In a world (a western world anyway) that is full of entertainment, relaxation techniques, infinite leisure possibilities, and an avowed commitment to peace and reconciliation (at least publicly), anger emerges as a surprising and common experience.
Part of this is due to the self-focussed culture which, for example, approves of looking for a marriage partner who can "meet all my needs" (hence the trend to delay marriage) rather than someone we are willing to love with all we have for the rest of our life. Anger often arises out of disappointed expectations within close relationships.
Some anger arises in company with an anti-institutional feeling. Not the protest culture of the 60's but the feeling powerless in the face of increased regulation and the spread of a global (shareholder) economy.
Anger, they say, has depression as its child. Especially anger that is not acknowledged and dealt with.
Christians get angry. Sometimes rightly so. (Anger is not wrong in itself. It depends whether it is righteous anger or not.) But also often not rightly so. Sometimes the good anger is allowed to fester and stay too long.
So is there a cure for anger? Changing our mind set to a godly Christ-focussed one might eliminate the "poor me" anger that arises because of faulty expectations.
Being truthful could be a great help. Especially in those relationships which breed anger. Confronting unhelpful behaviour, refusing to rescue a wife or husband, naming things for what they are instead of covering them over (especially with religious labels). All these could be a help. Sometimes we are angry with a person but the anger really arises from another event or relationship. It has been transferred on to a safer object. Honestly clarifying this will help.
Sometimes we need someone else to listen to us talk it out and then to pray for us. Often the anger is a sign of significant hurt which needs healing. This is a right anger responding to a wrong done to us. Healing the anger involves healing the wrong.
Healing is possible. Denial doesn't help.
Dale
Every now and then we run into a passage in the Bible that seems to suggest that God's judgement may not all be kept for the future, but may be occurring in the present. We find this in the Old Testament of course, but it pops up in the New Testament quite often as well.
This is often an embarrassment to us, because it forces us to consider how God might be bringing judgement in the present. We read a passage like Romans 1.18ff and can understand that God might give up some people to futile thinking. Although when we meet someone who seems to be heavily engaged in futile thinking we don't often think of them being under God' s judgement. We rather explain their thought processes by reference to human nature, or pride or ignorance - all of which could be legitimate explanations.
The difficulty we Christians face is that we also believe that the gospel has been revealed in conjunction with God's judgement. That is, in the face of it and also as the epitome of his judgement. It is the gospel which at the same time represents to us the heart of God's judgement and the means of escaping it. That is why we want to urge our friends to turn to the judge in repentance and trust him for pardon and life.
But it is still difficult to allow that God might be bringing about his judgement in the present. It is one thing to agree that God will judge the world; that Jesus "will come to judge the living and the dead". It is another to agree that he may doing some of it now. We may agree with the fact of judgement but be uncomfortable with the execution of it.
Some people don't believe God would ever be harsh or hurtful to anyone, being a God of love. But such sentiment flies in the face of the whole of Bible history especially some of the teaching of Jesus himself.
Others of us cringe at the possibility of God's judgement occurring in the present because we cringe from suffering. No doubt that is a healthy response as far as it goes. But it seems to elevate human suffering to a high status. Perhaps it is the result of the protected and clinical society we live in. Perhaps fear lies behind it. But its source ultimately may be a kind of relativism that discounts honour, truth, the majesty of God, right and wrong, accountability in favour of our own protection and comfort. Is it OK to applaud that God is bringing his judgement on people?
Dale
Teachers are leaving the profession in England because of the violent behaviour of pupils as young as three, reports the Times, quoting a report from the National Union of Teachers. More than 80 per cent of teachers believe that unacceptable behaviour has increased during their career. More than 60 per cent of teachers in primary schools and more than 40 per cent in nursery schools reported weekly disruption ranging from verbal aggression to physical assault, according to the report.
Why is this? It is presumably not due some antipathy to the teachers themselves. It is possible that it may be connected to the way education is conducted in schools. It is more likely that the source of the behaviour lies outside the school. Should we just blame the parents? Maybe, but the parents themselves often feel like the children.
School rage may be similar to road rage. Both may be symptoms of anger and frustration caused by feeling powerless in the face of confusing and frustrating circumstances.
There is a circular problem cycling down in our society, in which authorities attempt to control bad behaviour by regulation. This in turn fails to control the really bad behaviour and frustrates the already law abiding citizens. The feeling of powerlessness is compounded by the broader conditions of an insecure and frightening world. More specifically the workplace has ceased to be a place of security and confidence. Loyalty between workers and employers has become a thing of the past. There are less people who help others by means of healthy relationships.
Some of this is due to the more central place that greed has in our society and economy. This is associated with the abandonment of a stakeholder economy. The benevolent nurture and sense of responsibility by those higher up the structures for their workers and clients has become a thing of the past. In its place is a consuming pursuit of profits for shareholders. A user-pays society breeds a self centred society.
It is no wonder that many people feel confused and lost. Community and extended families have been under threat for a long time. Now that the workplace, which was once a place of security, is also under threat people have few places to go to find security and peace.
It is no wonder then that many are angry and frustrated. Nor that such frustration affects parents. Nor that symptoms of it are seen in the behaviour of children.
So is there a solution? Probably some people need to resist the trend to fear and retreat and give themselves to others in healthy communities. Christians, for example, whose treasure is in heaven. The church, for example, where the love of God can be experienced.
Dale
Spreading the Gospel message is becoming increasingly difficult in our pluralistic society according to 2000 evangelical Christians responding to an Evangelical Alliance survey. But the Alliance's UK Evangelism coordinator, Paul Harris, believes the social and cultural diversity of Britain in the 21st century should be viewed positively as an opportunity for churches to focus on a more strategic approach to mission and evangelism.
Of those questioned in the survey, 18 per cent agreed strongly with the statement that `religious pluralism in the UK makes it more difficult to present the gospel' and there was overall agreement of 58 per cent.
"Pluralism could be viewed as a major threat to evangelism but others would say it provides an immense opportunity,'' said Mr Harris.
Meanwhile the vicar's wife at Whittle-le-Wood in West Lancashire got into trouble with the bishop for leading prayers in church that called for the conversion of Osama bin Laden and other Muslims. The Bishop told BBC News Online: "There will be strenuous efforts to make sure that this does not cause any more divisions in the community." So much for Jesus' idea that he did not come to bring peace but a sword.
In Sydney the Archbishop has challenged his diocese to make a deep impact on our society by aiming to have 10%of the population who knew how to share the gospel and were bold enough to do it. He suggested two students in every tutorial, one person in every football team, one teacher in every classroom, three parents in every pre-school, one director in every boardroom.
In the the USA the Episcopal Church of the United States (Anglican) set up a 2020 Task force a few years ago. Its report has just been released, (you can see a link to it in our e-bulletin or ask for a copy from the office). Amongst other things it urges Anglican to double the Average Sunday Attendance by 2020 (seems a long time away).
