the opposite’ [Punished in Our Place].

d. Chalke believes that penal substitution presents us with a view of the cross that has little impact beyond the personal sphere.

His observation is that most evangelical preaching is concerned merely with the personal and not the social or cosmic significance of Christ’s death. That may well be true but it doesn’t necessitate that penal substitution can have no wider significance. It simply means that evangelicals have always been keen to emphasise that Christ’s death has brought personal reconciliation to the Father. And why wouldn’t you? In fact penal substitution explains how the disordered cosmos can be restored to its proper order. The reason we can look forward to the New Creation is because Christ has exhausted the divine curse upon creation. At the return of Christ this disordered creation will be restored because Christ has reconciled all things to himself.

It would seem as though Steve Chalke has rejected the doctrine of penal substitution for unnecessary reasons. None of his criticisms stand up to scrutiny though they are surely worth considering. The penal substitution of Christ is a message we lose to our impoverishment. If people want to understand better the doctrine of penal substitution the book by Mark Meynell entitled ‘Cross Examined’ or the more comprehensive ‘The Cross of Christ’ by John Stott are both excellent.

Conclusion

In effect ‘The Lost Message of Jesus’ argues that God doesn’t get angry, humans aren’t guilty of sin and the cross of Christ wasn’t necessary. This is liberalism. Given Chalke’s popularity as a media personality and his accessibility as a writer it’s likely that this publication will gain a wide audience. Many will read it, lots will believe it and some will teach it. The sad irony is that only then will the true message of Jesus be lost.

Reading List

• A. Sach & M. Ovey ‘Have we lost the message of Jesus?’, Evangelicals Now, p27
• G. Haslam, ‘The Lost Cross of Jesus’, Christianity & Renewal, November 2004, pp18-23
• S. Chalke, ‘Redeeming the Cross’, The Lost Message of Jesus and the Cross of Christ, www.oasistrust.org
• S. Chalke & A. Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2003)
• G. Williams, ‘Christ and the Cross, Church of England Newspaper, 10th December 2004
• G. Williams, ‘Punished in our Place’, A Reply to Steve Chalke on Penal Substitution, www.geocities.com/the_theologian/content/doctrine/pensub.html
• N. Needham, ‘Steve Chalke and the Cross of Christ’, Evangelical Times, November 2004, p11
• A. Peck, ‘Evangelicals Debate the Cross’, Christianity, December 2004, p10 J. Stephen, ‘Chalkegate’, www.affinity.org.uk

A talk given in April 2006 at the Bedford Pub, Balham

‘So dark the con of man’.

So reads one of the clues left by Jacques Sauniere, the curator of the Louvre and guardian of the secret of the Priory of Sion.

It’s also the central premise of the book. The ‘dark con of man’ refers to the supposed lie orchestrated and perpetuated by the church. It’s a lie that’s remained hidden for centuries which Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu uncover as they follow the clues left by this dead man.

The ‘dark con of man’ is the assertion that Jesus Christ is the divine founder of Christianity.

Now I’m an avid reader of novels and I enjoy conspiracy theories. And so I loved this book. I liked the film. It entertained me. But it troubled me.

I know it’s a novel. But, it’s worth having an evening like this to clear away some confusion. I think confusion arises because of the type of literary genre that the Da Vinci Code [DVC] falls into. 

• We know what to do with fiction. We enjoy the experience of escaping into world of fictional characters and the created plot.
• We know what to do with fact. We enjoy learning factual things of which we were ignorant and for which there’s evidence.
• We find it harder to know what to do when fact and fiction are intertwined into what we might describe as ‘faction’.

The DVC falls into this genre since on the opening page of the book Dan Brown claims, ‘All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate’.

Dan Brown claims he’s incorporating fact into fiction. And so I think it’s hard for the ordinary reader to know what to put into each category. Obviously the more fantastic claims don’t fool us. I suspect that few of us think that we’ll find Jesus’ living descendants in France. But there are other claims that are also false but nevertheless have the ring of truth about them. And so at a recent Awards ceremony the novel was praised in these words,

‘This is one of those rare books that comes along and makes you question everything you thought you knew about religion, art, and what you were taught in school’.

