I’ve not got a lot of experience of Christian Unions. It would be inaccurate to say that I belonged to one when I attended the University of Warwick. At best it might be described as a loose affiliation. So fed up with the CU were a few of us that we established a parallel organisation. We tried to evangelise the sports community of which we were a part and disciple our Christian friends without reference to the CU. We were too small to be a threat to the CU and that was never our aim. We just wanted to do something whilst we were there. We may have been idealistic, zealous and angry young men but I’d like to think there was something more principled about what we were trying to do. We’d grown accustomed to a female led, charismatic flavour to praise and meetings. But we’d grown disillusioned with a lack of Bible teaching, a lack of evangelistic fervour and a lack of emphasis on equipping the saints for the work of ministry. In my final year however, Krish Kandiah http://krishk.wordpress.com/ rose to prominence within the CU and effected something of a reformation. But it was too late for us. We were about to head off into the ‘real’ world of work, mortgages and churches.

Since training for and being ‘employed’ in full time gospel ministry the student scene has never really been a part of life. That’s why my sermons lack song lyrics and display an intimate knowledge of film! That, and the fact that these days I’m completely immersed in ‘Dad’ culture! In the early days of Dundonald the links with Roehampton and the Wimbledon school of Art were weak. Wonderfully that’s no longer the case. Back then we had a student group but it was really a small Bible study of highly committed, united and theologically similar individuals. Since coming back to south London and planting CCB we’ve had a ‘trickle’ of students from St George’s Hospital but we’ve never had quite enough to describe it as a ’stream’! Don’t get me wrong, we love students. The more the merrier! But other local churches have a more prominent work amongst students. 

It was therefore with some trepidation and anxiety that I approached a CU weekend Houseparty a few weeks ago. It was terrific and I was well taken care of. I have no complaints on that front. There were over 140 individuals on the weekend. That’s more than the combined congregations of CCB. In many respects they were a committed, able and impressive group of people.

In the time that’s followed I’ve reflected on one or two things. They’re offered not as criticism if by that word we mean negativity. But they’re offered as evaluative observations from which we might learn!

1. There’s confusion about the gospel and evangelism

There seems to be a ‘conversation’ going on amongst students and perhaps the churches they attend on the content of the gospel and the nature of evangelism. What might be loosely described as a ’social gospel’ seems to be gaining ground. I don’t want to be misunderstood on this point. I’m all for acts of kindness. But they’re not the gospel. No one was ever converted by being on the receiving end of social action. Social action may present an opportunity for the gospel and though we may not wish to separate them we need to distinguish them. It used to be acccepted that evangelism was speaking about the gospel [the evangel]. But the definition of evangelism seems to have broadened. The language may sound similar but when we begin to define the terms it becomes clear that we’re talking about different things. At the weekend people would talk about ’proclaiming the kingdom’ but I don’t think that we were talking about the same thing. They seemed to mean expressing the love of Christ through performaing self sacrificial acts of kindness. Jesus seems to have understood the phrase ‘proclaiming the kingdom’. as a asynonym for speaking about the gospel. The new definition of building the kingdom seems to be different from the way that Jesus understood it. When Jesus spoke of the kingdom he wasn’t talking about something completely separate from the gospel. The gospel Jesus taught was the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 24:14). When Mark records Jesus walking onto centre stage with the words ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel’, he was announcing the gospel. He was declaring that he is the King of God’s kingdom. He had come to open the doors of this kingdom by his death on the cross. So the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ is not a different message to the gospel of Christ crucified. Paul makes this clear in Acts 28 where we read that he was

‘testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the law of Moses and from the Prophets’ (28:23)

and that he was

‘proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance’ (28:31).

They were the same thing.

