food4thought

This is the text of short letter I try to write every month to our Church Family on something that merits a response, something that’s currently an issue or something that tickles my fancy!

Dear Friends

Which book have you earmarked for holiday reading? Is there a cheeky little paperback that you’ve got your eye on? Me, I thought I’d take a Ludlum to the coast; nothing too demanding, lots of plot and very little characterisation. I want a page turner not a tear jerker; I’m a bloke!

But, the closing words of Paul’s letter to the Romans warn me about being exclusively secular in my holiday reading habits. He reminds us that there’s real value to earmarking the Bible as one of the things that we might read as we lounge by the pool. Look at his words in the 16th chapter of that book.

25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

These closing words are often called a doxology. The ESV even has that as the heading. That unfamiliar word comes from the Greek ‘doxa’, meaning glory. So, Paul concludes this magisterial letter by ascribing glory to God. In this outpouring of praise he gives credit where credit’s due. And in particular Paul praises God for four things.

1.     Paul praised God for His strength

Paul began by praising God for His ability to strengthen and establish the church. The word he uses, which in English is translated ‘strengthen’, is a normal one that might be used to describe securely fixing a loose floor board! But when Paul uses the term it takes on a technical meaning which implies securely fixing new converts by nurturing them in the faith. Paul recognised that no Christian and no church would be spiritually secure apart from this strengthening activity of God. And so, we need to remember that if we’re to keep going in our Christian lives and keep going as a church, then we depend entirely on the power of God. We will not do it on our own. Wonderfully, we don’t have to!

2.     Paul praised God for His gospel

Paul knew that the way in which God strengthens His people is through the gospel. He describes this gospel in three ways. First, he described the gospel as His, in the sense that God had entrusted him with it. Secondly, he described it as concerned with Jesus Christ, in the sense that he is the substance of the good news from God. Thirdly, he described it as a mystery now revealed, in the sense that it was previously hidden but had now exposed by the New Testament perspective on the Old Testament prophetic writings. But his point was that this gospel of which he was a servant, Christ was the substance and the New Testament provided the interpretation is what strengthens churches. And so, even though there are few things as disappointing as an evangelistic event to which no unbelievers come, even then there’s a silver lining to that particular dark cloud. Believers benefit from hearing the gospel as well. It’s the means by which God grows our faith in Him and establishes us in maturity. Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, unbelievers still need to hear the gospel and we still need to try and persuade them to come along and listen. Nevertheless, even if no one but the regulars pitches up we know that God is at work building and toughening us up for the challenges that we’ll face before the New Creation.

3.     Paul praised God for His mission

Paul realised that the only fitting stage for the salvation accomplished by Christ was a worldwide one. He recognised the divine design behind the apostolic evangelisation of the nations. And he praised God that this momentous news had gone overseas. God had removed the limits on the spread of the gospel. In the Old Testament era it was clearly not His intention to save many outside of Israel. But in the New Testament era all that had changed. The gospel was to be taken to the ends of the world. God had bigger plans. Paul’s reason for writing the letter was to seek support for his visit to Spain so that he could bring the news of the righteousness of God to an unreached people. We not only need to praise God for His evangelistic passion through which we’ve become the beneficiaries, but we also need to share it so that others might be on the receiving end of His glorious salvation.

4.     Paul praised God for His wisdom

As Paul reflected on the events of salvation history it blew his mind. Behind everything that was happening in the world he saw the wise plan of God. In sending His Son to take on human flesh, die on a cross, be raised to life, send the Spirit and start the world wide spread of the gospel through the church planting ministry of his Apostles, the wisdom of God was writ large. Paul stood back and allowed the existence of the extraordinary phenomenon of a group of obedient followers of Jesus Christ to sink in. Though the world may look at the church and mock, Paul saw things differently. He saw, not through rose tinted spectacles [his experience of churches saved him from that] but he saw with the eyes of faith. God is doing a remarkable thing through the gospel. He is saving hell deserving sinners like us, from eternal condemnation in hell, for everlasting life in glory. And He’s doing it through the gospel. This gospel offers the perfect righteousness of Christ for all who’ll believe.

It’s no wonder that when Paul thought about these things he was moved to spontaneous praise. He gave credit where credit’s due. And God is to be credited with strengthening the churches, revealing the gospel, saving the nations and all in accordance with His eternally wise plan.

Though our words may not be as carefully crafted or as theologically precise as the great Apostle why not put this down for a moment and praise God with the language that immediately comes to mind for all that He has accomplished. We have much to praise the Lord for. So in amongst the latest offerings from Grisham, Rowling and Hosseini why not do yourself a favour and pick up a bestselling classic and read a thrilling true story from the greatest author of all time?

