Comet Bay Baptist Church

A new thought for the blog: I’m going to be writing some thoughts on passages of Scripture…. These are just my own musings and thinkings – what’s your opinion?

Luke 9 is an interesting chapter to read. It starts with Jesus giving his disciples authority and power to cast out all demons and to heal all diseases. Half way through, we’re told of their inabilty to heal someone Luke 9:40 . And then a few verses later, they admit to stopping others from casting out demons in Jesus’ name. From being given power to cast out all demons and to heal all diseases, the disciples end up being unable to heal – and jealous of another’s casting out demons. Why?

In verse 1, Jesus gave his disciples power and authority to do the kind of work that he himself was doing. Surely this means that he gave them of the Holy Spirit? Notice, it wasn’t just authority that Jesus gave them – but also power. God’s own power. The power of the Spirit. Was this a pre-empting of Pentecost? No, I don’t think so. Pentecost was when the Spirit was poured out. It was the inauguration of the age where the Spirit dwells within us in a permanent way. Rather, I think the power that Jesus gave his disciples at the start of Luke 9 was similar to the outpouring of the Spirit in the Old Testament – a temporary endowing of the Spirit for a specific purpose. In this case – to tell of the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick verse 2 . The reason the Spirit was given was so that the disciples might be effective in telling about Jesus’ kingdom.

Often, I tend to think of the Holy Spirit in ego-centric terms. He is the Spirt of adoption – the indwelling Spirit of Christ, uniting me to God the Father through Jesus. And in uniting me to Jesus, the Spirit brings to me the justification which Christ has earned. As Paul puts it in Romans 8:2, the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you from the power of sin that leads to death. He is the Spirit of sanctification – prompting me to put to death the misdeeds of the body and leading me in holiness; For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. Rom 8:14 . All this is true – marvellously true. But we need to remember that the Spirit of God is also given us that we might be effective witnesses to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Are we all given authority to cast out all demons and heal all diseases. No – of course not – that’s clearly not our experience. But we like the disciples have also been entrusted with the task of telling others about the kingdom of God. The disciples were given power and authority over demons and diseases, I believe, to demonstrate the power and truth of their message. We are given the Spirit for the same reason. Why does God sanctify us? Well, to conform us to the image of Christ. But perhaps also so that when we tell of the life-changing gospel of Jesus people will see how our words are backed up by our own lives.

Consider Luke 9:3-5. Apart from the power and authority given them by Jesus, his disciples were to take nothing for their journey. As they told others about the marvellous kingdom of God, they were to do it in absolute reliance on God. Why does Jesus insist that they take nothing with them? And how does this apply to us today? How many of us would be willing to risk everything for Jesus. And this is a risk. These disciples had nothing to fall back on should things go poorly. If they spent the whole day walking to a town – and were there rejected, they would go hungry. They would go thirsty. They would suffer. And can you imagine the state their clothes would be in after just a week? One change of clothes: and you’re walking in a hot, dusty environment. They’d stink!

What do we do today? If someone wants to be an overseas missionary, we insist that they first get all the monetary support that they need to survive in the mission field. In effect, we tell prospective missionaries: take all you need for your journey. Take a plane ticket. Make sure you’ve packed everything you might need. Make sure you’ve got enough to eat. And enough money to live on – everyone needs to survive! And clothes – who’s going to listen to you if you look like a beggar. Take all you need. Is this contradictory to the command of Jesus? Certainly, we need to remember that Luke 9:1-10 was about short-term missions. And the disciples were going to towns and people that should have been waiting for news of the Kingdom of God. It had, after all, been long promised in the scriptures. Today, however, an overseas missionary is quite a different beast. Usually, we’re talking a long term commitment to an unreached people group – a people who have no personal – and sometimes no cultural – history with God. In light of that, I don’t think it’s wrong for us to insist that missionaries are fully equipped for their mission.

So does that mean Luke 9:3-5 is meaningless for us today? That it was simply a one-off set of instructions for a specific group of people the disciples long ago? No – of course not! Because the underlying message to us is still very valid. Jesus is telling his disciples – and us – to rely on him and his power and his authority to do his work. It’s so easy to get busy tryyng to do kingdom work in our own strength. How is our church going to reach our community? By being really attractional – a place that people want to come to; that yells: “Here’s success” to a success-driven society. Says Jesus to us: just trust me. All the stuff you think you need to succeed in ministry: you don’t. My strength is enough. I’ve given you power and authority – what else do you need. You have my Spirit, what else can you need? Will you trust me to provide for success in your ministry? Will you trust me to provide even for the basic needs of your life.

Why don’t we risk everything for Jesus? Why don’t we risk giving all we have? Why aren’t we like the Macedonians – giving even beyond what we can? After all, God will provide.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think we’re called to recklessness. But maybe we are called to Christian recklessness. To a surrendering of all that we have to Jesus – and trusting that he will provide. Because he does! The disciples returned in verse 10 telling Jesus about everything they had done. Their mission trip – their ministry – had been successful. Yes – I’m sure there were a few instances where they left a village shaking its dust from their feet. But on the whole, the big picture was one of success. The kingdom grew – and Satan fell!

Jesus speaks all this to the crowds a bit later on in verse 23-26: If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross daily, and follow me. If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake, you will save it. And what benefit if you gain the whole world but are yourself lost or destroyed? If anyone is ashamed opf me and my message, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in his glory and in the glory of the Father.

To be continued….

It was the church father Cyprian 3rd century AD who famously posited that if we are to think of God as our Father, then we ought to think of the church as our mother. There’s certainly something to be said for that analogy: the church is the bride of Christ. She is responsible for teaching us about Jesus. When she makes decisions, she does so with the intent of following the Father’s wishes – something she’s able to do because the Spirit of God lives in her. She strives to see us grow up in our faith – to see us grow in Christ-likeness. She celebrates with us when life goes well – reminding us that is God’s loving kindness that has blessed us. She comforts us when we need comfort – not by her own power, but by helping us to see Christ anew. She is with us in both the highs and the lows of life. She encourages us to bring our friends home. In fact, she longs for nothing more than to have an extended family – offering the father’s adoption to all she comes into contact with. She stands against those who hate the Father – not to harass them, but to demonstrate the Father’s character to them.

But – and this is a big but – we cannot merely think of the church as an abstract “she”. For while all of the things said above are true of the church as an institution, we need to recall that the church consists of none other than ourselves. We are the bride of Christ. We are the ones who represent the father – not only to the world outside, but also to one another. As individuals, we have the gift of the Spirit – who variously gifts us for the edification of the congregation. And by this same spirit we are united – we are the church of Christ – the body of Christ.

Yes, the body has many different parts, not just one part. If the foot says, “I am not a part of the body because I am not a hand,” that does not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear says, “I am not part of the body because I am not an eye,” would that make it any less a part of the body? If the whole body were an eye, how would you hear? Or if your whole body were an ear, how would you smell anything?

But our bodies have many parts, and God has put each part just where he wants it. How strange a body would be if it had only one part! Yes, there are many parts, but only one body. The eye can never say to the hand, “I don’t need you.” The head can’t say to the feet, “I don’t need you.”

In fact, some parts of the body that seem weakest and least important are actually the most necessary. And the parts we regard as less honourable are those we clothe with the greatest care. So we carefully protect those parts that should not be seen, while the more honourable parts do not require this special care. So God has put the body together such that extra honour and care are given to those parts that have less dignity. This makes for harmony among the members, so that all the members care for each other. If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it, and if one part is honored, all the parts are glad.