I think that social action is easier to engage in than evangelism. Paul warns that when we engage in evangelism we are to some the fragrance of life but to others we’re the stench of death (2 Corinthians 2:14-17). You don’t get the same response with social action. Few people have a bad word to say against charitable acts of kindness. That’s perhaps why churches like them so much. We’re fed up with, exhausted by and scared of being villified, opposed and persecuted for the gospel. But the trouble is that though social action may commend us and our churches to the unbeliever so that they think well of us I’m not sure that they commend Christ to the unbeliever so that they think well of him. In their recent book ‘Total Church’, Tim Chester and Steve Timmis write this,

There is a tendency in some quarters today to promote a kind of evangelism without proclamation. Acts of service are done or people are invited to experience Christian worship. But without words of explanation these are like signposts pointing nowhere, or, worse still, signposts pointing to our good works’ p52.

No one could accuse them of disregarding social action as part of the churches responsibility but I think they nail the issue. We must not confuse social action with the gospel and at the very least we must proclaim the goapel. St Francis of Assisi may have said, ‘preach the gospel always; if necessary use words’. But he was wrong. Wordless preaching is silence! And no one gets converted by stillness. Evangelism is a declaration of the gospel to men and women.

2. Student leadership is a double edged sword

Student leadership is a blessing and a curse. There’s little doubt that students provide initiative, drive and enthusiasm. They have levels of imagination and enterprise that those with increased years of maturity often don’t possess. Consequently they can use those resources for the gospel in very exciting and engaging ways. But there’s a flip side. It’s a hard ask to expect a young man [and occasionally a young woman] President to lead a disparate group of students and unite them in a gospel message. There are men who’ve been in ministry for years who’d struggle to bring unity out of some of the situations that they have to deal with. The support of the UCCF Regional Staff worker [RSW] is invaluable but they’re often spread quite thin, having to look after more than one CU. It’s a tough ask for them as well. No doubt, UCCF would provide more RSWs if they had the resources to afford them. But even if there was a ratio of one RSW per University they’d have to be extraordinary people to maintain unity in gospel partnership. Of course, they could pretend there was unity but to do that they’d have to avoid defining what we mean by ‘evangelism’ and ‘gospel’. That way we all think we’re talking about the same thing when in reality we’re not. What results looks like unity but plan an evangelistic event and it’ll soon become clear that we’re talking at cross purposes.

3. Student meetings can kill Bible teaching

I’d mentally prepared for this but it was still a killer. The way a meeting is put together shows what’s valued. Students may unthinkingly put together the meeting without realising that they are in effect killing off Bible teaching! Being asked to explain the Bible and explore its implications after an hour plus of singing, praying and adverts is a tough gig! It seems to me that there’s no better way to ensure that Bible teaching continues to be regarded as something to be endured rather than something to be enjoyed than to ask the speaker to stand up when everyone’s dog tired! I love my wife with a passion and I love listening to her but even I struggle when I’m shattered. Sure, some of us who speak could do with being a little more engaging. And we’d all benefit from a bit of energy in our presentation. But a warm room, with tired people and an hour of praise is like asking someone to raise the dead!

4. Without training people won’t know what to do

Most churches would give their right arm for the sort of crowd that gathers for a CU Meeting. God has given Universities an extraordinary resource in the quality and quantity of able young men and women. But they need instruction because they don’t yet know what to do. They need help in understanding the gospel, in engaging with culture, in challenging presuppositions, in handling the Bible and so on. Just as we wouldn’t ask an undergraduate medical student to diagnose and operate on a patient neither should we ask our students to do things for which they’ve not yet been trained. It’s not fair on them and it’s not fair on those on the receiving end of the zealous but uninformed efforts at ministry. The question is, who does it? The RSWs are busy people. As long as they’re not having to firefight they’d be ideal. Local churches with a discipleship training package or a student programme are also well placed to help. But there’s some suspicion that churches can threaten student leadership of the CUs. It doesn’t have to be the case. There are lots of places where a strong local church ministry helps the student witness on campus. And long may it remain so.

Conclusion

I’m sure that most of these issues have been identified and addressed by those for whom they are pressing realities. It was just interesting for me to walk into that world for a while and find myself immersed in a student Christian culture. I felt old. Because I am. But I loved it.

I’m not quite sure what this means. I find myself in unfamiliar territory. This hasn’t happened much before. I’m about to agree with our Archbishop! Not on everything. I expect that we’ll continue to differ in our views of his role, homosexual practice and facial hair. But on at least one issue, I’m with him. And hurrah for that! Let me explain.