Some of the things that the book questions are significant. I know that we Christians have a habit of getting over excited about what the rest of us think is insignificant but this is not one of those times. In the DVC Dan Brown gives us a radically different picture of Christianity from the one we may be familiar with. It’s one in which Mary Magdalene is a co founder, Jesus is not God and the Bible is not reliable. Those are important claims that have to be challenged and corrected so that people can be clear about what’s true.

There may be some of us here may have found ourselves a little unsettled by what we’ve read or seen. Perhaps we’re worried that what we’ve always believed to be true is in fact a lie. Others may find in this novel confirmation of what they’d always thought. That Christians have been subjected to the mushroom treatment. That is they’ve been kept in the dark and been fed rubbish.

Even if, as I want to argue, the conspiracy theory isn’t credible it’s plausible. The idea that the Roman Catholic [RC] church might have been involved in some massive cover up is believable. After all the sad recent scandals involving priestly child abuse it’s easy to imagine the church suppressing the truth. There’s a contemporary mistrust of institutional Christianity that’s perhaps understandable. But I want to argue that on the issues Dan Brown addresses it’s misplaced and inappropriate.

The credibility of what Brown asserts is given weight by the clever way in which he chooses his characters. For example, the chief advocates of the Grail theory are clothed in scholarly robes. Robert Langdon is a Harvard Professor and Sir Leigh Teabing is a British Royal Historian and they both reassure the reader that many other serious minded scholars share their beliefs. At one point Teabing states,

‘What I mean is that almost everything our Fathers taught us about Christ is false’.

Dan Brown claims that the source for his radical presentation of Christianity is the not the four gospels as we have them [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John] but other ‘lost’ gospels discovered in the last 60 years. Were it not for the discovery of these documents Brown asserts the conspiracy might have gone unnoticed. And so he writes,

‘Fortunately for historians some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s in a cave near Qumran in the Jewish desert. And of course the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi.’ [p254]

At the outset it’s worth saying something about those documents.

The Dead Sea Scrolls [DSS] 

The DSS were found in caves near Qumran, Israel in 1947. This collection attestats the authenticity of the Old Testament documents. They describe a strict ascetic community known as the Essenes and they contain background information describing Jewish life. But they say nothing about Jesus or anything about Christianity. They’re no help in thinking about Jesus.

• The Nag Hammadi Library [NHL]

The NHL was discovered in Egypt in 1945. It contains Gnostic literature from the 2nd and 3rd century. Gnosticism was a splinter group from Christianity. Devotees suggested that the divine was located within us and we had to search inside to find God. Prior to this discovery the only knowledge we had of Gnosticism came from the writings of the Early Church leaders who opposed them and denounced them as theological speculation. There are nothing like the 80 of them as the novel suggests it’s more like half a dozen documents contained within the collection. Though they’re described as gospels there’s very little historical narrative. They are mainly a collection of sayings.

Understandably people have wanted to investigate the veracity of Brown’s claims.

• Perhaps you’ve been part of a book club who decided to read it.
• You may have read one of the countless follow up books.
• Or you may have seen the Channel 4 documentary with Tony Robinson and that dealt with some of the issues. My approach is slightly different to his.

I want to examine and undermine 3 of the central claims that Dan Brown makes in this book that strike at the heart of authentic Christianity.

1. Dan Brown’s view of Mary is wrong

The Accusation

Dan Brown alleges that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus, that she fathered his children, her descendants are located in France and she had an authoritative role in the establishment of the Christian church.

He would have us believe that apart from the mysterious Priory of Sion and a few power brokers in the RC Church none of this has been known for the last 2000 years. In order to suppress her role the church depicted Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. The church did this to undermine the role given by Jesus to women and hijack his feminist agenda. So on p124 he writes,

‘The Priory [of Sion] believes that Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign of propaganda that demonised the sacred feminine, obliterating the goddess from modern religion forever.’ [p124]

The Truth

a. Mary was a faithful follower of Jesus

Mary Magdalene existed. She’s mentioned in all four gospels. Jesus cleansed her of an evil spirit. She became part of a female entourage who travelled with Jesus and his disciples. There’s no biblical reference to her involvement in prostitution. That seems to have originated in AD 591 through Pope Gregory the Great who despite being a pope and therefore ought to have known better confused a couple of biblical Mary’s and a couple of anointings, got in a muddle and made a mistake.

