A notice to persuade people to join us at Revive 07 http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/revive.php 

Revive is the annual weekend gathering for the Co-Mission Initiative congregations. The weekend takes its name from the Psalms. In these ancient songs the writer frequently expressed his dependence upon God to sustain his spiritual life. It’s therefore a fitting name for a weekend designed to do just that. Many of you will be aware that I’m responsible for the organisation of Revive though in truth I contribute almost nothing and Rosie Dunn does everything. Nevertheless, it therefore has a special place in my heart. And I have to say that the programme for this year is our best yet.

Cheaper and better than a weekend at Centre Parcs, Revive actually takes place on the University of Portsmouth Campus. You’ll be pleased to hear that the students will have left. The cost is £130 per adult but I’m guessing that since most of us have known about the weekend since October we’ve been putting £15 away each month to save up! If money is the reason you can’t attend please speak to me and if I’m at all persuaded that your excuse sounds legitimate we’ll see what we can manage!

I’ll search in vain for the Bible verse that says you need/must/ought to come on Revive. But I think you’d be a fool not to so let me give you three reasons why you should come on Revive!

1. it’ll satisfy your physical appetite

Whether you have an insatiable appetite for play, rest or entertainment we’ve got it all for you.

If your thing is play then there’s a range of sporting activities available on the Saturday afternoon, there’s the tug of war on the Sunday afternoon [which we characteristically lose] and impromptu games of cricket spring up wherever there’s a stray chair, a tennis ball and a group of grown men.

If there’s nothing you like more than to rest then there are plenty of lovely green areas, the beach is within easy reach and there’s lots of down time between the main sessions. The accommodation is perfectly acceptable and you can disappear for an afternoon nap if needs be.

And if on your weekend you’re looking for entertainment your search has come to an end. There’s an evening reception for CCB on the Friday night and though the curry has gone down well in recent years we’re planning something a little different this year, there’s events in the big top which may well be an 80s disco night and a singer in the bar on Saturday night. Once again CCB will be sponsoring and executing the firework display.

2. it’ll satisfy your relational appetite

If you’ve got an insatiable appetite for relationships then we’ve got it all for you. There’s lots of opportunity to chat over coffee and over meal times. Some of us will have friends in other congregations and it’s a great time to catch up with them. Others of us will know only friends at CCB. Whichever situation best describes ours there’s lots of scope in the programme for doing nothing but relaxing and chatting with the people we’d like to. People sometimes worry about the big crowd since we’ll be about 500 in total but because CCB are accommodated in the same area and we can eat together there’s no reason to find yourself isolated with no one to talk to. It’s a great way to spend some time with the people you’ll be spending eternity with!

3. it’ll satisfy your spiritual appetite

If you’ve got an insatiable appetite for spiritual input then we’ve got everything you need.

The main teaching sessions will be led by Mike Cain who has just launched a Church plant out of Christ Church Clifton in Bristol. He is writing a book on John’s Gospel and so he’s just the right man to deal with the chapters in that gospel on the Holy Spirit. The music is no better than what we’re treated to here but the preaching is!

There’s a book and seminars that tie in with each of the chapters. There’s a rumour circulating amongst the Co-Mission staff that Ed was so pleased with his chapter that he forwarded it to a few friends under the subject title: my brilliant chapter. I’ve not made that up! The seminars aim to cover the doctrinal issues thrown up by the Spirit’s work. We’ll be looking at spiritual gifts, being born again, being led by the Spirit, speaking in tongues, spiritual warfare, baptism in the Spirit and so on.

As a special treat this year we’re delighted to welcome the Australian singer/songwriter/children’s entertainer Colin Buchanan. Colin will be known to many of us and mention of his name is sufficient reason to sign up. For those of less familiar with his work I’ll let Ed or Jenni fill in the blanks.

There are three good reasons to come. But of course we’re Christians so we’re not only driven by our appetite for consumption. There’ll be a host of other perhaps more persuasive reasons to attend. I’ll save those up for another time if you’re not able to work them out over a swift half at the Blithe Spirit.

There’s an early bird offer until tomorrow. Get in early and you save a tenner, which is just what you need to buy a Colin CD. After tomorrow the early bird dies.

A kid’s slot for All Age Church on the subject of what comes out of our mouths.

We’ve been thinking the last few weeks about how to be smart and how not to be stupid. God has given us a book that especially helps us to be smart. Can anyone remember what it’s called?

It’s called Proverbs.

We want to think today about how we can be smart about the things we say. God has lots to say in the book of Proverbs about what we say but let’s just look at one. Let’s pick up our Bibles and turn to page. Find chapter 12 and verse 18.

There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

Now there are some complicated words in there but really it’s very easy to understand.

The first part of the sentence means

1. nasty words hurt

We can all say nasty things. We do that when we call other people names. We do that when we’re rude to our Mummy or Daddy. We do that when we shout at our brother or sister. We can all be nasty with our words.

God thinks it’s stupid to use nasty words. We don’t want to be stupid do we? But what’s stupid about saying nasty words? What do nasty words do? What does God say nasty words are like? He says they’re like swords thrusts.

Here’s a sword. What happens if I was to thrust this into your tummy? It hurts doesn’t it!

Nasty words hurt. We need to remember that our words can sometimes hurt people and make them very sad.

The second part of the sentence means

2. nice words help

We can all say nice things to other people. We do that when we’re kind to someone else. We do that when we tell someone that they’re good at something. We do that when we remind people that God loves them.

God thinks it’s smart to use nice words. We’d like to be sensible wouldn’t we? But what’s sensible about saying nice words? What do nice words do? They heal. They help make us better.

Here’s some medicine. The great thing about medicine is that once we take it, it helps to make us better.

We need to remember that our words help people and make them feel better.

Conclusion

Shall we check that we’ve understood this proverb? I’ll say some words and you need to say whether they’ll hurt or help.

• You can’t draw
• I don’t want you to be my sister
• That was really good reading
• I love you Mummy
• I’m better than you at writing
• Would you like to play with me?

Let’s pray.

People leave churches all the time. Not always for good reasons. Some of the hardest conversations are with people who’ve decided to move away.

At one level it’s understandable. Fuelled by our aspirations we want what’s best for ourselves and our families. And the truth is that we often can’t afford that in London. Moving away from Balham means we might access better state education, larger properties with more room and gardens and a safer neighbourhood with more PLUs [people like us]!

Increasingly I envisage having to have conversations with people in which I say, ‘here’s an idea, instead of going, why not stay?’. The line of argumentation might go along these lines. Of course every conversation would be carefully tailored to each individual situation, but you expected that didn’t you?!

1. You’re needed here

If you go, you take your gifts, your cash and your network of friends with you. We’ll survive without you. No one is indispensible. But you’re valuable. Not only because of what you contribute. But we mustn’t be naive and ignore that. Every person at church makes a contribution to church. When someone leaves they take that contribution with them. That contribution may not be immediately tangible. It’s not necessarily the case that those with teaching responsibilities in small groups, Sunday School or Women’s Bible Study make the biggest contribution. It’s obvious that people who run groups will be missed. But often that can be the catalyst for someone else ’stepping up to the plate’. Often it’s those who offer hospitality, support and encouragement who will be missed most. Within every church there’s a complex network of friendships and relationships. When people leave those are disrupted. People who remain get unsettled, they feel let down, they can feel abandoned and no one has the honesty to admit that those relationships are going to come to a meaningful end. We need to factor into our thinking the effect our departure will have on others.

2. You’re putting lifestyle before ministry

This is the danger that lurks behind our decision to leave. Often a decision to get out of London has more to do with lifestyle decisions than gospel concerns. That can often be hidden because we can end up in a leafy suburb or a delightful market town in the Home Counties and get involved in an established evangelical church. To the ‘untrained eye’ it can look like a decision to support a needy local church. But scratch under the surface and it’s motivated by comfort for this life. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who is well acquainted with this temptation! We can disguise our motives for leaving by pointing out how much we feel we could contribute. After all, we’ve probably received lots of training in our urban church that we can now put to good use. That could well be true. I know of lots of Pastors who are very grateful for the impetus and momentum provided by the ‘bright young things’ who leave the city for the country.

Not every decision to leave the urban setting is sinful. We can’t look upon the heart. It’s not really a right or wrong decision. It’s a matter of wisdom. In many situations it’ll be the wise thing to do. But my point is that it’s not always. We need to be honest about that.

3. This is a great place to be

You’re part of something exciting at CCB. Look at where God has brought us in the last few years. Who knows what we could accomplish under Him in the years to come. We’re making it up as we go along but at least we’re making it up. We’re expanding our gospel ministries all over the place. We’re initiating new ventures for the gospel. We need people to help start and run those ministries.