At Highgate some years ago I challenged us to plant a new congregation every year. At this rate we are planting one every five years. Perhaps next year we can speed this up. As well I have been urging us to pray for opportunities to speak about Jesus on a daily basis and to ask God for the words to say and the boldness to speak. A great thing God has done in the last year or so is to raise up more evangelists among us.
But whether we are evangelists or not, let's keep speaking about Jesus and urging people to follow him
Dale
A week or so ago, Gordon and I attended a National EFAC (Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion) conference for emerging leaders (some of us were sufficiently emerged to be mentors). It was an excellent time of networking with other leaders from around Australia and listening to various talks and Bible Studies (copies of papers and a summary of the stimulating Bible Studies by Paul Blackham from All Souls Langham Place are available).
One of the exciting aspects of the conference was the presence of young (read very young) enthusiastic lay youth workers. One of these was engaged in PhD research about youth ministry. My recollection of a lunch time conversation is that he believed evangelical churches had sold youth ministry short since around the 1960's by engaging in program based ministry.
In contrast he thought that GenX and GenY young people needed a relationship based ministry both for evangelism and nurture. Program ministry is easier of course because it takes less time, and is more able to be directed by the people doing the work.
His ideas reminded me of a book written in the 80's by Professor Brian Hill called the Greening of Christian Education. Hill argued that a school based model of learning was not a biblical model for use in Christian education (in Sunday Schools, Christian Schools etc). Rather the biblical model was a family based model in which parents, siblings and the extended family communicated the faith in informal and relational ways.
I think these ideas apply to most age groups, not just GenX or GenY. Relationships are not just a good method. They are primarily the stuff of which salvation is made up. Church is where salvation is experienced and where the gospel is embodied , spoken and lived out. In fact Jesus and Paul, amongst others, give the distinct impression that one cannot know the Father and his salvation apart from knowing and loving the others who are his children.
We are part of a society that is hungering for relationships, but which at the same time is retreating from most relationships. People are less willing than ever before to give themselves to more than one or two others. At the same time as this retreat is happening, there is a deep desire for the very relationships we are avoiding.
Can Christians make a difference? What has to change for this to become more of a reality?
Dale
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States, journalist Martin Woollacott wrote in the Guardian newspaper: "President Bush has said that the US now faces a "monumental struggle of good versus evil". In the anguish of this week's events, everyone reaches for the big words. But there is a tendency to inflate the size of the enemy to fit the size of the crime."
When we look at the world, it's easy to imagine that good and evil, God and Satan are two equal and opposing forces. Some religions are based on that belief. At times it almost seems that evil has the upper hand. But it isn't true.
It is true that evil can be frighteningly destructive. Eighteen hijackers caused the death of thousands and for a while brought much of the world to a standstill. But when those eighteen men died, their power to kill and destroy died with them. The destructive power of those behind them will also come to an end. The crime was horrendous, but its perpetrators' capacity for evil is limited by their own frailty and God's judgment.
Satan would like us to believe that he has God-like powers. But his power too is limited. God spoke and by his word the universe was created. Moment by moment he sustains the existence of every atom and every living creature. Should God choose to, he could speak and the universe would cease to exist. Satan has no power to create or sustain anything, only to destroy, and even that power is limited.
In peaceful times, we're tempted to define our lives in terms of what we own and what we do. We start to find our security in our health, our comforts and our own abilities. Evil powers, whether human or spiritual, can then easily keep us in fear by threatening to rob us of this false security.
But real life comes from a relationship with the living God, made possible through Jesus. Those who know this fear losing their relationship with him more than losing their worldly security or even their mortal lives. If God himself has promised that no-one (not even terrorists) can snatch us from his hand, nothing (not even war and death) can separate us from him, we must be careful not to inflate the size of the enemy.
I received a circular email last week aimed at encouraging people to pray about the attacks in the U.S. In the face of such a massive disaster we can feel (justifiably!) small and helpless. But as Psalm 46 states, "God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea". Prayer reminds us that there is One God over all, and he offers comfort and strength to those who call out to him.
Which is where this email was, though well meaning, deeply misguided and misleading. It called for people of all faiths, and even no faith, to unite in solidarity and pray, and suggested a prayer that contained the following; "God, by whatever name, You are in charge. May we put our trust in the Holy Mystery and work and pray together toward resolution and peace at this time... May all American of all faiths and those who do not embrace any faith, gather to pray for those in D.C. and N.Y., ... May the leaders of all nations put their trust in the Holy by whatever name ..."
In the desire to unite all people and offend none, the god who is prayed to becomes a blending of our collective religious consciousness - including those without any faith!
This is a deception, an offence to the One true God, and a robbing of the true comfort that He offers people in such times. Only the God of the Bible is "an ever-present help in trouble". He has shown this by entering our fallen world, taking our flesh upon himself, and dying at the hands of the same fallen men and women he came to save. (Heb 2:14) Only this God knows suffering personally. Only this God knows the cause of suffering and can (and will) do something about it. Directing people to pray to and put their trust in this God might offend some, but it will never offend God, and will certainly lead to deep and lasting comfort in times of crisis and of peace. As Paul writes, speaking of his sufferings for being a Christian;
Gordon.
One commonly used argument against Christianity goes like this: "if God is good, loving and all-powerful, why is there so much evil and suffering in the world? I can't believe a good God would allow innocent people to suffer".
For some this is reason enough to reject the whole idea of God. But as C.S. Lewis pointed out, banishing God doesn't offer any better explanation of evil. If there is no God, how will we define good and evil? If we live in a universe governed by chance, then a cyclone in Bangladesh is no more "evil" than a sunny day in Perth. A child dying of cancer is, objectively speaking, no less natural than a rabbit being taken by a fox. We can stamp our feet and shout "it's not right", but in a godless universe there's no-one out there to listen. We're just genetically programmed beings on an insignificant planet whose lives don't even register on the cosmic time scale.
We could, of course, set up ourselves as gods of the universe and decide what is good and evil. But as the source of untold evil, we're hardly an improvement on the God we're trying to replace.
The Bible doesn't give a direct answer to the question of why God allows evil to exist, nor even discuss the issue in a philosophical sense. Instead we're given clues through narratives. Sometimes the Bible shows evil and suffering to be the direct result of human activity, at other times they are God's judgment on human sin. Sometimes innocent people suffer. In the introduction to the book of Job, we're told why God allows Job's suffering, but Job himself is never told. The only answer he receives to his anguished questions "Why me, God?" is "I am God. Trust me."
The key narrative on evil and suffering is that of the crucifixion. An innocent man, Jesus, was betrayed, falsely tried, mocked, abused, and brutally executed. What good reason could God have for allowing such a thing to happen? God's answer is "the salvation of the whole world".