The strongest possible case for Jesus’ marriage to Mary is based on an incomplete documentary scrap. It’s a quote from the Gospel of Philip, which is not part of the accepted New Testament because it was written 200 years later. There are various gaps in the text because we can’t read what was originally there because the manuscript is damaged or marked.

‘And the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene […] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on the […]. The rest of the disciples […]. They said to him, ‘why do you love her more than the rest of us?’

We can make some intelligent guesses but it’s hardly conclusive that Jesus gave her the kind of kiss that indisputably demands that they were married. No serious New Testament [NT] scholar believes that he was.

b. The ‘Lost’ Gospels are in fact extraordinarily negative about women

In the Gospel of Thomas, for example, a discussion between Peter and Jesus is recorded,

Peter said, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females are not worthy of [eternal] life’

Jesus said, ‘I shall guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven’.

This is one of the documents that Dan Brown alleges makes his case that Jesus was a feminist. It’s inconceivable that these documents which are so positively disparaging about women defend Mary as the co-author of Christianity. I can only assume that Mr Brown wasn’t paying attention in class the afternoon they covered feminism or the Gnostic gospels.

c. The New Testament affirms female roles in church life

The New Testament books are overwhelmingly affirming in the status afforded by Jesus and his followers to women. They were treated as equals in every respect. Contrary to popular myth the NT does not perpetrate suppression of women but indicates a tremendous encouragement to their involvement in various roles in church life. All of this leads me to conclude that Dan Brown is wrong about the role of Mary Magdalene.

2. Dan Brown’s view of Jesus is wrong

The Accusation

Dan Brown accuses the church of inventing the divinity of Jesus at a 4th Century meeting of Bishops called the Council of Nicea. In a debate between Sir Leigh Teabing and Sophie Neveu the following things are said,

‘My dear … until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.‘

‘Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea.’

‘Hold on you’re saying that Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?’

‘A relatively close vote at that … Nonetheless, establishing Christ’s divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman Empire and to the new Vatican power base. By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable’.

Dan Brown would have us believe that up until Nicea every follower of Jesus accepted him as a mortal man of prophetic significance but none of them had suffered under the illusion that he was divine in any sense.

It’s got a contemporary ring to it hasn’t it? I guess many people today are happy to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher but few are willing to serve him as God.

The way this is supposed to have happened is through the involvement of the Roman Emperor Constantine. He convened the Council of Nicea at which the theological heavyweights of the time decided that Christ was not merely human but divine. His reason for doing so was the advancement of the Christian cause from the Vatican centre in Rome throughout the Empire. People were less likely to oppose the advancement of something allied so closely to God.

‘It was all about power … Christ as Messiah was critical to the functioning of the Church and state. Many scholars claim that the early church literally stole Jesus from his original followers, hijacking his human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power.’

The Truth

a. The Council of Nicea defended the divinity of Jesus.

Without getting into the details of the debate, which is perhaps a subject for another night, it’s worth saying that the issue wasn’t really whether Jesus was divine or not. Both sides agreed on that. What they were arguing was how Jesus was divine. The side of orthodoxy represented by Athanasius said it was Jesus shared the same nature as God the Father. The heretics represented by Arius claimed that it was because the Father had created Jesus with a similar nature. Even if we were to accept the notion that Jesus was declared to be God by a vote it was overwhelmingly in favour. One source has it as 316 for and 2 against. That’s not close in anyone’s book.

b. The New Testament assumed the divinity of Jesus.

The documents of the NT were written and circulated before the end of the 1st Century. Therefore almost 300 years before Nicea authors like Paul, Luke, John and Peter declared that Jesus was divine. Many of them were eyewitnesses and most of them were killed for defending it.

c. Even the ‘Lost’ Gospels asserted the divinity of Jesus.

The documents that Dan Brown says defend his position actually undermine it. The ‘lost’ gospels are concerned with a distortion of Christianity called Gnosticism. Everything material or physical was part of the created world and therefore imperfect. Therefore they denied Jesus’ humanity and asserted his divinity. That’s the opposite of what Dan Brown thinks that they do. And so this leads me to conclude that the Dan Brown is wrong about the divinity of Jesus.

