Christmas Night 2017

Well we have at last reached Christmas! We have been counting down the weeks during Advent by lighting the Advent candles – and later, during this Service, we will light the last one! Some of us for the past few days have been counting down the days using the ‘Great O Antiphons’. All over the world tonight, Christians are celebrating the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord. Whatever we may say about Easter being theologically the most important day in the Christian calendar, there can be little doubt that Christmas is the one that is the most celebrated and loved.

It comes as a surprise then to discover that it wasn’t this way in the Church for many years. St Paul, for example, never discusses the birth of our Lord except to say that he was ‘born of a woman’, and the first Gospel we have, St Mark, launches into our Lord’s ministry without any mention of his birth or childhood.

In the 2nd century, Christians even mocked the pagans for celebrating the birthdays of prominent figures. What mattered to them was the significance, not of Jesus’ birth, but of his death. This is easily illustrated by observing how much of each Gospel is devoted to the last week of our Lord’s life compared to the years leading up to it. This does not for a moment mean that we should not today be celebrating our Lord’s birth, but it is a warning not to celebrate it in an emotional and sentimental way: enjoying the story, but failing to see its meaning and its significance for each one of us personally.

Originally, the Gospels circulated separately from each other. And not only the Gospels, but the stories of Jesus themselves. We know that the stories of Jesus were passed on not simply, or even primarily, in written form, but, in a culture with low rates of literacy, they were passed on in oral form, that is, by word of mouth. Very few of these stories concern our Lord’s birth; many concern his death and the events leading up to it.

It is clear from even the briefest of readings of the Gospels that St John’s Gospel is different from the other three. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have much in common and are referred to as the synoptic (=viewed together) Gospels. St John assumes that his readers will already be familiar with many of these stories about Jesus and that they may have read at least St Mark’s Gospel. His purpose in writing is not to tell or retell the stories, but to get behind them and explain the significance of the one who the stories are about and of the one who himself told many of the stories in the Gospels. And in explaining Jesus’ significance, St John wants to show us the significance of Jesus for each one of us personally.

The reading tonight, known as the Prologue, is the introduction to the Gospel. It sets the scene for what is to follow by telling us in advance what the plot is and introducing us to the Gospel’s central character. St John wants to leave us in absolutely no doubt as to who Jesus is. This is to be a theme of his Gospel. Whereas the other Gospels focus on what Jesus did, on his works, St John focuses on the person of Jesus, who he is.

This is the Gospel that has the ‘Great I am’ sayings. It is this person that our reading introduces us to, but St John manages to do it without at first mentioning his name. He tells us the name of John the Baptist who came to witness to Jesus, but he doesn’t use the name ‘Jesus’ until verse17.

The purpose of the Prologue is to introduce us to the Word, it is only once we have been introduced to the Word that we are told who the Word is. We are told that the Word was in the beginning with God and that all the things came into being through him. In this Word was life and light. John the Baptist bore witness to this Light, the True Light. And then, we are told, something amazing: the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

If you were reading John for the first time the obvious question at this point is, Who is he? What is his name? It is only now that St John reveals it: his name is Jesus. It is as if he is saying to his readers that this man they may have heard stories about, the one known as Jesus of Nazareth is, in fact, the Eternal Word of God through whom everything – everything – that exists came into being.

This Eternal Word came into the world that he himself hand been instrumental in creating!

But what sort of world was it? It was a world dominated by Roman power and by one man in particular: Caesar Augustus. Augustus used to like to boast of his achievements. One he was particularly proud of was the Pax Romana – the Peace of Rome. Rome, he boasted, had given the world peace. But this was simply propaganda. The so-called peace was one imposed by Roman might and power. A peace in which rebellion was ruthlessly crushed and oppression was the order of the day. This oppression found expression in tax. Rome taxed its subject peoples to maintain its power and finance its empire. Tax was not popular then as it is not popular now. But then in those days those taxed saw very little benefit from paying their taxes. In AD6 the people of Sepphoris, a major city in Galilee just 5 miles from Nazareth, revolted against paying taxes. The Romans burnt the city to the ground after crushing the revolt.