With best wishes in Christ

richard

This could be one of the most divisive posts that I’ll ever write. And I’ve just written some stuff on GAFCON. This is a position paper. On sport. In the midst of widespread confusion, there are some things that we need to clarify. I’ve just watched a BBC programme on Olympic hopefuls. I’m distraught at what we’re now prepared to call a sport. It wouldn’t have happened in my day. There’s a great need for clear thinking and leadership on this issue. I’m happy to step up to the plate. Theerfore, let me offer a defining statement; the Balham Statament let’s call it. We’re not a break away faction of reactive schismatics. We just want to recapture the heart of sport. Others may want to sign up and join the bandwagon. I’m thinking of starting a petition. To my mind, for something to qualify as a sport it must involve the following four features

1. competition

2. technical expertise

3. athletic ability 

4. a ball

Therefore, cycling is a recreation. Rowing is a technique. Darts is a competition. Rugby, football, cricket and hockey - now they’re sports. Golf isn’t because it doesn’t require athletic ability. The same goes for snooker. Grand Prix is driving quickly. Swimming is a technique but add a ball and water polo is a sport. What this of course means is that the Olympic Games is technically not a sporting competition but an athletic one. It also means that the BBC covers very little sport, but that’s a rant for another time!

This is the text of short letter I try to write every month to our Church Family on something that merits a response, something that’s currently an issue or something that tickles my fancy!

Dear Friends

In recent weeks the media has been awash with stories of the further disintegration of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. As is often the case, the carefully worded statements of principled biblical leaders are presented as the bigoted ranting of schismatic homophobic militants at the lunatic fringe of mainstream Christianity. Not by everyone, admittedly. Rather wonderfully some of the press reporting, particularly by the BBC’s Religious Affairs Correspondent Robert Piggott, has been very fair. One of the newsworthy items has been the Global Anglican Future Conference [GAFCON] held in Jerusalem at the end of June.

I had the privilege of attending with the Co-Mission Senior Pastor, Richard Coekin. It was more enjoyable and encouraging than I ever imagined it would be. Though it was hard to be separated from church and especially from family, it was wonderful to be among old and new friends from all around the world. There were so many highlights that it seems miserly to limit them to a few. But chief amongst them must be the private tour of the biblical sites of Jerusalem by Australian historian and theologian Paul Barnett, conversations on the bus with Archbishop Josiah Fearon from Kaduna, Nigeria and relaxing by the hotel pool with the great and the good from the English evangelical church scene. 

One of the key things to come out of GAFCON was the Statement on the Global Anglican Future. For those of us who are cynical about such things or overly pedantic about the precise details of statements of faith you need to remember that when the draft statement was read to a room of approximately 1,200 people, grown men whooped, wept, jumped for joy and hugged one another. The British did it on the inside. One senior clergyman said to me, ‘this is the best thing to come out of Anglicanism in all my years of ministry’. Another said, ‘for the first time in my ordained life I’m not embarrassed to be an Anglican!’

Let me suggest that this is a great statement for at least these three reasons.

1.       It’s a reassertion of authentic Anglicanism

Opponents of GAFCON are already suggesting that the motivation behind the movement is schismatic separation. It is most definitely not that. These orthodox Anglicans are going nowhere. Though the statement launches a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, the document states that ‘our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion’.  Instead they are committed to the preservation, recovery and growth of authentic Anglicanism. This is defined not by recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury but by a doctrinal commitment to the authority of the scriptures as expressed in the Creeds and the 39 Articles. This ought to be music to evangelical ears. It means that the Church of England belongs to people like us and not the liberal revisionists who currently wield so much influence. In actuality they are like a parasitical cuckoo that has flown uninvited into the biblical nest of Anglicanism and is in the process of forcing out the rightful heirs to the denomination. It’s a deliberately provocative metaphor, but it’s accurate.

2.       It’s a potentially divisive statement

Though lots of faithful Anglicans may agree that things are a mess at the moment, not everyone will like what’s been suggested. And therefore self proclaimed evangelical leaders like the Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, who has written many useful things and with whom we would agree on a whole range of issues, have come out strongly against what’s been proposed. But over the last ten years there’s been a growing consensus that evangelicals cannot simply stay in the Church of England and accept further compromise. For the sake of Christ and his gospel we must contend, graciously but firmly. And in so doing we’re not doing anything un-Anglican. Anglicanism ought to welcome evangelical Christians. And yet in some dioceses the central structures are opposing gospel work and even persecuting gospel churches. Courageously, the leaders of GAFCON have decided that they cannot stand by whilst others preach another gospel, whilst principled Anglicans are forced to seek alternative Episcopal oversight and whilst no effective disciplinary measures are taken against the liberal revisionists. In my view, GAFCON is realistic about the mess that we’re currently in and it promises help in those situations.