All of you together are Christ’s body, and each of you is a part of it.

Tomorrow is Christmas, and I’m preaching from Isaiah 8:20-9:7. A truly wonderful passage. In my preparations, I tried to capture something of the good news in some poetry. I think there’s an interesting rhythm to what I’ve come up with. It’s probably not ready to share yet, but here goes anyway!

Darkness.
Shadow on shadow
hanging deep upon the soul
of the world;
of those who claim strength
to be all they need by themselves.

Useless.
Every wandering trial
mocking desperate hungry souls.
Without hope
roaming throughout the land
where gloom, it seems, never ceases

Darkness.
Seeming without end
smoth’ring all bar discontent
Yet fear not
for the gloom: it has dimmed
as light intermingles with night.

People
walking in darkness
have seen a wonderous light:
A child born;
A son to us gi’en
Eternal God with us fore’er

—

Have a wonderful Christmas everyone. May your life be dazzled anew? by the great light of the world!

Last night, I was reading through John 13 – John’s account of the last supper. Towards the end of that chapter, Jesus tells his disciples once again that he is about to go to the Father. And in light of that, verse 34, he commands them to love each other they way he loved them. Because that love would prove to the world that they were his disciples.

Surely that commandment from Jesus is true to this day. As Christians, we are those who have experienced what it means to be loved. A love that makes even the most extravagant of human loves seem pale by comparison. We know the love of him who, though God eternal, died for our sakes. And that kind of love – self-sacrificing, other-focussed, deep, godly – is what should inspire and indeed define our love for our fellow Christians. When we love one another like that, what we’re really doing is rephrasing God’s love for the world to see.

In every church that I have been associated with, there has been this element of love present. In fact, I fondly remember particular people whose lives were a living advertisement for God’s love. But I have to be honest and say that there have also been occasions when there was a distinct lack of love “one for another”. And it leaves a bitter taste even to observe.

In Philippians 4, Paul writes to a couple of ladies – Euodia and Syntche. These were godly, Christian women. They’d spent many a long hour working hard alongside Paul, Clement and a bunch of other Christians in sharing the good news about Jesus with others. They were united in purpose – and together inspired to tell forth Jesus’ love for the world. When Paul had been in town, their love for Christ must have obvious for everyone to see. And, as John reminds us in 1 John 3:11ff, to love Christ is to love each other. And vice versa, to love one another is to “proves that we have passed from death to life” [verse 14] .

But as Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians, something had gone far wrong between these two godly ladies. So big was their disagreement that Paul, sitting miles away, heard tell of it. I think it’s reasonable to assume that a fair number of people in Philippi non-Christians as well as church members would have clicked that things weren’t right between them.

If our love shows that we are Jesus’ followers, what do our arguments and disagreements prove?

When Christians disagree, we are reminded that we are sinners saved by grace. When Christians disagree, our faith and unity in Christ is masked – to the detriment of the church and the gospel. How can we share Christ’s love for the world when we deny it reign in our own inter-personal relationships?

Paul doesn’t tell us in Philippians what Euodia and Syntche were arguing about. And I don’t think it really matters what it was that caused this breach. I think it’s fair to surmise it was a fairly major disagreement. But consider the consequences.

I believe that Philippians 4:4-5 are written as an instruction to counter disunity and disagreement between believers.

Always be full of joy in the Lord. I say it again—rejoice! Let everyone see that you are considerate in all you do. Remember, the Lord is coming soon. NLT

Think about it: where there is disagreement – how much joy is there? How often do aggrieved parties try to be considerate towards each other? No. Disagreement robs joy and fosters self-righteousness and self-interest.

If we would follow Paul’s instruction in verse 4-9, how could disagreements endure? If we were to rejoice in God’s goodness and mercy, how could we live in enmity with one whom God loves and rejoices in? God takes joy in his people. To be considerate in all we do likewise means putting the other first. Disagreement and consideration are in some respect antonyms. Indeed, if we lived knowing that Jesus was coming soon – would we be focussed on our disagreements – or would we recall that we are to spend eternity together as brothers and sisters?

Yes – Christians do sometimes disagree. We are still sinners this side of eternity. But I think it behoves us to strive to love one another. Something which God can and will and does empower us to do by his holy Spirit. Perhaps when somebody pushes our buttons, instead of putting up dividing walls between us, we should instead follow what Paul says in verse 6-7; we should pray about it. So often our disagreements cause us all manner of worry. Why? – when we can take them to God, who loves us and the other person – and who is already at work to make both of us more like him. That’s the way to peace.

And this peace of God does more than just settling our hearts and minds. It also guards them against our sinful inclinations. If I know God’s peace – I don’t have to defend myself; I can rejoice even when falsely accused. I can be considerate toward the other because I live in Christ who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but humbled himself, becoming like us… dying for us. That’s our prince of peace.

Philippians 4:8-9 suggests one further step. To focus our thoughts on what is true, honourable, right, pure, lovely and admirable. When we’re in disagreements, it’s easy for us to lose sight of these things, and to focus on negatives. Yet we need to recall that our brother or sister in Christ is in Christ. And Christ is in them. Let’s focus on that. Let’s focus on the fruit of Christ’s Spirit growing in their lives. Let us be united in him.

Sometimes – when the disagreement is long in the tooth – it does need a third party to step in. Paul here calls upon Syzygus to act as a mediator. But wouldn’t it be better to not let disagreements wart out to that stage?

They were singing. That’s the last thing I heard as I walked away from the cold darkness where I’d put them and made my way into the warmth of my house. Despite everything that had happened, those two blokes were singing. And for the life of me, I didn’t get it. I couldn’t get them. They were weird-as: when they should have been nursing their wounds, they were praying and singing!

But let me back up a bit. My name’s Claudius Markus. Middle aged. Fair hair, brown eyes. Resident of the beautiful Philippi for – oh; it’s been a while. Great place to live; about as close to Rome as you can get. In fact, for all intents and purposes it is part of Rome – one of the outer suburbs, if you like. Because we get all the same perks and benefits as if we were actually in the capitol itself – rather than here in Macedonia. Kind of like Christmas Island – far away from Australia – but very much Australian.

I spent my whole life working in the army. Thought Philippi would be a good place to finish off; you know: settle down, raise the family. Retire even. All I’ve got to do is look after the local klink; make sure the prisoners don’t escape. How hard can that be – all I have to do is make sure they’re chained up properly. I don’t even have to bother with feeding them – their friends come and do that… and if they don’t got friends; meh – shouldn’t have got caught doing the wrong thing.

Let’s be honest – people don’t throw you in jail if you haven’t done the wrong thing. I mean, you deserve it. And yes, my little jail certainly wasn’t 5-star accommodation. But, hey: I was just doing my job. Keeping the scum off of the streets.

Well, that’s how I used to think. Things have changed for me the last couple of weeks. It all started when a bunch of blokes arrived in town – they were heading inland from the coast. There were like 4 main blokes who came: umm: a Doctor Luke; a Timothy – they were all right. You know, people like us. And then there were a coupl’a Jews. Yeah, I know. Paul and Silas. Now, I wasn’t a racist, but Philippi was a pretty civilised, religious kind of place. And there really weren’t many of those atheist Jews around. You know -the one’s who said they don’t need any idols.

Anywho. These newcomers – first thing they did when they got to town was to suss out where the local Jews met – down at the stream just outside the city limits. apparently – whatever they said – it was pretty convincing. Because before you could say “snap” word got around that Lydia – you know, the lady who sells that expensive cloth – she’d taken up their religion – she was calling herself a Christian. A follower of the Christ – of the Saviour.