It was Roman tax policy that was to be responsible for Jesus being born in Bethlehem. As is well-known, Caesar Augustus issued a decree that ‘all the world’ should be registered for taxation purposes. All had to go to their own town to be registered. This meant Joseph having to go with his pregnant wife, Mary, from Nazareth to his home town of Bethlehem.

Caesar had displayed his power by moving people around at his whim and fancy. Or, at least, that is what he thought he was doing. In fact, he was simply a puppet fulfilling God’s purposes. The Christ had to be born in Bethlehem. The Son of David had to be born in Royal David’s City. Caesar was carrying out not the plan of Rome, but the plan of God.

2016 has been quite a year. It is already being described by commentators as a year in which the world has changed. They point to Brexit in the UK and the election of Donald Trump in the US. It has been a year of mass migration, of the increasing military involvement of Russia in world affairs, and 2017 looks like it will continue where 2016 is leaving off. There will be important elections in France and Germany. And, of course, here at home in Hong Kong, we will have the election of a new Chief Executive.

It is all too easy for us as Christians to get caught up in all of this and focus on the various events and their significance: to see power as residing in the various leaders of our world: in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing with the modern day Caesars.

This is reflected in many of the Churches’ Christmas messages. These talk of the role of the Church in the various events taking place or about to take place in our world. Those giving them seek to explain how the Church should react and what role it should play.

Undoubtedly, the events taking place in our world are important and Christians undoubtedly have a role to play in them - although it may be a different role to the one we are being urged to play. (More about that another time.)

We are wrong, however, if we focus on those who, like Caesar, pretend to have the power and fail to see behind their power. When our Lord was being questioned by Caesar’s representative in Jerusalem, Pilate said to Jesus: ‘Do you not know that I have power to release you and power to crucify you?’ Jesus answered him: ‘You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above…’ (John 19:10-11)

This means, Trump, has no power; Putin has no power, and the new Chief Executive, whoever he or she maybe, has no power unless it is given them from above. One saint said that while still an infant at his mother’s breast, Jesus was upholding the universe with the word of his power. The danger is that by focusing on world leaders and the events of our world, we can end up thinking and giving the impression that it is with the rulers of this world that real power resides and what should concern us most are the various political, economic, and social events taking place at the present time.

In fact, there is more power here tonight in this Church than in all the parliaments or legislatives of our world. It is a power that concerns each one of us and affects us far more than all the decisions of world leaders whoever they maybe.

St John writes about the Word, who we know to be Jesus that ‘he came to his own and his own people did not accept him.’ This is the story of Jesus’ rejection by his people Israel. However, John continues: ‘But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.’

We think we have come here tonight to celebrate the birth of Christ, but it turns out that God has brought us here, not only to celebrate his son’s birth, but to ask us questions about our own birth: do we want to be born tonight, born that is, not of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God?

God is giving us the chance to make tonight not simply about the birth of his son some 2,000 years ago in Bethlehem, but about our birth now in 2016 in Hong Kong.

God does not allow us to be spectators at the Nativity. We have a decision to make. Will we be amongst those who did not receive him? Or will we receive him, that is, will we believe in his name and commit ourselves to him? If we do then tonight will become a celebration of our nativity as well as that of our Lord’s.

So tonight, on this most Holy Night, we all have a decision to make, a decision of far more consequence than we will make in any election. Will we receive him? Will we believe in his name? Will we become a child of God?

Tonight he gives us that power. The only question is now whether we will use it.

Carol Service 2017

It’s no secret that I love Christmas: all of it.  The tree, the mistletoe (especially the mistletoe), the presents, the crackers, the Poinsettias – I’m not mad on the mince pies, but I would be sad if you didn’t like them, and hope you will stay for some and a cup of mulled wine after the service.

