food4thought

A kid’s slot for All Age Church aimed at infant children at CCB

William Wilberforce was a Christian Superhero who lived in the 18th Century. That’s over 200 years ago. A Christian superhero is just an ordinary person who does something extraordinary for God. I’ve got a picture of him here.

There are three things we can learn about this man.

1. He followed Jesus

God made William Wilberforce a follower of Jesus. He grew up in a family where no one read Bible stories to him and no one prayed with him. He first heard about Jesus when he was a teenager from a man called John Newton. But he started following Jesus when he was grown up. He went on holiday with one of his old teachers and they talked about God, Jesus and the Bible on the journey. It took him a while to understand things and even longer to accept them. But eventually he became a Christian. He did it even though his best friend who was about to become the Prime Minister of Great Britain tried to persuade him not to. He thought it was more important to become a follower of Jesus even if his friends didn’t want him to.

Every single one of us can decide to follow Jesus. Often our friends will try and tell us that’s a silly thing to do. Usually that’s because they haven’t understood how wonderful it is. We can help them just like John Newton and Isaac Milner helped Wilberforce by telling them all about Jesus. One of the ways we could do that is by asking our friends to come to the Easter party of Tuesday.

2. He loved people

God made William Wilberforce into a very compassionate man. A compassionate person loves people and looks after them to make sure that they’re alright.

Can you think of someone you know who’s compassionate?

Wilberforce was very rich and he had lots of friends. He could have completely ignored the poor people around him in this country. And he could have ignored people from Africa who were being used as slaves to make Britain rich.

Does anyone know what slavery is?

• Show what it’s like to be under the complete control of someone else by telling them what to do so that they do it and not letting them do what they want to do.

But he didn’t ignore the people who needed his help because he loved people. He saw the state that people were in and decided that he couldn’t let it go. They had no one else to help them and he wanted to.

Every follower of Jesus should be like that. Jesus once told a young man that God wanted him to do two things. The first was to love God and the second was to love other people. So God wants us to love people. There’ll be people at school or people who need friends and need help.

3. He changed things

God made William Wilberforce into a man who changed things. He became a Politician when he was young and that was the job he did as he grew up.

What job does your Mummy or Daddy do?

A Politician is someone who works for the Government. The Government make rules for the country so that people know what’s right and what’s wrong. His best friend was the Prime Minister and so he was very powerful. But he had to persuade people by talking to them that they ought to love the other people in this country and in this world.

Most of us won’t be as powerful as William Wilberforce but every single one of us can try and change things that are wrong. Sometimes that’ll mean we talk to people and try and get them to stop. Sometimes it’ll mean that we write a letter to the Government and get them to change what they’re doing. We won’t always persuade them but we need to try. Do you know that it took 46 years for Wilberforce to change the law about slavery. That’s older than all of you put together. It’s older than the oldest person here!

Conclusion

William Wilberforce was a very wonderful man that God used to change this country. Let’s ask God that he might make us like William Wilberforce so that we might follow Jesus, love people and change things. 

Talking about ‘closing the gate after the horse has bolted’! Here I am writing what to all intents and purposes looks like a review of a film released in 2004. Let it never be said that CCB hasn’t got it’s finger on the cultural pulse!

This isn’t really a review. You can get those elsewhere http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0001657.cfm. This is an apologetic.

We’re planning to show the film on Good Friday at 8pm, in the Bedford in Balham. The hope is that friends, not normally open to considering the issues thrown up by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ might feel willing to do so at this time of year. But whenever this film is discussed, in particular amongst evangelicals though not exclusively, three questions commonly arise. First, what about the violence? Secondly, what about the Catholic additions? And thirdly, what about the anti-Semitism? This short article attempts to deal with those potential objections to showing the film.

First, some introductory comments.

• You may not have realised that all the dialogue is in Aramaic! Wonderfully someone took Mel aside and persuaded him to add subtitles. They’re in Koine Greek. No, they’re not - honest. They’re in English.

• I’m told, because my powers of discernment are best employed critiquing films belonging to the action adventure and romantic comedy genres, that it’s a wonderful film. Elisa Beynon, writing in Evangelicals Now, said that it’s, ‘Beautifully shot, sensitively acted and incorporating an array of impressive technical effects, it’s impossible to watch The Passion without being emotionally drawn in’.

• No one should feel compelled to watch the film. We don’t have to see it to appreciate the work of Jesus Christ in his sacrificial substitution for sinners. We can read all about it in one of the four historical accounts that God has left us with. No one should feel under any obligation to come. However, because it’s a cinematographic work of some notoriety many who wouldn’t want to darken the doors of a church building might feel more at home in a pub, more at ease with a pint and more open to discussion than usual.

But let me deal with the objections with three observations

1. The violence is brutal but so was crucifixion

There’s no getting away from it. This is a violent film. It has an 18 Certificate, and rightly so. Gibson doesn’t draw back from depicting the horrors of Jesus’ mistreatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers. Dr James Dobson from the USA’s evangelical organisation Focus on the Family writes,

‘Although accurate to the biblical account, you need to know that the Passion of the Christ is excrutiatingly violent in its depiction of our saviour’s scourging and crucifixion. As such it is wholly inapporpriate for young children’. February 2004 Newsletter

The down side is that the film does not portray what it cannot portray, namely the spiritual suffering of Jesus. The film opens with the words from Isaiah 53 but inevitably those are forgotten as the narrative unfolds. Therefore the film obscures what the New Testament doesn’t; the enormity of Jesus’ substitutionary sin bearing sacrifice for sinners. The Bible teaches that the spiritual suffering of Jesus, when he endured his Father’s wrath against sin, is of far greater significance than even his horrific mistreatment at the hands of his captors.