Two years ago I remember a senior Pastor standing up at a Christmas party for the elders, staff and apprentices and their wives and talking briefly about the past ten years. He recalled that ten years ago he’d had conversations with many of the elders and implored them to stay and resist the seemingly inevitable middle class drift out of London. To their eternal credit many of those men took the decision to keep their families in the same place and bear the cost. Ten years previously the church had a morning congregation of 50 adults. Ten years on ten churches had been planted and an apprenticeship scheme had been launched producing almost twenty candidates for further theological training. Not one of those elders had anticipated what under God they might have accomplished.

We have no idea what God has in store for us at CCB. There’s no guarantee that He will do the same for us. But He could. We have a chance to build something for the Kingdom at CCB. We need people who will stay long term and get involved in building it. If we go we’ll have fewer builders and it’ll take longer to build.

4. God is no man’s debtor

No one puts the concerns of the Kingdom first and ultimately isn’t the better off for it. We may not receive our reward in this life. In fact, our existence in this life may be characterised by cost, hardship and suffering. But we don’t just live for this life do we? In the next life there will not be a single moment we regret the decision to stay. God is no man’s debtor. We won’t be able to go up to him on the last day and accuse Him of short changing us.

Of course, for these words to have any sort of credibility it means that if church leaders move on they need to make sure it’s a move free from the stain of hypocrisy! I’ve often imagines what it would feel like to stand in front of the congregation and explain that I’m going to accept a job offer from elsewhere. It’s hard to see how I could do that without undermining much of what I’ve said above! These words could come back to bite me but I just hope that someone has the courage to challenge my decision making if it ever occurs.

I can still vividly remember my first encounter with the charismatic phenomenon and the accompanying pressure to conform. I’d recently become a Christian and had taken the momentous decision to go along to the University Christian Union. The visiting speaker gave us prophetic visions, words of knowledge and then he spoke in tongues and interpreted those messages for us. I cannot remember a single word that was said. Though there may have been something about a picture of a pumpkin in a large field but I’m still not sure of the connection with our Christian Union! I do remember that the Bible wasn’t opened once. Later that night I spent an age on the phone, talking to an older friend who’d been instrumental in my conversion. I pressed him to explain what I’d just witnessed and to make sense of it. The issue that dominated my thinking was ‘is this normal for Christians?’ and ‘if it is should I be doing it?’ Nicky Gumbel, the author of the Alpha Course, seems to think so. He suggests that all Christians should expect God to give us the gift of tongues. In his book Questions of Life he writes,

‘Ask God to fill you with his Spirit and to give you the gift of tongues. Go on seeking him until you find him. Go on knocking until the door opens. Seek God with all your heart. Open your mouth and start to praise God in any language but English or any other language known to you. Believe that what you receive is from God. Don’t let anyone tell you that you made it up. (It is most unlikely that you have)’.[1]

But is he right? Is that what the Bible teaches? This article attempts to answer those questions and in so doing explore a little more of what the Bible teaches about this phenomenon.

Much to our frustration the Biblical data is scarce. There’s not enough for our appetite for fascination with this subject to be satisfied. But that in itself is important. Because of the pervading influence of the charismatic church this issue has become a presenting one. But we’ve got to get this issue into perspective. We’re not talking about an issue that the Bible gives a lot of attention to. Presumably that’s because it’s not as significant for our discipleship as, say, the battle against our sinful nature. And we mustn’t pass over that implication too quickly or we’ll miss what the Holy Spirit is really concerned with.

The first occurrences of ‘tongues speaking’ occur in Acts. These are closely tied to the unique salvation historical event of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was first poured out. Throughout that book there are re-runs of that event as the gospel crossed theologically significant boundaries (Acts 10 & 19). The only other place where the issue is addressed occurs in 1 Corinthians 12-14. The content of this article has been shaped by a study of the Corinthian material in particular. Biblical references, unless otherwise stated, refer to the letter of 1 Corinthians.

There are four important principles to bear in mind.

1. Tongues are un-interpreted languages

Trying to work out what is meant by speaking in tongues is straightforward in Acts, more problematic in 1 Corinthians and speculative in the contemporary church. In Acts it’s clear that speaking in tongues refers to human languages. The Apostles declared ‘the wonders of God’ and they were understood by people gathered in Jerusalem from different countries (Acts 2:8-11). In 1 Corinthians it appears that speaking in tongues is a form of coded communication with cognitive content that can be translated into intelligible speech. In the contemporary church it’s anyone’s guess. This leads Don Carson to write that, ‘distortions of interpretation are sufficiently frequent, and the interpretations themselves so pedestrian, that at some point the gift of tongues must, in some cases, also be called into question’.[2] John Stott says that whether the contemporary phenomenon can be equated with the New Testament gift is questionable.[3] Jim Packer agrees but he suggests that since the modern phenomenon seems to do more harm than good and has helped many believers in their walk with the Lord it should probably be welcomed as a good gift from God.[4] Vern Poythress has written an article in which he explored the possible options for the nature of Corinthian tongues speaking and he makes the following five conclusions.[5]

• The tongues speaker was not in a psychologically ecstatic state since they were able to control their speech (14:28).
• The tongues speaker was unaware of what they were saying (14:14).
• The speech was a connected pattern of sounds that sounded like a human language they did not know (14:13&28)
• Precise classification of tongue speaking in modern scientific terms is impossible since a range of alternative analyses are legitimate from the Corinthian material.
• Paul’s phraseology suggests a language like speech pattern intelligible to God but further than that he seemed to show no particular inclination to define the phenomenon more precisely.

In other words, 1 Corinthians is not too interested in defining the exact linguistic status of tongues. For the Corinthian Christian therefore, anything that sounded like speaking in tongues and functioned like speaking in tongues was to be taken as ‘speaking in tongues’. In dealing with tongues Paul affirmed that they were a gift of the Spirit (12:10&30) and then distinguished between their proper and improper use (14:26-33).

2. Tongues are for private personal benefit

Paul spoke in tongues (14:18). But it seems as though he did that primarily, if not exclusively, in private. Accordingly he permitted other tongue speakers to exercise their gift in the same way (14:28). He admitted that tongue speaking had some value for the edification of the individual as they directed their prayers and praise to God (14:2&4). But he also conceded that the benefit of tongues speaking without the accompanying gift of interpretation was somewhat limited. Therefore he encouraged the tongues speakers to ask God for the power to interpret. Without this the spiritual activity of praying and praising in tongues would occur without understanding (14:13&14). Paul’s’ own assessment of the value of tongue speaking without interpretation did not permit him to exercise that gift in the church meeting (14:19). And anyone who had drunk deeply from the wells of love in chapter 13 would agree. In its un-interpreted form, tongues excludes the hearers from its benefit (14:6).

So, if God has given you the gift of tongues there is the freedom to exercise that gift in a private setting. But I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on it. It’s not our giftedness that strengthens our relationship with God but our faith. A relationship with God that warms the heart but bypasses the mind is not really a basis for growing in Christian maturity.

3. Tongues are not for every Christian

In His sovereignty, God decides who gets what gift (12:11). Everyone gets at least one of them but no one gets all of them. We can pray for a particular gift. In fact Paul explicitly encourages us to seek the greater gifts (12:31). But greatness has to do with serving the church in such a way to build it up not serving ourselves with a preoccupation with the spectacular. Paul’s desire that all his readers speak in tongues must not be ripped out of its context and absolutized (14:5). He is not saying that his considered theological conviction is that every Christian should speak in tongues. That would contradict his earlier teaching (12:29&30). Paul is a better theologian than that! His point is that since the gift of tongues was a good gift of God he wanted these church members to enjoy as many of the blessings of God that He was willing to provide. God decides and He will not be manipulated. No one should be deceived. Not even Nicky Gumbel can guarantee that we’ll speak in tongues. However, a Christian friend at University mischievously suggested that if I was feeling excluded from my charismatic Christian brothers and sisters I could pretend to speak in tongues. He argued that it could be faked simply by repeating the words ‘moped, motor and calor gas heater’ very quickly! I’ll leave it up to your imagination to decide what I did with his advice!

Given that God does not give this gift to everyone we must not use it as a criterion for anything. It doesn’t reveal who has been converted. It doesn’t tell us who has reached maturity as a Christian. It just tells us that God has given someone that gift.