It was with much trepidation that I reached out a hand to pick up our daily copy of the Times newspaper. The headline screamed ‘Three? Wise? Men? asks the Archbishop’. My heart sank. More liberal reinvention of the Christian faith I thought. The online version says ‘It’s all a Christmas Tall Story’. More mockery of Christian’s gullibility I assumed. It’s about time for the ritual undermining of the historical foundations of the virgin birth. But that’s not what it was. Never in a month of Sundays had I expected to find myself audibly whooping with delight as I walked along the road at the reported comments of the Archbishop. You’ll find the report here.

What he gives us is the Christmas Nativity without the legend. He replaces it with the scriptural testimony. If only all his statements were similarly shaped! Ruth Gledhill’s comment is priceless, ‘Dr Williams’s views are strictly in line with orthodox Christian teaching. The Archbishop is sticking to what the Bible actually says’. A newsworthy item all by itself! The online dictionary definition of legend is, ‘a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical’. I’m all for a nativity shorn of non historical elements. It might kill the Christmas card business but the designers will just have to work a little harder for their money! 

It’s worth saying that my agreement with the general thrust of what the Archbishop said comes with a couple of caveats. These have been added after an observation from Ruth Gledhill [see comments]

I’d assumed that what the Archbishop calls into question is not the existence of the wise men but the existence of three wise men. I’ve just re-read Matthew’s gospel and the English Standard Version says they were wise men. In the Greek, literally ‘magoi apo anatolon’, or wise men from the east (verse 1). There were more than one but we’re not told how many there were. I guess we assume there were three because of verse 11 where three types of gifts are listed. New Testament scholar Paul Barnett in his popular book, The Truth About Jesus writes,

‘The so-called ‘wise men from the east’, so easily dispensed with as legendary, are referred to by the word magi, from which our word magician is derived. These magi were probably atsrologers from Mesopotamia where there was intense study of the heavens’.

I’d assumed that when the Archbishop uses the word ’scant’ he means ‘not abundant’ or ‘limited’ rather than ‘insufficient’. I may be being over generous in my reading of the Archbishop’s words, but that would be a first! The material on the magi is found only in Matthew’s gospel.

So, let me clarify. As I understand it, Matthew teaches that there were an unspecified number of wise men, or astrologers, who came from the east to give three types of gifts to Jesus.

I do, as you might expect, have a couple of quibbles. The Archbishop’s defence of the existence of God is a little weak. But let’s cut him some slack. He must have been star struck. He was in the same room as Ricky Gervais after all. He was on live radio as well. But nevertheless you’d have thought that for a man of his inttelect ’turning over’ Santa should have been a walk in the park. Perhaps he thought the kids were listening and didn’t want to be pilloried for spoiling Christmas! He should have read my post. That would’ve helped! I don’t know about you but I don’t believe in God because he generates a moral code, art and imagination. I believe in God because there’s overwhelming evidence for his existence in the person and work of His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. I don’t dispute that belief in God produces those things. But I have a four year old daughter who’s been inspired to strict moralism, great works of art and bizarre imagination by a fat man in a red suit. But that doesn’t make the myth of Father Christmas true. 

I’d also like to scratch beneath the surface of the Archbishop’s comments on the Virgin Birth. He seems a little uncommitted to the unity of a divine nature and a human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. He could do a lot worse than read my recent post. I think he’ll find that it’s strictly in line with orthodox Christian teaching because it sticks to what the Bible actually says!

You may find the following article helpful. It contains a fuller account of the interview with Simon Mayo.

The barebones text of a pub carol service talk given in the Bedford, Christmas 07

Luke records for us a scene from the fields outside Bethlehem. A group of shepherds were tending their sheep. Their nocturnal vigil was unexpectedly disturbed by the arrival of an angel. These angelic creatures were messengers from God to humanity. That’s what the word ‘angel’ means. And so, they mediate revelation from the heavenly sphere to the earthly domain. Which is just a technical way of saying that they were in advertising. Their job was to promote a product to a group of unsuspecting farmers. It may well have been the first occurrence of Christmas advertising. It wouldn’t be the last.