I think most of you like Christmas too, so it may come as something of a surprise to you to learn that there have been those in the past who haven’t liked Christmas.  The Puritans, for example, tried to have it banned.

In my previous parish, in the north-east of Scotland, where the Presbyterian Church had been very influential in the past, many could remember when Christmas wasn’t really celebrated that much, the main celebration was Hogmanay (that is, New Year).  My Church Warden recalled how when she first moved to the parish the plumber who was doing work for her turned up on Christmas Day.

Today, I am happy to say that while there are those who disapprove of Christmas, or, at least aspects of it, most people love it.  Christmas is ubiquitous: it’s everywhere.  In London, it seems to start in August.  Winnie and I normally see it beginning to be promoted just as we are leaving after our Summer trip to the UK.  In Hong Kong, it starts a bit later: it seems to really get under way after Halloween – for obvious commercial reasons!

At the Vicarage, the Christmas season normally begins in the first week of December with the delivery of our Christmas tree!  Yes, everyone loves Christmas, but even someone who loves Christmas as much as I do has to admit that some of the customs and practices surrounding Christmas seem just a little bit removed from the birth of Christ. 

Christmas Trees had been around in northern Europe for quite some time, but they really took off in the UK when Prince Albert put one up in 1841 at Windsor Castle.  It’s hard now to imagine Christmas without one.

Mince Pies were first introduced to Europe by the Crusaders, who had experienced middle eastern flavours while in the Holy Land.  Originally containing meat, they were made from 13 ingredients representing Christ and the twelve apostles.  They were also oval shaped to symbolize the manger.

Poinsettias came from Mexico in the 16^th century as did the turkey.  Eating turkey at Christmas is one of those strange customs.  We all eat it even if we don’t particularly like it.  Heston Blumenthal, as you might expect, has all sorts of complicated procedures for making it taste good.  There is, however, a very funny video on youtube in which an older cook, Mary Risley, gives her own advice on cooking turkey.  She says: ‘just put the ******* turkey in the oven!’

Christingles are a more recent custom originating in Moravia in the nineteenth century.  They were made popular by John Pensom, a Children’s Society fundraiser, in 1968.  He used to sign himself John Pensom DGO.  It turns out DGO stood for Damned Good Organiser.  He certainly succeeded in making the Christingle popular, and we will have our own Christingle Service here at Christ Church on Christmas Eve.

Not everyone understands it though.  On a parents’ forum in the UK, Mumsnet, one Mum, whose daughter had come home with the Christingle saying it was to celebrate Christmas, asked, ‘What on earth has an orange with a candle and four cocktail sticks to do with Christmas?’

Come to our Christmas Eve Service if you too are puzzled!  All will be revealed.

Well, I could go on.  But these and many other traditions have passed their way into our celebration of Christmas and of our Lord’s birth.  They may at times seem strange, but, ultimately, they are harmless.  After all, Christmas is meant to be a Birthday Party and strange things happen at parties!

So big is Christmas today that it comes as something of a shock to discover that the Church for a couple of hundreds of years or so didn’t seem to take it too seriously.  The first real mention of it we get is in Rome in the mid-4^th century.  The big thing for the Early Church was Easter.

Imagine, for one moment, that you only had St Mark’s Gospel.  (And remember that originally the Gospels circulated independently of one another.)  You would know nothing of the Nativity of our Lord.  And the Gospels were written after St Paul’s letters.  St Paul in his letters makes no mention of the circumstances of our Lord’s birth except to say, in Galatians, that he was born of a woman, which is hardly news.  It’s the same with St John’s Gospel.  St John is more concerned with our Lord’s divine origin than he is with the details of his human origin.

It is only St Matthew and St Luke who tell us, in relatively few words, the circumstances of Jesus’ birth, and despite having these concise and to the point accounts, we still manage to get the details wrong:

For example:

In none of our readings this evening are we told that Jesus was born in a stable.

We don’t know how many wise men there were or even if they were wise.  The word is ‘magi: a sort of first century cross between an astronomer and astrologer.