2. The depiction is accurate but there are Catholic additions

Gibson has been influenced not only by the historical content of the four Gospels but by a work of Catholic piety called ‘The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ’ written by Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich. Al Mohler in his article, Passionate Controversy writes,

‘Gibson has combined elements from all four Gospels and has followed a story line that is fully recognisable from the biblical text. At the same time, he has undeniably added elements that are not found in the text and his use of cinematographic devices such as flashbacks, which may be necessary for the telling of the story, also compete with the overall accuracy of the presentation’. http://www.almohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-03-29

The Roman Catholic emphasis comes across in the following ways

• a disproportionate amount of attention is given to Jesus’ physical suffering to the neglect of his spiritual suffering
• to no one’s surprise Mary is given a significance in the film that the Gospels withhold from her
• the Stations of the Cross are incoporated within the narrative so the film drags as Jesus travels from his trial to his crucifixion

3. The Jews are implicated but so are the Gentiles

It’s perhaps easy to see why the Jewish community might be offended by the film. The American Abraham Foxman asked in a public letter to Mel Gibson ‘to be assured that it will not give rise to the old canard of charging Jews with deicide and to anti-Semitism’. On hearing that, I’m reminded of a sketch by an Irish comedian who reminds us that it wasn’t the Poles who killed Jesus! He’s got a point. But perhaps something more substantial is required. Elisa Beynon quotes a comment by a Spanish Evangelical Alliance writer, ‘To say this is anti-Semitic would be like saying that a World War II film critical of Nazism is anti-German’. It’s less funny but it makes the same point. But as Al Mohler points out all this discussion about supposed anti-Semitism obscures the real issue. He writes,

‘The question, ‘who killed Jesus?’ should direct us to the historical reality, clearly presented in teh gospels, that complicity between the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities led to Christ’s crucifixion. But the larger point - and the essential theological point - is that Christ died for our sins. This the correct answer to the question, ‘Who killed Jesus?’ is we did. Christ died for sinners. That is the central theme of the New Testament gospel and it is the essential answer Christians must give, not only in the face of this controversy, but as the essence of our Christian witness’. Al Mohler, Newsweek Takes on the New Testament

Conclusion

If you feel able to come and friends are willing to join you why not familiarise yourself with the gospel accounts, arm yourself with fresh resolve to fill in the gaps and make use of the Good Book Company tracts that we’ll have available. Find a copy here http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/productfiles/tpojcp-lo-res%20flyer.pdf.

It’s worth thinking how you’d advance a conversation after this film. Each of these imperfections provides an opportunity to address a significant issue.

• The flawed depiction of the spiritual suffering endured by Christ is an opportunity to speak about God’s righteous and justified wrath against human rebellion.
• The flawed depiction of the historical verifiable events provides an opportunity to talk about the reliability of the witness God has preserved in the Gospels.
• And the flawed depiction of those ultimately responsible for Jesus’ death provide an opportunity to speak the way we’re all implicated in what happened. 

The first time I watched the fil I say it in a room with over 200 church leaders. At the end no one prayed publicly. That was a mistake. Overwhelmed by what I saw I came away with one thought in my head. He did that for me. We should have prayed.

If you’d like more information follow up some of thse links.

A review by Elisa Beynon in Evangelicals Now http://www.e-n.org.uk/2967-The-Passion-in-fashion.htm

Al Mohler has commented at various points and his thoughts can be found here http://www.almohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-03-29, here http://www.almohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-02-10 and here http://www.almohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2003-10-01.

Let’s be honest, one of the attractive features of this book is its length. It’s short. It’s only 76 pages. I managed to get through it in two grande lattes in the Balham Starbucks!

And it’s available for a little over £4 from Amazon. Though the postage costs means that you’re better of popping into your local Christian bookshop.

But neither the length nor the price of a book should be the touchstone of a book’s value. We shouldn’t just read books because they’re cheap and brief! Not unless we want to remain stunted in our Christian growth. So let me try and persuade you to read this book by giving you a flavour of its contents and a critique of its style.

Jonathan Aitken, the disgraced Conservative Minister and now committed Christian man, has written the foreword. In it he says,

‘John Piper’s succinct and superbly perceptive study of William Wilberforce deserves to become an acclaimed best seller, for it not only tells the story of a great man’s life - it also tells us how to understand the ultimate source of his greatness and happiness. Moreover, that understanding goes far deeper than the abolitionist achievements for which Wilberforce is honoured, astounding though they were. William Wilberforce’s secret, as revealed in this book, was that he made the journey from self-centredness, achievement-centredness, and political-centredness to God-centredness. And he made it with Christlike joy’. p17, Amazing Grace in the life of William Wilberforce

Aitken is right on the money. This book is not simply the celebration of a great man but a reminder that a lively Christian faith made Wilberforce the man he was.

The book consists of six main chapters and an introduction.

Wilberforce was engaged in the battle against slavery for over 46 years. That’s an extraordinary length of time to singlemindedly pursue an apparently impossible goal. And so in the introduction Piper begins by explaining that the impetus for Wilberforce’s endurance was his conviction of foundational biblical doctrines. This is not simply Piper’s personal opinion but instead is deduced from a careful reading of Wilberforce’s own thoughts in his book ‘A Practical View of Christianity’. And so, in Parliament his political enterprise was driven not by a desire for re-election but for the spiritual reformation of a nation. As Piper writes, ‘He believed with all his heart that new affections for God were the key to new morals and lasting political reformation’. And so he was not a political pragmatist but a deeply convinced Christian man.