If they’d kept to just speaking to the Jews, I don’t reckon there’d have been any problem. But that’s where things started to get a bit tricky for the newcomers. I mean, they should have known that when they walked into Philippi, they had walked into territory where all kinds of forces and powers were at work. They should have known that this city wouldn’t just let them come in and turn everything – our society, our beliefs, our economy – on it’s head. But that’s exactly what they came to do. They’d come to encourage everybody in the town to leave their old way of life and to instead become followers of some dead Jewish bloke.

I mean, look at what happened. This one day, they were going to that Jewish prayer place when they were met by Euodia. You know Euodia; Julius’ slave. She was world-famous in Philippi as a servant of the great god Apollo. She had one of his spirit’s in her. Doc Luke wrote that down in his book. She could tell you the future like spot on pretty much every single time. Nice little money earner for her owners, of course. The future wasn’t cheap! And she wasn’t a scammer. She was the real deal. Like trunk line through to the supernatural. Everybody used her. I myself had paid over the fee to hear her predict what was in store for me.

But the strangest thing? From the day she met the newcomers, she started following them around yelling out at the top of her voice some nonsense about them being servants of the Most High God who were telling us the way to be saved. If I were that Paul bloke, I’d be pretty thrilled to have her on my side. I mean, it’d be like getting Today Tonight on side. Everybody knew her – trusted her. What a bonus for the newcomers! Free advertising and endorsement.

Which makes what Paul did a bit odd. Like 3 days after she started following them around, he turned on her. From what I hear, he’d been getting like more and more irked by her as the days wore on. Like he didn’t appreciate what she was doing for him. And on that third day, he just snapped. He turned around, looked at her, and he spoke – not to her, but to the spirit in her. Euodia told me what he said. He said, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!”

The other day, at Lydia’s house, Eudodia was trying to explain to me what happened. She struggled. She said it was like… like something dark left her. Like, you know, that moment when the sun breaks through the clouds. She felt different. Free, somehow. I mean, yeah – she’s still a slave, but for the first time in a long, long time she felt like she wasn’t. Like the thing inside of her was evil, and had gone. Had run away as fast as it could as soon as Paul – in the name of Jesus Christ – told it to. Euodia’s thrilled of course – wouldn’t you be if you’d spent more than half of your life with an evil spirit inside of you?

But Julius and his partners, her masters – they weren’t quite as thrilled. Because turns out that when Paul exorcised the evil Spirit from Euodia, he’d also exorcised their paychecks from their pockets. Which was not something that they took kindly to. They couldn’t have cared less that Euodia felt so much more alive and free – all they cared about was that she couldn’t do her job anymore. And she wouldn’t even fake it for them. Said she wasn’t following the old gods anymore, that she was following the powerful one; she was following this Jesus Christ.

You know what they did, of course. Got some heavies to grab Paul and Silas – the Jewish newcomers. And dragged them off to the town square to face some justice. They couldn’t, of course, accuse them of casting out a spirit. Exorcism wasn’t a crime. But Julius and his partners were clever clever men. They accused Paul and Silas of 2 things. First off: they were Jews. Not just foreigners, but Jews. Atheists, those people who claimed that the Roman gods weren’t really gods, who said their God was invisible. That’s always a good card to play in Philippi – play the man, play the race card. And the second charge was like the first. These blokes, Julius claimed, they had come in and were trying to get people to be un-Roman. They were undermining the social fabric of society. And they had to be dealt with before it was too late

Not surprisingly, that got the crowd all riled up. I mean, we were in Philippi. Our brighest ambition was to be as Roman as we could. Last thing we wanted was some blokes trying to undermine that. The magistrates really didn’t have much of a choice in the matter. If they didn’t punish Paul and Silas – those Jews – they would be accused of being anti-Roman. And the town might turn against them.

So they grabbed them. Stripped them naked. Flogged them and handed them over to me to throw them into jail. Which is fair enough. That’s how everybody came to me. Stripped and beaten almost senseless. And I’d always take them in give me a roof for the night – with free manacles on the stone pillow.

These two – Paul and Silas – I was told to guard them extra carefully. But… it was a cold night, and I wanted to go home and be with the family. So I took them into the max-security part of the jail. Right in the middle, in the darkness, with their feet locked in stocks. Made sure they weren’t going anywhere. And started off for home.

That’s where I started the story today. Because as I left the jail, I could hear them singing. Now you got to know, when you get thrown into jail after a beating, you’re sore. Nobody treats your bleeding wounds. You can barely move. Toilet facilities are, umm. Yeah, well. Suffice to say there was a slight aroma to the place No water to drink. And Paul and Silas, with their feet in stocks – they must have been in agony. Over the years, many of my prisoners had killed themselves it was such a soul-breaking place.

And I went home. Had dinner. Sat in the warmth. Went to a warm bed. Until just after midnight. There was an earthquake. I rushed out, across to the jail. If any of the prisoners had escaped, my head would on the blocks – literally. Guards who let prisoners escape were always punished in the most extreme way possible. I got there – and the earthquake seemed to have hit the prison head on. The prison doors were all open. I took my sword out, and was about to fall on it; kill myself.

When I heard, through the midnight still Paul’s voice. Claudius – stop! We’re all here. How he knew I was there; how he knew what I was about to do – I have no idea. I suspect I’ll never really know. I mean, he was in the very middle of the jail. There’s only one way he could have known… But as for me, when I hear him, it just blew me away. I rushed in, right to max security. All the prisoners on the way, they just sat in their cells, their chains all off. I got to Paul. I fell down before him, overwhelmed. Brought them out from the cell, sat them down outside, and asked the question I had to know. Sirs, what must I do to be saved.

And he told me. Believe in the Lord Jesus. I took them home, washed their wounds. They told me and everybody in the house all about Jesus. How he is the son of God, who loved us so much that he was willing to suffer and die for us – to take my punishment for him. And you know, I could see that those two blokes took it seriously. Because they themselves had been willing to suffer for the sake of telling us about this good news. They’d been beaten, falsely accused, imprisoned. And through it all, their faith in God didn’t waver.

And now, everything’s different…

Based on the events of Acts 16

Historically, one of the defining features of Baptist belief has been an insistence on the separation of church and state. These two God-ordained institutions, it is held, having distinct mandates and loci of authority, should not encroach on one another. Upon first appraisal, this principle seems simple. Yet, as Prevost notes, the separation of church and state is “probably the most misunderstood and the most controversial” of all Baptist distinctives. Indeed, the separation of church and state is complex, “not neat. It’s messy, difficult, inconsistent, and it always has been.”

John Smyth, a key Baptist founder, proposed that a “magistrate is not by vertue [sic.] of his office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force and compell men to this or that form of religion, or doctrine: but to leave Christian religion free, to every man’s conscience, and to handle only civil transgressions. ^” Theologically, Baptists argue that one’s faith comes from a personal experience of and relationship with the risen Christ. Logically, this cannot be enforced by a third party. People must be free to choose for Christ or not according to their own consciences and convictions.

For the church and state to be separate implies that no religious group should be given preferential treatment. As Grenz wryly notes, the gospel, bearing witness to the power of God, “does not need to be bolstered by state power or given preferential treatment.” Nevertheless, the state is to ensure freedom for all religious to conduct their business without fear of persecution or reprisals.