4. Tongues are inferior to prophecy

In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul begins a protracted treatment of the relative value of tongue speaking and prophecy in the congregational setting. It appears that the Corinthian church prized tongue speaking more than prophecy. It’s not explicit why that might have been the case. However, given what we know about this congregation and their preoccupation with the spectacular they may well have felt that tongue speaking was the more impressive activity. Paul compared the relative merits of the exercise of each gift. Essentially he taught that tongue speaking is inferior to prophecy. He reached that conclusion for two reasons. First, tongues are unintelligible unless they’re translated (14:9). Therefore in their un-translated form they have no benefit for the edification of the congregation (14:17). In Paul’s apostolic judgement tongues rank pretty low in their ability to mature the church. Secondly, tongue speaking is evangelistically hopeless (14:22). Paul asked the congregation to imagine a situation where an unbeliever was to enter the congregation. Upon hearing tongues they’d simply conclude that the church had lost the plot. Un-translated tongues leave the outsider bemused. Worse than that they condemn the unbeliever to judgement since they’re not able to work out what’s being said. Tongue speaking is therefore profoundly limited in its usefulness.

Given that tongues won’t edify the church and can’t help the unbeliever no Christian should seriously press the tongues speaking agenda. A Christian who is in step with the Spirit won’t campaign on this issue. They’ll be more concerned that the church matures and unbelievers hear the gospel instead of lobbying for a tongues slot in the church meeting.

Conclusion

‘So much for the theory’ you might say but what would you do in practice if someone wanted to speak in tongues in the congregational setting in Balham?

1. At some point we’d need to help people see that there is no biblical warrant for assuming that what is described as speaking in tongues in the contemporary church is the equivalent phenomenon that was witnessed in the Corinthian context. We just don’t know if what we hear today is what went on back then. Nevertheless we can proceed with caution. We should be aware that God can speak in any way that He chooses. But we should also be open to the possibility that this could be a distraction that could undermine people’s confidence in God’s habitual practice of speaking through the bible.

2. If someone stood to speak in tongues I’d ask them to stop whilst we found out whether there was someone who could interpret what was being said. How we’d proceed depends on the answer.

3. If there was no one gifted in interpretation I’d politely ask the tongues speaker to exercise restraint and keep quiet. I’d encourage them to exercise their gift in private. I’d reassure the congregation that this is one of a number of gifts that God gives and despite its spectacular appearance shouldn’t be exalted over others.

4. If there was someone else who could interpret we’d allow the tongues speaker to speak and then ask the interpreter to provide a translation. The elders would be asked to evaluate the interpreted message. Tongues appear primarily to be spoken to God nevertheless we’d like to give people the opportunity to say ‘Amen’ to what has been said (14:16). If what’s been said is theologically creative we’d need to correct that. If what’s been said is theologically sound we’d want to commend what had been said and encourage others to support it.

References

[1] N Gumbel, Questions of Life, Kingsway, 1997, p167

[2] DA Carson, Showing the Spirit, Lancer, p87

[3] JRW Stott, Baptism and Fullness, p112

[4] JI Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit, p207f

[5] VS Poythress, ‘The Nature of Corinthian Glossolalia: Possible Options’, Westminster Theological Journal, Volumes 40 Issue 1, Fall 1977, pp 130-135

Further Reading

DA Carson, Showing the Spirit, Lancer Books

JRW Stott, Baptism and Fullness, IVP

JI Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit, IVP

If you prefer your sermons live! http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php

• What would I have to do or who would I have to be to persuade you to use a year’s wages to manufacture a very public display of homage in my honour?
• What would I have to do or who would I have to be to make you travel up to the centre of town, wave your arms around in reckless abandon and sing your heart out in adoration of my accomplishments?
• What would I have to do or who would I have to be to make you seek me out when every respectable civil and religious authority has earmarked me as a dangerous insurrectionist?

Unless I’m manipulatively persuasive or you’re unbelievably stupid I take it, that I’d have to be Jesus. At least that’s what happened when people met him two thousand years ago. He must have been something to make ordinary people like you and me act in such a way. He was and he is. John wants to persuade us of that so that we might follow him.

John remains steadfastly determined in his enterprise to convince his readers that such extraordinary acts are entirely consistent with the discovery that Jesus is the Christ, the long promised saviour king of the Old Testament sent from God to bring eternal spiritual life to all who turn from their indifference and rebellion towards God and seek instead a life of following him in obedient trust. He doesn’t put it in so many words. He selects his words with more care and craftsmanship but that’s the gist of what he said he was trying to accomplish with his literary work, known as the gospel. You’ll find that in chapter 20:30&31.

By the time we’ve got to chapter 12 we’re in the second half of his book. Having spoken of Jesus’ descent from heaven as the Son sent to reveal the Father, John now speaks of Jesus’ ascent to heaven to return to the Father’s glory. Chapter 12 makes it clear that this ascent to heaven is accomplished via the cross upon which Jesus is lifted up in crucifixion. And so it’s a chapter dominated by his imminent death. John makes that obvious when he reminds us that the events he narrates occur at the time of the Feast of Passover, an event at which the sacrificial offering of a substitute for sin was central. John records for us three incidents which at one level appear pretty straightforward. I’ve put those on the sheet.

• Mary anointed Jesus with perfume.
• Jerusalem welcomed Jesus as her king.
• Gentiles approached Jesus for interview.

But as we dig a little deeper we’ll discover that there’s more to those incidents than first meets the eye.

1. Mary anointed Jesus with perfume (1-11)

John records an incident in which Mary, the hostess of a dinner party given in Jesus’ honour well and truly lets her hair down!

12:1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. 3 Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

Mary’s act is the central event of this scene. As Jesus and the others reclined on the floor resting on their side, she reached for the jar of perfume, poured it over Jesus and began massaging it into his feet using her hair. Motivated perhaps by her profound sense of gratitude at Jesus’ resurrection of her brother Lazarus, this act demonstrated at least the following three characteristics.

a. It was a premeditated act. This wasn’t an impulsive whim but a carefully planned display of very public affection.

b. It was daring act. It was outrageously risqué because women didn’t normally unloose their hair in public. It flirted with territory of romantic gestures.

c. It was a sacrificial act. The quantity of perfume expended in this expression of love amounted to a year’s wages. She clearly loved Jesus very much. There were some who found the whole incident distasteful and expressed their disapproval.

4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7 Jesus said, “Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial. 8 For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.” 9 When the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came, not only on account of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.

Judas’ objection was a distraction. He didn’t give ‘two hoots’ for the poor. He was merely concerned about lining his own pockets. Jesus was justifiably dismissive of Judas’ claims. Not because he cared little for the poor but because he cared little for the hypocrisy of Judas’ accusation. Instead Jesus commended Mary’s action not because he thinks that wasteful extravagant shows of devotion trump generous and sacrificial provision for the poor. But because he realised that her actions were entirely in keeping with his imminent departure and her anointing was symbolic of his preparation for his sacrificial death. Jesus was saying that since the poor are always with us there will be no shortage of opportunities to provide for them but this is the last chance for Mary to be lavish in her affection towards him.

But lest we pass over Mary’s act too quickly in our eagerness to escape its uncomfortable implications, it’s worth asking the question whether this is something we could ever imagine ourselves doing. Perhaps some of us can remember a time when our affection for Jesus was so strong that this would not have seemed unlikely and perhaps things have cooled off in the intervening period. Of course, most blokes would rather run a mile than publicly express affection for another man. We might occasionally feel a hug was appropriate but it’d have to be accompanied with a hearty back slap just in case anyone thought we’d gone soft! But on the whole we’re uncomfortable with public displays of affection. I became a Christian at University and grew up in an environment dominated by delightful Christian women who had no such inhibitions about expressing their affection for Jesus. I was a rugby playing naval engineer so you can imagine what I thought about that! It may well be more straightforward for the girls to think about what it means to love Jesus. Matters of the heart are not quite as perplexing for people who are comfortable expressing their emotions. But what does it look like for a man to express affection for Jesus Christ? Our affection for a mate might be expressed in carefully chosen words or a lavish act of devotion but not usually. This is in no way meant to be a complete answer but let me suggest that the following four things are worth thinking about.

a. We include those we love in our plans.

They become an integral part of what we’re planning to do. And so if Jesus plays no part in our future plans it’s hard to imagine that we have real affection for him. And so in our decision making we’ll factor in his plans and take into account the things he desires.

b. We seek their advice.

I ask my friends what they think, not all the time but on the important issues of life. It’s to imagine that we have real affection for Jesus if his opinion is irrelevant to us. And so we’ll seek his wisdom and guidance on the matters in hand. How we spend our time, our money and our energies will be governed by what he thinks.

c. We enjoy their company.

I go to the pub with, share meals with and watch sport with my friends. I enjoy their company and so I seek their companionship. It’s hard to imagine that we have real affection for Jesus if his company is not something that we seek. And so we’ll cultivate habits that provide the opportunity to be in his presence. We’ll plan into our schedule regular and frequent times to be with him as we read his word and talk with him in prayer.

d. We do the things that delight them.