3.       It’s a distraction from the job of ministry

I’ve deliberately overstated that in order to make unmistakably clear that though this is a political statement of real substance it won’t bring anyone to faith and it won’t grow anyone in Christian maturity. That’s our job. It will be tempting for us to become distracted and forget that Christ commissioned us to make disciples of all nations not make us familiar with the endless round of opinions expressed in the ‘blogosphere’. Let’s be informed on the issues but not sidetracked by them. The Jerusalem statement is significant, please don’t misunderstand me. It’s especially encouraging and supportive of the gospel ministry that we’re trying to do in launching new congregations and raising up future church leaders. But it will not do it for us. We must encourage one another to keep going in the demanding but rewarding work of gospel ministry. Of course, we still think that the Church of England is worth fighting for. We’d like there to be Anglican churches up and down the country in years to come so that our children and grandchildren can hear the gospel in them. But the battle for the Church of England will not be won on pieces of paper, but on the ground. If Anglican Evangelical churches like ours keep growing and producing informed and godly mums, dads, workers, pastors and kids then we’ll have a massive influence on the direction of the Christian faith in this country. Ultimately that’s our aim. We seek not simply the preservation of an ancient denomination but the glory of Christ through the salvation of sinners. It’s just that we think the Church of England is still a great place to do that from.

If you’ve not already done so, why not read the Statement on the Anglican Mainstream web site. You’ll find it so encouraging. And if you sign the petition and express your support, you’ll encourage others.

With best wishes in Christ

richard

This is the text of short letter I try to write every month to our Church Family on something that merits a response, something that’s currently an issue or something that tickles my fancy!

Dear Friends

At the holiday Bible club, Going Bananas, we looked at the encounter between Jesus and Zacchaeus. Jesus’ determination to pursue sinners provoked outrage amongst the religious elite. In their opinion if Jesus was a godly man, as he claimed to be, he shouldn’t be found amongst the ungodly. It seems logical. But that doesn’t make it right. Jesus explained that his behaviour was entirely consistent with the ministry that God had given him. To explain what he was about, he used the words, ‘the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost’.

When we came to teach the kids we really struggled with explaining the concept of ‘lostness’. What does it mean for a person to be lost? How would you articulate it? We realised that when something is lost, it’s not where it’s supposed to be. The keys ought to be in the key plate and when they’re not, they’re lost. In the same way, people are lost when they’re not where they should be. They should be living lives in glad and obedient submission to their loving Creator. But they’re not. And so they’re lost. Jesus came to find these people and put them back where they belong. He’s done it for us. And now we’re keen that he should do it for others.

This is one of the most important convictions that underpins church life at CCB. We’re not primarily about looking after those of us who’ve been found, we’re primarily about seeking the lost. In fact, we’re prepared to leave the found to seek the lost, just as Jesus was. Not every church accepts this. But wonderfully this is not a battle that we have to fight at CCB.

The month of May was largely taken up with trying to share in Jesus’ mission. The three major events in the church calendar all had the intention of seeking the lost.

1.       The Away Day

This was held at the Factory, the new church building in Raynes Park. It was planned and implemented to perfection by Anna. It was attended by a huge proportion of both congregations. Dan Strange, a lecturer at Oak Hill Theological College, helped us with a subject he described as, Cultural Apologetics. In essence it’s a way of describing Peter’s command to defend the reason for the hope that we have [1 Peter 3:15]. It means that in interacting with our society, we’re trying to do two things. In the first place we’re trying to remove distortions to the gospel and thereby clarify people’s understanding. And secondly, we’re trying to remove false assurance and thereby convict people of the truth. It has value for both unbelievers and believers alike because we both share idolatrous heart commitments. In other words we worship things that aren’t God. What we worship or love manifests itself as a worldview, a framework of assumptions through which we understand everything. A worldview always takes shape as we create a culture in which those things are given significance. Cultural Apologetics helps us to identify, understand and evaluate these idolatrous influences. It’ll help us deal with idolatry in the hearts of unbelievers and in our own hearts. If we want to seek the lost we need to be able to critique the culture and work out what it tells us about what’s replaced God in our affections.

