food4thought

In the Sunday Times this week AA Gill gave both barrels to people he describes as ‘rabid fundamentalists’. His ‘measured contribution’ to the ongoing debate about homosexuality and the Anglican Communion is printed in full below!

For as long as anyone can remember, the Church of England has been a secular, national comfort. Before anyone ever thought of inventing a computer or IT support, the church was a haven for the uncoordinated, specky nerds, wonks, numpties and geeks. It offered succour to the worst folk singers and Andrew Lloyd Webber tribute band and a safe place for vile, evil-mouthed widows who are encouraged to do community service with flower and brass polishing.

As far as most of us knew, their only weird ritual was raising large graven images of thermometers on their steeples. It plainly meant something to the men in frocks and was pretty benign.

Then suddenly, out of nowhere and nothing, they’ve gone and got a conviction, and of all the things they’ve decided to have a belief about it’s homosexuality. Apparently homosexuality is a really gaudy sin and homos are hell-bound perverts.

This is achingly funny because, along with the geeks and malevolent widows, gays and the Church of England have always come together like Charles Hawtrey and the Royal Navy. The church has always been Hampstead Heath with a roof, albeit a leaky one. Now the prelates have all been over in Tanzania demanding that the gay-ordaining, queer-marrying, puff-friendly liberal wing of the church be forced to apologise for its wickedness in a gruff voice and wear tweed.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is bending over backwards to placate the rabid homophobes of the born again charismatic wing of the church in the belief that cohesion is more important than conscience. He knows what we all know, that gayness is not a sin, it’s not even a faux pas. It is the way some people are, but to placate a sordid, spiritually bereft prejudice he will go halfway round the world to search out mendacious phrases to keep the church one big, unhappy, sniggerable communion.

What he should be doing is laying about him with an axe. He should welcome schism. He should tell them to take their massive thermometers and smudgy imaginations and sod off.

The church isn’t a multinational company, believers aren’t shareholders. The church was born out of schism, it has constantly split and reinvented itself, forming new churches and ways of praying along the way, Methodists and Baptists, Presbyterians and Pentecostals. Schism doesn’t come from failure, but growth. It’s liberating and renewing. In this case it’s also right.

Which of us wants to get married, baptise the children or be eulogised by people who think of little else but others’ bottoms, and not in a nice way? Rightness and goodness are never about numbers, they’re about rightness and goodness. The church was rightest and best when it had only 12 members and one of them was a wrong ’un.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1434463.ece

There are times when I feel it’d be great to just ignore Jesus’ teaching about how to treat our enemies and just ‘fire one off’ in response. Oh, to have the freedom to verbally retaliate. How satisfying that might feel. You’ll have to see what he wrote before you discover whether I exercised obedient, forbearing love!

Here’s my thoughts

1. He exposes the ineffectiveness of the church

Gill’s analysis of the Church of England [C of E] makes for sobering reading. In his view, the church has always been a haven for the world’s misfits. Nothing wrong with that. I think the Apostle Paul said something similar. There’s still room for a few more Mr Gill, so come on in! Admittedly I’ve never thought of myself as a specky nerd but perhaps it’s time for some realistic self examination! But it’s his comment ‘then suddenly, out of nowhere, they’ve gone and got a conviction’ that’s really telling. The C of E that Gill grew up ‘acquainted’ with was, as he saw it, innocuous, benign and irrelevant. If accurate, that’s a damning indictment on the church. Perhaps it’s true that we’ve become a little more militant in recent years. Perhaps it’s true that since society has drifted from it’s Christian heritage the difference between the church and the world has become more obvious. Perhaps it’s both. But it ought to be encouraging that there’s a little more of the ‘prophetic edge’ to our ministry these days. After all, the prophets of the past not only announced salvation, they pronounced God’s judgement and they denounced human wickedness. If we’re to show people the salvation they need, we must first of all to show them their need of salvation.

2. He underplays the serious of sin

Sin is serious whichever form it comes in. And it comes in all forms. It’s not only homosexual practice though it includes it. The church didn’t choose to campaign on homosexuality. It was forced to address it as an issue because society now finds it morally acceptable. And like all sin, sexual sin [of which we’re all guilty to a greater or lesser degree] is serious. It matters how we use the bodies that God has given us. We’re accountable to God for what we do and with whom. Where we’re guilty of rejecting His requirements we stand alienated from our Creator and we deserve His punishment. That’s not the sort of thing we should make jokes about. The church ought to be serious about sin because God is. Serious enough to send His son as a saviour.

3. He caricatures the position of evangelicals

It’d be naive to expect Gill to be sympathetic to our cause. But it’s not unreasonable to expect him to represent it fairly. However, it’s unmistakably clear that he’s a million miles away from understanding the principled conviction of those of us who believe the Bible’s teaching about homosexual practice. We’re painted as homophobic bigots with a sordid interest in other people’s bottoms. Not me. Homosexual activity is contrary to God’s revealed will in the Bible. There’s no getting around that. His expression ‘gayness is not a sin’ misses the point completely. It is, for starters. Because even our desires are sinful and provide sufficient reason for God to punish us. But the Bible’s prohibition is primarily directed against inappropriate sexual activity, both heterosexual and homosexual. Marriage is the only place for sexual activity because it gives expression to the one flesh union promised when two people [of differing genders] make covenantal promises to one another. Some people may be born with a propensity to same sex love but that doesn’t make the exercise of same sex love morally right. Any more than my natural propensity for acquiring possessions makes stealing justifiable.

4. He misunderstands the cause of schism

Gill seems to think that evangelicals are something retarding the growth of an otherwise vibrant, successful church. He’s way off the mark on that one, but anyway. He recommends that the Archbishop of Canterbury send us on our merry way so that the C of E can proceed at full speed. He’s missed the point. We’re not the cause of schism. We’re not the ones reinventing the Christian faith, ripping pages out of the Bible and inserting our own ideas. The liberals are.