This is perhaps most obvious in a romantic relationship. It’s true that in chapter 15 Jesus will go on to establish that love for him will issue in obedience. But affection for Jesus is not less than that but it’s more than simply doing what he says. And so we’ll obey him.

At one level this was a lavish expression of heartfelt devotion but Jesus understood it as an act of preparation for his death. Jesus willingly accepted her act of devotion and he willingly accepted the death it anticipated.

2. Jerusalem welcomed Jesus as king (12-19)

John records an incident in which Jerusalem got up on their feet in homage to her all conquering king as he arrived on a donkey!

12 The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! [literally give salvation now] Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!” 14 And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, 15 “Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt!” 16 His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written about him and had been done to him. 17 The crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to bear witness. 18 The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”

It’s not a completely unfamiliar concept. In the Winter of 2003 the roads of central London were full of people waving the flag of St George as they welcomed the triumphant return of the England World Cup Winning team to the capital. I was there. And how we sang. Swing Low Sweet Chariot never seemed do appropriate. Three generations of the Perkins family and thousands of others expressed our adulation for a team who had exalted themselves above all other rivals.

There’s something of that about this incident. The song they sang was Psalm 118. The reason they sang was that the Messiah had arrived. Israel’s long awaited king had arrived at his capital city no doubt to take up his rightful place on the throne. At the time no one seems to have taken much notice of the mode of transport. However, it was clear that Jesus had given considerable thought to his choice of travel. There was something deliberate about choosing a donkey. If Jesus had arrived on a war horse it would have sent Jerusalem into a frenzied state of insurrectionist fervour. But he came on a donkey. It fulfilled Zechariah’s prophecy. In Zechariah 9 God promised that one day he would send his rescuing king. It’s easy to see why people got excited about the imminent arrival of the Messiah. There are three features from Zechariah’s promises that contributed to the sense of expectation.

• The arrival of the king would bring the end of war.
• The arrival of the king would bring peace to the nations as he extended his world wide reign.
• The arrival of the king would release prisoners on the basis of the blood of God’s covenant.

Jesus would disappoint the political aspirations of those who welcomed him so enthusiastically. He deliberately sought to dampen the crowds’ expectations. But not because he couldn’t deliver what he promised. The good news that this humble, gentle sacrificial king brought to Zion concerned not the re-establishment of the pale shadow of a worldly theocracy but the permanent establishment of an everlasting kingdom in which Jesus would rule eternally for the benefit of his people.

At one level this was an act of adulation as Jerusalem welcomed the king to his capital city. But Jesus understood it as a superficial action that betrayed the absence of understanding of the true nature of his Messiahship. Imagine how they might have reacted if they’d really understood!

3. Gentiles approached Jesus for interview (20-36)

John records an incident in which representatives of the Gentile world sought out Jesus for a one on one.

20 Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. 21 So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” 22 Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.

The arrival of these individuals seems to have acted like a trigger for Jesus. But the teaching that Jesus subsequently gave was not directed at them. They seem to have slipped off into the distance. Nevertheless it provided the occasion for Jesus to teach his disciples and the crowd about his death. Jesus taught five key ideas.

a. The death of Jesus results in a resurrection harvest (23&24).

23 And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

Jesus likened his death and burial to the life cycle of a seed. In nature the death and burial of a seed in the earth is the necessary prelude to resurrection as the new plant bearing further seeds comes to life. The harvest of many seeds depends upon the death of just one seed. In the same way the death and burial of Jesus will be the prelude to a resurrection that bears much fruit. The arrival of the Gentiles anticipated this future harvest.

b. The death of Jesus provides a model of self sacrifice (25&26)

25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honour him.

Jesus explained that his death was not simply substitutionary, it’s also exemplary. Notice that to hate one’s life (25) is explained in (26) as to serve Christ. In other words, love for self is displaced not by self loathing but by love for Christ. It’s this sort of behaviour that God thinks highly of. So the principle of self sacrifice that lay at the heart of his ministry ought also to characterise those who profess to follow after him. Self sacrifice is a non negotiable for those of us who wish to benefit from Christ’s.

c. The death of Jesus fulfils the purpose of his Father (27&28)

27 “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.”

Without in any sense minimising the anguish evident in Jesus’ prayer there is nevertheless steely determination to fulfil the purpose for which he came. Though the hour of his death would be unspeakably horrific it would also be the time when he would bring glory to his Father. The Father spoke from heaven and reassured his Son that he has glorified his name in and through His Son’s ministry and that He will further glorify it through his impending crucifixion.

d. The death of Jesus reveals the glory of God (29-33)

29 The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, “An angel has spoken to him.” 30 Jesus answered, “This voice has come for your sake, not mine. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

Notice that the Father is glorified in the death of His Son in three ways. 

• Through the judgement of the world as God’s verdict on rebellion against him is graphically expressed in the bloodied corpse of His crucified Son.
• Through the conquest of Satan as his power evaporated when the sentence of hell for which he labours was poured out on our substitute.
• Through the ingathering of the nations as people from all backgrounds are drawn to faith in him. His point is not that all without exception come to Christ but that all without distinction can belong to him.

e. The death of Jesus means the departure of the light (34-36)

34 So the crowd answered him, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up [in death by crucifixion]? Who is this Son of Man?” 35 So Jesus said to them, “The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.

Jesus’ enigmatic response to the crowd’s question about the death of the Messiah is really a warning to pay attention to him whilst they had the opportunity. He then acted out his warning by exiting stage left.

At one level the approach of the Gentiles to Jesus is the initial act at the beginning of a life of following Jesus. But Jesus understood it as a trigger for the announcement that the hour of his death had come and amplified

Conclusion

Jesus is central in every passage. As readers of these episodes we are challenged to identify ourselves in terms of those we read about. What do we learn from each of the three main characters that interact with Jesus?

From Mary we learn that at the heart of genuine discipleship is a personal heartfelt affection for Jesus.

From Jerusalem we learn that at the heart of discipleship lies the willing adoration and acceptance of his kingship.

From the Greeks we learn that at the heart of genuine discipleship is the determination to seek Jesus out in earnest so that we might follow him.

So let’s pray that we adore Jesus like Mary, we honour Jesus like Jerusalem and we seek Jesus like the Gentiles.

For an audio recording search http://www.christchurchbalham.org.uk/ccb/sermons.php

I went to the opticians a couple of weeks ago for an eye test. I’d noticed a slow deterioration in my eyesight, especially at night. I guess I knew it was bad when the Balham High Road started to look like a dual carriageway. As it happens my sight is easily dealt with. But I needed to recognise my blindness if anything useful was going to be done to correct it.

Though it’s a terrible thing to lack physical sight it’s nothing compared to being blind to spiritual realities. John records for us this morning an account dominated by the theme of blindness and sight. At one level we’re dealing with physical blindness but at a deeper and more profound level we’re dealing with spiritual blindness. As we work our way through it we’ll need to ask who we most identify with. Do we see ourselves in the Pharisees or in the miraculously healed man? We need to ask whether our spiritual sight is more akin to the Pharisees or the blind man. Are we as blind as a bat? Or have we got 20-20 vision?

This is a piece of John’s sustained attempt to persuade us to follow Christ so that we might share his eternal life. Contextual At the end of chapter 8 we were left wondering how anybody could ever see spiritual realities as they really are.

• Jesus’ opponents thought that as Abraham’s descendants they were free but Jesus taught that they were enslaved to sin.
• Jesus’ opponents thought that they could claim Abraham and God as their father but Jesus taught that they belonged to the devil.
• Jesus’ opponents thought that they were talking to someone who’d got too big for his boots but Jesus taught that they were speaking with the eternal God in human flesh.

Chapter 9 explains how we can see spiritual realities as they really are. Let’s re-enact this story from the perspective of a bystander and make some editorial comments as we go through.

1. The miraculous sign: Jesus gave physical sight to the man born blind (1-12)

They were just out for a stroll when it happened. Jesus saw him first. The sad pitiable figure of a man sat on the ground and leant against the wall. Eyes closed, white stick in hand and a begging bowl placed in front. But his disciples spoke first. ‘Rabbi’ they called him. ‘Whose fault is it that this man’s blind, his or his parents?’ Sure they waited until they were out of earshot by oh the insensitivity of their question. It had nothing to do with compassion but everything to do with curiosity. He didn’t let on but Jesus must have despaired. In the disciples’ world the man with congenital blindness presented a theological riddle to be solved than a pastoral situation to be handled. You could see where they were coming from. The link between sin and suffering was well established in biblical thinking. The disciples remembered that human sin was the reason that human suffering occurred. In general they were right. But in this specific situation they were wrong. Jesus couldn’t let them go on thinking that there was a one to one correspondence between someone’s suffering and the wickedness which must have contributed to it. He wouldn’t let them draw conclusions about ungodliness from circumstances. Jesus responded by saying three things.