2.       The Park Party

In essence The Park Party was a glorified Church Fete, though I’d never want to hear it called that! It conjures up unhealthy stereotypes that we’re keen to leave behind! The intent behind our inaugural Park Party was to try and connect with the local community. Most people in Balham have no contact at all with CCB. In a small way, we wanted to address that. But though we sought to promote CCB, what we really wanted to promote was Jesus Christ and his gospel. We were able to do this especially through the children’s talk from Luke 14. Wonderfully a huge number of people stayed on and came to the church meeting. At that event, loads of people heard that God has invited everyone to his heavenly feast. Christian and his team of helpers did a wonderful job of planning and implementing the event. The teams from the various Knowing God groups made invaluable contributions on the day. The band provided a wonderfully varied musical programme. And we are deeply indebted to those who cooked cakes and biscuits. There will be lots that we can learn from our first attempt at this scale of event but above all, it was a tremendous success.

3.       The Holiday Club

We took a bit of punt pitching Going Bananas at Primary School aged children. CCB only has two kids in that age range! But if we always let reason win over risk we’d never get anything started! Alright, we let their slightly younger siblings come along as well, so that boosted numbers. But even that concession meant that only 6 of the 20 children who came are part of Christ Church Kids. Wonderfully through our involvement at Telferscot, friendships with parents at Henry Cavendish and the regular Christ Church Kids’ Parties we were able to promote the holiday Bible club wider than we’d hoped. We even had one family who came as a result of The Park Party. Polly did a fantastic job in planning the three mornings and running the team of willing and talented volunteers. Many took time off work to be involved. It was a great team effort and a reminder that as a church we are one body with many parts [1 Corinthians 12:12]. As with many of the things we’ve done, if we start small, pray and back it the Lord will use our efforts for His glory. God willing, this will be the first of our Holiday Bible Clubs and an integral part of a growing children’s ministry.

Conclusion

It won’t always be easy ‘seeking the lost’. It cost Jesus his life. We’ll find it’ll cost us as well. But as we know personally, the experience of salvation is worth every sacrifice that we could possibly make.

With best wishes in Christ

Richard

This is the text of short letter I try to write every month to our Church Family on something that merits a response, something that’s currently an issue or something that tickles my fancy!

Dear Friends

Ever since I was converted in the early 1990s I’ve been part of a theological tradition that has looked somewhat suspiciously at church involvement in social concern. It’s not always been articulated in such negative terms. And in all honesty many of the fine Christian people I’ve known have been gloriously inconsistent in their approach to these matters. They warn of potential distractions to gospel ministry and yet have been wondrously generous with their time and money. In actuality even the conservative evangelical theological constituency that I so love and identify with are more involved in social concern than we profess to be. We send our letters of to our Member of Parliament, we sit as School Governors and we set up Crisis Pregnancy Centres.

In recent weeks three things have made an impact on me. They’ve been very helpful in thinking through how to develop a social conscience.

1. An article by the American theologian John Frame called, ‘In Defence of Christian Activism’.

In this article Frame argues that there is a solid biblical rationale to reject the fundamentalist argument that the church should abandon its social responsibility and simply preach the simple gospel. He cites Galatians 6:10 as chief amongst our reasons to be involved in ongoing social activism which he describes as ‘any Christian attempt to improve society’. He makes the observation that we are to show concern especially not exclusively for the household of faith. In other words, though the church is our primary concern it’s not our sole concern. That’s a helpful corrective. I‘ve also heard it argued that since this world is going to be destroyed then what we should be doing at the moment is not fixing society but rescuing a few souls from the fiery furnace. There’s a compelling logic to it. Please don’t hear me to be saying that we must lessen our evangelistic priorities in our personal lives, or in our church programmes. I have much sympathy with the slightly overstated fundamentalist caricature. However, God clearly expects us to be involved in other things than simply telling people the gospel. In his Great Commission Jesus told his followers that they were to make disciples of all nations. And he also told them to teach everything that he had commanded them. Jesus had a lot to say on a lot of issues. For example, he had much to say about the pursuit of mercy and justice amongst individuals.

2. A lecture with David Field from Oak Hill Theological College.

At the start of his lecture David made the point that there are both negative and affirmative ethical duties. A negative ethical duty is something that we must obey all of the time. For example, ‘Do not steal’ is a command from which we’re never exempted. It’s a 24/7 non-negotiable moral obligation. However, an affirmative ethical duty is something that we should pursue as much as we’re able to. It would be really good to do all of the time but since we’re finite people with limited opportunities and abilities we simply won’t be able to pull it off. For example, the command to ‘love your neighbour’ is something that we’re encouraged to do. But it’s not something that we can do all of the time because there are times when I must cease from loving my neighbour to take care of myself. This need not be selfish. We need to eat, sleep and work. God does not expect to keep all his affirmative ethical duties all of the time. We can’t. He knows that. We need to prioritise what we can do. And so we don’t need to feel guilty for what we’re unable to do. This is liberating. This perspective has been helpful as I’ve thought about what we should be doing as a church. There are so many things that we ought to be doing and that we’d like to be doing. But we can’t just yet. It wouldn’t be wise to attempt them because we don’t have the opportunities or resources to manage. And so we shouldn’t be beating ourselves up for the things we can’t do at our stage of church growth. But it also means that as God grows CCB we’ll need to keep revisiting the issue to find out whether there’s any spare capacity for expansion.