3. Dan Brown’s view of the Bible is wrong

The Accusation

Dan Brown accuses the church of manufacturing the construction of the New Testament as we now have it at the Council of Nicea, in the 4th Century, under the influence of the Emperor Constantine. He asserts that we cannot trust our Bible, nothing more than a man made document which is the product of the winners of history. It suggests that there were in fact many other gospels with an equal if not stronger case for inclusion that were deliberately omitted because they didn’t fit the version of events that would proliferate the church’s power.

‘Because Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history … Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned’. [p234]

Dan Brown would have us believe that the Bibles available to us in WH Smith are part of this conspiracy to suppress the truth. All of which means that millions of believers through the ages are victims of spin.

The Truth

a. The New Testament was officially recognised years after Nicea

The final collection and authoritative list of all 27 books of the NT came not at Nicea but in the middle of the 4th century when Athanasius applied the word ‘canon’ or ‘standard’ to apply to the books we now have. But in reality

b. The New Testament was in circulation years before Nicea

The naming of the NT is part of a long process that began from the writing of the documents in the 1st century. By the early 2nd Century there were already lists of what ought to be included in the NT. The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were agreed upon very early. At Nicea both sides of the argument were in agreement about from where they could make their case.

c. The New Testament was written years before the ‘Lost’ Gospels

It’s a little inaccurate to describe them as gospels because they don’t read like that at all. Nevertheless they’re thought to originate over 100 years after the gospels. So we need to ask who is in a more likely position to get it right. It’s like asking someone who was at Lord’s yesterday what happened or asking someone that lived 150 years later. I know where my money is. And so this leads me to conclude that Dan Brown is wrong about the construction of the Bible.

Conclusion

At the start of the film Robert Langdon, played by Tom Hanks asks,

‘How do we penetrate years of historic distortion to discover the truth?’

That’s a great question isn’t it? Discovering the truth is the central issue.

Dan Brown would have us believe that Christianity as we know it is a manipulation of the truth and the church simply perpetuates the lie. In the novel Professor Robert Langdon is presented as the sceptical unbeliever who slowly gives up on his unbelief. Under the weight of the evidence presented to him and the interpretation of that evidence presented by Teabing the learned historian theologian he reluctantly accepts the truth about the lies that underpin contemporary Christianity.

But my biggest problem with the Da Vinci Code is that it’s not the church that suppresses the truth about Christianity but this book. I have no problems with novels about conspiracy theories. But I have when they are presented as a legitimate challenge to a version of events that is historically accurate and verifiable. For that is what the Bible is.

It can all get a little technical and confusing late on a warm Sunday night. What I’ve been trying to show is that the version of events given by the DVC is unreliable and unsustainable because it doesn’t match up to the facts. We’ve not been able to spend very long on these topics and it may be that you want to chase up some of these issues further. Let me suggest 3 ways.

Pursue the issues

• If you’ve got questions then why not put them on your feedback form and I’ll have a stab at answering a handful in a while.
• If you came with a friend why not go for a drink and ask your questions?
• Or Read this book. It’s written by a friend of mine, called Dr Garry Williams. He’s a highly regarded Church Historian and Theologian. This book is only 60 pages!

Come to Church

Church is the obvious place to turn to for help. Every week we open up historically accurate documents, read them and try to understand them but more importantly try to understand the God of whom they speak. I don’t know what you expect from church but what we do here is just very ordinary. We try and understand the Bible and live by it. We welcome people who aren’t yet convinced of the things that we believe but who want to come and think those things through. Please come back it’d be great to see you again. We’re open for business at 10.30 and 6.30 every Sunday!

Join Christianity Explored

This is our 6-week course that explores the evidence for and the implications of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We’ve been running this course for a number of years and it’s been hugely popular. There are a number of people sat here this evening who have done this course. Everyone loves it. I’m running the course at our home if you’d like more details pop your name and details down on a feedback form.