First, Jesus told them that this man had been born in this miserable condition for just this day. God was about to perform a miraculous work in him. As you would imagine we were on tenterhooks to see what would happen next.

Secondly, God’s works had to be done in the day because they couldn’t be done at night. When we first heard that we thought it was a comment about economic productivity being harmed by daylight saving. But Jesus’ point was that no matter how strong the opposition of those in spiritual darkness he had to go on doing what his father had sent him to do.

Thirdly, he repeated a claim he’d made at the Feast of Tabernacles. It was wonderful when we first heard it but now it was beginning to make even more sense. He was the light that the darkened world needed. Without him shining his light we’d remain in spiritual darkness.

And then out of left field he acted out an elaborate ritual. Few of us doubted that he could have healed the man with a word. But what he did was so unexpected. Jesus spat on the ground and mixed up the dust to make a mud pack. He then rubbed it on the man’s eyes. Perhaps it was for the man’s benefit; perhaps it was for ours. No one was really sure. Some said it reminded them of God’s first creative act making humanity out of the dust of the ground. They may have been right. As we were arguing Jesus sent him packing. He told him he needed to wash it off in the Siloam pool. He left and we hung around discussing what had happened. Eventually the man came back claiming that he’d been blind but could now see. Most of us who’d been there since the start knew exactly what was going on. But a crowd had joined us and they hadn’t a clue. Opinion was divided. Some wondered out loud whether this was the man who used to beg. Some were absolutely convinced. Others said the likeness was uncanny but it couldn’t be him. Blind men don’t get healed. And all the time the man kept on saying it was him. He was a persuasive bloke and most of the opposition caved in. Out of desperation they asked him how it had happened. And he told them just what we’d seen. A man called Jesus had given him sight. This was too fantastic for most to contemplate. They needed more evidence. They wanted to find the healer but he hadn’t a clue where Jesus was to be found.

At this stage we need only note that in (5) Jesus claims to be the one who can bring illumination to a dark world and in (6) he performs a sign to illustrate the claim. As with all of the seven signs in John’s gospel they point to something significant. If we don’t beyond the sign to the thing it’s signifying we’ve missed the point. That’d be like registering that there’s a road sign that says hazard and then changing nothing about the way we’re driving. Many of us perhaps have been looking at Christian things for quite some time and we need to appreciate their significance. We’re not dealing with a road sign we’re about to deal with what the road sign signifies. Let’s get back to the story. It’s enthralling isn’t it?

2. The Pharisees interrogation: The Pharisees were blinded by unbelief (13-34)

What followed was an interrogation instigated by the religious authorities. I don’t think the crowd had intended it to happen. They just wanted some answers and the Pharisees seemed the obvious candidates to ask. They were the religious experts after all. If I’m honest I’d expected more.

a. They interrogated the man born blind (13-17)

The first thing they did was interrogate the ex-blind man. But they couldn’t seem to get beyond the fact that it was Saturday. Apparently miracles are fine, except on a Saturday! Look I know there are lots of Sabbath requirements laid down in God’s law but I wasn’t aware that Jesus had broken any. But it was a real hang up for them. As far as they were concerned he’d failed to uphold God’s law on three counts.

First, healing was forbidden unless it was a life or death situation. Jesus they argued could’ve waited till the Sunday before performing the miraculous work. Bear with me, they get worse.

Secondly, Jesus in kneading the dust with spit had performed a work.

Thirdly, there was a growing rabbinic feeling that anointing eyes was out of bounds as well. I wanted to shout at them that Jesus was doing on the Sabbath exactly what the Sabbath signified. The healing and wholeness that Jesus brought to this poor bloke was the healing and wholeness God promised in His eternal rest. But I’d have been ridiculed or locked up, neither of which I fancied.

What was becoming blatantly obvious was that the Pharisees themselves were divided. Some said there was no chance that God could have sanctioned a notorious law breaker. But others pointed out that sinners don’t normally harness the power of God to do miraculous works. The real issue was their failure to be able to explain what was indisputable. Several of us started to think that they may not have all the answers. They couldn’t decide and so in exasperation they asked the man. He thought Jesus had to be a prophetic messenger from God at the very least. Implication Notice that already we’ve been told about what happened three times. John wanted his readers to know that there’s no debate, the miracle happened and it happened just as it’s written. If we’re not convinced about that, we may try and take refuge from the truth in the Pharisees’ attempt to discredit the veracity of the account.

b. They interrogated the parents (18-23)

In my opinion the Pharisees were getting desperate. They were clutching at straws and I think they knew it. They sent for the man’s parents. We guessed that the Pharisees were pinning their hopes on the fact that this man had deceived them about his blindness. They weren’t happy, the parents. I don’t mean that they weren’t happy their son had been healed. They weren’t happy about being hauled up in front of the clergy. I don’t blame them. It’s not like they were neutral. Word had got round that any Jew convinced that this man Jesus was the Christ would be out on their ear before you could say ‘promised saviour king from the Old Testament’. The Pharisees didn’t get what they wanted from the parents. They played it with a pretty straight bat. He’d been born blind alright; he’d not made that bit up. But there was no chance they were going to fall into the trap of attributing the miracle to Jesus. They avoided having to give their opinion but stitched their son up in the process. Implication There’s a deliberate contrast between the reticence of the parents and the faithful testimony of the man born blind. Notice how we’re told that twice. They are not the example that we’re to follow. It’s gutless. We’ll come back to that at the end.

c. They interrogated the man born blind (24-34)

By this stage it was getting embarrassing. They just needed to admit that they were wrong, shut up and get over it. But on they went. They dragged the man back once again. But the mood had changed. Gone was the pretence of open enquiry. They were accusatory. They may as well have said, ‘you lying toe rag tell us the truth, this can’t have happened as you said because we’re completely unprepared to admit that this guy is anything but a sinner’. But we were dealing with consummate political operators and so even though we all knew they were thinking that there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that they were going to say it. They just pursued the same line of enquiry. You had to admire their determination. But we couldn’t help but feel that they’d met their match in this wisecracking new convert. What had he got to lose! He didn’t care if he got kicked out of the religious social scene, he could see! You should have seen their faces when in mock innocence he asked whether their thirst for knowledge was driven by a desire to become Jesus’ disciples! The Pharisees hurled abuse at him and sent him packing.

The religious authorities are the people we’d expect to turn to on religious matters. We’d expect them to get it right. But they don’t always. They may be in positions of authority and they may make pronouncements but they’re not infallible guides. In Jesus’ day it was quite the opposite. If in doubt take the opposite view to the Pharisees and we can’t go far wrong!

3. The spiritual significance: Jesus gives spiritual sight to those born blind (35-41)

In the same way that Jesus had initiated the miracle in the first place he then sought out the man. I still don’t know his name. Jesus asked him whether he really trusted the Son of Man. The man knew that the Son of Man was God’s appointed judge he just didn’t know where to find him. Jesus filled in the missing pieces for him. Jesus put in context what had unravelled before our eyes. We were all overwhelmed by an emotionally charged day and still pretty confused. On the one hand, a man born physically blind had been enabled to see. Spiritually he’d gained a fair deal of insight as well. But on the other hand a group of guys we all thought had perfect theological vision were shown to be blind. Jesus said that it’d always be like that. Though it wasn’t his prime purpose, division would always be the effect of his coming. Those who know that they’re blind seek help and he’d cure them. That’s the blind man. But those who think they see won’t seek help and they’ll stay blind. That’s the Pharisees. And they didn’t like that one bit. So they pressed him. Jesus told them that if they were blind in the sense of being blind and crying out for sight they wouldn’t be guilty of rejecting his revelatory illumination. But because they claimed to be satisfied with the pathetic limitations of their own inadequate spiritual perception they were as guilty as sin. You could have cut the atmosphere with a knife!

The one big lesson from this event is that Jesus is the one who can give spiritual sight to people who are spiritually blind.

We are all born unable to see and appreciate spiritual realities. We’re in the dark about God, Jesus, the Bible, heaven and hell, forgiveness and so on. It’s a completely level playing field. Even if we were fortunate enough to be raised in a Christian home we were all born spiritually blind. And so every single one of us needs Jesus to perform a miracle in our lives so that we can see.

We need to be grateful if he has performed this miracle. All of life’s problems in their manifold complexity need to be seen in the light of the fact that a whole new spiritual world has opened up to us because Jesus has opened our eyes. Before Jesus gave us sight spiritual realities were something we were unable to appreciate. But that’s not the case now. Imagine how it must feel to have been born blind and been enabled to see. Imagine having sight for the first time ever. Imagine that and we’re getting close to realising how wonderful it is to become a follower of Jesus Christ.