3. A sermon on the Good Samaritan by Tim Keller from Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York.

Keller argues three surprising things from Jesus’ story. First, he argues that Jesus has given to his church the mandate of showing mercy. Jesus assumed that his people would meet basic human needs through human deeds. When he affirmed the religious lawyer’s summary of the requirements of God he affirmed the requirement to ‘love our neighbour’. Whereas the lawyer assumed that obedience to the law was a way to life, Jesus assumed that the law was a way of life. This is the way that Jesus would have us live. In fact, ‘loving our neighbour’ is a sure sign that Jesus has put his Spirit in our hearts. Secondly, he demonstrates the vast magnitude of Jesus’ command to love our neighbour. We tend to regulate Jesus’ command by wanting to restrict the category of neighbour, by limiting the circumstances in which we’re to show love and by inhibiting what we’re required to do. Thirdly, he argues that the motivation for loving our neighbour is not duty but the gospel. It is only when we’ve experienced undeserved, self sacrificial love from an enemy that we’ll be moved to show it to others. This is what every Christian has experienced through Christ. Jesus refused to put limits on his love when he came to die for us. It is this gospel that drives the kind of radical ‘neighbour’ love that’s exemplified by the Good Samaritan.

There are still questions to be asked about what this means for our personal lives and for our church programmes. How this is worked through in concrete terms is a matter of prayerful reflection and taking wise counsel. At the very least we need to recommit ourselves to praying for and supporting Options and we should seek to be informed on the legislative issues that the Christian Institute or Christian Concern for our Nation send out. But perhaps the first thing to do is to seek to be a good neighbour where we live. Imagine what it’d do for the house prices if there were a couple of Good Samaritans in your street. That’s infinitely more influential than having a Waitrose in the High Street!

With best wishes in Christ

richard

I didn’t see this one coming. The issue came straight out of left field. I hadn’t anticipated that by sending our kids off to the local primary school we’d have to deal with the issue of yoga.

I confess that my initial thoughts weren’t of a spiritual nature. They were physical. What are they thinking? What’s happening to our education system? We’re surprised that we’re producing obese computer game playing lard buckets and yet we’ve rejected physical activity in favour of relaxation techniques! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out the two might be linked in some way. Six year old boys don’t need to improve their posture; they need exercise. And lots of it. They need to let off steam not meditate in the lotus position. But apparently I’m at odds with the opinion of the educational establishment. This is not the first occurence!

But the real issue is not my one-eyed approach to sport which wins me few friends at the dinner parties of artistic friends. The real issue is whether spiritually it’s allowable or sensible to expose the kids to something that derives from Eastern mystical therapy. The local Baptist Minister has withdrawn his kids from the classes. We support them in that decision and we’ve wondered about doing the same thing. We haven’t and I guess these are the issues that we had to confront.

1. Our kids may be helped by yoga

I don’t understand how yoga works. I suspect medical science hasn’t got all the answers yet. But othopaedic specialists often recommend it because it helps with bad backs. The kids haven’t got those yet but if they continue to slouch like they do at the moment it’s surely a matter of time! If they grow up with a better understanding of how to sit, that’s great. If they grow up understanding that stress is bad for you and that relaxation can minimise it, that’s great. It’s better than growing up stressed with a bad back. At the level of physical health I have no objections. This is part of God’s wonderful generosity in giving us a physical world with so many useful things in it. God has been good to us in giving us techniques to stave off ill health.

2. Our kids won’t be defiled by yoga

There’s a temptation to think that their exposure to Eastern traditional techniques will make them unclean. But yoga isn’t demonic and the activity won’t make us spiritually unclean. That was the worry of the Corinthian Christians when they were concerned about whether or not to eat meat offered to idols. Paul’s advice was essentially ‘go for your life’ [1 Corinthians 10]. The only qualification he gave was that if our actions cause a weaker brother to stumble then for their sake we’re to restrict our freedom. That gave us serious cause for thought. We wondered whether our Christian friends might be led astray if we were to allow the kids to participate. They reassured us that they wouldn’t be. We also wondered whether we should withdraw the kids in an act of Christian solidarity. That was tempting but we didn’t think it was the hill to die on.