In Romans 13, Paul notes that all authorities – including states – are established and instituted by God. Indeed, he calls state authorities God’s servants; the same Greek word being used in the LXX of priests rendering religious service to God. Both state and church, then are divinely ordained for service. Yet they are not ordained for the same service. The church exists to call people to faith in Christ, the state’s function is to maintain social stability. Where the church seeks to maintain social stability, it is in danger of losing sight of the coming kingdom of God. Likewise, “no king can turn his people to God’s love – all he can do is hang them.”

Although called separately, the church and state are mutually beneficial to one another. States, in seeking a well-ordered society, provide an environment in which churches can thrive. Churches, seeking to grow people in Christ-likeness, produce through the gospel “the type of Christian character conducive to a well-ordered society. ^“

The primary scripture on which Baptists base their theology of distinct civil and religious realms is Matthew 22:15-21. When Jesus instructs his disciples to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s, it seems that he is affirming the existence, rights and functions of the state. Further, by implication, different things are owed to the state than are owed to God. For, as Jesus announced to Pilate, his kingdom is not of this world. Isaac Backus, an early American Baptist rightly questions how one “can hear Christ declare that his kingdom is NOT OF THIS WORLD, and yet believe that [a] blending of church and state can be pleasing to him.”

Biblically, then, it seems that there is a strong argument for the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, the biblical witness does not go into overly much detail of just what that separation looks like. Some, like Southern Baptists in America, have no qualms about openly supporting certain political candidates. Others bemoan even accepting donations from politicians. All Baptists, however, would still claim obedience to the principle of the separation of church and state.

This principle was born not only out of theological conviction, but also out of historical experience. In the ancient world, religion and culture were twinned, reinforcing each other. To deny the state religion was paramount to treason. Like first century Christians, Baptists arose as dissenters against state mandated religion. Historically, the western church had been politically intertwined with state authorities ever since the “conversion” of Constantine. Prior to that, the church had been a persecuted, powerless minority. Yet within a short space of time, it itself became the persecuting, powerful majority.

Unlike other protestant groups, European Baptists tended not to seek support from local governing authorities. The idea of seeking to become a state church was inimicable to them; for early Baptists, the government was too “bound up with the world’s evil” to even countenance a liaison. Even had they sought support, it is most unlikely that they would have found it; Baptist theology and practice challenged too many political and social structures.

Dissatisfied with the theology of both other protestant and catholic religious thought, Baptists were usually denied the right to practice their faith according to their own convictions. Rather, “it was everywhere [in Europe] illegal to practice Christian faith as a baptist. Consequently, those who bore open witness to their faith were repeatedly hauled into court, imprisoned, fined, and in many cases put to death.”

Baptists, then, had a strong experiential motivation to ensure that others not have to endure the evils of state-sponsored religion as they had. In the United States, Baptists continued their support of church-state separation. Amongst other things, Baptists there are recorded as refusing to pay either taxes in support of established churches or licenses for their own churches. The situation in America differs from much of the rest of the world in that the Baptist-inspired principle of the separation of church and state was incorporated into that nation’s constitution, even if many citizens weren’t in favour of it. The Danbury Baptists, an association of twenty-six Baptist churches are known to have supported President Thomas Jefferson politically because of his unflagging commitment to religious liberty.” Unfortunately, it could be argued that in providing political support to him, they themselves were undermining the very principle they were seeking to encourage.

The Danbury Baptists, situated in Connecticut, found themselves in a state where Congregationalism was the established church. Indeed, many American states – like nations in Europe – had established, state-supported churches. The question of how distinctively Baptist a distinctive the separation of church and state is, is at one level, then, simple to answer. This distinctive is very much a child of Baptist thought. It is, necessarily, not shared by any denomination which has embraced or sought state sponsorship as an established or mandated religion. Many American Baptists, for instance, were persecuted by Puritan state governments; ironic given that the Puritans themselves left England to escape state persecution themselves. The Anglican church – having as it does political power enshrined in law – can likewise not be said to share the distinctive in any real sense.

Given it’s historical hold over European political affairs, it is perhaps not surprising that the Catholic church does not favour the separation of church and state. In 1864, Pope Pious IX went as far as to call “liberty of conscience and of worship… most pernicious to the Catholic church and to the salvation of souls.” Baptists would argue back that simply being a mandated member of a church has no import for the salvation of one’s soul; salvation is a personal matter between God and one’s self.

Over time, the idea of church and state being separate – at least in the western world –has been accepted by society as a given. We live in a post-Enlightenment age, where individualism reigns supreme. Given that state-mandated religion infringes upon the individual, it is perhaps not surprising that many churches – and indeed many other religions situated in the West support the separation of church and state. Nevertheless, whilst many would agree with the principle of the separation of church and state, there remains much disagreement regarding the “distinct line of demarcation in the separation… Obviously there are “gray” areas which account for these differences.” Baptists being a diverse conglomerate, there is even disagreement within the denomination regarding the degree of separation required.

Hobbs argues that “the greatest progress in Baptist witness in history has come under” the principle of the separation of church and state. Tellingly, though, Hobbs only allocates a page and a half to this principle. It would seem that although Baptists fought hard for state and church separation, it has ceased to become an important issue. Indeed, as McDaniel suggests, there has been a “general demise of church-state separation as a principle integral to the Baptist conception of religious freedom.”

Interestingly, if the American situation is anything to go by, it is conservatives who are moving away from this principle, and moderates who are clinging to it. This is perhaps due in part to the conservative emphasise on morality. Given a perceived decline in social morality, some Baptists see it as their duty to put society right. And indeed, Christ would have people living upright lives. Yet righteousness cannot be legislated. Having failed to effectively call people to Christ, one cannot use the state to make them live as disciples.

Perhaps another reason why church-state separation is no longer a priority is the distance in time from occasions when Baptists themselves endured abuse at the hands of church-states. The 1689 Act of Toleration gave Baptists freedom to openly meet together and worship; over the intervening years, it is possible that this freedom has become taken for granted.

There is also, seemingly, a reaction in some Baptist circles against the strict separatist tendencies of other Baptists. Hobbs, for instance, demands that no church should either pay taxes or receive tax funds from the state, but should instead rely on the generosity of Christians. Yet, “it is possible that church and state have a cause in common that does not involve state support of religion per se.” As long as the government does seek to control or dictate church activities, it is surely not inappropriate to accept state assistance. “However, even in such cases, churches should be very cautious about accepting government money if doing so might lead to government control.”

One of the key social changes over the last century has been the growing secularisation of society. On the one hand, this has resulted in a situation where states more often than not have no desire to be associated with the church; there is little political advantage to be gained. On the other hand, with secularisation has come a growing demand for toleration. Unfortunately, much of the gospel is perceived as being intolerant; demanding as it does that Christ is the only means of salvation. There is a danger that Christians lose their freedom to speak Christ in a society where such pronouncement is seen as inappropriate.

In terms of Australian Baptist denominational life, many churches still honour the church-state separation principle. Others, however, are more than happy to instruct members to vote for “Christian” parties. Yet to do so is to assume a position of authority over political matters. Surely this was not what the early Baptists intended.

Although church-state separation is a valuable biblical principle, it does not seem to me to be of such importance that one would form a separate denomination to safe-guard it. Ideally, church and state should be distinct; yet even were they not, the gospel would not be fettered. Rather, one would have a situation where there would be both Christians and non-Christians within the state-mandated “church”. The visible church and the invisible church might not correlate as precisely as we Baptists might like, but God’s church would remain.