He may be right that schism is the way forward for the Anglican Communion. There comes a point at which our loose partnership in one denomination cannot be justified. But the C of E belongs to evangelicals. In its formulary documents, the 39 Articles, we find reformation theology. Evangelicals should feel at home. The trouble is the liberal revisionists have nicked the power whilst we were busy doing parish ministry. We’ve got all the cash but they run everything. We’re at an impasse. If they had any integrity they’d leave the denomination and leave us the property. I don’t think it’s going to play out that way! 

And so schism may not be a bad thing. Church history tells us that the stream of heterodox teaching is unending. We’ll always have to identify and correct ideas that have no place in the Christian church. This false teaching is a malignant growth in the body of Christianity, it destroys the health of the church and it needs to be removed. The way we do that is through loving correction and faithful teaching. We long for people to repent but there comes a point at which it which it becomes clear that there’s no intent to repent. We may have reached that point.

Conclusion

Like his friend Jeremy Clarkson, whose refreshing political incorrectness I applaud, Gill employs vivid language and expresses strong opinions that entertain or irritate depending on whether you agree with him. If I agreed with him, I’d love it. But I don’t. He’s wrong. I completely disagree with him. This is an outrageous article. I’ll defend his right to say it. But that doesn’t mean that he should have written it. You just can’t do that with these sorts of issues. But that’s the problem when people like Gill give an opinion about something with which they’re only partly familiar. I have no idea of his spiritual persuasion. I don’t even know whether he feels comfortable commenting on what might be termed ‘religious issues’. He strikes me as a man who’s not uncomfortable commenting on anything! The issues at stake in the Anglican Communion aren’t simply ideas. They involve people, their lifestyles, the advice that we give them, the truth and their eternal destiny. What we need from people like Gill, and perhaps more specifically from papers like the Sunday Times, is not a rant but reasoned response and intelligent engagement with the issues.

Recent newspaper articles have suggested that Jonathan Edwards has had a crisis of faith. The ex-athlete and TV presenter has resigned from Songs of Praise is allegedly no longer convinced of the existence of God.

It is profoundly sad for him and his family. One can only imagine what they are going through. We ought to pray for him, his wife and his two sons. We perhaps especially ought to pray for his Christian friends and Church Leaders who seek to help him at this time. I don’t want to comment on Jonathan Edwards’ situation because I know only what the papers have reported. However, there are some general principles that we ought to bear in mind as we think about him, about any other Christian and about ourselves.

1. Don’t champion Christian personalities

We always feel there’s greater apologetic force to our case when we can wheel out a media personality who shares our faith. Crudely put the argument goes something like this, ‘you really ought to pay more respect to Christianity because [fill in the blank], off the telly, has become a Christian’. Let’s be honest, it’s not the most convincing argument you’ve ever heard is it! So let’s resolve to ditch it altogether. It’s pretty unkind to the individuals themselves. They not only have to cope with the media attention by virtue of their exploits in their chosen speciality. But they also have to cope on the attention heaped on them by the Christian church. Of course we’re eager for them to use their status for the good of the gospel. But it doesn’t do them any favours. Few of them would regard themselves as gifted by God for speaking up in the public domain. So let’s leave them to mature their faith in the local church and comment when they feel able. In 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 Paul seemed to think that God uses the unimpressive rather than the impressive to bring others to faith.

2. Don’t underestimate the significance of the local church

I have no information about Jonathan Edwards’ personal discipline of reading his Bible and praying to His heavenly Father. I do know that it’s harder to keep going on our own. Separated from the loving support, encouragement and accountability of friends it’s easy to fall out of the routines that strengthen our faith. God knows this. And so when He unites us to Christ by faith He also unites us to Christ’s body, the church. Church is where we ought to find the encouragement that we need to live for Christ. If we take this lightly, if our attendance at church is sporadic and if we’re not being fed by God from His word then we should expect to have a lightweight faith that hints at collapse under the buffeting effects of doubts. Such is the stupidity of youth that we underestimate just how hard it is to keep going in the Christian life as a solitary explorer. That’s one of many reasons why a travelling gap year is so dangerous. However, I am thrilled to hear that Jonathan Edwards is still attending his local church in Gosforth. That’s the one place he ought to expect to find help.

3. Don’t be naive about temptation

I have no idea whether Jonathan Edwards has acted inappropriately. There’s some suggestion of it in press. But we ought to be wary of hearsay and gossip. But suppose he had, should we be surprised? Not if we understand human nature as the Bible describes it. Our capacity for sinful desires and activity persists even after the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. We may be a new creation but the old nature continues and causes the kind of angst and conflict in the Christian life that we find described in Galatians 5 and Romans 7. This could happen to any of us. When giving into temptation becomes a way of life we don’t want to be reminded that we’re wrong. In other words doubt in God’s existence is convenient and necessary when we want to give into temptation. Professed unbelief can be a smoke screen to hide the real issue, which is sin.

4. Don’t be arrogant about your own abilities

In 1 Corinthians 10:12 Paul warned his readers to take very great care unless they became over confident. It’s usually those who think that they stand that are moments away from a fall. We must not think that we are somehow impervious to the parasitic effects of doubt on our faith. And we must not think that we are immune from the temptations that are common to us all. The unholy trinity consisting of the prevailing ideological convictions of the world, the sinful desires of our flesh and the father of lies who works through them both combine to attack us and throw us off track. Our spiritual enemies are real and strong. But they are defeated. Christ saw to that in his death and resurrection. Faith in him preserves us from their evil work. But we need to make sure that we persevere in faith. And we need to do everything we can to make decisions that take that into account. Not to do so would be arrogant and foolish.

This is the second in a series of short slots attempting to understand Roman Catholicism. The intention is not to stir up division. That exists already. But to understand where and why Roman Catholicism differs from Biblical Christianity as represented in the Reformed Tradition since they stand on different sides of the post reformation divide. A few weeks ago we thought about the issue of scripture and tradition. This week we’re thinking about the significance afforded to this man. Of him official Roman Catholic teaching states,

‘The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth …. By divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth’

The New York Catechism, quoted in Lorraine Boettner’s book, ‘Roman Catholicism’, published by Presbyterian & Reformed.

That’s some claim.