Over the next few weeks we’re going to be considering a very important event in the Bible. We can read about it in the book of Exodus. In chapter 20 Moses wrote down what happened. Does anyone know what it was? Three months after the Israelites left Egypt they came to the Desert of Sinai. They camped in front of the mountain. A thick cloud hung over the mountain. There was thunder and lightning, and a very loud trumpet blast sounded. Everyone in the camp trembled. Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God. God came to the top of Mount Sinai. He called Moses to the top of the mountain. And God spoke all these words. I wonder how many of them we can remember? Let’s see how we do.

1. Don’t worship anything else
2. Don’t make any idols
3. Don’t misuse God’s name
4. Don’t forget the Sabbath
5. Respect your parents
6. Don’t murder
7. Don’t love someone else’s husband or wife
8. Don’t take what’s not yours
9. Don’t tell lies
10. Don’t be jealous

In the OT part of the Bible God’s laws were given to God’s people so that they’d know how to live in God’s Kingdom. The one thing we must be clear on is this. God gave His law to people to obey but obeying them didn’t make them God’s people. In other words God had already saved His people by bringing them out of Egypt and bringing them to Himself. I want to suggest that the 10 Commandments are God’s 10 Top Tips for Life and they help us today in three ways.

1. They show us what sort of things God wants us to do

From the list of God’s 10 top tips we know what God thinks is a good idea and what he thinks is a bad idea. So we know what sort of things he wants us to do and what sort of things not to do. It’s like asking your Mum how she’d like you to behave during the holidays. She might say. I love it when you make your own bed. I don’t like it when you fight with your sister. I like it when you help with the washing up. I don’t like it when all you do is watch CBeebies. Really God’s law lets us know what He’s like. For example, He thinks lying is a bad thing to do because He’s the kind of God who always tells the truth. When Jesus was asked to boil down God’s Law he said it’s really just two things. Jesus said God thought it was brilliant when we loved Him and when we loved one another. And so everything that we’re going to think about over the next few weeks will help us with one of those two important things.

2. They show us what sort of life we’re made to live 

God made the whole world and He made everyone in it. God’s law tells the whole world how we’re designed to live. I’ve got an instruction manual here for my new fan. It tells me how it’s supposed to work. I’ve never read it. I can work out that it’s got 3 speeds but unless I read the instruction manual I’d have never known that it could turn around. God’s law tells us the way He designed us to live. We can ignore it but we’ll make a real mess of life. And so if we want to be sensible we’ll live the kind of life that God designed us to live.

3. They show us what sort of people we are in God’s eyes

When we’re on our own or when we compare ourselves to others we can think that we’re very wonderful. And in lots of ways that’s true. God made us and that means that we’re special to Him. But none of us is the way we’re supposed to be because we’re naughty and do things our own way. But when we read something like God’s 10 Commandments we realise that we’ve not done things the way that He wants us to do them. Mirror illustration. ‘I think I’m really fit and healthy’. But he’s not healthy he’s sick. The mirror shows us what we’re really like. God’s law tells us that we’re sick even though we may feel fine. He does that not so that we’ll feel bad about ourselves but so that we’ll realise that we need help and ask Him for help. So we’re not supposed to sit around feeling sorry for ourselves we’re supposed to say sorry, thank you and please to God. Sorry for getting it wrong. Thank you for sending Jesus so that I can be forgiven. Please help me to be better at living your way.

Let’s do that now.

Who can tell me what a superhero is? Someone who does amazing things

Let’s look at some pretend superheroes. Who are they? Lara Croft, Elasti Girl, Xena, Buffy

What do they have in common? They’re all women

We’re looking some of the favourite Christian superheroes at the moment. Christian superheroes are just ordinary people who did extraordinary things This week we’re going to think about this woman. Does anyone know who she is? She lived in England in the 18th Century and she was very posh? Her name is Selina and she was the Countess of Huntingdon. Selina, Countess of Huntingdon is a hero because she lived her whole life for God She was born 300 years ago.