In Chapter 1 Piper rehearses Wilberforce’s early life and in particular his conversion. He became acquainted with evangelicalism via his childhood Aunt with whom he was sent to stay after the death of his Father. He was converted to Christianity out of nominal church allegiance through an ex-school Housemaster and friend, Isaac Milner. His conversion came about through reading and discussing with Milner the ideas raised in Philip Doddridge’s ‘The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul’. For Wilberforce It was not a straightforward decision to become a Christian. He was tormented by the implications for his political life. By this time he had formed a great friendship with William Pitt, who would shortly go on to become the Prime Minister. Pitt told Wilberforce that if he became an evangelical, as opposed to a nominal churchman, he would ‘render your talents useless both to yourself and mankind’. That’s like Gordon Brown taking you to the pub and talking you out of becoming a Christian! Following what he described as his ‘great change’ Wilberforce acquired a new resolve to learn the faith. In the months of recess from Parliament he would study nine or ten hours a day, giving himself to recovering the lost ground from a wasted past.

Wilberforce wrote the following in his diary on October 28, 1787

‘God Almighty has set before me two great Objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners’ [by which he meant morality].

It would become for him his lifelong work. And so in Chapter 2 Piper takes up this aspect of his life. It soon becomes readily apparent that the abolition of the slave trade required irrepressible determination. Wilberforce faced personal, political and economic opposition. The British economy benefited hugely from the plantations in the West Indies which were manned by African slaves. There would be global political ramifications if Britain unilaterally outlawed slavery. There were many personal vested interests in the slave trade. Wilberforce not only had to cope with the painful desertion of friends but his life was threatened on more than one occasion. The victory came at 4 am on February 24, 1807. At one point, Piper writes,

the House rose almost to a man and turned towards Wilberforce in a burst of Parliamentary cheers. Suddenly, above the roar of ‘Hear, hear,’ and quite out of order, three hurrahs echoed and echoed while he sat, head bowed, tears streaming down his face’. p38 Amazing Grace

He responded by turning to his best friend, Henry Thornton and asked, ‘Well, Henry, what shall we abolish next?’

In chapter 3 Piper maintains that Wilberforce was neither a one issue man nor a man with merely an agenda for social justice. He was involved in a wide range of inititiatives that sought both the physical and spiritual good of others. Piper writes,

‘It was the very diversity of the needs and criems and injustices that confirmed his evangelical conviction that one must finally deal with the root of all these ills if one is to have a lasting and broad influence for good’. p42 Amazing Grace.

One thing the forthcoming film, ‘Amazing Grace’, neglects to emphasize is what Piper calls his ’steady relational ministry … seeking to win his unbelieving colleagues to personal faith in Jesus Christ’. His passion for unbelievers is evidenced by his conversations with friends and also his support of overseas Christian missionary activity.

Chapter 4 is an extended treatment of Wilberforce’s extraordinary perseverance. Though his Parliamentary Bills were often defeated he never was. Throughout his life Wilberforce faced four major obstacles. He endured political opposition, personal slander, family troubles and personal illness. He was often maligned and criticised for his high moral stance on various issues. He dealt with the dejection and depression of his wife, Barbara, the death of his 22 year old daughter and the desertion of his three sons from evangelical biblical faith into high church anglicanism. And he perservered despite his bad eyesight, ulcerated bowels, dependence on opium and the development of a curvature of the spine.

Piper argues in Chapter 5 that the root of Wilberforce’s endurance was not simply the cameraderie of his friends but his joy in Christ. On the occasion of Wilberforce’s death, Piper records, a man called Joseph Brown spoke in St Paul’s Church Middlesex and said of him,

He was also a most cheerful Christian. His harp appeared always to be in tune; no ‘gloomy atmosphere of a melancholy morsoeness’ surrounded him; his sun appeared to be always shining: hence he was remarkably fond of singing hymns, both in family prayer and when alone. He would say, ‘A Christian should have joy and peace in believing [Romans 15:13]: It is his duty to abound in praise’. p58 Amazing Grace

We might expect, given Piper’s obsession with ‘Christian Hedonism’, that he’d find this in Wilberforce’s life! He writes,

‘So for Wilberforce, joy was both a means of survival and perseverance on the one hand, and a deep act of sumission, obedience and worship on the other hand. Joy in Christ was commanded, And joy in Christ was the only way to flourish fruitfully through decades of temporary defeat’. p63 Amazing Grace

But Piper hasn’t imposed it. It’s all over Wilberforce’s writings as he demonstrates. But this was a joy for which Wilberforce had to labour and strive when troubled by personal struggles and by disappointments at his own failures. This perpsective on Wilberforce’s life is perhaps the greatest contribution of the book. I found myself returning to it and spontaneously asking the Lord for the same joy that enlivened and sustained Wilberforce.

Piper concludes his book in Chapter 6 by establishing that the source of Wilberforce’s joy in Christ came from the ‘great doctrines of the Bible’. Wilberforce expressed it in this way,

If we would … rejoice in Christ as triumphantly as the first Christians did; we must learn, like them to repose our enture trust in him and to adopt the language of the apostle, ‘God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of Jesus Christ’ [Galatians 6:14], ‘who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption’ [1 Corinthians 1:30]’

Obviously one of the great doctrines that Wilberforce so loved was the redemptive sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Wilberforce knew that the lack of spiritual affections and appetite for spiritual reformation could be attributed to the widespread influence of a spiritually destitute church and therefore widespread nominal Christianity. He knew that social reformation would only come only through personal reformation and that personal reformation would only come through the gospel of Christ. That’s why he wrote his book. He makes clear the role of justification in stimulating sanctification when he writes,

‘The true Christian … knows therefore that this holiness is not to precede his reconciliation to God, and be its cause; but to follow it, and be its effect. That, in short, it is by faith in Christ only that he is to be justified in the sight of God’. A Practical View of Christianity

This is a great little book because as Aitken says in the foreward, ‘the reader is also given a profoundly perceptive picture of how Wilberforce lived his life spiritually, from the inside’. You could pay a lot more and have to plough through more pages and still not find a book that’ll instruct you as much in the joys of knowing and serving Christ as Piper’s does.