We need to pray if he hasn’t yet performed this miracle. For ourselves, if we still can’t see what others say they can see. For others, if we’re frustrated that they can’t appreciate the spiritual realities that are as plain as the nose on our face. Our desire to help people come to faith in Jesus Christ is completely dependent on God’s miraculous work. Is conversion something that you pray for? We have to work hard to keep it on the agenda in our prayer triplet and I take it we’re not alone.

Conclusion

As we close four quick lessons from each of the major actors in this drama.

From Jesus we learn that he is the one who can cure our spiritual blindness. We’ve done that.

From the man born blind we learn that spiritual clarity and conviction grow as our exposure to Jesus increases. At the start of the account he couldn’t have told you very much about the man called Jesus except that he’d changed his life. By the end of the account he knew that Jesus was the eternal Son of Man invested with God’s authority to judge and he fell prostrate before him in obedient worship. It goes like that in the Christian life. The more we hang around Jesus, the more we appreciate and the more we’ll want to worship him.

From the parents we learn that we mustn’t be gutless witnesses and pass up the opportunities to testify to Jesus Christ’s amazing work in our lives. We’ve all done it. We’ve let the opportunity go. There was a chance to say something and we didn’t. The first few times we feel guilty. It’s like we’ve let the side down. We have. But after a while we get practiced at justifying our cowardly act. There’ll be chances this week at the office with colleagues or in the café with other Mums to bear witness to Jesus’ miraculous work. We need to take them. What’s the worst they can do? Like the Pharisees, cast us out of their social circle. It’s unlikely but is that really so bad? I’m not sure I want to be in a group that responds to people like that anyway. More than likely we’ll be thought of as quirky and that’s not a massive burden to bear is it?!

From the Pharisees we learn that blindness is something beyond our ability to deal with. We can wave our hands in front of their eyes but if they’re blind, they can’t see. We need Jesus to open their eyes. So many of our friends are like that. Spiritually they can’t see what’s in front of their eyes. And it does our heads in. Things that we can now see with perfect clarity are not even a messy haze of indistinct shapes. This is a blindness that’s more terrible than a permanent sight defect. If you can’t see the relevance of Christ so that he doesn’t really matter to you then I’d prefer to lose both my eyes than be as blind as you.

So how’s your vision? Blind as a bat or 20-20.

The introductory kid’s slot for a Sunday series in the Proverbs for pre-school and infant children

Who knows what wisdom is? [wait for answers or silence!]

What does wisdom mean? I think it means being sensible

What’s the opposite of wisdom? Foolishness is the opposite of wisdom, which means being stupid

Who here would like to be stupid?!

Who here would like to be sensible?!

How do you think that we can be sensible?

We can learn things from others in books

We can learn from our teachers, from the TV and from our parents. So I’ve got a big book here with lots of information in it, it’s called ‘Perks’ Big Book of Facts’ and if we were to read that we’d know lots of things. That might help us to be sensible and stop us from being stupid. But even if we learn lots of things from others that won’t help us see everything really, really clearly. It’s a bit like putting on these glasses [comedy glasses]. We’ll be able to see some things really well but lots of things we won’t be able to make out at all. To be sensible we need more than what other people think.

We can learn things from God in the Bible

That’s a really sensible thing to do because God made the world, He made us and He knows how best to live. So when we learn from what God has done it’s a bit like using this [telescope]. We can see things really, really clearly.

God has given us one book in the Bible with lots of instruction about how to be sensible. It’s called Proverbs. Why not pick up the Bible near you and get your parents to turn to page 634. Look at chapter 1 verse 7 where God tells us how to be sensible.

‘The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge’

• The ‘fear of God’ doesn’t mean being scared but being serious about following God.
• The ‘beginning’ doesn’t just mean the start but the key thing.  
• ‘Knowledge’ doesn’t just mean knowing lots of things it means knowing how to be sensible.

Putting that all together it means we can’t be sensible unless we’re serious about following God.

In the next few weeks we’re going to be looking at Proverbs. We’re going to be thinking about how to be sensible in the way we make friends, in how we spend our pocket money and how we behave with our parents.

Let’s pray.

A hastily written kid’s slot for an Easter Party for pre-school and infant children.

Me: Hello everybody, would you like to meet a friend of mine? He’s quite big but he’s really friendly. He’s called the Easter Bunny. Are you ready to meet him? Sure? When I shout ‘bunny, bunny, bunny’ you need to shout ‘out, out, out!’ Are you ready? [Ham it up for as long as you feel comfortable!]

Bunny: What are you doing Perks?

Me: I’m about to talk to the kids about Easter

Bunny: Ooooh let me, let me! I can do that.

Me: Are you sure? Do you even know what Easter’s about?

Bunny: Sure I know what Easter’s about. I’m the Easter bunny!

Me: OK why don’t you have a go and we’ll see how you do

[Goes behind curtain and brings out giant Easter egg]

Bunny: It’s about chocolate Easter eggs.

Me: Well it’s true that we give each other Easter eggs at this time of year but it’ not really what Easter’s about. Try again.

[Goes behind curtain and brings out spring flowers]

Bunny: It’s about flowers.

Me: Well it’s true that at this time of year there are some lovely flowers around but it’s not really what Easter’s about. Try again.

[Goes behind the curtain and jumps out]

Bunny: It’s all about me.

Me: Well, it’s true that somehow you’ve got in the act but you’re not really what Easter’s about. Easter’s not really about any of these things even though they’re such fun. It’s about something even better. Easter is about Jesus. Let me explain.

Does anyone know what happened to Jesus at Easter?

Two things happened to Jesus at Easter. On Good Friday he died on a cross. And on Easter Sunday he came back to life. Let’s think about why those are important.

1. Jesus died so that we could be forgiven

Jesus died on a cross so that God could forgive us for all the naughty things we’ve done.

[Ask for two volunteers to come and wear a white t-shirt each]

What are some of the naughty things that we do?

[Write answers on the t-shirt with permanent pen on one of the t-shirts]

[name] is wearing a messy shirt, it isn’t perfect is it? Those sorts of things make God angry because they show that we don’t love Him as we should and we don’t love other people as we should.

[name] is wearing a perfect shirt because Jesus never did anything wrong and he always did everything right.

When Jesus died on a cross he did two things [Get the kids to swap t-shirts]

First, he took all the naughty things that we’ve done and God was angry with him. That’s great news but there’s even more.

Secondly, he also gave us his perfect life. So if we follow Jesus, when God looks at us he thinks we’re perfect! Isn’t that brilliant?!

Who can remember what happened to Jesus on Easter Sunday?

2. Jesus rose so that we could live forever

After Jesus died they put him in a massive tomb. But when his friends came to visit the tomb he’d disappeared. Some people thought that Jesus had recovered but that wassn’t what happened because Jesus had died. Some people thought that Jesus had been removed but that wasn’t what happened because there were soldiers guarding the tomb. But the they realised that Jesus had risen from the dead. God had brought Jesus had come back to life again. He wasn’t dead anymore he was alive.

One of the reasons that Jesus did that was so that the same thing would happen to us. If we follow Jesus then just like him, we can die but come back to life again and life forever. Isn’t that brilliant?!

Conclusion

So let me ask you

• Is Easter really about chocolate eggs?
• Is Easter really about lovely flowers?
• Is Easter really about the Easter Bunny?

All of those things are great and we’ll enjoy them over Easter but it’s even better than that because Jesus dies so that we could be forgiven and Jesus rose from the dead so that we could live forever.

It’s about Jesus.

I confess to having become an admirer of William Wilberforce quite late in the piece. Melvyn Bragg argues that the three hour speech by William Wilberforce given in the House of Commons in 1789 is one of the twelve books that changed the world. But his significance had passed me by. I’m not alone because in 2002 Wilberforce failed to make it into the top 10 Greatest Britons of all time. And this was a list that included our current Queen, Princess Diana and John Lennon. In the light of what I’ve read in the last few weeks, his omission is scandalous. But perhaps, like me you remain unaware of his abiding legacy and ongoing significance. I hope to address that this evening through a study of history.

There are three great reasons to study church history in general

• to see God’s unfolding plan as he works out his plans and purposes in the people and events of human history
• to gain a better perspective on the issues of our own day as we realise that there’s nothing new under the sun
• to learn lessons so we might avoid the mistakes and repeat the successes of the past

I think it was the German Philosopher Hegel who commented that, ‘the only thing that history teaches us is that history teaches us nothing’. Though I take it that that’s more a comment on the stupidity of humanity than the enterprise of history! So our efforts this evening need not be futile!