1. she used her home for God

Because she was very rich she had lots of houses. Home is a very special place isn’t it? Homes are great for relaxing in. She could have used her house for herself and her family but she decided to use her house for God. And so she used her home as a place where she could invite people to come and hear about Jesus. She used to have lots of people round for tea and then invite someone really good at talking about Jesus from the Bible. One of the people she used to like to get in was someone we’ve heard about already, George Whitefield. We can be a bit like her when we talk to our friends about Jesus when they come round to our house for tea

2. she used her money for God

She had lots of money because she was born into a rich family and married into a rich family. She could have used it not to buy herself lots of things but she used her money for God. She used it so that other people could hear about Jesus. She built over 200 churches and she paid for colleges so that people could learn how to teach the Bible. There’s one story where she paid for a church building by selling her loveliest jewellery. We can be a bit like her when we use our pocket money so that other people can hear about Jesus.

3. she used her position for God

She knew almost all the important people in the country. She knew all the important leaders of churches and she knew all the important political leaders. She even knew the King and the Queen who thought that she was amazing. There’s one story where the Queen told an important Bishop that it was a shame she couldn’t be a Bishop because she was so much better than they were! She could have spent her time going to parties and getting her photo in all the newspapers but she decided to use her position for God. Instead she made sure that the people who ruled this country made it easy for church leaders to teach people about Jesus from the Bible. We can be a bit like her when we remind important people that they’re supposed to be looking after people who teach the truth from the Bible.

Who can tell me what a superhero is? Someone who does amazing things

Let’s look at some pretend superheroes, who can tell me who these are? Asterix, Heman, The Incredible Hulk, Batman & Robin

We’re looking some of the favourite Christian superheroes at the moment. Christian superheroes are just ordinary people who did extraordinary things.

This week we’re going to think about this man. Does anyone know who he is? He lived in Great Britain. He’s an Englishman does that help? He lived in the 18th Century, does that help? His name is George Whitefield. There can’t be too many superheroes called George.

George Whitefield is a hero because he kept on helping people to follow Jesus

1. He did it when people wanted him to stop

When he started to persuade people to follow Jesus there were lots of important people in the church who tried to stop him. They didn’t like what he was saying even though what he taught came straight from the Bible. And so he wasn’t allowed into lots of church buildings to help people hear about Jesus. So what do you think he did? He went outside. He was one of the first people to start telling people about Jesus in the open air. One book I was reading this week thinks that he preached outside of buildings 18,000 times.

2. He did it to all sorts of people

He went to lots of different countries. He went all over Great Britain helping people to become followers of Jesus. He went to Scotland 14 times, Ireland twice, he went to every county in England and Wales. That’s a lot of travelling and he did it before the invention of the car. He even went to America 7 times at a time before steam ships had been invented. And he also went to lots of different types of people. He went to the poor and to the posh. So one of the most famous times he talked to people was outside a Coal Mine in Bristol. And he also helped some very rich people, some of the most important people in the country to become followers of Jesus.

3. He did it for a very long time

He became a Christian when he went to University and so he didn’t follow Jesus when he was you’re age. Now that’s a shame but he decided to spend the rest of his life helping others to follow Jesus. He was helping people to become followers of Jesus even on the day he died when he was a very old man. What a great way to use the life God has given us.

Conclusion

We can be mini Christian superheroes like George Whitefield when we help people to follow Jesus We can do that when we do it outside of church, at school or at home or in the park. We can do that when we help lots of different people perhaps from lots of different countries, lots of whom live around us and go to our schools. We can do that for the rest of our lives even if we haven’t started yet.

Why is George Whitefield a hero? George Whitefield a hero because he kept helping people to follow Jesus

Who can tell me what a superhero is? Someone who does amazing things

Let’s look at some pretend superheroes, who can tell me who this is? [Picture] It’s Spiderman

Some superheroes are less well known and people forget them after a while, so let’s ask the older people here who these are. [Go for broke on old time superhero favourites!]

This is my favourite, who is it? [Picture] Buzz Lightyear

We’re going to look at some of the favourite Christian superheroes over the next few weeks. Usually superheroes have a special power that helps them to do something but the people we’re going to think about were just brave and courageous. This week we’re going to think about this man. Does anyone know who he is? He lived in Egypt, does that help? He lived in the 4th Century, does that help? His name is Athanasius.

Athanasius is a hero because he kept reminding people that Jesus is God even when lots of people said that he isn’t. Who here thinks that Jesus is God? Well one of the reasons we do that is because someone like him made sure that the church kept of teaching it. If he hadn’t done that we might not know that Jesus was God. Athanasius knew that was wrong and so he spend the rest of his life reminding people that Jesus is God not just a person like us.