Despite a valiant effort by Baroness O’Cathain on Wednesday night her amendment to the proposed Sexual Orientation regulations was defeated in the House of Lords by 168 votes to 122. The SORs will therefore become law. For the background to the SORs follow the links here http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2007/03/20/sors-meeting-with-sadiq-khan/.

This is how the matter was reported by Christian Concern for our Nation

http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/sor/22mar7.php

This is how the result was reported by the Christian Institute

http://www.christian.org.uk/soregs/lords_result_21march2007.htm

The judicial review on the Northern Ireland version of the regulations goes ahead as planned in June. This court action may yet have implications for Great Britain. We should continue to pray for success in the courts.

‘The emergent church is part of the Emerging Church movement but does not embrace the dominant ideology of the movement. Rather, the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates post modernity’.

Mark Driscoll wrote those words in ‘Confessions of a Reformission Rev’ published by Zondervan, 2006, p21. Driscoll is part of the Emerging Church movement in the States but now distances himself from what’s become known as the Emergent stream because of their liberal theological trajectory.

Don Carson has written a book on this subject entitled, ‘Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church’. Of this book David Jackman, the President of the Proclamation Trust, writing in Evangelicals Now says,

‘He has developed a penetrating biblical critique of this widely diversified development out of orthodox evangelicalism. But he does it with sensitivity, generosity, in an irenical spirit and with a genuine desire to understand the movement and its implications’ http://www.e-n.org.uk/3204-Becoming-conversant-with-the-emerging-church.htm.

A truncated summary of Carson’s arguments are available in an article here http://www.modernreformation.org/dac05emerging.htm.

• His book would be well worth pursuing for a thorough understanding of this phenomenon and is available here http://www.mannachristiancentre.com/product/6710.htm.
• Here is a terrific interview in which he makes his salient points in dialogue form http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week845/interview2.html.

My intention in this short article is much more modest. At the end we may not be conversant with the Emerging Church but we may at least be able to recognise it in the crowd. The links provided throughout the piece and those included at the end should be followed up if you’d like something more than a vague recognition of the Emerging Church!

1. What is the Emerging Church?

When one of the leading writers in the movement, Spencer Burke, runs an Emerging Church web site called theooze.com you know that defining the movement is going to be like pinning jelly to the wall! Burke actually writes,

‘the various parts of the community are like mercury. Try to touch the liquid or constrain it, and the substance will resist. Rather than force people to fall into line, an oozy community tolerates differences and treats people who hold opposing views with great dignity. To me, that’s the essence of the emerging church’. Quoted in Carson’s article http://www.modernreformation.org/dac05emerging.htm.

This therefore means that any general review of the Emerging rationale and enterprise will be just that, general. Since the movement is extraordinarily diverse it’s not possible to lump everyone in together. Nevertheless it is possible to identify a number of distinguishing features about this movement.

a. It’s an attempt to reach a post modern generation

Right at the heart of the emerging church movement is a desire to reach out to the so called ‘Y Generation’. This group of people have imbibed post modernism and are alienated from the Bible and from church. David Jackman defines the emerging church as follows,

‘The emerging church thesis is that the radical changes from the modern to the post modern, in Western culture, signal that a new church needs to emerge and is indeed emerging. Its values and methodologies need to be embraced and followed if the current evangelical church is not to become washed up on the beach of irrelevance, like a fossilised relic’. http://www.e-n.org.uk/3204-Becoming-conversant-with-the-emerging-church.htm

b. It’s a protest against evangelicalism, modernism and mega churches

Carson makes the point that many of the emerging church leaders have emerged out of traditional evangelicalism into the emerging church. Their reasons for doing so are usually increased disenchantment with corrupting authority structures, cultural disengagement and obsession with congregational size.

c. It’s a conversation with many dialogue partners

The movement prides itself on being a conversation because this panders to the post modern conviction that there is no absolute truth claim and so every voice is a legitimate contribution. Mark Driscoll writing in the Criswell Theological Review, quotes Ed Stetzer, a missiologist with the Southern Baptist Convention http://criswell.files.wordpress.com/2006/03/3,2%20APastoralPerspectiveontheEmergentChurch%5BDriscoll%5D.PDF. Stetzer argues that the emerging church includes three distinct types of Christians namely ‘Relevants’, ‘Reconstructionists’ and ‘Revisionists’.

The Relevants

The Relevants seek to be more relevant for the post modern generation. In general they do so maintaining their reformed theological framework but through modifying the styles and structures of church life. Driscoll argues that within this group there are a significant number of Reformed Relevants who look to men like John Piper, Tim Keller and Don Carson for theological direction. The critique levelled against this group is that they’re doing little more than conducting cool church for the younger generation.

The Reconstructionists

The Reconstructionists seek to reconstruct the way in which Church is organised and functions. They are generally evangelical but dissatisfied with the lack of authenticity amongst contemporary evangelical churches. The critique levelled against this group is that they recruit from amongst disaffected Christians coming out of the seeker sensitive mega churches of North America.

The Revisionists

The Revisionists seek to revise not only church practice but also the Christian faith. The critique levelled against this group is best expressed by Mark Driscoll. He says they are, ‘theologically liberal and question key evangelical doctrines, critiquing their appropriateness for the emerging post modern world’.

2. Where are we likely to come across the Emerging Church?

In the UK the leading proponent of emergent ideas is Steve Chalke, the founder of the Oasis Trust and Faithworks and the Pastor of Church.co.uk based in Waterloo. Brian McClaren, who Carson regards as the most articulate speaker of the Emerging Church in the US, is quoted as saying that Chalke’s book ‘could help save Jesus from Christianity’. I have reviewed Chalke’s book here http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2006/10/19/steve-chalkes-the-lost-message/. With the ever increasing usage of pod casting and vod casting we’re likely to see the best and the worst of the Emerging Church influencing Generation Y in the UK.