Like Job, we often have to trust that a good God must have good reasons for allowing the evil we see and experience. We may eventually understand and be able to say "Suffering has made me a better person", but sometimes no explanation comes, even in retrospect. Our confidence in God's goodness comes from knowing that he himself has been willing to suffer with us and for us.
Stella
Help I need somebody (Part 2) September 2
Human beings have a remarkable ability to hide their true selves. Go to any party or pub and the chances are that the person with the loudest laugh is trying to forget a disastrous relationship, stress at work or some other heart-sinking problem.
Christians, being human, are not much different. We may be willing to share our problems with one or two trusted friends, but to everyone else we're just "fine, thanks". Physical health problems, being difficult to hide, are likely to earn us sympathy and support. But emotional and spiritual pain stays hidden. As a result, we tend to conclude that since everyone else is "fine", we must be the only person who is struggling with depression, temptation, addictions, marital difficulties, a hateful job, loneliness or doubt.
We may even assume that as Christians we shouldn't experience such problems. We should be joyful and victorious. So even when the problem is past, we say nothing about it to anyone. By doing this, we rob each other of God's grace. God "...comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God" (2 Cor 1.4). If we allow God to minister to our heartaches and failures through others, we in turn will become his ministers to others.
How do we do this? Few of us want to pour out our hearts to everyone we meet. But within the church there are many ways of giving and receiving confidential, Christ-centred care and support. After each service at St Alban's there are people available at the front of the church to pray with anyone who would like prayer. For long term or deep seated problems, in-depth prayer ministry is available through Dale. Several members of the congregation are trained in VMTC prayer ministry (Victorious Ministry Through Christ), available through Ted Rollinson. For those with health problems, the Healing Team provides either one-off or on-going healing ministry and prayer. Trevor are available for counselling, and I'm happy to be a "listening ear" to anyone who wants to talk through a problem or issue.
Ultimately, though, the best way to give and receive ministry, and to be built up as a Christian, is to belong to a home group. The relationships formed in these groups act as an anchor when times are difficult and provide the ideal place to practise Christian love and fellowship. Ask Trevor or one of the home-group leaders if you would like to know more about joining a group.
Stella
Privatised Religion? August 26
So ended an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald last week(21/8/01). http://www.smh.com.au/news/0108/21/html/editorial.html
It was written in response to an address given by Archbishop Peter Jensen at the State Sports Centre at Homebush at a rally for Sydney Anglicans. (You can read a copy of his address on the web.)
The idea that provoked the editorial was that Christians should take opportunities to speak about Jesus at work. The Herald wasn't the only antagonist. Unions and ethnic representatives spoke up, and the letters page was full of letters for and against. One writer even suggested that atheists and agnostics could now go door to door outlining rational ways of questioning religious beliefs etc. Of course atheists and agnostics don't have the passion or message to do any such thing. Frank Devine in Thursday's Australian vigorously defended Christians' rights in a free society to share their beliefs. He was not alone in comparing the reactions of those who wanted to silence Christians, to the Taliban.
It was certainly an interesting set of reactions by the educated liberal establishment. They were reacting to an Archbishop putting the focus on Jesus rather than on social or political issues. While we would want Christians leaders to speak up about such issues it seems not everyone in secular Australia wants to hear about Jesus. It may be that it is a new event. When church leaders comment about social or political issues, they are part of a wide debate which many can enter according to their own views. The difficulty with speaking about Jesus, as the Herald editorial demonstrated, is that people are asked to speak about something they have relegated to the private (and hence not publicly relevant) category.
I think this is a very exciting event. A church in decline needs to get the message of Jesus out to the community at large as well as personally. We will have different ways of saying the message, but to have leaders who will speak up simply and clearly and put the focus on Jesus, rather than in-house church issues is a great encouragement.
So let's keep speaking about Jesus ourselves. He is a legitimate topic of conversation. He is the one who can transform our society. Let's raise his profile.
Dale
Christians and Drugs August 19
Was the drug summit worthwhile? No doubt any opportunity for people to get together to talk about common issues is worthwhile. Drug availability is a very difficult problem with no easy solutions. It has many dimensions, and few of us are untouched by it.
A lot of discussion concerns reducing the effects or symptoms of drug use. Will safe injecting rooms reduce theft and crime? Perhaps they will. Will they reduce the number of people who take up hard drugs? Maybe not. But utilitarianism is not to be accepted without question. Is it right to maintain someone in a destructive and addictive lifestyle? Is the good of society a higher good than the good of the individual? What is the best good for an addict? Christians have something to say about this.
Some of the issues are about money and the political will to deal with drug traffickers. Some of the issues concern our adversarial system of justice, which tries to protect the innocent but in so doing often neglects truth and justice. Christians have something to say about this.
Some people take up drugs out of curiosity and bravado. But many start and continue the habit because of feelings of despair and powerlessness. These social and personal issues are hard to deal with, but Christians have something to say about them. The church has the fellowship and community of Christ's people to include people who are lost or hurting. It is one of the few remaining communities in our society. It also contains a higher percentage of volunteers than the larger society. But Christians have to fight against the trend to isolation and self protection. We have much to give, if we will give ourselves.
Addiction is broader than drugs. People can be addicted to many things. In Christ there can be freedom. Sometimes through a transformation of life, and conversion to Jesus, sometimes through the support of a loving community. Christians have something to say and do about this.
We could also ask, why has God made these drugs available? Even the synthetic drugs have not been made ex nihilo. So why has God placed such temptation in front of us? Or would we not become addicts if we still lived in the Garden of Eden? The Bible attributes the decline and corruption of human life to the entry of sin into the world. What God made is good. What we do with what he has made may not be good. He has made us as responsible beings, who make choices. He has also put us in families and communities to help and support each other. Christians have something to contribute to this.
Dale
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 1 Cor 7.39,40
And similarly for the man. But why should they be bound together until one of them dies? It is not as though they can't form a new relationship with someone else - clearly they can when the partner dies. In our culture many people form marriage type relationships with people other than their spouse even while they are still married. Others leave one spouse and marry another. They do not think they need to wait for death. Why should people not do this? What is it about marriage that requires it to last as long as one of the couple lives?
Part of the answer is in the way God has made human beings. We are told God made humans in his own image, or as his image. But the human that is in the image of God is male and female. When the man was alone he had no one who was an appropriate match for him. The women who was taken from his body, he realised, was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. So when he was joined to the women he became one flesh with her again. This one flesh expresses the unity of humanity as male and female.
But surely this can be expressed in various male female one flesh relationships? Perhaps. But it is better to read the Genesis accounts as not being between males and females in general, but being between a particular male and a particular female. It is this particular one flesh which is the expression of the unity if humanity and which at the same time reflects the image of God. It is this one flesh which God joins together, according to Jesus. Death will separate it, but people shouldn't.