1. He kept reminding people that Jesus is God even though he was very young

When he was only 25 years old, Athanasius went to a very important meeting with lots of church leaders where they were discussing who Jesus was. It was called the Council of Nicea. He helped his boss, one of the most senior church leaders, a man called Alexander to teach the truth. When he was only 30 he became a Bishop and had to remind everyone in the church that Jesus is God. We might think that 30 is very old but actually it’s very young to have to do something so serious. We can be mini Christian superheroes when we remind people that Jesus is God even if we’re only very young.

2. He kept reminding people that Jesus is God even though important people told him he was wrong

One very important person who was there was Arius. He said that Jesus was just a human being like you and me though he was quite a special human being. The most powerful man in the whole world agreed with him. His name was Emperor Constantine and he was the most important person in the Roman Empire. We can be mini Christian superheroes when we remind people that Jesus is God even if important people like our teachers are a little bit confused and don’t realise that.

3. He kept reminding people that Jesus is God even though he was sent out of his country

He was sent out of his home country 5 times. He was sent to the desert, to Italy, to France and to Germany. He spent 15 years away from his home because the people in charge didn’t like what he said. Imagine being told that you couldn’t go home. That’d be awful wouldn’t it! We can be mini Christian superheroes when we remind people that Jesus is God even if people end up being very nasty to us. Why is Athanasius a hero? Athanasius is a hero because he kept reminding people that Jesus is God even when lots of people said that he isn’t.

I’d thought that in advance of the arrival of our new associate staff member it would be useful to address this question. We thought about the question of ‘what are we for’ at our staff conference this week and so whilst it’s fresh in my mind I thought we’d cover it. It begins a short series of questions clarifying what we do and why we do things here at CCB.

Why we employ staff is a good question. They’re not cheap because they usually need a wage, pension, expenses and a house.

Let me say at the beginning that because so much attention is paid to church leaders it’s easy to think that the staff are the key players in the churches life. But that’s simply not the case. Consider for a moment a comparison between a church and a Premiership football club. The staff are not the expensive star players who do their thing in the pulpit and people gather to watch them each week. The staff are not the spectators who watch the congregation and applaud when something is done well and abuse them when it’s done badly. The staff are the backroom coaches whose responsibility it is to prepare the congregations, the real star players to do their thing out in the world before a watching world. To answer the question of why employ staff let’s turn to Ephesians 4.

11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

In these verses Paul explains the origin of ministry (11), the nature of ministry (12) and the goal of ministry (13). Let’s take each of those in turn.

1. Jesus Christ has given Bible Teachers to his churches (11)

Paul is concerned first with the origin of Bible Teachers. In the first instance Christ gave to those fledgling NT congregations Apostles and Prophets to explain the implications of his life, death and resurrection. Those people were foundational gifts to lay a ‘once for all time’ shape to the Christian faith. However, in order for that foundation to be built upon Christ continues to provide Bible Teachers in the form of evangelists, pastors and teachers. These are not mutually exclusive roles with hard and fast distinctions. I think there’s a good deal of overlap. Evangelists are those whose special ability is the persuasive explanation of the gospel and the capacity to equip others to do the same. Pastors have responsibility for the direction, provision and protection of the churches. Teachers are those whose special task is to present the truth of God’s word having understood it in great depth. Jesus Christ thinks that his churches need Bible Teachers and so he provides for them what they need. He provides them not simply with a book nor with an MP3 player of sermons but with people to engage with us personally.

2. Jesus Christ has given Bible Teachers to equip us for the work of ministry (12)

Paul is concerned secondly with the nature of ministry of Bible Teachers. Christ has given his churches Bible Teachers because he wants the churches to do the work of ministry. Being equipped, doing the work of ministry [literally serving] and building up are not three synonymous ideas but there’s a clear progression of thought. Bible Teachers do the equipping, each congregational member does the work of ministry and as a result the whole church is built up. Equipping is much wider than training. There’s an obsession with training amongst churches like ours that can be unattractive and has little emphasis on the end product. We think we’re trained when we know a gospel outline or the melodic line of Romans but if we’re useless at handling people or living a godly life we’ve not been equipped for ministry.