3. What’s positive about the Emerging Church?

Amidst the justified critique of this movement we mustn’t lose sight of their concern to reach a post Christian world. Since many of the leading proponents grew up in a theologically reformed and culturally conservative milieu that became increasingly isolated from main stream culture there is an admirable desire to engage with the secular culture. Carson writes,

‘The staying component in what they’re doing is the missional concern to reach a new generation of biblically illiterate people who don’t know any of the theological jargon, don’t know that the Bible has two testaments, don’t know how it’s put together. The emphasis on understanding the culture, reaching out to people - all of those things are hugely important. They have a staying power. They’re part of Christian confessionalism, Christian mission, in every generation’. [PBS Interview]

4. What’s worrying about the Emerging Church?

Carson cites five areas of failure reflected in representative emergent thinking

1. They fail to appreciate the significance of non-omniscient truth claims.

These are essential to the Christian faith because that’s what doctrine is. Post modernism denies this epistemological claim to know the truth. But they fail to distinguish incomplete knowledge from insufficient knowledge. In other words although we cannot express truth exhaustively [because we’re not omniscient] we can express it adequately [because the omniscient God has spoken]. Carson puts it this way,

‘It is important to say that we can never have the knowledge of God, what might be called an omniscient access to truth - that is the access to truth only a mind that knows everything can actually have. Post modern sensibilities have, in fact, helped to remind us that we can only know things as finite human beings can know things. But if you set the bar for the possibility of talking about knowledge at the level of omniscience, of actually being able to know something perfectly and absolutely, the bar is just set too high - it’s unrealistic. I’d want to say that human beings can know things not with the certainty that belongs only to God, but with all kinds of degrees of certainty on which you base your life - the kinds of knowledge that are appropriate to human beings’. [PBS Interview]

2. They fail to face and answer tough questions.

Post modernism does not welcome dogmatic answers. So it shouldn’t surprise us that the elading figures of the Emerging Church are elusive masters of the non-answer. Listen to Carson again,

‘It’s not because he doesn’t want to give any answer at all, it’s because he wants to give answers that are fuzzy. That is his intent. It’s not because he is a clever diplomat who is trying to avoid the toughest questions by using ambiguous answers of a diplomatic cast, but everybody who understands the language knows what he really means. He really does want all of these edges taken away. He wants to avoid what he perceives to be the angularity of confessional truth. And he’s very good at dancing around. He’s very good at it. At the end of the day, it seems to me that it avoids some of the angularities of the Bible itself’. [PBS Interview]

3. They fail to submit to scripture in every area of doctrine.

Carson states,

‘Many in the movement use scripture in one fashion or another. But I have yet to see any serious work from this camp, studying scripture closely, thinking of scripture carefully. It tends to be a kind of proof-texting, pick-a-text-to-prove-a-point sort of approach rather than really getting inside a biblical book or a chunk of scripture and thinking it out and bowing before it. In other words, scripture really must have a reforming power in our lives. It’s got to say where we’re wrong as well as encourage us where we’re wounded and forgive us where we are repentant sinners, and so forth. The scripture has a lot of different effects. But one of the effects it must have is to correct us. What I do not hear from this camp is the kind of serious wrestling with scripture that will enable scripture to contradict not only modernism but [also] postmodernism’. [PBS Interview]

4. They fail to demarcate between believers and unbelievers.

The reason for this is that once the post modern assertion that confessionalism is bad is uncritically accepted there are then no boundaries to acceptable and unacceptable belief. Christianity then ceases to be belief in confessional truths. Nothing is wrong and everything can be embraced. Of course, there needs to be a place where people can ask questions and voice their scepticism. But people are in danger of joining a movement without coming to faith in the Jesus of the Gospel. The blurred distinction between becoming and belonging obscures the necessity of responding to Christ in repentance and faith.

5. They fail to handle exegetical and historical facts in a responsible way.

Carson’s comment on McLaren’s book, ’A Generous Orthodoxy’ is withering,

‘Every chapter has some useful insights and every chapter overstates arguments, distorts history, attaches excessively negative terms to all the things with which McLaren disagrees …. And almost never engages the Scriptures except occasionally in proof-texting ways’. [Modern Reformation]

5. Where can I read more about the emerging church?

For a reformed critique on the emerging church the following are resources that I’ve found helpful.

• What’s Emerging in the Church, Jeffery Jue, http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Issues/2006_Issues_1_16_/2006_Issues_1_16_Articles/What_s_Emerging_in_the_Church/82/
• ‘A Generous Orthodoxy’ by Al Mohler, is a book review of Brian McLarens’s book in which Mohler argues that there’s very little orthodoxy to be found in it. Find it here http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-06-20.
• Al Mohler’s ‘What should we think of the Emerging Church?’ comes in two parts with part 1 here http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-06-29 and part 2 here http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-06-30
• Don Carson’s article from Modern Reformation includes more of a critique of post modernism http://www.modernreformation.org/dac05emerging.htm.
• A Pastors’ and Theologians’ Forum on the Emerging Church is found here http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598014%7CCIID2249672,00.html
• Mike McKinley has written a book review on Mark Driscoll’s books ‘The Radical Reformission’ and ‘Confessions of a Reformission Rev’ here http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598014%7CCIID2249682,00.html
• Shane Rogerson sizes up Mark Driscoll in ‘Reaching out without selling out’, The Briefing, Issue 342, March 2007.
• Phil Colgan takes a look at Nooma DVDs in ‘The Nooma Revolution’ in the Briefing, Issue 342, March 2007.

One of our church elders and I met with the Sadiq Khan, MP for Tooting, Balham, Earlsfield and Wandsworth Common this morning in Westminster. Sadiq is a delightful man. He listened to our concerns, understood them and agreed to write on our behalf to Meg Munn, the Minister Responsible for the SORs. I undertook at that meeting to send a copy of our representation to him. This is a copy of the letter that was sent.