Our reason for studying William Wilberforce in particular is not simply because we’re opportunistic and there’s a film about him but because this year is the 200th celebration of the abolition of slavery with which he is so intimately associated. I enjoyed the film immensely. I can’t offer an opinionated cinematographic critique. But it’s not often you can go to a cinema and watch a wholesome portrayal of a great Christian man.

We’ve heard something about Wilberforce’s biography in the film clips. My intention is not to repeat that here. There are some very readable introductions to his life and thought. You could fish one of these out of the Amazon. My intention is to consider the abiding lessons for us today from this great man.

Wilberforce’s Conversion

We will not do justice to Wilberforce’s memory unless we acknowledge at the outset that his life’s achievements were driven by a Christian agenda. He was a profoundly Christian man. And the engine that drove his social reformation was his own faith in Jesus Christ. That much is clear from his epitaph in Westminster Abbey http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2007/wilberforce/epitaph.pdf. Written in 1840 it explicitly draws attention to his faith on three occasions,

• HE WAS AMONG THE FOREMOST OF THOSE WHO FIXED THE CHARACTER OF THEIR TIMES BECAUSE TO HIGH AND VARIOUS TALENTS TO WARM BENEVOLENCE, AND TO UNIVERSAL CANDOUR, HE ADDED THE ABIDING ELOQUENCE OF A CHRISTIAN LIFE.
• IN THE PROSECUTION OF THESE OBJECTS, HE RELIED, NOT IN VAIN, ON GOD;
• THROUGH THE MERITS OF JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY REDEEMER AND SAVIOUR, (WHOM, IN HIS LIFE AND IN HIS WRITINGS HE HAD DESIRED TO GLORIFY,) HE SHALL RISE IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE JUST.

The epitaph is an incredible testimony to a life well lived. It’s an extraordinary thing to have written in your honour. I’d pay an absolute fortune to have that sort of thing written about me! Of course, I’d prefer it to be true!

William Wilberforce came to faith in Jesus Christ in his mid twenties.

His conversion came about through conversations with a friend.

Isaac Milner his ex-school master and friend was the chief protagonist in his conversion. Though he was probably first alerted to the existence of spiritual things by the converted slave trader John Newton in his teenage years, Milner was the one who took him on in his 20s. It happened on their holiday to the South of France in 1784. They travelled in horse drawn carriages and as they travelled they argued about evangelical Christianity, pored over the New Testament in Greek and devoured a work of religious literature by a Puritan writer Philip Doddridge. Many of us rely still on our friends to bring us up to speed on something we so little understand. Some of us here in this room may yet come to share in the faith of those who brought us here this evening because of their willingness to engage with us in conversation.

His conversion came about over a period of time.

It could be argued that the seeds of the gospel were first planted in this man’s life in his youth. His father died when he was nine and he was sent to live with his Uncle and Aunt in Wimbledon. It was here that he first encountered John Newton and evangelical or biblical Christianity. I’m told that you can still go to Wimbledon and hear the gospel in good churches! Even after discussions with Milner his decision to become a Christian took months as he agonised over the impact on his life and reputation. Few of us make quick decisions about important life events. There are few events as significant as the decision to follow Christ. We ought not to be surprised that it takes us a while to change our minds about Christian things as we interact with the evidence.

His conversion came about despite the opposition of friends.

Most people get flak from their friends when they become a Christian. But few of us were opposed by the Prime Minister in waiting! Imagine Gordon Brown taking you for a swift pint and trying to convince you that it’ll wreck your career. That’s exactly what happened to Wilberforce though this time it wasn’t Gordon Brown, it was William Pitt. We can tend to look back on this period of history with rose tinted spectacles and assume that in a bygone age is was straightforward being a disciple of Christ but though it was acceptable to belong to High Church nominal Anglicanism it was distasteful and the subject of great ridicule to be classed an Evangelical.

In the remainder of this talk we’re going to be concerned with three principal aspects of his life.

First, we’ll be concerned with what he did. Secondly, we’ll be concerned with how he did it. Thirdly, we’ll be concerned with why he did it.

1. He was a man of activity

On 28th October 1787 Wilberforce wrote in his diary, ‘God Almighty has set before me two great Objects; the Suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners’. By that he meant morals not whether you put your hand over your mouth when you sneezed or opened doors for ladies! These two great projects were to be his life’s work. He is best known for the first but many argue that his greatest achievement was the second. The abolition of slavery was achieved as part of an intelligent and well organised team of which he was the chief spokesman but the change in the mood of 19th Century Britain with regards to morality was produced by a movement in which, it could be argued, he was the sole spokesman. That’s over stating it a little to make the point.

a. the abolition of slavery

The abolition of slavery was accomplished in two stages. Wilberforce launched his campaign for abolition in 1787. The Act of Parliament for the Abolition of Trading finally received Royal Assent and became law in 1807. It was twenty years after he’d started. But the abolition of trading in human beings was always supposed to be the first step towards the ultimate goal of outlawing the institution of slavery itself. And he lived to see the Abolition of slavery succeed in 1833. Though retired from politics for 8 years he had handed over the baton to his successors. He died two days after the second reading of the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery in the House of Commons.

b. the campaign for the reformation of morals

His second great work was a campaign for the reformation of morals. Again there were two stages to this project; the formation of the Proclamation Society and the publication of his book ‘A Practical View of Christianity’.

The Proclamation Society was formed in 1787. Strangely, for an evangelical, the impetus for this initiative was provided by the historical precedent of a high church moralistic reformation society in the previous century. High Church Anglicans known as the Latitudinarians sought to improve the moral climate and had been very successful. Wilberforce noticed this and so the intended purpose of his new society was to create a new moral tone in the land and to stem the rising tide of unbelief. Wilberforce persuaded King George 3rd to issue a proclamation which sought to suppress public debauchery. The way in which that was to be done was through legislation and law enforcement. It was an 18th Century forerunner to the policy of zero tolerance! I have to admit I was surprised by Wilberforce’s tactics at this point. My initial assessment of what he was doing led me to suppose that all he was doing in seeking outward moral reformation rather than inward spiritual transformation was applying a sticking plaster to a gaping wound. It looks as though the work of these societies was dealing with the symptoms of disease rather than the disease itself. But Wilberforce was coming to that. And the second key stage in raising the moral tone of the country was the publication of this book, ‘A Practical View of Christianity’. It was published in 1797 and was the result of 4 years work. The book is essentially Wilberforce’s testimony of his journey out of what we might describe as nominal ‘churchianity’ to a vital faith in Jesus Christ. He wrote with a clear evangelistic agenda. The full title of the book gives the game away, ‘A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes in this Country Contrasted with Real Christianity’. It’s clear that he wanted to persuade people to a real and living faith in Jesus Christ rather than attachment to a church. For example, consider the following quote,

‘Our dependence on our blessed Saviour, as alone the meritorious cause of our acceptance with God … must be not merely formal and nominal, but real and substantial … It is not an occasional invocation of His name, or a transient recognition of the authority, of Christ, that fills up the measure of the terms ‘believing in Jesus’ … We must be deeply conscious of our guilt and misery, heartily repenting of our sins, and firmly resolving to forsake them: and thus penitently flying for refuge to the hope set before us, we must found altogether on the merits of our crucified Redeemer our hopes of escape from their deserved punishment, and of deliverance from their enslaving power. This must be our first, our last, our only plea’.

When the printer was first approached he was dubious. There wasn’t much of a market for religious literature. But he was prepared to take a risk when Wilberforce put his name to it. The first edition sold out in a matter of days and within six months five further reprints had done the same.

Implication

These were his two great causes. His Christian faith was the pre-eminent catalyst for both concerns. He was convinced that a genuine faith in Jesus Christ could not be limited to the personal sphere. He was a man of activity because he was convinced that the fruit of faith in Jesus Christ was action. And so He acted on his convictions. Slavery and immorality appalled him for both were de-humanising. I tried to illustrate what it must have been like for a child to be taken forcibly from a family this morning. I motioned to pick up Luca and the look of fear on his face that I meant what I said about stealing him away to another country showed me that I should think up a new illustration! Wilberforce saw a need and he decided to do something about it. One of the problems facing Christians throughout history has been inaction. We don’t do anything. We may excel in personal piety but others search in vain for the practical outworking of what we believe. God requires his followers to love Him and to love others. If we believe Him, as we say we do, there’ll be evidence of both. We’ll be involved in personal evangelism as Wilberforce was and we’ll be involved in personal acts of kindness as we have opportunity.