Vatican 1, a collection of high ranking Roman Catholic Clergy, meeting in 1870 set out to clarify Papal authority and infallibility. They concluded two things

a. That the Pope has authority to tell us what to do

The argument runs like this

• Jesus gave Peter supreme authority over the church and the world.
• This right of authority was passed down through Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome for all time.
• The Pope therefore has ultimate authority so that he cannot be questioned.
• If any questions of faith arise then they must be defined by the judgement of the Pope.
• All churches in the world should agree with the Roman Catholic church.
• In fact it’s necessary for salvation that everyone who professes to be a Christian must be submitted to the authority of the Pope

b. That the pope has an infallible ability to be right about those things

Inherent in this authority is his infallible teaching authority over the entire church. When speaking ‘ex cathedra’, in his official capacity as Pope, he speaks without error. And so the Roman Catholic church has always been free from doctrinal error.

It’s important to be clear what this is not saying, his infallibility is

• Restricted to pronouncements made in his official capacity as the head of the church.
• Restricted to pronouncements intended for the whole church.  
• Restricted to pronouncements concerning faith and morals so we can’t ask him who’ll win the 2.30 at Kempton.

In practice however, there’s great flexibility about what features under the headings of faith and morals. It’s alleged that this teaching has always been believed by all the true church and according to Vatican I papal authority and infallibility rest on two familiar foundations: scripture and tradition. In the time we have available let’s quickly investigate the testimony of scripture and historical tradition.

1. Papal authority and infallibility is a misunderstanding of scripture

The best case for the Roman Catholic position rests on their interpretation of Matthew 16,

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

The Roman Catholic interpretation is that

a. Peter is the rock upon which Christ said he would build the church

b. Christ gives him the keys of the Kingdom of God with authority to bind or loose

c. since the keys represent authority he is said to have supreme authority over all of Christ’s church and that this authority is handed down to his successors

d. infallibility is implied in Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not triumph against the church

If this is right then it’s a strong case. But I’m not convinced that this is the best interpretation of this passage, can I suggest instead that when Christ says that he will build his church on a rock, he is not referring to Peter personally but to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ. And so the foundation upon which the church rests is Jesus. I’m persuaded by that for three reasons

a. Peter never understood Jesus’ words to imply that he was the rock in fact he used this terminology to apply to Christ in his letters

b. He simply regarded himself as one church leader amongst many not as having supremacy over them

c. The consistent teaching of the Bible is that rock like properties belong to Christ

The case is looking shaky from a scriptural perspective what about history?

2. Papal authority and infallibility is a misreading of history

According to Vatican I these teachings ‘have been held by the entire church through all ages’. There are two major writings of the 1st three centuries that Roman Catholic theologians enlist as historical evidence for papal authority and infallibility. The best case for papal infallibility rests on these two accounts.

The first major writing is Clement’s First Epistle written to the Corinthian church around the year 96 AD. This letter was written from Rome to the church in Corinth telling them to get their act together. But it’s far from establishing Rome’s primacy over all other churches through the ages. At the time of writing there was no single Bishop in Rome, or Pope, instead there was a multiplicity of elders. In addition others were also writing letters like this at that time and yet no supremacy for them is claimed.

The second major writing is Irenaeus’ work ‘Against Heresies’ in which he makes reference to the church at Rome. He was responding to Gnostic claims that they alone possessed the secret tradition of apostolic truth. Irenaeus used the church at Rome as an example of a group of Christians that could legitimately trace back their doctrine to the apostles since Peter and Paul had founded this church. But while he focussed his attention on Rome he does not suggest that Rome is unique because what could be said about them could be said of any other church founded by the apostles. There are additional historical inconsistencies that could be highlighted but if you’re keen for those I can give you the references.

Conclusion

Authority and infallibility rest not in a man, the Pope but in a book. The Bible is God’s personal words to us. His word has the right to tell us what to do and his word alone is without error. Our task is to understand it aright which I suggest Roman Catholic teaching has not done at all well on this issue.

How do we react to the Popes death?

Many of us will be aware that Pope John Paul II died last night. The Sunday newspapers are awash with tributes. Yesterday the front page of the Sun declared that he was ‘In God’s Hands’. The Times provided 10 pages of comment on his likely death and its implications and then included a colour insert entitled ‘An Appreciation’. It’s an event that is likely to dominate the news cycle for the foreseeable future and probably push the announcement of the general election into the background. Our friends and colleagues at work aware of our Christian faith may ask us for a view and it would be good to have one! These are my first thoughts concerning how we ought to react and what we might say. I’m sure that there will be other things to say and that’s perhaps a topic of conversation for the pub afterwards. In particular it’s worth thinking of some short pithy observations to move the conversation to a deeper level. As a means to opening the conversation let me give you four things that I would want to think and repeat if asked how I’m responding to the death of the Pope

1. I’m responding in sadness for death is a rude intruder into human existence

Death comes to us all whether we are followers of Christ or not. For the unbeliever it’s a death with the experience of judgement and condemnation to follow. For those who have faith in Christ it’s a death transformed. In Paul’s words we need not grieve like the pagans because we have the hope of the resurrection [1 Thessalonians 4]. I would not presume to declare on the existence of saving faith in the Pope’s life. Though the signs are not encouraging none of us can discern the heart. It is God’s prerogative to judge and He will. Whatever else we may go on and say about the Pope we must recognise that any death is cause for sadness. The Pope had both friends and family and those loving relationships have been severed by his death.

2. I’m responding with gratitude for the positive influence that he had for moral good

We ought to be grateful to God for the good things that resulted from this man’s influence. He is credited with hastening the downfall of Communism and therefore bringing to an end the oppressive regimes that persecuted millions of people. We ought to admire his courage for standing up to and opposing the rapid slide of our culture into immorality. His morally conservative stance was often unpopular and brought him into sharp disagreement with the prevailing thought of western secular liberalism. Long before evangelicals were heard on the subject he was a champion of the vulnerable and those who needed our protection. Consequently he took a strongly pro-life stance on all issues from conception to death. He took a morally conservative line on abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia. It is likely therefore that there are people alive in this world today because he was brave enough to be counter cultural and endure the mockery of the liberal west.