3. Our kids may be misled by yoga

If the yoga is accompanied by false teaching about God then there’s cause for alarm. I don’t want our kids exposed to the philosophical ideology of Eastern religions without being able to brief them first. But I’ve been reassured that the yoga at school is purely physical and not spiritual. That’s not denying that the beliefs behind these systems are idolatrous. They often are. The teacher may subscribe to some very dubious views about what’s actually going on in the activity. And so parents may decide to withhold their children from the class for that reason. But we might also need to withdraw them from the world if we applied that principle elsewhere. And it’s worth remembering that the same could be said for the gym. The gym instructor could help me with a weights circuit and the ideology that underpins his advice is pure hedonistic infatuation with attaining physical perfection. But I’ll still take his advice. I’ll even let the footy coach give Rufus advice about how to kick a ball even though the coach is driven by materialistic ambition for the wealth that footballing success promises. It seems to me that we need to equip them to identify and critique idolatry as they encounter it not completely isolate them from it.

We’re monitoring the situation. The school have no objections to us watching a class. We make subtle enquiries with the kids but it’s hard to decipher the monosyllabic grunts! And so, I continue to think that a school lesson is better spent chasing a pig’s bladder round the common but I’m on a minority on that one.

An article by Kirsten Birkett in the January 2003 edition of the Briefing entitled Can a Christian go to reiki? was most helpful in thinking this one through.

The BBC reports that a debate has been taking place at the annual conference of the National Union of Teachers concerning the place of religious education. You’ll find the report here. Essentially the NUT is proposing that religious leaders would be permitted into state schools to teach their faith to children from their religious group. So, instead of Tuesday lunchtime being Chess Club it might be Buddhist Society.   

I offer this initial response

1.  The NUT express an understandable concern about community cohesion and integration of ethnic groups into British society. Few people want their families to grow up in separate religious enclaves. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali warned of the ‘no go’ areas in the Daily Telegraph. You can find his comments here. He was villified for his views by some portions of the liberal political elite. But he had a point. In defence of his view Ed Husain author of The Islamist and a former activist in the extremist Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir commented, ‘In the name of multiculturalism, we have created monocultural ghettoes’. And Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said, ‘We all know that in virtually every big city there are places where different kinds of people feel uncomfortable. The Bishop of Rochester was right to raise this’. The NUT has to have a stab at this because they see where all this is going. They’re concerned about the popularity of state funded faith schools. They argue that this leads to a disintegrated society. They have a point. Their proposal to have different groups instructed in their religion is an attempt to stem the growth of faith schools. But I’m not persuaded their proposal will achieve what they wish for. The children of different faith groups might end up going to the same school but then they separate for faith education. I could be wrong but, to my mind, that would do little to unite divided communities.

2. I think the Church of England spokesman is misleading the public. He said, ‘Faith schools are not about indoctrinating children in a particular faith’. If that’s the case then why have them! Someone needs to tell him the game is up on that one. The genie is out of the bottle. I think we’ve been rumbled! Christian faith schools indoctrinate children in the Christian faith. At least they should. And I’m OK with that. On the whole the parents who send their kids are OK with it as well. And those that aren’t are just grateful for the excellent education their kids receive from the quality Christian educators their kids get exposed to. I’m less enthusiastic about other faith schools but I don’t get to decide Government policy and it’d be hard to convince a non-Christian Government that we shouldn’t let the Muslims have their schools if we’re going to let us Christians have ours.

3. In principle I don’t have an issue with my kids being taught the content of other faiths in the school environment. I welcome an education system that exposes them to other ideological positions. I don’t want them to believe them. I’m not an idiot. That’s why I pray for them and why I educate them at home. But I’d like them to understand the culture into which God has placed them as missionaries. Of course it makes me nervous that they might believe the religious hype that they come across. But God can take care of that. And I’d like them to grow up knowing that I didn’t withhold anything from them. And so I’m comfortable with the fact that at school they’ll come across different religious and philosophical ways of looking at the world. At home I’m already teaching them that the Bible describes anything that is a substitute for God and His word is idolatry.

4. We need to get it into our heads that there’s no such thing as the non-faith school. Keith Porteus Wood, the Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said that ‘indoctrination has no place in schools’. Oh please. Not that old chestnut again. He can weigh in all he likes but he ought to demonstrate some integrity and realise that his secularism is a faith. If he wants to teach that faith it’s indoctrination. In fact, all education is indoctrination. What matters is not whether we indoctrinate or not but with what we indoctrinate. I have a strong preference for truth rather than falsehood. That’s why I’d like the Maths teacher to know that 9 times 9 is 81 and not 80. That’s why I’d like the religious education teacher to know that justification by faith is one of the key doctrines that distinguishes Reformed Theology from Catholic theology. But I also realise that for most Primary School teachers that’s a tough ask. And so why not let the local Imam go in and teach about the Five Pillars of Islam. As long as we let the Baptist Minister go in and talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ I haven’t got a problem. Back home, where the real education ought to be going on Muslim parents will no doubt be teaching that The Imam spoke truth and the Baptist was lying. I use the language of confusion. I want our kids to know that Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Secularists are confused and that real education begins when we listen to the Lord.