2. He was a man of endurance

There’s something compelling about his dogged determination to never give up. He battle to end slavery took 46 years. Most of us quit if we don’t succeed at something after 46 hours. This extraordinary tenacity ensured that the activity he planned bore fruit. Even his opponents conceded that he was a man of great perseverance. One of them said, ‘It is necessary to watch him as he is blessed with a very sufficient quantity of that Enthusiastic spirit, which is so far from yielding that it grows more vigorous from blows’. The word enthusiastic meant evangelical. Like our modern day ‘fundamentalist’, it had no positive connotations! This evangelical persevered in the face of four principle obstacles.

a. Political Opposition

There were massive financial interests invested in slavery. Both individual slave traders and the British economy stood to benefit. It was felt that there would be massive economic ramifications if Britain decided to proceed with abolishing slavery unilaterally. And so he faced trenchant political opposition. If he’d been around today he’d have had Cameron giving him a hard time in the Commons, Paxman on the telly and Humphries on Radio 4!

b. Public Criticism

Though he’s remembered now with great admiration and respect it was not always the case. He experienced morale crushing public criticism throughout his Parliamentary career. The severest criticism he faced came from a man called William Cobett who accused him of caring only for foreign slaves and not the poor in his own country, an accusation he knew to be unfounded. Cobett wrote this,

‘You seem to have a great affection for the fat and lazy and laughing and singing and dancing Negroes. . . . [But] Never have you done one single act in favour of the labourers of this country [a blatant lie as Cobett knew]. . . . You make your appeal in Piccadilly, London, amongst those who are wallowing in luxuries, proceeding from the labour of the people. You should have gone to the gravel-pits, and made your appeal to the wretched creatures with bits of sacks around their shoulders, and with hay-bands round their legs; you should have gone to the roadside, and made your appeal to the emaciated, half-dead things who are there cracking stones to make the roads as level as a die for the tax eaters to ride on. What an insult it is, and what an unfeeling, what a cold-blooded hypocrite must he be that can send it forth; what an insult to call upon people under the name of free British labourers; to appeal to them in behalf of Black slaves, when these free British labourers; these poor, mocked, degraded wretches, would be happy to lick the dishes and bowls, out of which the Black slaves have breakfasted, dined, or supped’.

Wilberforce took a load of stick for his opposition to the Queen’s marital unfaithfulness. He was criticised by the Royal Family, the Cabinet, the cities of Liverpool and Bristol and even Admiral Lord Nelson got in on the act. Boris Johnson may know what it’s like to feel the abuse of Liverpool but few men have ever put their head above the parapet and had it shot at as Wilberforce was. It took great moral courage to do what he did.

c. Paternal Anxieties

The heartaches caused by families life produce a unique quality of distress and require a resilience all of its own. His wife, Barbara was not in reality the vivacious flame haired encouragement that’s depicted in the film. From some accounts she was an inveterate whinger. Someone said that ‘you don’t really know what an angel is until you’ve seen Wilber with his wife!’ His eldest son fell away from his Christian faith. And even after he came back he and his two brothers went on to become High Church or nominal churchmen, the Christ-less faith he’s been rescued from as a young man. And he suffered the heartbreak of his daughter’s death at the age of 22. After that event he wrote to a friend, ‘Oh my dear Friend, it is in such seasons as these that the value of the promises of the Word of God are ascertained both by the dying and the attendant relatives. . . . The assured persuasion of Barbara’s happiness has taken away the sting of death’.

d. Personal Illness

He struggled lastly with personal illness. For most of his adult life Wilberforce was not a well man. He developed ulcerative colitis in his 20s. The doctors prescribed opium, now a Class A drug but then [as apparently now] used as a medicine. Though he never developed an addiction to this drug it had the effect of damaging his eyesight and affecting his ability to think. I couldn’t help but wonder what he might have achieved with a clear head! In his early 50s he developed a curvature of the spine so that one shoulder began to slope so that his head fell a little forward each year until it rested on his chest. He was forced to wear a metal support to maintain his head position. This would not have been discovered were it not for his forgetfulness. He mistakenly left one of his two supports, wrapped in a towel at a friend’s house and had to ask for it to be sent on.

Implications

How many of our plans whither on the vine because of our lack of endurance? In comparison to this man we can be fickle creatures. Perhaps many of us have lost or never developed a tenacious streak. We may need to if we’re ever going to accomplish anything worthwhile. Whilst many of us have had to and will have to face real difficulties in life few of us will face the seemingly insurmountable obstacles that this man faced. In large measure he achieved what he did under God because he persevered. It begs the question how he was able to endure. What was this man’s secret and can it be replicated?

3. He was a man of joy

This is perhaps the most surprising thing to discover about this man. Most of us would have known that he was a man of activity since we’d have known something about his involvement with the abolition of slavery. Some of us may have known about his extraordinary perseverance in the face of great opposition. But I suspect that few of us would have known that joy was a word so often attributed to him by those with whom he had contact. Listen to these words of an acquaintance ‘By the tones of his voice and expression of his countenance he showed that joy was the prevailing feature of his own mind, joy springing from entireness of trust in the Saviour’s merits and from love to God and man. . . . His joy was quite penetrating’. This comment makes plain that for Wilberforce to be a man of joy meant more than having a sunny disposition. It was not a comment on his personality but an observation the heart of Christian experience.

a. The significance of his joy

The cultivation of joy through faith in Christ was the single most significant contributing factor to his life. It was this joy in Christ that enabled him to persevere in suffering and endure despite opposition.

b. The foundation of his joy

The foundation of his joy was his understanding of the Christian gospel. For in it he had discovered the work of Jesus Christ upon the cross. Listen to his own words, ‘If we would . . . rejoice in [Christ] as triumphantly as the first Christians did; we must learn, like them to repose our entire 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]’. His joy was built upon the foundation of the Christian gospel.

c. The instrument of his joy

This joy was not easily obtained. There were occasions where he felt that he had to fight for this joy since it had departed him. Though it is the gift of God to all Christians it is often left unopened because of our failure to observe how this joy might be ours. The instrument by which joy was returned to him was prayerful study of the Bible during which he contemplated the death of Christ on his behalf.

Implication

Is it not surprising to discover his emphasis on joy in the Christian life? Which of us would have identified that as the defining feature of Christianity? But listen to this quote,

‘My grand objection to the religious system still held by many who declare themselves orthodox Churchmen . . . is, that it tends to render Christianity so much a system of prohibitions rather than of privilege and hopes, and thus the injunction to rejoice, so strongly enforced in the New Testament, is practically neglected, and Religion is made to wear a forbidding and gloomy air and not one of peace and hope and joy’

But in the light of the gospel and without minimising the impact of personal suffering what’s not to be joyful about? It’s worth asking whether joyfulness is one of the features of our own Christian lives. It’s a wonderfully compelling testimony to the privileges of belonging to God’s family and profoundly attractive to those who view our lives of discipleship to Christ.

Conclusion

It would be a mistake to study this man and neglect the God who made him the man that he was. 

• God gave him compassion for his fellow man and so Wilberforce was a man of action determined to bring about change in the spiritual and temporal realms, as his epitaph puts it.
• God gave him endurance and so Wilberforce was able to persevere through the great trials of life many of them common to us all.
• God gave him a great Saviour and so Wilberforce was able to delight in the truths of the Bible and know the joy of being Christ’s.

He was a man of action. He was a man of compassion. And he was a man of faith. From him we have much yet to learn.

Further resources

‘The Abolition of the Slave Trade: Christian conscience and political action’ John Coffey, http://www.jubilee-centre.org/online_documents/TheabolitionoftheslavetradeChristianconscienceandpoliticalaction.htm ‘William Wilberforce: His Impact on Nineteenth-Century Society’, Jonathan Bayes http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_108_2_Bayes.pdf

‘Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce’ John Piper available here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazing-Grace-Life-William-Wilberforce/dp/1581348754/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/203-5434778-6780720?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175503277&sr=8-2 or free as a pdf file here http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bww.pdf  

‘A Man Who Changes His Times’ John Pollock, http://christianaudio.com/product_info.php?products_id=279  

‘William Wilberforce’ John Pollock, Lion Publishing available here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wilberforce-John-Pollock/dp/1842913328/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/203-5434778-6780720?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175503220&sr=8-4

‘William Wilberforce’ Stephen Tomkins, Lion Publishing available here http://www.amazon.co.uk/William-Wilberforce-Stephen-Tomkins/dp/0745952321/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/203-5434778-6780720?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175503186&sr=8-1

‘A Practical View of Christianity’ William Wilberforce, Hendrikson available here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Practical-Christianity-Hendrickson-Christian-Classics/dp/1598561227/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6/203-5434778-6780720?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175503251&sr=8-6