It is God who joins a man and a woman together in this one flesh marriage. It is neither a relationship arranged by people, nor one that is merely the work of the couple. Marriage is a gift from God for that couple to enjoy a unity which is at the heart of the humanity he created. It is experienced in the life long love of that couple to the exclusion of all others. It is the absurdity of dividing this one flesh relationship that means marriage is for life.
Dale
Help, I Need Somebody. Part 1 July 29
Where do you go when life hurts? Who do you turn to when your health falters, when relationships sour, when things happen which leave you feeling sad, angry, weary or fearful? As Christians we know the answer must surely be to "Take it to the Lord in prayer."
Unfortunately, despite the old song, many of us have learned that it's selfish to pray for ourselves. Ignoring the ache in our hearts, we methodically work through praise, thanksgiving and praying for others before we bring our own problems to God, as though somehow we have to earn the right to talk to him about ourselves. Imagine a child coming to her father and saying "Dad, you're the greatest. I'm really grateful for all the things you've given me. Please look after my sister's sore thumb. And Dad, I've broken my leg and it hurts."
I'm certainly not suggesting that we shouldn't praise and thank God. Nor should we be selfish, demanding children who ignore the needs of others. Sometimes praying for others can lift us out of a mood of self pity. But it's easy to fall into the subtle temptation to use praise, thanksgiving and intercession as a means of twisting God's arm. We may seem to be honouring God, yet what we're really doing is showing a lack of trust in him and probably feeding our own pride as well. ("See how unselfish I am, praying for Mary before I pray for myself".)
The psalmists often poured out their hearts to God before reminding themselves of his goodness to them in the past. Praise frequently followed, but not always. Their prayers were sometimes quite abrupt and self-focussed. Yet it would be difficult to accuse them of not trusting God or taking him seriously.
Jesus taught his disciples to begin their prayers with worship (Father, Hallowed be your name) and a commitment to God's kingdom (Your will be done), before asking him to meet their own needs. This is how we should pray most of the time. Yet it's not the way that Jesus prayed in Gethsemane or on the cross. Nor did he ever turn anyone away because they failed to worship him before they asked for healing. The very fact that they came to him for healing showed that they recognised him for who he was and put their trust in him. We can do the same.
Stella Budrikis
What a marvellous gift to humanity that God reveals himself to us, and that he is Father, Son and Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity helps us to understand how God has revealed himself, our experience of him, and our response. As three Persons, we know that God is, within himself, personal and loving.
Love within the Godhead is directed to others (the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father) and ultimately God-directed (the Son glorifies the Father, the Spirit brings glory to the Father through the Son). By God becoming flesh, we see what this life looks like in humans; self giving not self-assertive, deeply relational rather than isolationist, loving to the point of death to bring others to God, always serving God and his interests (which includes bringing others to Him).
Ever since the Garden of Eden, men and women have rejected the One True God, creating their own gods, whether external idols or the one they see in the mirror. The world this has created is exactly what you would expect when you reject such a God as the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
What a loving, gracious, self giving act that God would enter that world by speaking, then finally by becoming a man (Heb 1:1-2). It is totally consistent with who he is, and revolutionary for all those who would stop rejecting him and believe. This revelation of the Triune God assures us of the importance of all relationships, especially with God, it assures us that things like meekness, self-sacrifice, patience and humility are not weaknesses but virtues, actually for our good - expressions of a new life that God causes his people to share, the life we were created for, in fact, it's his life;
"For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God" Col 3:3;
"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Gal 2:20.
Our life is now shaped by the One who gave us that life. This is the life we were created for and can only be found in the God who is Father, Son and Spirit.
Gordon
How do we react to news of Christian martyrs? Every day many brothers and sisters in Christ are killed for their faith, and for testifying to it. The murders in India in 1999 of the Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons brings very close to home a reality that millions of Christians face each day.
How ought we to respond to this? How does God?
In Revelation 6, John has a vision in heaven of those who had been slain because of the "word of God and the testimony" of Jesus. They cry out to God to avenge their blood, and, "they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow-servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed." Rev 6:11. God loves his people, even knows the number of hairs on their heads, but he allows them to die until the number is "completed", ie even martyrdom is within his sovereign control. How can God be like this?
Because God sees a bigger picture. He knows that this world is not all there is. In fact, this world is so flawed, so fallen from what he created that nothing short of totally recreating it will do. He knows that though his people die, (some in martyrdom, but eventually all will die) the best is yet to come. And he gave John a vision of this too,
What isn't worth enduring for this? What isn't worth giving up? Knowing what lies ahead, we can, in Christ, persevere, testifying to Jesus, no matter what happens in this world and certain that in heaven we'll continue to serve our God, living the abundant life, forever with our Lord and Saviour. As they sing in the heavenlies;
Gordon
The Greeting of Peace is a strange little ritual which seems designed to confuse newcomers and allow the rest of us to stretch our legs after the sermon. When it appeared in the Anglican prayer book in the late 1970's many people assumed that it was some new-fangled idea for getting stony-faced Anglicans to talk to each other. In fact, Thomas Cranmer included the Greeting of Peace in his Book of Common Prayer published in 1549 (although it was dropped from later prayer books) and he may have been following an even older tradition. The Catholic church and some Orthodox churches also include it in their liturgy.
The Greeting is not just a chance to say hello to people. It reminds us that we are the body of Christ. The bond between Christians is more than just friendship, or common membership of a church. It's as close as the bond between different parts of a single body. We are united by our adoption as children of God and reconciled to one another by the death and resurrection of Jesus. As we share the peace we are recognizing each other as brothers and sisters, joint heirs with Christ. We may not agree with one another on all topics, but we agree to put Christ first and honour him.
Secondly, the Greeting of Peace is a reminder that before we share the bread and wine together, we should be at peace with one another. Jesus warned his followers that harbouring anger or contempt towards another would lead to harsh judgement from God. "Therefore" he went on, "if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift" (Matt. 5:21-24).
In the Confession we ask God's forgiveness for our sins. The Greeting of Peace enables us to seek forgiveness from those we have wronged and demonstrate forgiveness to those who have wronged us. It may not be practical or appropriate to make our peace with someone in such a short time, but we can at least express our willingness to God to forgive and seek reconciliation with each other. If there are reasons why we find forgiveness impossible, we need to seek help from others to deal with the issue.
Stella
How would it be, if we wanted to connect with people of other faiths on our own terms, if we invited them to a Christian church service? And not just any service, but a Communion service where the centre of our faith - the death and resurrection of Jesus - was proclaimed in visible and verbal form in unmistakable clarity.
Would self-respecting people of other faiths bear with this form of evangelism? If we were afraid of being seen to be exclusivist we could invite one of them to speak about something innocuous during the service, instead of a proper sermon.