Dear Sadiq

Thank you for meeting us this morning and for allowing us to express our concerns about the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs).

We recognise that these regulations have now passed through the House of Commons. Although there’s a vote in the House of Lords on Wednesday we accept that it’s unlikely that they will be sent back to the Commons since all three major parties have supported the legislation. However, we remain hopeful that Baroness O’Cathain’s amendment will meet with widespread support and the Peers are persuaded to reject the SORs in their current form.

The essence of our discussion this morning was that in the delicate balancing act between the freedom of personal sexual expression and personal religious freedom this legislation discriminates against faith communities. We obviously made representation on behalf of your Christian constituents at Christ Church Balham (CCB). Our issue was not so much with the protection and exemption afforded to religious organisations but that ordinary Christian men and women will be forced by this legislation to act against their consciences or risk being sued.

I mentioned five important qualifying statements.

First, we are not homophobic. Homophobia is an irrational prejudice against homosexual people and leads to unfair discrimination. As Christians we want to love our neighbours irrespective of their sexual orientation. Many of our congregation have homosexual friends. I was converted to Christianity through a dear friend who is now a practising gay man. Within our congregations we have men and women of homosexual orientation who continue to reject the homosexual lifestyle. But though we are not homophobic we do stand by the Bible’s teaching that the only appropriate place for sexual activity is within the marriage relationship.

Secondly, in general Christians will be very happy to provide goods and service to people of different sexual orientation. In most circumstances there will be no need for discrimination. But in some instances the SORs compel Christians to promote or assist what the Bible regards as sinful sexual activity. Christians would therefore become complicit in sin themselves.

Thirdly, we understand that the Government wants to protect homosexual people from homophobic harassment. We laud and support the Government in the efforts to provide that.

Fourthly, we would not choose to campaign on the homosexual issue and realise that for many people this brings unwelcome attention. Not least, to those of a homosexual orientation within our own congregations. This has become an issue on which we have needed to say something because the traditional liberty of religious conscience is being threatened by Government legislation.

Fifthly, we appreciate the protection given to religious organisations but we seek further protection and exemption from the SORs for individuals. The Christian faith is not simply about doing Christian things on a Sunday, it’s about living in obedience to Jesus Christ throughout the rest of the week. This will mean that under some circumstances Christians will decide it’s inappropriate to allow their expertise to be employed.

The three specific examples that I provided from with our own congregations were as follows:

1. The SORs will require Christian teachers to teach that homosexual civil partnerships and sexual activity is equivalent to marriage. Both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Joint Committee on Human Rights recognise that the curriculum is not exempt from these regulations. So for example, one of our primary school teachers would be vulnerable to a legal case being brought against him or her if they thought and taught that homosexual activity was immoral.

2. The SORs will require our self employed personnel to facilitate, condone and promote sinful homosexual practice or risk litigation. So for example, if the Pink Paper sought the services of our Management Consultants, our Graphic Designers or the Printing Company whose offices we’ve been using and any one of those Companies decided that in conscience they couldn’t help the Pink Paper because of their homosexual agenda they would be acting unlawfully.

3. The SORs will require our church leaders to reinvent or remain silent on the Bible’s teaching on sexual ethics. This appears to be an inadvertent error in drafting but I am advised by Christian Lawyers that there is a crucial gap in the protection of Vicars and Ministers because of a potential breach of either Regulation 9 or Regulation 11.

In essence this legislation makes it illegal for our congregation to live by the Bible’s teaching. In some instances it requires us to quash our conscience or makes us law breakers. That can’t be a good thing for the Government to propose.

Thank you for your willingness to pass our concerns on to Meg Munn. We look forward to hearing her response.

Yours sincerely

Richard Perkins

What are the odds of getting Christians, Jews and Muslims to agree on something? With one single piece of ill conceived legislation the Government have achieved what years of inter faith dialogue have failed to accomplish. But that’s not as encouraging as it sounds.

Consider the following three statements.

The Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright

“This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. …the idea that new Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years; I am sorry, this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.” The Times, 30 January 2007

The Muslim Council of Britain

“The Muslim Council of Britain fully supports the principled stand taken by the leaders of the Catholic and Anglican churches on the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs). The right to practise one’s faith… is a cornerstone of our society…” MCB Press Release, 25 January 2007

The Federation of Synagogues

“This legislation is forcing religious groups to operate against their convictions and that sets a very dangerous precedent.” The Jewish Chronicle, 2 February 2007

Spokesmen for all three faiths have identified the threat to religious belief posed by the Sexual Orientation Regulations [SORs]. Now, religious leaders are not known for straight talking, perhaps especially Anglicans! So when someone like Tom Wright uses the word ‘arrogance’ and aims it at the Government we ought to sit up and take notice.

I have written on the SORs elsewhere http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2007/01/02/sexual-orientation-regulations/. I wrote to several Peers in anticipation of the forthcoming debate this Wednesday http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2007/03/14/sors-letter-to-house-of-lords/ . I’d encourage you to read the material from the links to the Christian Institute and Christian Concern for our Nation.

In essence, these regulations will make it illegal for anyone who provides goods, services, facilities, premises, education or public functions to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Therefore, under these regulations Christians would be compelled to be involved in promoting behaviour the Bible teaches is immoral or face litigation and prosecution. In balancing the freedom of people to exercise their own sexual ethics and the freedom of people of the Christian faith to exercise their religious conscience the pendulum has swung well and truly in the favour of sexual activity.