3. Jesus Christ has given Bible Teachers for the unity, maturity & conformity of the church

Paul is concerned thirdly for the goal of the ministry of Bible Teachers. The goal is stated in three phrases, which may be summarised as unity, maturity and conformity. Unity in the faith, we’re supposed to agree on what the Bible teaches. Maturity in the faith, we’re supposed to grow in our knowledge and love of Christ so that we become adult and experienced. Conformity to the likeness of Christ, we’re supposed to become more and more like him in character and temperament.

That’s why we employ staff.

The title to this doctrine slot is unintentionally misleading. It’s not really a slot about knowing God as such but about our evening church small groups ‘Knowing God’, so named because we hope that they’re the means to each one of us growing in our knowledge of God. ‘Knowing God’ meets on a Wednesday night here at Chestnut Gove School. We meet for snacks and a coffee before we start and as the term progresses that coffee becomes increasingly significant. The groups are usually about 8-10 people and run by a couple of leaders who prepare a study each week. This year we’ll be looking at John’s Gospel. Small groups really are terrific and you’ll understand therefore why they remain a priority at CCB. We’re keen for everyone to be a part of them. I want to suggest 3 reasons why if you’re new to us you ought to join one and if you’ve been with us for a while you should be so positive about them!

1. In small groups we help each other to understand the Bible

We study the Bible not because we’re people who love books and not because we’re people who like intellectual stimulation. We study the Bible because it’s God’s personal word to us. We need Him to help us make sense of life. Most of us find it hard trying to understand what the Bible when we try to read it on our own. That’s true if we’re investigating Christianity for the 1st time. It’s true if we’ve just become a Christian and the Bible is new to us. It’s also true for those of us who’ve been Christians for a while. Sometimes we struggle to read the Bible because it’s unfamiliar to us and we benefit from having others explain it. Sermons are a great way to understand what God is saying but we can’t usually stop the preacher when he’s in mid flow and ask them what they meant. But in a small group that’s par for the course and it’s a sign of good group dynamics. Sometimes we struggle to read the Bible because we’re reading it badly and we’ve developed bad habits. One of the best ways to be helped in addressing our literary skills is do this is with others. Book groups have become increasingly popular over the last few years. Perhaps the impetus provided by the sponsorship of Richard & Judy. So in summary, it’s worth joining Knowing God because we can help others understand what God is saying to us.

2. In small groups we help each other to pray about life’s issues

We pray as part of our small group because we believe that God answers prayer and that he changes circumstances in response to us relying upon him. Most of us find it hard to pray on our own. We forget or we’re just too lazy. When we do get down to praying we can’t stop mentally drifting off onto other things. I don’t find that happening when I pray with others! Most importantly through our study of God’s word He will have spoken to us about particular issues as we study the Bible together and rather than let those go by without addressing them it’s helpful to pray about them as they arise. As we get to know our small group better we’ll feel more comfortable about sharing some of the issues in life that are troubling us at the moment. One of the ways in which we can care for one another is by praying for people, praying with people and encouraging other people to pray. So in summary, it’s worth joining in small groups because you can pray for the issues in other people’s lives.

3. In small groups we help each other to provide personal encouragement

We encourage one another in our small groups not because we’re especially weak, needy or pathetic but because living the Christian life is hard. It’s hard to keep going on our own. That’s especially true in a society where to be a follower of Jesus Christ is becoming increasingly odd and because of our loyalty to Christ’s teaching we find ourselves isolated. One of the ways in which we care for one another is by turning up and encouraging each other to keep going. Look at Hebrews 3:12-14. What is the antidote that God supplies to those who have grown weary in the Christian life and are tempted to give up on following Christ? It’s fellow believers. Therefore we go to small group not only for the good it will do us but also the good it’ll do others. We don’t go simply because of what we might get out of it we go because of what we might contribute to someone else. This week someone could be on the point of giving up the Christian life and our presence and encouragement could be just what they need. So it’s worth joining Knowing God because we can keep others going in their Christian life If you’re not in a small group and would like to be part of Knowing God then indicate that on your feedback form and stick it in the box at the back or give it to me.