Some people of other faiths would see this as one sided and patronising. It would be surprising for example to see serious Muslims at such a service.
On the other hand syncretistic faiths might find it attractive as would post-modern people. It could be another experience to add to the spiritual shopping basket.
Some Christians on the other hand might think that the Lord's Supper was only for the baptised. Further they might think that along with the visible signs of bread and wine there should be a spoken word of explanation of the word of the Lord. They might be horrified at the thought of the ministry of the word being replaced by a talk by someone who did not acknowledge Jesus as their Lord.
They might also think that such events could lead people away from believing in Jesus. They may fear that people could imagine that there were many ways to God, and that Jesus was only one amongst many ways to spiritual life. Apart from being upset and protesting, what might such Christians do?
What they could do if they were really offended would be to make sure that many more people had the opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus and put their trust in him. They might seek to enlarge churches where the gospel was proclaimed. They might seek many ways to help people hear and understand the message about Jesus. They might prefer to be proactive rather than reactive.
They might.
Dale
Over the last week the media has given a lot of attention to the Archbishop elect of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen. Initially it concerned his question as to whether the Prime Minister was out of step with God on reconciliation.
As the week wore on his comments were clarified and what he actually said was reported. In an article Dr Jensen wrote for the Sydney morning Herald, he asserted that the question of values was back on the public agenda.
He said, "The present community convention to silence God-talk is not neutrality, but censorship by a triumphant secularism."
This has been an ongoing debate amongst Christian thinkers. How shall we get values back into public debate. The difficulty has been that values have been relegated to the private realm. Each can believe what he or she thinks but their beliefs and values ought not to impinge on public policy.
This is a con of course, because the idea that values are private is a value itself and has taken a dominant position in public debate.
The Melbourne Age in an editorial this week encouraged the clerics to keep speaking out. Each world-view in a democracy has a contribution to make. Christians have a special contribution in our society because our culture has been so undergirded by the Bible and the Christian faith.
It is a remarkable thing that God and the Bible has emerged again into public life.
Let us pray that it will continue to be part of public policy issues. We in the west who live in a very secularised society can take heart that we have a right to speak from a Christian viewpoint. Let us keep thinking Christianly, and not allow the secular humanists to con us into thinking that the Bible and the faith is only for the home and the church.
Dale
The Lord's Supper finds its origins in the passover meal of the people of Israel. At the last meal Jesus shared with his disciples he changed the focus of the passover so that from then on what was to be remembered was not the salvation at the exodus, but the death of Jesus and the covenant brought to effect through his blood.
The Lord's supper not only sends our minds back to this great salvation event, but also forward to its fulfilment in the age to come. Jesus told an enigmatic story at a meal at the home of a pharisee (Luke 14.15-24). One of the other guests had responded to something Jesus said about the resurrection of the righteous, saying how great it would be to eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.
Jesus' story was about people who had been invited to a banquet but made excuses and didn't come. In the story the person who invited the guests then invited the poor, crippled, lame and homeless "so that my house will be full". Jesus ended the story with the enigmatic statement, " I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet."
Was this the voice of the person in the story or the voice of Jesus? Or both? There is good reason to think that the story was told about Jesus and the response the pharisees had been making to his invitation. "My banquet" was not only the banquet of the man in Jesus' story but Jesus' banquet in the kingdom of God.
The Lord's supper reminds us of the great feast in heaven. It is, if you like, a foretaste of the heavenly fellowship, eating at table in the age to come.
Matthew's version of the story places it as a wedding banquet (Matt 22.2-14), an idea taken up in Revelation 19.9.
The Lord's supper draws our attention both to the past as well as to the future. What began as the remembrance and celebration of God's salvation will find its fulfilment in the enjoyment and celebration of the perfection of that salvation.
Dale
I have been reading through the early parts of Acts recently and was struck by the audio-visual effects that occurred on the day of Pentecost. Why was it necessary for the filling with the Spirit to be accompanied by " a sound like the blowing of a violent wind"? We are told the wind "came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting." It must have been a terrifying experience, especially if it was a sound without wind. Similarly, why was it necessary for them to see "what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them."?
There may be some background in the Old Testament which could shed some light on these phenomena. However the accompaniment of physical phenomena to God's work is not unusual. Mountains that roar and shake, winds that tear the rocks in pieces, staffs that turn into snakes, sacrifices burnt up by lightning from heaven, the ground opening up and swallowing people are some of the more spectacular events.
Healing took place not just in quiet ways, but sometimes in physical and outlandish ways. Naaman washed himself seven times in a dirty foreign river before he was healed of leprosy. The Shunamite's son was brought back to life by Elisha stretching himself out on him twice. Jesus healed a man by making mud from spit and putting it on his eyes. He healed another man by putting his finger in his ear and spitting and touching his tongue, in another case he spat on the man's eyes.
Taken out of context all these sound a bit bizarre. Why was it necessary to do those things? At one level we could say that they weren't strictly necessary. God could have done the deeds without the special effects. But to think that God acts in the world and in our lives in a purely spiritual way is to misunderstand the way God has made the world and human beings. We still struggle with the remnants of a Greek view of the world which wants to separate the physical and the spiritual. But the bible sees them as both part of the same whole.
Indeed if God only worked in hidden ways without any physical phenomena we should be surprised since this would be a radical departure from the biblical witness. So it is not unreasonable, nor unbiblical, to expect that God will work amongst and through us with physical and other effects which may or may not be directly and essentially related to the work he is doing.
Dale
First find a gifted preacher. Like any public speaker, those who preach God's word should be able to speak clearly, to present what they have to say attractively and pitch it at the level of those listening.
Those who preach must also have an extensive knowledge of scripture and be able to use it and explain it clearly. They must have experience and wisdom enough to apply the word of God to the lives of those who listen. More than that, their own lives must be consistent with what they preach. That's not to say that they must be perfect, but they must be striving for holiness in their personal and public lives.
They must be willing to commit adequate time, thought and study to preparing their sermons. They must pray constantly for guidance and inspiration. Above all, they must be dependent on the Holy Spirit, allowing him to speak through them. True preaching is a Spirit-given gift in which the preacher co-operates fully with God.
But a really good sermon also requires those who listen to be Spirit-filled and co-operating with God. They contribute to the preparation of the sermon by praying regularly for those who preach. They prepare their own minds and hearts by reading the scriptures in advance and praying that the Holy Spirit will make their meaning clear.
When they come to the sermon they expect to hear God speak to them. If they disagree with something that's said, or don't understand it, they suspend judgement. Rather than miss the rest of the sermon mulling over it, they ask the Lord to help them understand it later and go on listening.
Of course it's within the Holy Spirit's power to convict and convert those who have come unprepared. But since one of the main purposes of preaching is to build up the church, those who listen must be willing to change in response to what they hear. Like the preacher, they too must be striving for holiness.