There are four main areas that will be impacted by these regulations

1. Provision of teaching on sexual ethics in Schools

The curriculum must comply with these regulations regardless of what the Government claims. Both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments [the Parliamentary Lawyers] and the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated that though the SORs are unclear they ought to apply to what is taught in schools. Therefore, the teachers in our congregation would be required to teach that homosexual relationships are just as acceptable as married relationships. If they failed to do so and a parent felt that a pupil had been disadvantaged by the homosexual position not being advocated he or she would have been deemed to have acted illegally.

2. Provision of advice in the medical profession

Within the SORs there is no protection for individuals to guarantee their freedom of conscience. Therefore, a Christian GP would not be able to refuse to give a reference recommending homosexual parents as suitable for adopting because the GP did not consider it would be right or in the best interests of the child to be raised without a father and a mother.

3. Provision of goods or services by our self employed personnel

If any of our self employed personnel are approached by a homosexual group wanting to employ their services they are obliged by the SORs to quash their Christian convictions. They could therefore be required to be involved in promoting activities that he or she believes to be immoral.

4. Provision of Bible teaching on the issue of sexual ethics

It will be illegal for Church Pastors to teach a congregation that they should follow the Bible’s teaching on sexual morality even when it conflicts with the SORs. So if one of our staff were to teach that the Christian GP should follow the Bible’s teaching and risk being sued rather than be involved in encouraging immoral activity they would be vulnerable to litigation.

It doesn’t take long to realise that dear friends within our church are threatened by these regulations if they decide to live obediently to the Bible’s teaching. It seems very likely that we will lose the debate in both Houses. The Government are pushing this through regardless of the concerns of many and to the consternation of many MPs. Iain Duncan-Smith, the ex-Conservative Leader said

‘There should have been a full SOR debate in the House of Common, the procedure used by the Government has brough Parliament into disrepute’. 15th March 2007

Some who choose to obey the Bible’s teaching will be sued. A few many decide to go to prison rather than pay the financial penalty. Our children may one day ask what we did to oppose the persecution of Christian teaching. What will you say?

Posted this a month ago but it’s disappeared - in all likelihood due to my incompetence! There’s a new link at the bottom.

It’s weeks till Easter and the press are already running a ‘we’ve found Jesus’ bones’ story.

Today’s Daily Telegraph asks the question, ‘Did this casket contain Christ’s bones?’ See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/27/wchrist27.xml. The film director James Cameron, of Titanic fame, claims to have located the burial casket of Jesus Christ. And would you believe it, he’s only gone and made a documentary about it!

So, did this casket contain Christ’s bones? No, of course it didn’t. Read the gospel accounts. It’s not rocket science. All four of them state that Christ rose from the dead. He still has his bones. He needs them.

Christ rose from the dead. All the reliable historical evidence points to that conclusion. James Cameron might not agree with it but he’s got to get over it. But at least the opponents of Christianity have correctly realised one thing. Christianity stands and falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without a resurrected, reigning Lord Christianity is a ‘ball of fluff’ and as my American colleague brilliantly says, ‘we’re all going to hell in a hand basket’. 

If we’re prepared to open our minds and consider the evidence there is however a credible case for the Christian conclusion. We know two things for certain.

We know that Jesus died on the cross

Jesus hung there for three hours having endured unspeakable torture from his captors [Matthew 27:27-54]. The Roman soldiers thought it unnecessary to break his legs and hasten death by asphyxiation because in their opinion they were certain he’d already passed away [John 19:31-37]. The flow of separated blood and water from the spear wound in his side recorded in John’s gospel medically confirms this. Pilate only handed over his body to Joseph of Arimathea for burial once he’d received word from the centurion that he was dead [Mark 15:42-47]. Jesus was definitely dead.

We know that Jesus was seen alive

Over the space of 40 days Jesus appeared to over 500 different people on several different occasions. In the gospel accounts we read that Jesus appeared

• to Mary Magdalene [Mark 16:9-11, John 20:11-18]
• to the other women at the tomb [Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, John 20:1-9]
• to Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus [Luke 24:13-32]
• to Peter in Jerusalem [Luke 24:34]
• to eleven disciples on the mountain in Galilee [Matthew 28:16-20, Mark 16:15-18]
• to the ten apostles when Thomas was absent [Mark 16:14, Luke 24:36-43, John 20:19-25]
• then a week later to the same crowd when Thomas was there [John 20:26-31] 
• to seven apostles at the Sea of Tiberias [John 21:1-23]
• and then on the Mount of Olives prior to his ascension [Luke 24:44-49]

If we were to call each one of the witnesses to a court of law to be cross examined for just 15 minutes each and you went round the clock without a break it would take from breakfast on Monday until supper on Friday to hear them all. And their testimony could be reduced to one simple truth, ‘I saw a man who had died raised back to life again’.

These two facts are indisputable. The question is what happened in between?

Three common explanations are given

1. The first suggestion is that Jesus’ body was revived

The theory goes that Jesus didn’t actually die, he just appeared to. What is alleged to have happened is that Jesus fell unconscious, was placed in the tomb and after several hours he was revived by the cool air of the tomb arose and departed. There are several problems with this

• there was no way Jesus was still alive after the beating, crucifixion and flesh wound he suffered
• there was no way the Roman soldiers failed to kill their victims, they were professional killers
• there was no way Jesus could have woken up, unravelled the grave clothes, heaved the tombstone open, slipped past the guard and presented himself to the disciples in a fit state to convince them that he’d been raised from the dead

It’s nonsense to believe that Jesus’ body was revived.

2. The second suggestion is that Jesus’ body was removed

The theory goes that Jesus died but once he’d been put in the tomb his body was secretly stolen. There are three different groups who might have taken it.

The body could have been stolen by grave robbers

But it’s unlikely that they would have got passed the Roman guard. But even if they had it doesn’t make any sense because they left the only things of value, the grave clothes. On top of that you couldn’t sell a corpse in First Century Israel for love nor money. God’s Old Testament law required anyone who’d touched a dead body to live in a tent outside the city for a week until they were considered ritually clean again. There just wasn’t a market for it.