If the Baptist denomination still exists a hundred years from now, I suspect that the principle of church-state separation would still find support. Nevertheless, the degree of support would probably depend on the social situation in which the church finds herself. If society is then as stridently secular as it is today, the issue of church-state separation would be largely theoretical. Should there be a religious resurgence in society, Baptists will need to ensure that the rights of individuals to choose faith is safeguarded, lest history repeats itself.

References

Blount, Douglas K., and Joseph D. Wooddell. The Baptist faith and message 2000: critical issues in America’s largest Protestant denomination. Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

Daniel L Dreisbach. “Sowing useful truths and principles”: The Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson, and the “wall of separation.” Journal of Church and State 39, no. 3 Summer 1997 : 455.

Freeman, Curtis W., James William McClendon, and C. Rosalee Velloso da Silva. Baptist roots: a reader in the theology of a Christian people. Judson Press, 199

Grenz, Stanley J. The Baptist Congregation. Regent College Publishing, 1985. Hobbs, Herschel. What Baptists believe. Nashville Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1964.

McDaniel, C. “The Decline of the Separation Principle in the Baptist Tradition of Religious Liberty.” Journal of Church and State 50, no. 3 Summer 2008 : 413.

Prevost, Ronnie. A Distinctively Baptist Church: Renewing Your Church in Practice. Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 2008.

Smyth, John. The Works of John Smyth. Edited by W. T. Whitley. Cambridge University, 1915.

Tidball, Derek, Gerald Benjamin Ball, and Baptist Foundation of New South Wales. Baptist basics. Baptist Foundation of NSW, 1996.

Wood, Will C. Five problems of state and religion. Boston: Henry Joyt, 1877. Wunderink, S. “When Caesar Renders.” Christianity Today 54, no. 3 March 2010 : 16.

How sad, that this message can stand in front of a cross. This is not the way of Jesus... Source: abc.net.au

On September 11, 2010, the Florida based “Dove World Outreach center” will be burning copies of the Koran. In fact, according to the sign outside their church on the right, sourced here , September 11 should be recongised as International Burn a Koran Day. Throughout the media, it is being emphasised that it is an evangelical church spearheading this campaign. But how is it possible for a church claiming to be the people of God to act in such a way?

True: the Koran is not a holy text. As a Christian, I must affirm that the Bible is the only text that expresses God’s word to mankind. Nevertheless, for Muslims, the Koran is perceived to be a sacred text. I cannot in good faith agree that the Koran is sacred, but I believe that as a Christian I must in good faith insist upon the right of Muslims to think of it as such. To indiscriminately burn random Korans can only been seen as a provocative act of hatred towards Muslim peoples.

When I think of how God deals with us, I realise that He doesn’t force us to accept him as he truly is; he doesn’t force us to be Christians. Rather, he invites us to choose the truth; he invites us to follow Jesus. But he lets us choose otherwise. Of course, our choice to follow God or not has consequences. Life eternal is only available through having a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ. But I, as a Christian, am not responsible for enforcing those consequences. I have no right to do thus; I am not God.

As Thomas Helwys, one of the founders of the Baptist movement wrote in 1612, men’s religion to God, is betwixt God and themselves… Let them be heretics, Turks [that is, Muslims], Jews, or whatsoever it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure.

I think it’s useful for us to consider Paul’s experience in Athens, as related in Acts 17. Paul finds, on arriving in Athens, that the city is full of idols. But rather than commencing an all out desecration of the idols and their temples, Paul instead devotes his time and attention to reasoning with the people of the city. Rather than getting offside of the people, Paul stands alongside them, and calls them to see the truth as expressed in the cross of Christ.

How many Muslim men and women will burning the Koran bring to Christ? Surely none! Will it not rather, make it more difficult to convince them that Jesus alone is the way, the truth and the life.

But, some might argue, this isn’t about “winning” people to Christ; it’s about making a statement that we don’t want Muslims to get away with murder. I’m painting with broad brushstrokes here, but that seems to be the argument set forth by this “church” There is so much wrong with that statement. First off, one cannot taint all Muslim peoples with the same brush. I personally have a Muslim friend who one could never in a million lifetimes describe as a murderer! I grew up in South Africa during the Apartheid years; but that doesn’t automatically make me a racist. The truth is that only a few Muslim people – abusing their religion – have committed acts of terrorism.

Secondly, to be an evangelical church has to be about winning people to Christ. Scrub that, to be any Christian church has to be about winning people to Christ. That is one of the key components to the Mandate given by Jesus Christ to the church in Matthew 28. If what we do hinders our ability – or any other church’s ability – to fulfill that God-given mandate, surely there’s something wrong!

In fact, looking at the picture, it strikes me as absolutely appropriate and symbolic that the cross on the church building is broken. For this church has broken faith with Christ. In calling people towards acts of hatred they are denying that God is love. How can that be?

Update: Apparently, the “church” in question has now called off the burning, claiming to have reached an agreement that the Muslim center near the twin towers will be relocated. Although it appears nobody actually told the center! Which just goes to prove my point: this was never about winning people to Christ – it was always about “stopping” the Muslims.

Update again: According to the ABC it might be back on again. Sigh.

In Radical Believers, Beasley-Murray explores eight ecclesiological principles which together form an enclosure defining what it means to be a Baptist congregation. Although none of the eight principles considered can be claimed as uniquely Baptist, what is uniquely Baptist is allowing all of them to describe Baptist ecclesiology. Since the principles are all derived from Scripture, Baptists can claim that “in ideal terms the Baptist way of being the church is God’s way for his people to live their life together.” Conformity to these principles, however, does not necessitate uniformity. After all, “Baptists are not monochrome, and a wide variety of views are found amongst them.” There is, then, as Beasley-Murray correctly identifies, scope for variety within the ideal community of God’s people.

The first principle discussed by Beasley-Murray is that of believer’s baptism. Wryly noting that many people consider baptism by total immersion to be the defining Baptist distinctive, Beasley-Murray reminds one that the mode of baptism practised is of minor importance. Indeed, “the Baptist approach to baptism is not the quantity of water but rather the quality of faith.” Ultimately, baptism depicts an “underlying spritual reality.” Nevertheless, Baptists agree that immersion should be the standard mode of baptism practised.

Having identified the Biblical warrant for baptism, Beasley-Murray considers it’s significance. Of particular note is his description of it as a rite of initiation into the body of Christ, both in terms of a declaration of solidarity with Christ as well as commitment to the people of Christ.

Although not dismissing the case for infant baptism out of hand, Beasley-Murray argues very effectively that baptism is for believers only. Yet he does not insist that baptism is essential for salvation, arguing instead that Baptists can “accept their paedobaptist brothers’ and sisters’ standing in Christ … [even if we cannot] accept their practice in this matter.”

The second defining principle Beasley-Murray considers is the practice of Communion. Confusing infrequency with a lack centrality, Beasley-Murray suggests that “the Lord’s supper is not fully central to most Baptist worship.” Grenz, on the other hand, concludes that frequency often breeds complacency. Both are valid concerns, yet do not rob communion of its actual significance. For individuals, Communion a memorial in which one encounters the risen Lord and looks forward to his return. Yet “Baptists have never treated the Lord’s supper as a time for individualism, but rather as an occasion for expressing their fellowship in Christ.” Since believer’s baptism is a sign of said fellowship, Beasley-Murray would that communion be restricted to baptised believers. Yet seemingly based on an argument of conscience, he allows that Christians from other denominations also be permitted to partake.