But let’s be honest. This is the 21st century. We don’t do angels. And so, the presence of miraculous activity in the events that surround the birth of Jesus cause us to question its authenticity. The appearance of angelic figures is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. So we conclude that what we’re dealing with is great fiction but not fact. I’ve got some sympathy with those concerns; the claims of Christianity can seem so unusual that they’re too outrageous to take seriously. But does the angels’ appearance stretch the limits of credibility beyond what could be expected of any self-respecting rational human being? I don’t think so. We’re given sufficient evidence to convince anyone with an open mind that what’s recorded here, though unusual, is reliable history.

Indeed, Luke was at pains to establish his credibility as a historian and therefore the authenticity of his evidence. At the start of his gospel account he writes,

‘1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.’

An issue like this deserves a fuller answer than I can provide in these few moments. But consider these three things.

a. Having conducted a thorough investigation and collated an orderly account Luke recorded eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ activity.

b. The gospel accounts of Jesus’ life were not disputed but instead received world-wide acceptance in the lifetime of those of his generation.

c. Non-Christian writers of the same period substantiate the truthfulness of the New Testament by attesting the main details of Jesus’ life.

And so, we’re not being asked to commit intellectual suicide and believe something for which there isn’t evidence. Of course, with all advertising it’s possible to get distracted by the promoters and neglect the product. Let’s not make that mistake. Adverts promote a product. The angels had to promote a person. It’s a tough gig selling Jesus. Let’s see how they did it.

‘Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger’.

Notice three things about the angels’ promotional activity

1. what the angels promoted was good news

We tend to think that Christianity is bad news. It just seems to be so negative about everything. And so Christianity is synonymous with misogyny, homophobia and bigoted, narrow minded intolerance. In truth Christianity rightly understood and applied is nothing of the sort. Jesus has some unwelcome things to say about us. But he’s telling the truth. We may not like it when he exposes our inclination towards self-centredness and refusal to live the life God would have us do. But we know he’s nailed us.

But the angels proclaimed that the birth of Jesus was good news. And that’s true. So what have we overlooked? The birth of Jesus was the birth of a saviour. He is the divine rescuer sent to save us. The arrival of any saviour is really good news.

A few years ago Rosslyn and I had a terrific holiday on the Greek Island of Kos. I decided to take her out sailing in Kefalos Bay and show her what I could do with a twin hulled sailing dinghy called a Hobie 16. Within minutes of planing across the waves she learnt exactly what I could do as the front end dug in, the vessel flipped and catapulted us into the water. The arrival of our rescuer was a welcome sight. For Rosslyn, who was unaccustomed to floating around in the Mediterranean without a dinghy, the arrival of the life saver was very good news! I’m not sure whether she thought she needed saving from drowning or her husband!

It is really good news that God has sent us a saviour in His Son. Jesus can save us from the consequences a life lived without God. He saves us by doing what we could never do for ourselves. He lived the life of moral perfection that we can’t manage and he died the death that we deserved for our moral imperfection. He swapped places with us. God treated him like he was us so that God could treat us like we were him. That is very good news. The angels promoted Jesus Christ and told us that his birth was good news because they announced a saviour who came to save people.

2. what the angels promoted produces great joy

We tend to think of Christianity as dour and depressing. Belonging to Jesus means that you ought, by definition, to be sad, in every sense of the word! But the angels proclaimed that the birth of Jesus would produce great joy. And that’s true. There is perhaps nothing as embarrassing as a joyful Christian. It conjures up painful images of over enthusiastic zealots paying scant regard for the reserved social conventions of British culture. But the angels weren’t British and they thought the birth of this baby was a reason to get excited. What have we missed? It’s great news that Jesus has been born because the experience of being saved by him is exhilarating. To be liberated by Jesus Christ is breathtaking. That’s why it produces such joy in those who’ve been rescued.