No doubt other responses will come to mind but this is my first swing.  

Driving south out of London along the A23 you can’t miss the giant poster under the Norbury Railway Bridge. It looks like this. It’s one of 600 designed and paid for Stonewall.  It reads, ‘Some people are gay. Get over it!’ It’s effective and you’ve got to admire the momentum that it creates in favour of the ‘gay agenda’. For what it’s worth, their agenda in this instance is one that I support. The poster is part of a national campaign to reduce homophobic bullying in schools. So before we go any further, let’s be clear about this. I’m not in favour of bullying of any sort. I don’t know of any Christian worthy of the name who is. But nevertheless, I’ve got an issue with this billboard. I really don’t like it. It irritates me, because it’s wrong.

I accept the first premise ’some people are gay’ but I won’t accept the conclusion ‘get over it’. It tells me what to do but it doesn’t tell me why I need to do it. It manipulates me. And I hate being manipulated. If they want my support they need to persaude me. And to do that they’d have needed an argument that went like this.

Premise 1: some people are gay

Premise 2: it’s morally acceptable to be homosexually active

Conclusion: get over it!

If they’d said this I’d be right with them. But I’m not. Because of the second premise. It’s missing. And the reason it’s missing is that it’s not right. It’s not morally acceptable to be homosexually active. Homosexual activity is a distortion of God’s creation intent. I’ve written elsewhere on this. You might want to try here.

Almost inevitably the accusations of homophobia will come flying. But they just won’t stick. I’m not homophobic. It’s not homophobic to say that homosexual activity is wrong and dangerous. Homophobia is a fear of homosexual people. I’m not scared of gay people. I just don’t agree that a homosexual lifestyle is one to be encouraged. I’d want to argue that, in fact, I care for homosexual people so much so that I’m prepared to cop some flak for speaking out about the inherent dangers of homosexual activity. It won’t make me popular but it doesn’t necessarily make me wrong either.

Think about it. If I oppose drug taking I’m not anti drug takers. I’m anti drugs. Drugs are dangerous because they’re so damaging to our health. For that reason I’m opposed to drug pushers. If I oppose homosexual practice I’m not anti homosexual. I’m anti homosexual activity. Homosexual activity is dangerous because it’s damaging to our spiritual health. The Bible makes it clear that it’s one of those activities that we need to repent of if our profession to belong to Jesus Christ is to have any credibility.  If our claim to follow Jesus as Lord is to have any substance then he needs to be Lord of what we do with our bodies. If we won’t accept his lordship over our sex lives he’s not our Lord. That catastrophic. We can’t be saved apart from Christ. And so, it’s a salvation issue.

Some people are gay. I don’t dispute that. But I’m not going to get over it. And neither should you. Not if you care about homosexual people.

Should we celebrate Christmas? ‘Is he serious?’ ‘What is he planning now?’ ‘Please tell me he hasn’t gone to press on this?’ I can only imagine the panicked responses in the minds of the CCB faithful as they read the opening question. Our instinctive reaction is probably something like, ‘Of course, why wouldn’t we? After all everyone else does?’ That’s a post all on its own. Something along the lines of Christian accommodation to a secularist lifestyle. But I’ll save that for the New Yeat. The nagging doubt in some of our minds is probably, ‘is he seriously about to suggest that we shouldn’t’.

Relax. I may have iconoclastic inclinations but an increasing appreciation for the festivities of the season has kept them in check! Personal preference appears to have trumped principled action. To which my free church brethren would respond, ‘but he is an Anglican after all’!

Now I’m not the first person to raise the appropriateness of Christians celebrating Christmas. Some of the European Reformers of the 16th Century and the English Puritans of the 17th Century refused to do so. They were right on most things. So, at the very least, we ought to approach this subject with an open mind and a willingness to change our opinion. 