It may be that the message heard by one person is not the same as that heard by another. Each must be obedient to what they hear the Spirit saying to them. The ultimate test of a great sermon is not how eloquent, impressive or moving it is, but whether or not it brings about changes in the lives of those who hear it.
Stella
The National Church Life Survey is a project involving all the major Christian churches across Australia. More and more we are seeing that our differences must not obscure our unity in Christ.
However, there also seems to be a growing movement by other groups to be aligned with mainstream Christianity.
Recently, a West Australian article about the opening of the Perth Mormon temple described the Mormons as a 'Christian denomination'. Is this true? Last week two Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door, describing themselves as a "Christian" group. When I said, "But you don't believe that Christ is God, do you?", they replied, "No, but we think Jesus is God's Son, highest in all creation. We don't believe he's God, but we pretty much believe the same things as you, there isn't much difference between us." Is that true?
Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses deny the divinity of Christ (even though claiming some exalted status for him).
What should Christians think of this? Welcome their new-found emphasis on the things that unite? Realise that we believe pretty much the same things about Jesus?
When the prophet Ezekiel catches but a glimpse of "the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD," he "fell face down" as anyone would in the presence of God (Ez. 1:28). When the apostle John had a vision of the ascended Christ, he too "fell at his feet as though dead" (Rev 1:17).
It is not merely a matter of emphasis that one group calls Jesus highly exalted creature and another calls him God. It is a matter of accepting or rejecting God himself. It is about giving God the glory due his name, or robbing him of that glory, which is, surely, the essence of sin itself.
It is an unfathomable privilege to stand in the presence of God, to see and know him in the face of Christ, to have him 'place his hand on our shoulder', as it were, and say, "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades" (Rev 1:17-18). We ought always to praise God for this and rejoice in the unity we have with all who confess Christ as Lord and God. However, it is an unspeakable evil to deny who God is. Those who do desperately need to hear and believe the gospel, that God would 'make his light shine in their hearts to give them the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Cor 4:6).
Gordon
It's Sunday morning at St Alban's. The Welcoming team haven't shown up, while the ushers arrived late and are grumpy. The service begins and the musicians scrape their way through a couple of songs they haven't practised. The reader doesn't know what she's supposed to read. Having been told, she stumbles through it in a monotone.
The person preaching has had a bad week, so he delivers a sermon thrown together on Saturday afternoon. Meanwhile the children are running riot outside because the children's ministry team haven't prepared anything for them to do. If you were hoping to recover over morning tea, forget it - the person rostered to provide morning tea forgot to bring any.
We expect better than this (and get it). We expect to be warmly greeted when we arrive at church. We expect to be uplifted by the music, to hear the Bible read well, and then to hear a sermon that educates, encourages and feeds us. We want our children to be well cared for. We want to feel cared for ourselves.
We expect those in ministry to be well prepared and to give their best. But what about the rest of us? How much time do we spend preparing for Sunday services? Do we pray regularly for those in the various ministry teams? Do we see ourselves as participants in the whole of the service, not just the singing and the prayers? Or do we come to observe and then go away to evaluate and criticise?
A congregation is not an audience. Everyone in church on Sunday is part of the service. The whole of the service is our worship. Music and prayer are two ways in which we worship, but hearing the scriptures read and explained, putting our offering in the plate, sharing the bread and wine, and ministering to each other after the service are also integral (and biblical) aspects of worship.
Evangelical Christians are rightly wary of worship that springs from human effort. Paul warned Christians against self-imposed worship based on human regulations (Col 2.23). Jesus said that his followers would worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4.23). It's impossible to worship God as he desires without the help of the Holy Spirit. But will the Holy Spirit allow us to worship in a half-hearted or critical way?
Stella
Paul had an eventful time when he first visited Philippi. The town had been ruled early on by Philip of Macedon (the father of Alexander the Great) after whom the town was named. Mark Antony and Octavian (later Caesar Augustus) defeated the republican forces of Brutus and Cassius there in 42 BC. After Octavian's defeat of Antony, Philippi became a Roman colony. It was modelled on Rome and ruled by Roman law. Its citizens spoke Latin and were Roman citizens (a high status for a provincial city).
When Paul arrived (Acts 16) he does not seem to have found a synagogue. Instead he found a small group of women meeting for prayer by the river outside the city. This perhaps indicates a small Jewish population and is consistent with it being a Roman colony with a strong mixture of retired soldiers. It is possible there was some anti-Jewish feeling which may have also been directed against the new church.
It is not clear how long Paul was there, but by the time he left there was a group of "brothers" meeting in Lydia's house (Ac 16.40). This indicates an increase in the numbers, a move from the river to the house, and the presence of males. So the church was becoming established by the time Paul had to leave.
Paul seems to have left Luke at Philippi. Acts 16.13 mentions that "we" went outside to look for the place of prayer. When it comes time to leave only Paul and Silas depart (Ac 16.40). When next Paul comes to Philippi (Ac 20.6) the "we" passages resume and Luke (the author of Acts) continues on with Paul.
Paul's encounter with the girl who had a spirit of divination leads ultimately to his expulsion from the city. It is worth wondering whether it was a good idea for him to expel the demon. The girl clearly annoyed him, and kept up her shouting for many days. While we are used to seeing this as an example of the power of God at work, we may also see it as an example of the enemy harassing gospel workers and undermining the work they are doing.
Paul's departure may have been a good thing for the advance of the gospel in Philippi, giving others the opportunity to spearhead the proclamation. On the other hand it may have severely curtailed it. By contrast the long time he was able to spend in Ephesus meant that the whole of Asia heard the word of God.
In either case it did not stop God accomplishing his purposes.
Dale
Christ's death was equivalent to the death of all; in other words, it was the death of all people which was died by him. Were this not so, his death would be nothing to them.
If it is our death that Christ died on the cross, there is in the cross the compulsion of an infinite love; but if it is not our death at all - if it is not our burden and doom that he has taken to himself there - then what is it to us? His death can put the compulsion of love upon all people, only when they decide that the death of all was died by him.
When the apostle proceeds to state the purpose of Christ's death for all - 'that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again'. - he does it at the psychological and moral level suggested by the words: The love of Christ compels us . He who has done so tremendous a thing as to take our death to himself has established a claim upon our life.
We are not in the sphere of mystical union, of dying with Christ and living with him; but in that of love transcendently shown, and of gratitude profoundly felt. But it will not be easy for anyone to be grateful for Christ's death, especially with a gratitude which will acknowledge that their very life is Christ's, unless they read the cross in the sense that Christ there made the death of all people his own.
James Denney (altered)
The Gospels
The earliest references to the Lord's supper are in Paul's writings. But Paul traces the source of the supper to what Jesus did on the night he was betrayed (1 Cor 11.23). It is about this incident that the gospel writers give us more information.