3. I’m responding in despair for so many people are misled to pay him undue attention

According to the BBC the world contains 1.1 billion Roman Catholic adherents. For them the Pope has a significance that the Bible is not prepared to attribute to any human figure. In official Roman Catholic teaching the Pope is the ‘Vicar of Christ’. In other words he is Christ’s replacement and therefore he is God’s authority on earth. It is inevitable that if such claims are made for a human figure the affection and allegiance that ought to be attributed to Christ will go to another. The Times reported that 70,000 people kept vigil overnight in St Peter’s Square. It is very sad that the devotion that ought to be given to Christ is given to a mere man. Worse than it is an awful indictment on this man’s ministry that that he encouraged a form of idolatry to persist and proliferate.

4. I’m responding with honesty for the religious system he proclaimed is a distortion of biblical truth

At some stage in our conversation we need to broach the subject of truth and how the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church compares with the teaching of the Bible. We may not feel particularly comfortable or equipped to analyse official Roman Catholic teaching. I don’t think we’ve ever had a doctrine slot on this subject. However in broad outline Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Christ and the Bible are insufficient for salvation and the Christian life. To the teaching of scripture they add the authority of the Pope. To the work of Christ as mediator they add the mass and the ministry of Mary. That is a distortion of biblical truth and this Pope has been instrumental in deluding people. We need to be able to point that out to people so that they realise that there is a difference between the enslaving religion of Roman Catholicism and the freedom of the gospel.

Some of the things that we might say to provoke discussion are

‘I hope he was forgiven and wasn’t convinced by his own rhetoric’ is likely to move on to a discussion about how we’re forgiven for our sins.

‘I think it’s sad that so many people give him so much attention’ is likely to move onto a discussion about idolatry.

‘You could be forgiven for thinking that he’d invented the Christian faith and not Jesus Christ’ is likely to move on to a discussion about authority.

‘It’s easy to forget that he was just a man doing a job’ is likely to move onto a discussion about sinful humanity.

Over the next few weeks we’re going to consider Roman Catholic teaching on some of the key points of disagreement with a Reformed or Protestant understanding of the Bible. The intent is not to stoke up controversy but to understand the real disagreement that exists. It’s important to clarify that the critique of Roman Catholicism is a critique of the official position of the Roman Catholic church as represented in their official documents. It’s not necessarily the case that all Roman Catholics agree with the content of those documents.

I understand that for many of us this is a current issue as we talk to friends, perhaps consider our own Catholic heritage or seek to work out whether the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism really matter. In a short doctrine slot we’ll only be able to summarise some of the issues and we may wish to delve deeper. There are books that I would be happy to recommend and I may get round to putting fuller versions of the slots on the web site.

The subject we’ll consider briefly this evening is: Scripture & Tradition

There are three key areas where official RC teaching differs from a reformed understanding of the Bible.

1. Their canon of scripture is bigger than ours

In addition to the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament the Roman Catholic Church gave canonical status to about a dozen extra books when at the Council of Trent in the mid-16th Century the Roman Catholic Church defined their Canon. These are known as the Apocryphal Books of the Inter-Testamental period. Books like Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Baruch and Maccabees were then included. These books were written between the Second Century BC and the birth of Christ. As a result of the Council of Trent they’re regarded as equally inspired and authoritative as the others books of the scriptural Canon. This is significant because a number of the distinctive doctrines that find their support in these books. But 

• There’s no evidence that Christ or His apostles ever quoted from these works nor made reference to them 
• The First Century Jews did not include these works in their Hebrew OT canon
• The Early Church Fathers did not include these works in their lists of canonical books so theologians like Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius and Jerome all rejected them  

In short, the official Roman Catholic position is that these books should supplement the Bible but in truth they shouldn’t be there. They’re interesting but they’re not God’s authoritative word to us.

2. Their method of inclusion is more confident than ours

The Early Church was faced with the decision of which books were to be included and which were to be excluded in what we now call the Bible. This was a long and careful process that took place in the first four centuries after Christ’s death. From a Reformed perspective the process of compilation of these books did not require the church to create the Bible. It was called upon simply to recognise, receive and submit to books that were already apostolic in their content and were universal in their distribution. We don’t think mistakes were made but we don’t discount that as a possibility because humans are fallible. The Reformed Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. From a Roman Catholic perspective the Church cannot err, it doesn’t make mistakes and in fact the Church conferred on those books the status of infallibility. What they describe as their canon is therefore an infallible collection of infallible books. Therefore the Apocryphal books became authoritative because the church said so. It’s neat but wrong.

3. Their source of revelation is additional to ours

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that tradition as well as the Bible constitutes the revealed will of God. They hold that God speaks authoritatively through the written words of the apostles preserved for us in the Bible but also through the spoken words of the apostles preserved for us in the church through the Bishops. The Roman Catholic Church has in theory a high view of scripture since the official position is that the Bible and Tradition share equal authority and complement each other on the grounds that they’re both from God. However, in practice when there appears to be a conflict between the two since the church provides the right interpretation the ultimate authority ends up being Roman Catholic tradition. This is important since purgatory, the priesthood, the mass, transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, indulgences, penance, worship of Mary, the use of images in worship, holy water, rosary beads, celibacy of priests and nuns, the papacy and numerous others are founded solely on tradition. There is no scriptural support for them but they continue to feature in Roman Catholic Church life because the Church Authorities teach them.

Conclusion

If we’re new to these things it can often seem like unnecessary nit picking and unattractive church in fighting. I can understand why we might think that. But we must realise that there is a massive gulf between biblical and Roman Catholic Christianity at this point. And it cannot be bridged unless one side changes its mind. It all comes down to authority. Do we believe and behave as the Bible instructs us as or do we believe and behave as the church directs us?

These are the two e-mails sent at the time of James’ death. The first is an e-mail sent to the Co-Mission staff on the Monday before James died. The second is the one sent to CCB members. I wondered about the wisdom of including this or not. I’m learning to err on the side of caution in debatable matters. But the details of James’ death are known as are the identities of those most affected. But the thing that clinched it for me most is that the issues his death raises are issues that we all need to deal with.