There are two main reasons given for not celebrating Christmas

1. Christmas Day is not Jesus’ birthday

Good point. In his gospel, Luke tells us that Jesus’ birth took place at a time when the Judean shepherds kept their flocks in the fields. Winters in Israel can be very severe and so it’s unlikely that these events took place at the end of December. In addition Luke also tells us that those fastidious administrators, the Romans, organised a census for the entire population. It’s unlikely that they’d decree this during a time when it was difficult to travel. Therefore it’s very unlikely that Jesus’ birth took place in winter. It probably occurred after harvest and before the bad weather set in. So autumn seems our best guess. Although it gives us these clues, the Bible gives us no date for Christ’s birth. The early church doesn’t offer us any clues either since the earliest Christians don’t appear to have celebrated the event. The first evidence for the celebration of Jesus’ birth is found in a Roman document dated AD336. The inauguration of Christmas day appears to have been an attempt to christianise a pagan festival. Under Pope Julius 1st the Roman Church decided to replace the traditional pagan midwinter festival in honour of the Sun with what we celebrate as the birth of God’s son.

2. Christmas customs do not have Christian origins

Another good point. For example

Father Christmas is not related to God the Father. The original Father Christmas was St Nicholas, a 4th Century Asian Bishop. He was a generous and anonymous supporter of the needy. Clearly not that anonymous! One day he climbed the roof of a house and dropped a purse of money down the chimney of a family of needy girls. The purse landed in the stockings that the girls had hung up by the fire to dry. In his memory it became customary to give gifts on the eve of St Nicholas’ day. In our culture this tradition was transferred to Christmas day.

Christmas trees originate with an 8th century English missionary called St Boniface who went to Germany. He apparently went encountered a group of people standing beneath a large oak tree ready to sacrifice a child to please their god. Boniface rescued the child and chopped the oak tree down. At its foot was a small fir tree and he gave it to the people as a symbol of life. In the 16th century Martin Luther, the German reformer, cut down a fir tree and took it home in the December of 1940. In the middle of the 19th century, Queen Victoria’s husband the German born Prince Albert introduced the Christmas tree into England. Woolworths have been doing the same ever since.

Christmas cards originate in the middle of the 19th century when the first one was made by Sir Henry Cole, the founder of the Victoria and Albert museum.

Turkeys were introduced into Europe in the 18th century by an officer called Sebastian Cabot. He had been part of an expedition to the New World. This native South American bird was called a turkey because it was popularised by merchants from that country.

Most of our Christmas customs do not have Christian origins.

But does this mean that we shouldn’t celebrate Christmas? Not in my opinion, for the following three reasons.

1. Christmas is part of our culture

Most people are completely unaware of the origins of Christmas. That’s not why people observe it. Therefore what it represents today has little to do with where it comes from. If we were being cynical we’d suggest that Christmas has to do with materialism. But that’s just an inherent danger and not the reason we celebrate it. I think that in most people’s minds Christmas is about with families, generosity and rest. Christians are all for those things and so we can be positive about Christmas. And there seems to be an increasing appreciation that Christmas is a Christian festival even if they stop short of acknowledging that it’s all about Jesus Christ. I thought it was striking that our school Christmas play this year was the Nativity and not something about Santa’s elves. Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights has been a vocal critic of our failure to acknowledge the significance of Christmas for fear of offending the religious sensitivities of those of other faiths. But as the article here points out those of other faiths are bemused by our culture’s reticence on this issue.

2. Christmas is an opportunity for the gospel

Many of us, and our unbelieving friends, are adept at pushing spiritual issues to the periphery of life. But, bombarded and intoxicated by the festive spirit at Christmas we’re especially susceptible to the invitation to church! Friends seem to be willing to come at this time of year. There’s something unthreatening and perhaps familiar about a carol service. Far from being an opportunity to abuse people’s vulnerability, it’s an opportunity for unbelievers to consider the big issues of life. Christmas can bring us face to face with the spiritual. In thinking about the birth of a baby we’re thinking about the birth of our saviour. And so we’re asked to consider why we need saving, what we need saving from, what are we saved for, how are we saved and so on. It’s hard not be enthusiastic about a seasonal celebration that gets people to hear that. 

3. Christmas is especially significant for Christians

Christians get the best of both worlds. Like everyone else we can enjoy the emphases of families, generosity and rest. But we also get to remember the birth of our saviour. This makes it all the more meaningful. It’s a great opportunity to take some time out with the family, repair some bridges and invest some time in those for whom we have responsibility. It’s a great opportunity to encourage ourselves and our children not only to think about what they’ll get but what they’ll give. And it’s a great opportunity to catch up on some sleep, recover from the last term’s activities and recharge the batteries ready for the rigours of the spring! But it’s also a time to be lost in wonnder at the profound mystery of the incarnation. It is an incredible thing that God became man to live, die and be raised as our eternal saviour.

May this, and not the vicar’s proposed forthcoming campaign to ban Christmas, be our ever increasing preoccupation this Christimas. Merry Christmas.

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.