Mark is the earliest published gospel which we have, although all the gospel writers drew on earlier written and oral accounts of Jesus' ministry.
Mark describes the preparations for a passover meal (Mk 14.12-16). So we understand that the events which follow take place during this meal. Mark highlights the betrayal "...one of you will betray me--one who is eating with me." This saddens the disciples, but Jesus sees it as a necessary fulfilment of the scripture.
Amongst the various dishes and cups of the passover meal, Mark draws attention to two new interpretations of the traditional sayings over the bread and one of the cups.
As they take the bread they are told that it is Jesus' body. Not literally, of course, but representing him somehow. How the bread represents Jesus' body is made clearer by the events that follow and by the reports of this passover meal in other writers. Instead of the usual words of the passover blessing Jesus dramatically refers the bread to himself.
Bread and blessings of bread recur throughout Jesus' ministry, and often the disciples fail to understand. But now in the great remembrance meal of the people of Israel, Jesus forever alters what will be remembered. Never again will his disciples be able to sit at table and eat bread without remembering that this simple act of eating the most common food has been linked forever with his death for them.
Mark records the words baldly and without comment. The words of blessing over the third cup are also altered but with greater impact. The cup is the blood of the covenant. The covenant given through Moses was ratified by the shedding of the blood of animals. Jesus connects the pouring out of his blood with the covenant. It is his blood which has ratified God's agreement with humans that enables them to be saved.
Jesus offers the bread and the cup to his disciples with this new interpretation. They take the bread and drink the cup, and every time in the future they eat bread and drink wine their thoughts will go back to this amazing meal and the subsequent events whose meaning they only understood later.
Dale
Imagine that before coming to church today, each one of us had prayed that the Lord would be glorified through our praise and worship. Imagine that as we came into church, we quieted our minds, and prepared ourselves to worship and to hear God's word read and taught.
Imagine that each of us had prayed before the service for the musicians, the Bible reader, the welcoming team, the prayer ministry team and for those involved in the children's ministry.
Imagine that each day this week we all had prayed that the Lord would give Dale and Gordon the gifts they needed in their sermon preparation, in administering and leading the church, in teaching, in evangelising and in counselling.
Imagine that we had prayed for them in their roles as husbands and fathers, for the time they spend in study and prayer, for their closeness to the Lord and for their protection from the evil one.
Imagine that each of us had read the Bible readings in advance, thought about them and were eager to hear them explained. Imagine that as the preacher got up to preach, we all prayed that the Holy Spirit would speak through him, and that we would hear his message deep within our hearts. Imagine that we set aside all distracting thoughts and criticisms, and trusted the Lord to teach us what he wanted us to learn.
Imagine that before the Confession and the Greeting of Peace, we each resolved to forgive all those in the body who have ever slighted us, or ignored us, or criticized us or irritated us.
Imagine that after the service, we all prayed that the Lord would lead us to the people he wanted us to speak to, and would give us what we needed to minister to them (or be ministered to, if our own needs are great.)
Imagine that as we went home we prayed about what we had learned. Imagine that we discussed the readings and the sermon with our family and our neighbours and friends. Imagine that we each invited one of them to come with us next week and hear for themselves.
Imagine... what would happen next week?
Stella
Paul's second discussion about the Lord's Supper is in the context of how divisions are showing themselves in the meetings of the church (1 Corinthians 11.17-34). The people are coming to eat the Lord's Supper but in such a way that it could not be the Lord's Supper they are eating, according to Paul.
The behaviour that destroys it is social distinctions of wealth that show themselves in some eating lavishly without waiting for the poor while others go hungry. Paul describes this as despising the church of God (11.22).
The danger they are in is that they are engaging in such reprehensible behaviour at the time they are supposed to be proclaiming the Lord's death (11.26). Eating the bread and drinking the cup is a way of proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes (11.26).
The origin of this idea goes back to Jesus himself. His interpretation of the broken bread was that it was his body "which is for you". The cup was the new covenant in his blood. Eating and drinking was to be done in remembrance of him. Remembering Jesus, identifying that his body was given for us, and knowing that his blood was what brought the new covenant to effectiveness - all this was a proclamation of the Lord's death.
Such eating and drinking was not to be taken lightly. This was no mere meal. Certainly not a feast for greedy gluttons. Those who ate and drank had to consider what the death of Jesus meant for them. If they didn't it was possible that they could be eating and drinking in an unworthy manner (11.27).
Self examination was necessary so that they didn't so despise the meal that they brought judgement on themselves. In the case of the Corinthians what they had to do was to make sure they recognised the body of the Lord (11.29). This was exactly what they were not doing by the way they ate in such a selfish manner. The body of the Lord was the very church they were despising. The body created by the giving of Jesus body and blood for them. It was impossible to pretend to proclaim the Lord's death while at the same time despising the body that had been brought into being by his death.
The Lord's Supper proclaims Jesus' death. That is what ought to determine our behaviour together.
Dale
I read recently that one of the most significant factors behind the decline of church attendance in England over the last 120 years is the rejection of the doctrine of eternal punishment. * Unless we understand the justice of God, how will we ever grasp his grace and mercy? The following is taken from a sermon preached on July 8 1741. How do you respond? Perhaps discuss your response with someone else.
From "Sinners in the hands of an angry God", by Jonathan Edwards. Read the whole sermon at http://douglass.speech.nwu.edu/edwa_a45.htm
* A copy of this article is on the back table, or http://www.episcopalian.org/efac/articles/lucas.htm
Gordon
The Lord's Supper (or Holy Communion as it is commonly called in the Anglican Church) was instituted by Christ, we are told. But to what end? What are the benefits of this supper, and what is it about the Supper that provides those benefits?
Over the next few months we will look at the sources for our understanding of this meal and also trace some of the historical decisions that affect the way we observe it now.
Paul
The earliest records we have about the Lord's Supper are in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, written around AD54.
In chapter 10 Paul warns the Corinthians not to get involved with idolatry and other kinds of immorality. He uses the Israelites in the wilderness as examples of people who, though blessed with spiritual food and drink (10.3), failed to obey God and perished as a result.
Participating in the blood and body of Christ is incompatible with participation in pagan sacrifices (10.21). Paul asks "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" (10.16).
Believers who share in the blessing over the cup share in the benefits of Christ's blood, ie the benefits of his death. Drinking the cup of the Lord (10.21) is a means of participation in the benefits of his death. Similarly with the bread. Breaking and eating is the way we have a share in his body. Not just the body hung on the cross for us, but the body of Christ of which we are all one (10.17). Our participation in the loaf implies a common participation in the body, the church.
Paul is not here giving us a detailed explanation about the Lord's supper, rather he is using it to warn his readers that participation in it provides no protection against falling into sin and away from the Lord. He also warns them not to participate in the tables of demons (10.21). This is because the share they have in the cup and loaf is a sharing in the death of Christ and a participation in his living body. They cannot at the same time share in something so opposed to that.