Dear Everyone

I thought that you’d want to know that James Meagher was admitted to the Marsden on Friday night for what is expected to be his last time. He will not be returning home but is expected to die in the next few days. His secondary tumour is the one unexpectedly causing the problems. Internal bleeding in his brain is causing his body to slowly close down. He is not in pain but in a steady but stable state of deterioration. He has moments of limited lucidity and has said he’s ‘ready to go’. He is in Sarah’s words, ‘dying well’. I’ve been able to see him on three occasions in the last few days and we’ve read the bible, I’ve reassured him of the gospel promise of life and the prospect of going home to meet his Saviour and we’ve prayed. He is in good heart, though a pale shadow of his former self.

Few of the Doctors thought that he’d survive longer than Saturday morning. In one sense his prolonged demise is problematic. The family are weary, they’ve had very little sleep and they’re ready for him to go. They’ve said their goodbyes and for James’ sake they’re keen for him to move on to the next stage of his life. Wonderfully there’s great confidence among the Christian family about where he’s going. Being among them is a great privilege. Once I’d found my feet I’ve been able to lead them in praying together in the waiting room and by James’ bedside. The atmosphere is one of encouragement, support and prayerful godliness. It’s not at all awkward, they are terrific Christian people.

If you wanted to pray then asking God to grant him a swift death would be high up Sarah’s list of priorities. She is bearing up well. She is grieving already, she’s very, very sad to be losing the man she loves but she’s thrilled for him that he’ll be miraculously healed within a matter of a few hours. She is being looked after by a terrific Christian woman called Audrey Nelson. Audrey is one of Sarah’s prayer partners at CCB and she has resolved to be a constant companion throughout this ordeal.

Obviously lots of people at CCB are terribly upset and as you would expect there have been lots of tears. But as wonderful a servant as James was in his 4 ½ years with us in the providence of God his death may well accomplish even more. There’s a fresh realisation that church is not a hobby, that Christ’s death is more than just an idea and there’s real appreciation that church is a family. We’ve been able to remind one another that this is why Christ died. For me I’ve been reminded that this is why we do the job that we do – we’re helping people to die in faith. So do pray that the Lord would teach all of us at CCB that we’re not invulnerable to death, that Christ is a wonderful Saviour and that the gospel is life and death. Hope to see you later on today. With best wishes in Christ

Perks

This e-mail was sent to everyone at CCB. We’d talked in both the All Age and Evening Meetings about James’ condition and passed on some reflections from Sarah.

Dear Everyone

James Meagher died this morning at the Royal Marsden Hospital. He died peacefully and was in no discomfort. He is with the Lord.

Sarah and the family are well but as we would expect they are weary and grieving. But as they keep emphasising, they grieve not for James but for themselves. They are aware that this is not the end of a relationship but merely an interruption, painful though it is.

It has been a great privilege to be with this family as they have cared for James and for one another. They are great Christian people. There have been truly wonderful times of laughter, recollection and prayer. The Lord has sustained this family through these last few days and He has comforted them with His word.

I read these words of Jesus to James and the family last night,

"Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. 4 And you know the way to where I am going.” 5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:1-6

James knew this. He believed it. And it’s this confidence that continues to comfort Sarah, the family and those who love James.

It is likely that the funeral will happen in the middle of next week. Do continue to pray for Sarah if you are able.

With best wishes in Christ

richard

The following is from Sarah and was included in the order of service

Thank you for coming today and being part of this public farewell to James. It means a great deal to me and the rest of James’s family that you are here today.

Thank you for supporting James and I through his illness. So many different people have looked after us in many different ways since the tumour was diagnosed in October 2004. We are very grateful. Throughout James’s illness we have always felt cared for and supported by a multitude of people.

Today is a very sad day as we say goodbye to James. James was a wonderful, loving and caring man, and I was privileged to be his wife. James not being here any more leaves a huge hole. We are all grieving the loss of James, the loss of potential in our relationships and experiences that we won’t be able to share with him. There will be many things in the years to come that James would have loved.

But as we grieve, we are grieving for us missing out and not grieving that James can’t do or be all that he could have. James is now somewhere so much better – Heaven. Instead of struggling in this life, dealing with the limitations of his illness and the knowledge that his life here was ending: he is in Heaven where there is no pain and is rejoicing in God’s presence.

James was ready to go from this life to the next. He knew and understood what was happening and in God’s mercy he did not endure a long period of knowing his death was imminent. Between last Friday and Tuesday morning his family and I were all able to say goodbye. James left this world knowing he was very loved. He died peacefully and without pain in his sleep.

So although we mourn, and I will cry more than you all, it is a real comfort to share memories of James and to remember that it is we who are missing out on James, not the other way round, because James is somewhere amazing.

This passage from Isaiah 25: 6-9 reminds us how great Heaven is for James:

On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine— the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The LORD has spoken. In that day they will say, "Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation."

James and I hope that you will be able to say this too, so we can all meet again in Heaven.

Much love

Sarah

By virtue of an impressive web site, the notoriety following our ‘run in’ with the Bishop of Southwark and I’d like to think the growing reputation for an authentically biblical church life - CCB is now on the list of those shopping for churches. One of the joys of the London church scene is the number of visitors who unexpectedly turn up on any given Sunday.

But what do we say when they come browsing?

Of course we’d love people to stay. We’ve got a gospel work to run and we need workers. But we’re not alone in that. There are other churches. And there’s always the danger of sounding like the double glazing salesman who pushes a little too hard.

In general it’s fair to say that most people who visit have underestimated the impact that their decision to join could have on a church like ours. But just one person can make a massive difference. It creates a sense of momentum and confidence amongst those who are already involved.

And so these are three of the issues that I aim to cover during the conversation. I might not cover them using these headings but you’ll get the drift! 

1. Every new member brings their gifts which we’re keen to use! [1 Corinthians 12]

God has gifted every Christian with skills and abilities which they ought to use for the benefit of others.

And so whichever church they decide to join, it needs to be one in which they’re encouraged to identify their gifts, be trained is using them and then employ them to serve others. People don’t come to CCB for long before they find themselves on a rota for something! This is not a church for passengers but for participants.