In considering church worship, Beasley-Murray triumphantly declares that unlike more traditional denominations, “there is no one Baptist pattern of worship.” Certain traits are identifiable, however. Most typically, Baptist ecclesiology emphasises preaching of the Word. Indeed, “preaching is central to any Baptist worship service.” Interestingly, Beasley-Murray describes how even Baptist architecture betrays this emphasis; for Baptists the pulpit traditionally takes centre stage.

A church without songs of praise is today almost unthinkable. Yet this tradition, Beasley-Murray informs us, was a Baptist innovation of the late 17 ^th Century. Other aids to worship, especially physical aids, have long been treated with suspicion by Baptists. Beasley-Murray notes that it was “well into the second half of [the 20 ^th] century before even simple wooden crosses were displayed in the average British Baptist church.” From personal experience, such suspicion still lingers in many Baptist churches today, particularly amongst older congregants.

Demonstrating the age of this text, Beasley-Murray expresses interest in a trend amongst New Zealand Baptists to appoint “ministers of children”. Beasley-Murray is right to insist that children be recognised within Baptist worship. The implication of his logic is, however, that they should be recognised only as potential believers. Only once one has gone through the waters of baptism, Beasley-Murray argues, should children be permitted to partake in the full fellowship.

This logic follows from the principle that the true church is a believer’s church, with baptism being the means of initiation into the church community. Church membership, then, is more than simply being on a roll; it is a covenanting of oneself to a local church. As such, being a member of a Baptist church involves more than simply attending meetings. Rather, “church membership is dynamic and carries ongoing responsibilities” derived from a shared responsibility for the spiritual development of all within the community.

In many western Baptist churches, the principle of ecclesiological authority is poorly understood. The Baptist model of Congregationalism is often, Beasley-Murray rightly points out, confused with democratic governance. Yet the Baptist ideal is theocratic rather than democratic rule. The primary function of church meetings, then, is the discernment of God’s will. As in the New Testament “when decisions of fundamental importance had to be made, the whole church [must be] involved in seeking the mind of Christ.” The final authority within a Baptist church, then, is not the congregants but Christ himself.

Wisely, Beasley-Murray suggests that any decision made at a church meeting requires more than a simply majority of support. For “if Christ is guiding one, then he is likely to be guiding all.” To be true to the Baptist principle of Christocentric authority, consensus is essential; where there is a lack of consensus, the church corporate cannot be certain that it has properly discerned the mind of Christ.

The sixth defining principle of Baptist life Beasley-Murray considers is the importance of local Baptist churches associating with others. For Beasley-Murray, Baptists are not independents. Unfortunately, this assertion is not entirely accurate. Baptists are functionally independent, with the locus of authority resting on the discernment of God’s will within local church meetings. Baptists are however, strongly inter-dependent, recognising that no local church can afford to “go it alone.” Being European centric, much of the chapter devoted to baptist association unsurprisingly bears little relevance to an Australian context. Yet as in Europe, Australian Baptists form a united conglomerate, with many shared ministries and resources.

Although it is most natural to associate with other Baptists, Beasley-Murray reminds us that for the sake of mission, Baptists should also willing to associate with other Christians. For “the things that unite us are more important than the things that divide us.”

In his seventh chapter, Beasley-Murray considers local church ministry, the domain of all members of the local church. Naturally, not all are called to the same ministries within the congregation. Beasley-Murray focusses on those called to the ministry of leadership within the congregation; a calling which he reminds us is not limited according to gender. Furthermore, he is quick to re-assert that leadership is ultimately a shared responsibility, with leaders being appointed and held accountable by the church corporate.

Finally, Beasley-Murray considers the defining principle of mission. As evangelicals, it is no exaggeration to claim that “evangelism is part of the Baptist way of life.” Beasley-Murray rightly notes, however, that mission must incorporate more than merely “a rather narrow evangelism;” convincingly arguing for Baptist involvement in issues of social justice. Australian examples of such involvement include Baptist schools and aged care facilities.

In considering the eight principles that define what it is to be Baptist, Beasley-Murray demonstrates just how much room for freedom there is within Baptist circles. Unsurprisingly, much of this book is descriptive rather than prescriptive of Baptist life, for Baptist distinctives merely describe a Baptist understanding of scripture, locate the Baptist congregation within the biblical boundaries of what it means to live as the community of God’s people.

Bibliography

Endnotes

In Mark 6:45-52, we read about Jesus walking on water. I must have read that passage so many times. But this morning, as I read it again, something new jumped out of the page and hit me. It’s in verse 48 – Jesus sees that his disciples were having a hard time battling the elements as they made their way across the water – and yet as he crossed the lake walking on the water, of course he intended to pass them by!

A few things surprising there. First off – the disciples must really have been struggling to get across the lake in their boat. Just before this, Jesus had fed the 5000 and the disciples had picked up a whole heap of left-overs. Which says to me that it was still light out – or at least light enough to see the difference between a left-over piece of bread and a rock! And immediately after they’d done picking up the leftovers [by the by, anybody wonder what they did with those baskets?] Jesus sent them off in the boat to cross the lake.And yet by 3 the next morning or as the NIV puts it – shortly before dawn they still hadn’t made it across! In fact, I suspect that they hadn’t got all that far – Jesus could stand on the shore and spot that they were having a difficult time rowing.

Now notice how easily and quickly Jesus manages to cross the lake. He makes such good time that he was about to pass them by! For Jesus, the storm wasn’t even a botherance. Nor, for that matter, was the lake! He was crossing to the other side of the lake as easily and as naturally as you or I might walk down a path.

BUT why did Jesus plan to go past them? Was it perhaps that he saw that, although they were struggling, his friends in the boat would manage to make their own way to shore? Was it, as Adriaan Plass suggests, that he thought just the sight of him would give them the strength they needed to go on? Was it simply that he was enjoying his time alone secure in the knowledge that his friends were safe, even if uncomfortable It’s certainly true that Jesus had spent most of the night alone for once praying to God.

Personally, I suspect it’s got something to do with the fact that God doesn’t molly coddle us. Yes, even for us Christians, life can be difficult. Being a follower of Jesus doesn’t mean that we’ll never have to face the winds and waves that accost us. That accost us even when we’re doing God’s will – notice that the disciples were just following Jesus’ instructions to get to the other side of the lake.

But and I love this bit – Jesus is always there for us. The disciples get all terrified “First this stupid weather – and now there’s a ghost walking on the water!!” – and when they’re at their lowest ebb, Jesus changes direction. Speaks encouragingly, gets in the boat. And you know what verse 51 ? The wind died down. Because Jesus was there.

For me, this little incident really sums up our everyday walk with God. He doesn’t constantly molly-coddle us; but by grace – sometimes he does.

Recently, I read through the book of Ezekiel. Great book, and worthy of intense study! Out of the whole book, however, two passages really seemed to resonate with me. Ezekiel 3:16-27 and Ezekiel 33:1-20 express very similar ideas from God about the responsibility that he had placed on Ezekiel’s shoulders. In short, God describes Ezekiel’s prophetic role as that of a watchman. Somebody with a weather eye to the future; the first person to glimpse the approach of disaster and calamity.

But while an ordinary watchman would be keeping watch against the approach of an enemy, Ezekiel was called to keep watch against his own people turning into or remaining as enemies of God. Because God is just – and when one chooses to rebel against him there are consequences. All those who set themselves up as enemies of God will be undone. And yet, “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?” Ezekiel 33:11, NIV How like God that is! What a wonderful God who has no wish to destroy, but who longs to save. Who’s love was so great that he sent his prophets to warn humanity to turn to him.