The sharing or participation comes about by the common giving of thanks and by the eating and drinking. It is this which implicates them in what the cup and loaf represent, ie the blood and body of Christ.
Dale
What is God's will for each of us in this church? One major thing is that we're involved in ministry. Look at the emphasis on this in the New testament.
Any way you look at it, we each have a place here and we each have work to do. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are involved in seeing that we are part of the body of Christ (this church!) and that we are each equipped with grace to work, or 'minister' within the body. We are each required in this, God has seen to it. And together, we will fulfil God's desire to make us his complete people ...
Notice we will reach God's end goal for us together as each of us does the works of service God has gifted and equipped us for. We won't reach this goal on our own or without working together.
This emphasis runs throughout the New Testament. Just check out these passages below that all use the phrase "one another".
What an amazing gift God has given us - each other! (as he works in each one of us).
Mark 9:5, Jn 13:14, Rom 12:5, Rom 12:10, Rom 12:16, Rom 14:13, Rom 14:19, Rom 15:7, Rom 15:14, 1 Cor 12:25, Gal 5:13, Gal 5:26, Gal 6:2, Eph 4:2, Eph 4:25, Eph 4:32, Eph 5:21, Phil 2:3, Col 3:9, Col 3:13, 1 Thess 4:18, 1 Thess 5:11, 1 Thess 5:15, James 4:11, James 5:9, James 5:16, 1 Pet 4:9, 1 Pet 5:5
Gordon
A Christian parent might answer "Of course", or more cautiously "It depends on what you mean by religion". For many non-believing or agnostic parents the question doesn't arise until one day their child asks "Who made the sky?" or "Where did Grandma go?" Suddenly they are confronted with a situation which the authors of child-rearing books don't address. How do you explain to a small child that you have no answer? Can parents who are striving to give their children a sense of security dangle them over the abyss of a seemingly meaningless universe?
American writer Martha Fay describes her own experience with her daughter Anna. She and her husband were non-believers who found answers to their existential questions in literature, history, psychology and their own reflections. "Whether there was a God, and what one then ought to do about it, were irresistible and essential questions certainly, but they did not seem to require immediate answers" she writes. When three-year-old Anna asked "Why did Nanny die?" they weren't prepared. Their simple biological answer "All people die eventually" didn't satisfy Anna.
More questions followed. Fay began to talk to other parents and did some research, then wrote a book, "Do children need religion?". Two things stand out in the interviews she records. First, most children seem to have a simple but innate faith and a huge curiosity about "the big questions". Second, non-believing or agnostic parents don't have satisfactory answers to their children's questions. Some have no difficulty with this, but others are disturbed by their own ignorance and uncertainty.
Fay is evasive about giving a clear answer to her own question, but concludes that perhaps children do need religion, as a source of comfort and security. Religion (she says) provides a set of values, a place in history, a link with their cultural past and a sense of community which they may not find elsewhere. The idea that what children need, or what "religion" might supply, is true answers to their questions doesn't seem to occur to her.
The book is a sad reflection of the confusion faced by people living in a secular world. Yet it's also a reminder that parents of young children are often challenged by their questions and are looking for answers. How do we, as individuals and a church, help them to meet that challenge?
Stella Budrikis
Being good is often a very confusing question for Christians. Most people want to be good, and approve the good. All religions affirm goodness of some sort as an essential part of a good life.
Christianity too, expects people to be good - as good as God in fact. And yet at the same time we are told that our goodness is of no help in being right with God. It is Christ's goodness, or righteousness, that counts for us. His death allows our lack of goodness, our sin, to be pardoned. It means that God no longer takes account of our sins. This means that he regards us as being without sin - or really good, righteous in fact.
So is it important to be good in practice anyway? Or is it OK to be not very good? Yes and no is the answer. It is no use trying to be anything than what we are - ie forgiven sinners. We will continue to struggle with sin. We do not need to demonstrate that our inner nature is free from sin. Having an unblemished record is of no account in gaining salvation, since salvation by definition is for people who need to be saved, not for those who don't need salvation. Sinners should keep on asking God for pardon.
On the other hand, our salvation has brought us to a new life with God. He has brought about a spiritual rebirth, he has put his Spirit in us. God has given us a new heart that wants to love and obey him. This new nature behaves differently. We approve the good and want to do it. And God helps us by means of his word. His word gives us understanding, it guides our living, it keeps us from sin. His Spirit also works in us to bring fruit from the word in our behaviour and attitudes.
But being good is not the centre or most important aspect of being a Christian. Loving God, knowing Jesus, enjoying fellowship with God through his Spirit is more like the heart of Christianity. Concern about being or doing good can divert our attention away from God and onto ourselves. Being concerned above all with Jesus and his kingship, with the Father and his love, and the presence of Father and Son in our life by the Spirit, will not only give us the pleasure of his presence but spin off into a godly lifestyle that can be produced no other way.
Dale
Timorous and Mr Fearing are two of the many characters described by John Bunyan in The Pilgrim's Progress. Despite the similarity of their names, they have distinct personalities, and come to very different ends.
Christian, the Pilgrim, meets Timorous and his companion Mistrust at the top of the Hill of Difficulty. Unlike Christian who is heading for the Celestial City, Timorous and Mistrust are going the other way. Christian asks why. After all, they have already come some way in their journey and struggled up the Hill. Why not keep going? Timorous replies "The further we go, the more danger we meet with." He's seen the dangers ahead, he's had enough, and he's going back to the easy life he had in the world. He was never really committed to reaching the Celestial City.
Mr Fearing also falters at every danger and opposition he comes to. But unlike Timorous, he stands his ground, quaking, until he finds the courage to go forward. His journey to the Celestial City is slow and painful (for his companions who have to bear with him, as well as himself.) Yet the Lord seems to take special care of him. And in the end he arrives at his goal.
Two things distinguish Mr Fearing from Timorous. The first is his determination to reach the Celestial City. No matter what lies ahead, he won't turn back, even if he fears going forward. The second is that what he fears most is not danger or discomfort, but making mistakes. He often misses out on the joys of being a pilgrim because of his lack of assurance. Yet sometimes he shows remarkable courage and spiritual strength.
Bunyan was an astute and experienced pastor. He recognised that Mr Fearing's problem was not that he lacked the will to be a Christian, but that he carried with him a personal weakness. He also observed that the Lord seemed particularly gentle with such people.
No-one ought to be like Timorous, giving up too soon. No doubt we would all like to be like Great Heart, Faithful, or Valiant-for-Truth - Christians who seem to fear nothing and do great things for the Lord. Yet if we feel like Mr Fearing, we can be reassured that God still has a place for us in the Celestial City and will see that arrive.
Stella Budrikis