2. Every new member brings their cash which we’re keen to spend! [2 Corinthians 8&9]

God has entrusted wealth into the hands of His people and they are expected to use it for the sake of His glory in the promotion of the gospel.

And whichever church they decide to join, it needs to be one that directs money towards gospel ministry. People aren’t at CCB for long before they become aware of our financial plans, our intention to launch a new gospel ministry and the need to resource it! This is a church for people who want to see their money spent on the concerns of the kingdom.

3. Every new member brings their network of friends which we’re to exploit! [Colossians 4]

God has placed us in a family, a community and a neighbourhood. We’re to seek to influence those with whom we rub shoulders for the glory of God.

And whichever church they decide to join, it needs to be one with an evangelistic priority. People aren’t at CCB for long before they hear about our next venture to reach Balham with the good news of Jesus Christ. This is a church for people who want to see their friends, family and neighbours engage with the gospel.

Conclusion

Someone came to CCB on the day when news of James Meagher’s imminent death was announced. We looked at 1 Thessalonians 4 together. We prayed for Sarah, his wife, and for James’ family. There were tears from some and thoughtfulness from all.

At the end of the meeting he said that he was looking for a church. I asked him what he was looking for. The predictable answer came back, ‘I like good worship’. I should have said something then and there but I didn’t. I should have said, ‘after what you’ve heard today you’re telling me that you’re going to choose your church on the basis of how they sing songs’. But I didn’t. And he’s not been back. And just in case you’re wondering, our music is brilliant!

Part 2 of a series of mini articles on Co-Mission

The Mission of Co-Mission

It’s helpful for us to be deliberate in what we’re doing. Someone once said that ‘you can tell the quality of a ministry but what they’re prepared to say no to’. This is the positive version of that! We’re trying to clarify what it is that God instructs us to do from the Bible.

Whilst we may feel that church has been hijacked by the Management Consultants it’s usually helpful to work out carefully what we’re trying to do, how we plan to go about it and what will characterise how we do it. In other words we want to identify our our mission, our strategy and our values.

For example we may decide that our mission is to woo someone we’ve had our eye on for a while! The strategy to implement that mission is a five fold mission employing a haircut, some new clothes, topics of conversation broader than sport and computer games, improved personal hygiene and flowers. The values that will characterise our endeavour might be charm and wit.

Likewise, at CCB, it’s been very helpful to clarify from God’s Word, the clear mission and purpose towards which we are working, a sensible strategy by which we intend to accomplish that Mission; and values which must characterise the way we conduct out Strategy.

Our extended Mission statement is:

‘To glorify God, responding to his grace in the sacrificial and holy worship of our whole lives, especially in ‘growing disciples for Christ - in London for the World’ who know Him in his Word, serve him in his Church and proclaim him in his World in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit, in joyful expectation of his coming kingdom and glory in fellowship with God’s people everywhere’.

I’m aware that’s a mouthful. It’s probably beyond us to memorise it. And we’re unlikely to use it in conversation with others about Co-Mission. However, it’s thorough and we’re convinced it’s biblically shaped. Let’s simplify things a little and concentrate on the central section.

We’re explicitly committed to growing disciples

1. who know Christ in his Word

This means that we prayerfully search the scriptures in our personal devotions, Sunday sermons and mid-week bible studies not to become clever or to conquer books but to know Christ more intimately.

2. who serve Christ in his Church

This means that we encourage each other in sacrificially serving each other in our church family as we laugh and cry and share our lives with one another as a counter-cultural community in a big city where it’s easy to feel unloved and isolated. There are lots of opportunities to serve and offer our gifts to the ministry here. Everyone needs to get involved, get on a rota for soemthing and not to remain spectators for too long!

3. who proclaim Christ in his World

This means we need to learn how to explain the Gospel message simply. But it also means that our compassionate ministry must be authenticated by our ‘Mercy Ministries’ where that’s possible. There are Street Teams in Central London helping the homeless and the Options Crisis pregnancy service we run in Wimbledon.

Our Mission is therefore Christ-centred, Bible-based and Outward-looking.

Part 1 of a mini series of articles on Co-Mission

The Direction of the Co-Mission Initiative

The aim of the Co-Mission Initiative is ‘to grow disciples for Christ – in London for the World’.

The Co-Mission Initiative derives its name from Jesus’ great words to his disciples at the end of Matthew 28. After a painful period of elders’ meeetings in which we talked over what to call our network of congregations it seemed the obvious thing to settle on. We’re a group of churches and ministries that are united in our desire to obey Jesus’ commission. And so when we need to summarise what we’re about we can be clear that we’re about ‘growing disciples for Christ, in London for the world’.

Richard Coekin, the Senior Pastor of the Co-Mission Initiative, has amplified what this means in his article, ‘Where are we going?’ Although it sounds like an admission of cluelessness it’s actually a ’direction setting’ document. In that article he identifies three particular challenges that the congregations face

1. We want to be growing disciples for Christ

Since we want to grow disciples for Christ we want to be more devoted to Jesus ourselves. We want to be disciples who are growing in our love for Jesus. And we want to attract disciples for him. We need to resist the temptation to gather disciples of ourselves, our church, our camp or our theological constituency. 

Our big book this year is ‘The John Project’ and that ought to help. John wrote that his purpose in writing was that we ‘might believe that Jesus is the Christ and that believing we might have life in his name’ [20:30&31]. And so as we prayerfully study this book we’ll draw near to Christ faith and discover what it means to have eternal life. Wouldn’t it be great if as a result of studying John’s Gospel we were inflamed with passion for Jesus and growing disciples devoted to Christ?

2. We want to be growing disciples of all nations

We want to be multi ethnic and not mono ethnic. In truth, with the possible exception of the SAEK, none of our congregations could really be regarded as homogeneous. But we recognise that we’ve a long way to go for providing a model of inter-racial integration to the watching world. And for this and other reasons we want to be more proactive in reaching the different cultures growing in London. We can reach the nations of the world from London because people from all nations are gathered here for business or study or to learn English. Rather than waiting for those cultures to come in through the church door, we need to build upon the work of the International Cafés and the summer mission ‘Live in London’.