Imagine that we lived as a black African in Umtata the capital of Transkei. And on 18 July 1918 we heard that a little baby called Nelson had just been born. If we’d known then, what we know now, we’d have been beside ourselves with joy. We’d have known that within our lifetime this baby boy would secure our liberation from the oppressive dehumanising Apartheid regime.

The angels promoted Jesus Christ and told us that his birth produces great joy because it’s brilliant to be saved by him.

3. what the angels promoted involves all people

We tend to think that Jesus is just for a few people. Many of us think that Jesus is not for me he’s just for others! The others for whom he’s for, are the people that need him. And for them that’s fine. But he’s not for most of us and he’s certainly not for everyone. That view is reflected in our culture. And so at this stage in human history in this corner of the world people aren’t buying what the angels tried to promote. Keith Porteus-Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society quotes with glee that church attendance has been declining for 72 consecutive years. But the angels proclaimed that the birth of Jesus was for all people. No-one need be excluded from the significance of his birth. This is a baby who has implications for us all. The angels clearly understood that all of us need this baby whether we’ve realised it or not.

This is a picture of a new born baby. She’s about a week old. Her name is Keziah and she was born to a couple at church called Peter & Claire-Lise. They were pretty well involved, perhaps Claire-Lise more so than Peter. By all accounts he’s been pretty univolved apart from a moment nine months ago! Their families got involved. The church has got involved in providing meals for the family and so on. But apart from that, the vast majority of the occupants of South London have paid this lovely little girl very little attention. And that’s normal.

But it’s abnormal for us not to pay much attention to the birth of Jesus Christ. This baby is someone that concerns us all, because all of us need the salvation that he offers. The angels promoted Jesus Christ and told us that his birth involves all people.

Conclusion

What are we to do in response to this?

Some of us will already describe ourselves as followers of Jesus Christ. The birth of Jesus Christ is good news of great joy for all people. Have we let that truth sink in? Is it obvious that we’re in possession of something that’s really good news, that produces great joy and that’s really not only for us but for everyone else as well?

What about those of us who wouldn’t describe ourselves as followers of Jesus Christ? We’ve got to ask, ‘is there any substance to the angels’ promotional activity?’ Adverts always promise more than they deliver. Is it the same with Jesus Christ? Is he all that the angels have cracked him up to be? Of course he is! But you expected me to say that. I’m a Vicar. I’m paid to be positive! And so it’s something we need to work out for ourselves. In Luke’s account, the shepherds model the right response. They leave the sheep. They go quickly to Bethlehem to see for themselves what the angel had announced. In the light of this extraordinary announcement concerning the birth of the saviour they investigate. Can I urge you to do the same and not let something as significant as a saviour’s birth go neglected? The one thing we must not do is remain in the fields, distracted by our work, missing the action and failing to investigate the arrival of God’s Saviour. The field is for sheep, creatures that without thought do what the next creature does, and we’ve got to be different haven’t we? Let’s get to the shed and investigate the birth of the saviour. So let me ask you, ‘Are you a shepherd or a sheep?’

There are three things that you could do if you’d like to imitate the shepherds

1. In February we’re holding a week of events dealing with the issues raised by atheism and the writings of people like Richard Dawkins. We’ve called it ‘The God Confusion’. The events will be advertised on our website and you’d be very welcome at those.

2. Can I recommend a course called Christianity Explored? It’s an opportunity over six weeks to look at the evidence for Jesus, discuss its contemporary significance and ask any question and to do so in a relaxed informal environment over a meal. We run a course every term. If you’re keen to sign up for the next one you can indicate that on the feedback forms.

3. There’s a short booklet called ‘Christmas in Three Words’ for those who’d like to go over some of the material we’ve covered this evening. They’re free. Please take one if you’d like to.

Let me conclude by thanking you for coming and for listening. It’s great that you’re here. You’d be very welcome at CCB if you ever wanted to pay us a visit. We meet in Chestnut Grove School at 6.30 pm. This is a church for people just like you. It’s not just for believers. We take all comers! You need only look around to realise that we’re not selective!

I hope that you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.