But as I read through Ezekiel 3:16-27, it struck me that Ezekiel’s task was no light one. He was responsible to God for warning people. If he warned them, there was a chance that they would turn and be saved. If Ezekiel warned them and they choose to ignore his warning, then at least Ezekiel would have carried out his commission. But if Ezekiel – seeing somebody straying from God – refused to warn them, then Ezekiel would be held responsible for that person’s blood. Because he had denied them the chance to turn back to God and be saved.

What does all this have to do with us today? I’d like to suggest that all of us who follow Jesus have the same responsibility that Ezekiel had to act as watchmen for God. We have been entrusted with the most glorious message ever: the good news that Jesus Christ has acted to save us; that God wants us to be right with him; that all one has to do is turn to Christ and believe in him and accept his grace.

Being a watchmen for God means recognising who God is – the holy, righteous, and just one who is coming to judge the living and the dead– and about encouraging each other to be read for his coming. I think Paul summarises the role of God’s watchmen well in 2 Timothy 4:1-2 – I solemnly urge you in the presence of God and Christ Jesus, who will someday judge the living and the dead when he appears to set up his kingdom: Preach the word of God. Be prepared, whether the time is favourable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching.

That was Ezekiel’s role as a prophet of God. That is our role as children of God. But what does it mean in practice? Well, may I suggest it means asking God to give us his heart for his people. It means having as a core part of ourselves a desire to see God’s people living for God’s glory. And yes, there are times when we’ll have to gently correct and rebuke. But the motivation for such discipline must always and only ever be a deeper inner longing for the other person to be walking according to God’s love.

Perhaps when we act thus out of love, our brother or sister might be restored. Ultimately, that’s a matter between them and God. But at the end of the day when the day comes! we can at least be sure that we have fulfilled our responsibility as God’s watchmen.



Ah: Poetry! This one is a reflection on who God is; the amazing truth that he is our God. I suspect we need to stop and think a bit more often about what that actually means. God is – well, God! The creator and sustainer of the universe. He is so big and strong and mighty and holy. He truly does deserve our fear. And I don’t just mean respect, although that’s part of it. But for me, to fear God is to live and act out of the knowledge of who God really is.

But that’s where grace makes its grand entrance. Because this all-powerful, fearsome God is also God for us; God who loves us more than we could imagine.

That dynamic interplay between the greatness of God and his wonderful grace is what this poem sets out to describe.

A mighty God is our God
He rules on high: He’s our God
His glory shines: He’s our God
For evermore.

And when I think about who he is
I can scarcely understand
How the mighty Lord over all
Could care for humble man

He says:
I loved you,
made you,
care for you each day
I cried for you,
died for you,
for you rose from the grave.

The mighty One; The awesome King:
I AM who always is
here for us, cares for us
Mighty is our King!

Just a quick note for anybody who hasn’t yet heard of biblia.com . There are quite a few places on the net where you can read the Bible online: biblegateway.com , bible.logos.com , library.logos.com and now biblia.com . Each of these have their merits, and I’ve used them all in the past. But I’m finding myself more and more drawn to biblia.com . Apart from the CEV which BibleGateway provides it’s got every version of the Bible that I could want or need. And the big plus is that it also allows me to read all of my expensive! electronic books that I’ve bought over the years – all over the Internet!

Of course there’s always going to be something that could be improved. Biblia.com works on a 2-pane model. On the left is the Bible, and on the right is a commentary. Reasonable ones for free, plus you can buy more! Which is all well and good. But sometimes I want to read just the Bible or just a commentary. So, feeling frustrated, I quickly whipped up the following extension for Google Chrome and Firefox . Now Biblia.com works just like I think it should!

Give it a try! You can use biblia.com on it’s own, or make it shine by using the extension: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/81451

He is the mighty king,
ruler o’er everything.
He came to save us all;
paid for us the debt we owed.

The wondrous Lord of love is he
who died and rose again.
Who came to set set us sinners free;
My God, who came for me.

Soon now the king will come;
soon he will bare his arm.
Scarred hands will reach for mine:
oh what bliss; what peace sublime.

The wondrous Lord of love is he
who died and rose again.
Who came to set set us sinners free;
My God, who came for me.

Then shall I rise with him;
with joy his praises sing.
He is the mighty king:
Ruler over everything.

The wondrous Lord of love is he
who died and rose again.
Who came to set set us sinners free;
My God, who came for me.

Another bit of poetry dug out of the archives. This is one that I penned back in 2008. It’s basically written as an address from God to anyone going through a tough time in their life. It’s a reminder that God is always there for us, that if we turn to him – he’ll be right there by our side.

Oh, and there’s some music to go with this as well… a leadsheet for the musically minded and a very simple mp3 for the rest of us!

Those times – when the shadows crowd the darkness;
when you’re lost, alone and helpless;
don’t know where to go…

Those times – when you feel the drag of sadness;
when you retreat into the madness;
don’t know where to go…

I’ve been waiting here for you,
I am waiting still.
Take my hand and hold it tight,
let me lead you home.

Never alone, never despised:
I am here for you.
Never unloved, always my own:
I am here for you.
And if you lose your way, my child,
do not be ashamed
to come back home.

Thought I’d share a bit of poetry I did a few years back. Actually, I was inspired to write these to fit one of my brother’s instrumental pieces which he wrote for the 2009 “Songs for a Cure” CD you can hear it at: http://music.cancerdrive.org/track/youve-given-me .

Anywho, without further ado, here’s the poem:

You’ve given me a reason why;
You’re my strength; You are my life.
And I can face the world today.
Knowing that your love remains.
Yes, you’re the one who loves me still…
You are my reason why

You give me wings so I can fly
Spread my soul, and touch the sky
You’re the one who understands
Knows my spirit, knows this man
Yes, you’re the one who loves me still…
You are my reason why

You lift me up when I’m alone
You fill my heart with your sweet song
And I don’t know what I would do
If ever I lost sight of you
‘Cause you’re the one who loves me still…
You are my reason why

You’ve given me a reason why
You’re my strength; You are my life
And I can face the world today.
Knowing that your love remains.
Yes, you’re the one who loves me still…
You are my reason why

When I’m busy crafting a sermon, I’ll more often than not try to think up some illustration that will bring my main point home. To use an illustration you know I had to! , I’m looking for something like a lawn prickle [you know - a Bindii seed]. When you step on a prickle, it gets stuck in your foot; a good illustration is meant to get its message stuck in your brain.

Having said all that, how far would I be willing to go for the sake of a really memorable illustration? As far as, say, Isaiah? Take a look at chapter 20. As an illustration – a sign and portent – of what God was about to do, Isaiah walked around barefoot and naked for 3 years! Can you imagine that – for three years being know as the barefoot, naked “man of God”! Fair enough, the word used there for “naked” doesn’t necessarily mean totally in the nude; at a pinch, it leaves Isaiah with a loincloth. But that’s still a fairly strong illustration! The NIV translation speaks about Isaiah going around stripped and barefoot. That’s because it’s a very polite translation. The actual picture is of this great prophet walking around with – at the best – next to nothing on.]

How did Isaiah explain his actions? I don’t know. It seems from Isaiah 20:3 that it was only after the end of the three years that God explained what his servant had been up to. It strikes me that Isaiah had a tremendous faith in God – that God wouldn’t get him to embarrass himself for no reason. But I’m pretty certain that the illustration was one that got people talking.