3. We want to be growing disciples of Christ’s teaching

We want everyone, at their differing stages of faith, to have the opportunity of learning from God’s Word how to be disciples of Jesus in all of life. With Gavin McGrath’s appointment to the staff we can co-ordinate and develop our various training courses under the umbrella of the ‘Co-Mission Bible School. The range of training courses is extensive. We can provide

• ‘Christianity Explored’ for those exploring faith in Christ
• ‘Joining In’ for new church members
• ‘Knowing God’ for young adults
• ‘Ministry Matters’ and ‘Prepared to Serve’ for training in gospel ministry
• ‘Homegroups’ for established Christians

In addition we’re planning to write new courses like

• ‘God is at Work’ for improving our witness where we work at the office, on the ward or in the classroom
• the ‘Elders Training Course’ for Church Elders
• ‘Teach me to Pray’ to help us learn to pray

We want everyone to be able to grow as disciples of Christ from whatever stage and condition we at in our Christian life. None of us is the finished article. We all want to grow as disciples of our Lord Jesus.

As Richard Coekin has written, ‘We are now clear about our commitment in partnership with all the Co-Mission congregations and ministries’. We want to be

‘Growing disciples - for Christ – in London for the World’

Audio download available here http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php

It’s a very exciting day in the Barber household today, and rightly so. It’s not every day that your daughter is baptised and personally receives the promises of God. I’m delighted to be Ruth’s godfather. I haven’t got her anything just yet because I’ve been racking my brains trying to decide what will bring little girl satisfaction as she grows up. I have a history of not producing presents and claiming a ‘failure to locate the inspiration’ as the reason. I fear that it’s something that she may have to get used to.

But I didn’t mess up with Valentine’s Day this week. I got it just right. I bought Rosslyn something that she really, really wanted. She’d been searching for one for months and had been unsuccessful. But I found one. I bought her a sit up bar. And I got away with it. Stay with me. The reason for that is that we’ve both decided that we’re in the worst physical shape we’ve ever been in and it’s time to do something about it.

Trying to work out what to give our loved ones so that we might satisfy their deepest longings isn’t always so straightforward! In our verses this morning Jesus preaches a sermon in which he promises to satisfy the deepest longings of our souls not with material possessions [however desirable they may be] but with life from the Spirit.

The Feast of Tabernacles

The setting for this incident was the Feast of Tabernacles, as it was sometimes known, or the Feast of Booths. Look at (2).

The words ‘tabernacle’ or ‘booth’ simply mean ‘tent’. This was a festival when everyone lived in tents. It was like a modern day version of Glastonbury. It lasted for seven days. The purpose of the festival was to look back and to look forward. They looked back to the time when God had poured out his blessing in the physical provision of water. After God has rescued them in the exodus Israel wandered in the desert, they lived in tents and God sustained them with water. But they also looked forward to a time when God would pour out his blessing in the spiritual provision of the Holy Spirit. This was illustrated in a graphic ceremony. On each of the seven days of the festival a golden flagon was filled with water from the pool of Siloam. Led by the High Priest they would process back to the Temple. Three blasts from the ‘shofar’ trumpet were sounded as the procession approached the Watergate at the south side of the inner court. While the pilgrims watched the priests processing round the altar with the golden flagon the Temple Choir sang Psalms 113-118. The water was offered to God at the time of the morning sacrifice. The water was poured into a huge silver bowl and then poured out before the Lord. It was during this feast that Jesus decided to go up to Jerusalem and preach a short yet potent sermon. It’s recorded for us in (37-39). John records three significant issues.

1. Jesus promised to quench our spiritual thirst (37)

37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.

As you would imagine the feast of booths was quite an event. During the time of this festival the population of Jerusalem swelled from 250,000 to over two million. Imagine the drama of the occasion. It was the last and greatest day of the feast. Like the closing ceremony of the Olympics the festival had reached its climax. In the midst of the crowd Jesus stood up. And at the top of his voice, as far as his lungs would carry, he cried out to the assembled crowd, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink’. What did he mean? There are three important features to this promise

This is a promise of fulfilment

The outrage of Jesus’ claim is that he reckoned he could do everything that the festival promised. It’s as though Jesus was saying, ‘forget all that stuff, now that you’ve dismantled the tents and packed them away for another year you can forget about them. Everything that the festival anticipated is found in me, I’ve replaced it. You can do away with the ritual, impressive though it is, because the reality has arrived in me’. The blessings that God would pour out for His people were to be found in Jesus.

This is a promise of satisfaction

In Jesus’ opinion we’re spiritually parched and in need of a good drink until we come to him. He’s not talking about that feeling we have after an exhausting day with the kids and it finally gets to the time when we can sit down with a Gin and Tonic. Jesus promised to provide a drink that will satisfy our souls and give us the spiritual refreshment that we’re looking for. We need to recognise our spiritual thirst and our longings for understanding, significance, meaning, forgiveness and relationship. But more than that we need to realise that Jesus can satisfy it for us.

This is a promise of exclusivity

In Jesus’ opinion only he can quench our spiritual thirst. Every religious system and ideology promises satisfaction. They’d be hugely unpopular if they didn’t. I mean who’s going to become a devotee of a religion that says it can’t do anything for us. Of course, they differ in how satisfaction is to be found. Jesus was saying it’s found only by coming to him. Jesus is not saying he’s one drink amongst many. He’s not saying, ‘I’m like Sprite, Islam is like Orangina and Buddhism is like Dr Pepper and they can all quench your thirst even though they taste different’. Jesus is saying that every other religious leader is like sea water compared to him. It promises to quench our thirst but in actuality it creates an even greater thirst. Only Jesus can satisfy the deepest longings of our soul.

Imagine for a moment a household plant sat in the kitchen window. It’s not been watered all summer. The sun has been beating down on as it’s been exposed to the sun’s rays through the glass. It’s shrivelled and withered. It’s a pale shadow of what it’s supposed to be. Some of its leaves have turned brown and it’s on its last legs. It’s obvious that the thing it so desperately needs is water. Without it the plant will die.