The body could have been stolen by the Authorities

But there’s no obvious motive for either the Roman or the Jewish leaders to do so. In fact they colluded and placed a guard on the tomb to prevent people from doing so. But even if we were to suppose that they did, as soon as the apostles started to declare that Jesus had been raised from the dead they could have fabricated a reason for doing so and owned up to removing his body. Christianity grew at an alarming rate and right at the heart of its popularity was the teaching about the resurrection. If the authorities had the body they could have discredited it straight away and stopped the spread as they wanted to do.

The body could have been stolen by the disciples

This explanation is actually the oldest of the lot and is found in Matthew’s gospel [Matthew 27:62-66]. The Jewish leaders, in response to the news that the tomb was empty, bribed the Roman soldiers to say that the disciples had come under cover of darkness and stolen the body. But it just doesn’t add up as an explanation. They simply wouldn’t have done it. Three days after his death they were cowering behind locked doors in Jerusalem in fear of the Jews. But something happened to convince them Jesus was alive again because 49 days later they stood up in Jerusalem city centre and preached sermons all about Jesus coming back from the dead. To say the disciples stole the body doesn’t take account of the extraordinary transformation in the apostles. It doesn’t take account for the fact that these men were prepared to die as martyrs for saying that Jesus rose from the dead. People don’t put up with torture and execution for something that they know to be untrue. No one willingly dies for a lie. They were convinced he was alive again.

It’s nonsense to believe that Jesus’ body was stolen.

3. The third suggestion is that Jesus’ body was resurrected

Only this explanation makes sense of the death of Jesus, the empty tomb and his subsequent appearances. Jesus Christ who was once dead came back to life and his dead corpse was reanimated. There is no other explanation. But so what?

What difference does it make that this man came back to life? There are four breathtaking implications

1. Jesus was who he said he was. He claimed to be God in human flesh and that as God he would die and then rise again. That’s an outrageous claim. If any of our friends claimed it we’d think they’d lost the plot. Unless, of course, they pulled it off. Jesus claimed it. His friends must have thought he was nuts. But he did it. He was telling the truth. This man is God and we mustn’t dismiss him.

2. Jesus demonstrates that there is life beyond the grave. He came back from the dead to show us that we will exist in some form after we’ve died. Death is not the end and we mustn’t just live for this world.  

3. Jesus claimed that he would deal with the death sentence that hangs over each one of us. God has imposed this on us because of our rejection of him. But He’s provided an alternative method of paying. Jesus said he would pay it instead. When Jesus was executed that sentence was paid in full. There was nothing left to pay. Therefore death could no longer hold him in its debt. Death had to give up its hold on him. So he came through death to life. He paid the debt and we mustn’t try and pay our debt to God in any other way.

4. Jesus foreshadowed the future for all that entrust their lives to him. Just as he was raised to life in a new kind of existence so those of us who follow him will be given the same new life to kit us out to exist forever in eternity. We mustn’t think that there’s any other form of eternal existence that’s worth thinking about.

The evidence leaves us with one option, as unexpected as it seems Jesus Christ rose from the dead. And that has massive implications for our lives here and now and our existence beyond the grave.

Further information can be gleaned from http://www.carm.org/evidence/Jesus_tomb.htm  and http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/indepth/articles/ten_reasons_jesus_tomb_is_fake/

Signing this makes sense

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/CULeaders/

As Nicholas Fuller, the creator of the petition writes,

‘Just as one would not expect a left wing political party to welcome people of a right wing persuasion into their leadership a Christian Union should be able to expect leaders to share the declared beliefs of that C.U. and that the C.U. has the right to control who may be admitted into leadership; this right should not exclude C.U.’s access to premises in Universities, colleges, schools etc. on a par with other societies in those establishments’.

For the background to this see a previous post http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2006/12/20/student-christian-unions/ and look at the latest news from UCCF here http://www.uccf.org.uk/news/supportersnews.php?NewsID=1325.

A letter sent today to the House of Lords in the light of the ongoing work to prevent the sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) becoming law. I have written on SORs here http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2007/01/02/sexual-orientation-regulations/. Further information can be found from the Christian Institute web site here http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/sor_newsletter_march07.pdf.

Dear Lord *****

I write as the Senior Pastor of Christ Church Balham, an Anglican Church in South London, on behalf of our church members.

As a result of proposed Government legislation the rights of a small percentage of people are about to take precedence over the religious freedoms of many. The Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) currently being rushed through Parliament will effectively promote homosexual activity and rights at the expense of conscientious Christian liberty.

British Law should surely allow people of the Christian faith (and those of other faiths and none) to withhold their support of an activity they regard as morally wrong. The SORs will undermine this principle and leave upright members of the community liable to prosecution and vulnerable to litigation.

Some of our congregation would be affected by the SORs.

We have a number of School Teachers who could face legal action under the regulations for saying that homosexual practice is wrong. The Government has given assurances that this will not be the case but legally that is inaccurate. The Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights recognises that the SORs apply to schools since there is no exception for the curriculum.

Several of our church are involved in small businesses or self employed as management consultants, graphic designers, architects and so on. If the SORs are passed they could face legal action for refusing to offer their support on the grounds of religious principle.

I understand that Baroness O’Cathain has tabled a motion to stop the regulations becoming law. When the House of Lords vote on 21st March can I please urge you to support her motion?

Many thanks for your attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully

Can I urge everyone to familiarise themselves with the issues, pray about them and write to the House of Lords. I’m told that in these days of mass mailings a letter produced on a computer is ignored and that Peers pay more attention to those that are hand written. The letter above was therefore sent in my illegible scrawl! 

You may find some of the materials here helpful http://www.christian.org.uk/soregs/index.htm.