Still, I’m rather glad it was Isaiah and not me! Imagine having to step up to the pulpit one day saying, “The Lord has told me I’ve got to do something strange for the next three years…”

Just some poetic re-rendering of the song in Isaiah 12:

I will praise you, O Lord!
I will praise you: my Redeemer!
You were angry with me, but no more.
Now your comfort consoles me;
see the King: he has saved me!
I trust him… and fear melts away.
He alone is my vict’ry, my strength and my song.
I will praise him again and again.

Isaiah 12 follows immediately after the great Christological prophecy in chapter 11. The promise that although God will not let evil go unchecked, he has made provision for his people. He has provided for us salvation through the stump of Jesse, Jesus Christ – the “heir to David’s throne [who in that day] will be a banner of salvation to all the world!” Isaiah 11:10 Isaiah 12 is a call to celebrate this salvation, a joyful response to the good things that God has promised to do – and indeed has done in Christ!

The other evening at Bible study, I had a fascinating read “energetic”! discussion with somebody about whether or not Christians today should pray specifically for the peace of the city of Jerusalem in modern day Israel. There are those who say that this is a duty incumbent on all Christians on the basis that Israel is a special people in the sight of God, and that the city of Jerusalem retains its significance as the place where God’s glory is revealed.

As far as I am concerned, the city of Jerusalem and the ethnic nation of Israel have been subsumed in Christ. All that Jerusalem stood for symbolically is now found in reality in the person and kingdom of the Lord. The ethnic nation of Israel has likewise in Christ been expanded to include “all peoples” the gospel being sent πάντα τὰ ἔθνη [panta ta ethnae] – to all the nations, as Matthew 28:19 puts it .

What then of the Biblical instruction to “pray for the peace of Israel”? This injunction is found in Psalm 122 and only Psalm 122 . One of the psalms of Ascent, this song would have been sung by pilgrims making their way towards Jerusalem for one of the annual festivals. Indeed, as the second verse suggests, this particular Psalm was to be sung upon arriving in the locale of Jerusalem.

What makes it a song of joy is the fact that those singing it were making their way to the house of the Lord. As verse 9 suggests, that is the reason the people sought Jerusalem’s prosperity and peace; Jerusalem was where they could bring their offerings and praise to God.

A “closely compacted together city” verse 3 , Jerusalem was a place where one could feel safe. There was no need to fear any enemies outside the city; they could not breach the city wall. But the physical city of Jerusalem did fall to enemies many times over the years. For 70 years it stood in ruins whilst the nation of Israel was in exile. Come the time of Jesus, Jerusalem was an occupied city under teh thumb of Rome. Certainly, no mere rocks could give one a sense of security and peace. No; the sense of security and peace sought by the singers of psalm 122 is that found in the presence of God.

The Good news of the gospel is that God is present with those who trust in him. No longer is Jerusalem the physical city the dwelling place of God; rather it is in the church, in individual Christians, that the house of the Lord is to be found. In him is our peace and our security.

Never again will Jerusalem in Palestine/Israel be as prominent as it once was. For it was merely a shadow of the things to come; a precursor to the New Jerusalem – the world-wide kingdom of God. By all means, let us pray for the peace of Jerusalem. But not for the shadow. Let us pray for that peace of God’s kingdom to be present in our midst. For we are citizens of the New Jerusalem.

As Jesus himself taught us to pray, “Father, may your kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.” May the peace of the real Jerusalem be visible in our midst.

Psalm 122

¹I rejoiced with those who said to me,
“Let us go to the house of the LORD.”
²Our feet are standing
in your gates, O Jerusalem.
³Jerusalem is built like a city
that is closely compacted together.
⁴That is where the tribes go up,
the tribes of the LORD,
to praise the name of the LORD
according to the statute given to Israel.
⁵There the thrones for judgment stand,
the thrones of the house of David.
⁶Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
“May those who love you be secure.
⁷May there be peace within your walls
and security within your citadels.”
⁸For the sake of my brothers and friends,
I will say, “Peace be within you.”
⁹For the sake of the house of the LORD our God,
I will seek your prosperity.

This morning I had an extremely unpleasant experience. Walking to my garage, I heard the most piteous of mews coming from a corner of my back garden. On investigating, I found huddled up against the back fence one of the local neighbourhood cats. A beautiful black and white animal that has made something of a habit of using my garden as a a thoroughfare through the neighbourhood.

Now I love cats. But this particular cat would never allow me near to it. Whenever I came within a few meters of it, it would disappear over the fence like something particularly nasty was after it. And this morning, nothing much had changed in its desire to get away from me. When it saw me approaching, it struggled to it’s feet, and tried to reach the top of the fence. But it couldn’t. Again it tried, and again it fell back to the ground. I moved closer; the cat had given up on any ideas of escape. It just lay there, mewing at me. And as I reached it, I saw what it’s problem was: both back legs were bent out of shape. I’m no vet, but I suspect this poor, poor animal had been run over inadvertently by a passing car. It had managed to make it’s way to the back of my garden, but the fence between it and home was one obstacle too many.

I guess that to some degree, this cat could be a metaphor for humanity before God. It seems like we have a natural inclination to run away from God when he approaches us. Even when he calls, we don’t trust him. We jump over the fence, we run away, we try our best to escape his presence. Sure, we’ll take advantage of his back garden. We’ll quite happily roam over his creation as if it were our own. And it can seem like a pretty effective strategy; it can seem like there’s nothing God can do to imping on our freedoms.

But what we don’t realise is that this God from whom we run is God for us. The one who wants nothing but our good. Who cares for us so much. As sinners, we are up against the wall with broken legs. We cannot save ourselves; we can only drag ourselves so far. We need God to intervene – and the good news is that he does. As Peter preached at Pentecost, “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” God hears our cries for help and he picks us up and he heals us better than we were.

In a strange way, I felt the pain of that animal this morning. All the way to the vet, I was speaking words of encouragement: I’m here… don’t worry… it’s going to be okay… the vet’s going to look after you. And I know that God feels deeply – much more deeply than I am capable – for us humans. He hears our cries, and he is moved to act. Throughout the Bible, he is known as the God who hears the cries of his people. God himself says this in Exodus 22:27: “When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.“All it cost me to show compassion to a cat was the price of petrol to the local vet. All it cost God was his Son; his only Son.

And I suspect that for many, this coming to faith is not a clear cut decision. We might cry for help, but at the same time be trying to run away: just like that cat. Until eventually we surrender to God’s loving presence. The strange thing, though? Once I’d got that cat in my arms, it stopped trying to run away. Yes, it was still mewing, but I was able to pet it on the head; able to comfort it. Oh, that those who are running from God might find that same peace in his arms.

Greetings all! After speaking about it for years, I’ve finally got around to starting up a blog. The plan is to post some thoughts here on a weekly basis on – as the tagline puts it – life, theology and faith. The idea being to ponder out loud - to ruminate isn’t that a great word! – on how these three facets of human existence intersect.

If you’re wondering why the blog’s called “The Ruminating Ox”, check out 1 Timothy 5:17-18 – where Paul compares elders, preachers and teachers with oxen treading out grain. In fact, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 – You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain. NLT Probably not the image that first springs to mind when we think of pastors.

And yes, I don’t think we can take the analogy too far; Paul’s point in that passage is one about honouring and respecting church leaders. But I love the idea that church ministry is like treading out grain. Sometimes, that can be a repetitious task; one can go over the same ground many times. And yet there can be incredible reward: the ox gets to eat some of the grain that it grinds. In doing ministry, we not only provide nourishment for others, but also are nourished ourselves: And here’s where I’ll be ruminating on some of that nourishment.