Jesus was saying that without coming to him we are the human equivalent of that dried up plant. We’re a pale shadow of what we ought to be in relationship with him. Not everyone recognises their thirst. But this is Jesus’ take on the matter. Think about it, this was not a quiet invitation offered to a few friends in a gentle whisper. This was a public declaration to everyone who was there. Jesus issued a universal invitation to quench our spiritual thirst precisely because this is a universal need. And wonderfully he placed no restrictions on the offer. It’s for all and it’s for all time. The only thing that we need to qualify for this offer is a thirst for spiritual life in our souls.

2. The scriptures anticipated abundant living water (38)

38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”

Jesus clarified that to come to him and drink of this living water (37) is to believe in him (38). It means to accept him and welcome him as he is shown to us in the gospel. But Jesus’ point is to help us realise not only that he has made a striking invitation but that this is what the scriptures always anticipated. And so he said, ‘as the scripture has said’ and then quotes, ‘out of his heart will flow living water’. It’s not obvious that Jesus has one specific passage in mind. We can’t be absolutely certain which passage Jesus referred to as he spoke these words. But that doesn’t matter. If it did matter then he would have told us. It’s enough for us to know that the scriptures in general anticipated a situation where God would pour out his blessing on His people once again. And that’s a theme writ large throughout the prophets in particular. There are three things that the scriptures anticipated

The scriptures described internal blessing

Jesus said, ‘out of his heart will flow rivers of living water’. It sounds medically impossible. But the point is that God’s blessing is an inside thing. It’s something that happens deep down in the heart. Jesus wasn’t promising superficial external modification. He promised fundamental deep internal change in the very seat of our being. He promises to make us different from the inside out.

The scriptures described abundant blessing

Jesus said, ‘rivers would flow out’. The scriptures promised not a small dribble but rivers. The blessing of God would not be a miserly trickle but an expansive extravagance. The point is that we’ll be bursting with spiritual life like a raging torrent of water is bursting with life if we come to Jesus in faith.

The scriptures described inexhaustible blessing

That’s the point of the phrase, ‘living water’. This is water that’s alive and not dead. It’s a stream that will never need filling up. It’s a continual supply of water that’s self replenishing. The point is that the life that Jesus gives to his followers will never run out. He gives eternal spiritual life that lasts beyond the grave.

Rufus and I were in Northampton yesterday with his cousin and her Father. We went to watch Harlequins play the Saints at rugby. Franklin’s Gardens is a very impressive ground even in February. Just as you walk in the gate there’s a landscaped lake with fountains of water bubbling up from underneath the surface and spraying up incessantly. Now it’s that sort of picture that Jesus had in mind.

When Jesus stood up and said ‘come to me’ he was also saying ‘this is what was anticipated’. The scriptures expected that all God’s people would one day receive from His Messiah an abundance of spiritual life that would eternally sustain them. Jesus claimed to be providing the permanent inexhaustible supply of spiritual life that we need for our eternal spiritual existence.

3. John explained that Jesus referred to the Spirit (39)

39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

John now explained why Jesus could claim to provide spiritual life and how the scriptures had been fulfilled. John clarified that when Jesus spoke he used a metaphor. Though Jesus spoke about water John made it clear that Jesus was referring to the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. There’s God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. By which I don’t mean that there’s more than one God in the world. There’s only one unique God. But the one God has multiple persons, which doesn’t mean that God has a personality disorder. It means that there’s a complexity to God that we find hard to comprehend since He’s composed of three persons. God is simultaneously Father, Son and Spirit, each is a distinct person and each is equally divine, which is one reason why God is unique. This is not the place to explore the complexities of God’s Trinitarian existence. But what it means is that when Jesus promised his followers spiritual life that was no empty promise because he was talking about the Holy Spirit. And life is the Spirit’s area of expertise. Once again note three quick things about the gift of the Spirit.

This Holy Spirit would bring life to the dead

When Jesus promised that he would provide living water he was promising to provide life through the Spirit. The Spirit is the executor of the Trinity. He is the one in the world making things happen. The Father and the Son have ministries located primarily in heaven but the Spirit’s remit is to work this patch. His work in the world is to bring spiritual life to people who are spiritually dead as water brings life to a desert.

This Holy Spirit would be received by believers

The Spirit of God isn’t for everyone. The scope of the Spirit’s ministry is limited. He’s only for those who believe. Unbelievers don’t have the Spirit of God. This is a Christian thing. That’s not to say that he’s exclusive because everyone is welcome to benefit. Jesus has after all issued a public invitation. The point is that only the followers of Jesus possess the spiritual life of which he spoke. There’s a sense in which if we want our spiritual lives to shrivel and die that’s our own stupid fault!

This Holy Spirit would be given by the glorified Christ

The full outpouring of the Spirit had to await the glorification of Jesus. This is John’s way of referring to the events of the cross and resurrection when Jesus was lifted up in death and exalted to the right hand side of his Father in heaven. John’s point is not that that the Spirit had yet to exist nor that the Spirit had yet to operate but that He had not yet been given in the full sense of the term. Once Jesus was enthroned in his rightful place in heaven he could give His Spirit as a universal permanent mediator of God’s presence to His people.

This is the greatest blessing that we could wish for. It’s a promise of the presence of God in our lives. It’s a relationship with God that will satisfy. It’s not the ritual of the Feast of Booths. We may find comfort in the ritual of the Roman Catholic tradition or even High Church Anglicanism but it’s only in coming to Jesus Christ in faith that we’ll find our spiritual thirst quenched.

Conclusion

And so let me conclude, we’ve learnt that

• The spiritual life that we need is to be found only through faith in Jesus Christ.

• The spiritual life that we need has long been anticipated by the Old Testament scriptures.

• The spiritual life that we need is provided by the Spirit of God.

Our great prayer for Ruth this morning is not that she’ll find satisfaction in all the material possessions that the world has to offer. Our prayer for Ruth is that she might find the spiritual satisfaction that Jesus alone can provide for her soul. As we’ve learnt from Jesus’ words this morning this can only happen as she grows up and owns for herself the faith of her parents, as she comes to the same conclusion as Paul and Caroline about Jesus Christ and puts her trust in him.