We do know that they came to the ‘house’ where the holy family were staying, but as Herod had all the boys under 2 killed, Jesus probably wasn’t lying in the manger when they arrived.

We are told that angels appeared to the shepherds, but they don’t sing.

Oh, and before I spoil it all: there is no mention of a donkey little or otherwise.

I genuinely don’t say any of this to spoil Christmas, and I am happy to go along with all of the above in the spirit in which they are offered.  I only say it to make the point that what we want is a ‘particular version’ of Christmas.

This is nothing new and has always been the case.  Many of our traditions, as I have suggested, come from Victorian England.  The Victorians knew what they wanted at Christmas and, indeed, throughout the year for that matter: children who kept quiet. (The Victorians didn’t always get it wrong!)

Take, for example, the popular carol, ‘Away in a Manger’.  It contains the words:

‘the cattle are lowing, the baby awakes,

but little Lord Jesus no crying he makes.’

Really?

Or what about these words from Once in Royal David’s City, the carol with which we began tonight’s service?

‘And through all his wondrous childhood

he would honour and obey,

love and watch the lowly maiden,

in whose gentle arms he lay:

Christian children all must be

mild, obedient, good as he.’

That’s verse 3.  Verse 4 continues:

‘For He is our childhood’s pattern…’

It is less about Jesus and more about what the Victorians wanted out of their own children!

Classic FM in the UK at the moment is conducting, as it does each year, a poll to find the most popular carol.  For the past two years, it has been Silent Night.  It is the perfect carol:  romantic, emotional, and devoid of any content.  It is also just plain wrong:

‘Silent night, holy night,

all is calm, all is bright,

round yon virgin mother and child …’

I don’t want to get all feminist on you, but could I just ask the mothers here: how was your experience of childbirth?  Silent, calm, and bright?  And far from being silent, calm, and bright, Bethlehem would have been crowded and noisy because of the census with frayed nerves and bad tempers.

Enough already!  You may have seen in the media this week that the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year is ‘post-truth’.  Post-truth means something is not true, but we want to believe in it anyway.  Many of us are having a ‘post-truth’ Christmas.  Deep down we know that so much that we do at Christmas is not true and not part of the first Nativity, but we would like to think that it is. 

The real truth, however, is that the truth is better.  St John may not tell us about the details of Jesus’ birth, but does tell us what it means: ‘the word became flesh and dwelt among us’. God, in other words, became one of us.  Really truly one of us.  This means that:

Mary would have felt the shame of getting pregnant

Joseph would have been disturbed, disapproving, and embarrassed

Mary would have screamed in pain when she gave birth to Jesus

Jesus would have cried

and he would have needed the first equivalent of having his nappy/diaper changing

It was noisy, dirty, tiring, and challenging.  It was happy and sad at the same time.  Just like life is today.

Jesus was given two names by the angel: ‘Jesus’, which means the Lord saves and ‘Emmanuel’, which means God is with us.  The reason why Christmas is so special is that Jesus does save us, but he saves us because he is God with us, but even more than that he is God as one of us.  There’s nothing wrong with enjoying a post-truth version of Christmas as long as you don’t mistake it for the true Christmas.  The true Christmas is about the word becoming flesh and dwelling among us; it is about the light shining in the darkness.

But it doesn’t end there.  We haven’t celebrated Christmas unless we personally – you and I – have responded to the message of Christmas.  St John writes of Jesus that to all who receive him, who believe in his name, he gives power to become children of God.

This Christmas are we just spectators at the Nativity or are we also participants?

One of the most post-truth carols is, ‘In the bleak mid-winter …’

One of the best carols is, ‘In the bleak mid-winter …’

Christina Rossetti got it.  It doesn’t matter so much how you celebrate Christmas, it matters how you respond to Christmas:

What can I give Him,

poor as I am?

If I were a shepherd,

I would bring a lamb;

if I were a wise man,

I would do my part;

yet what I can, I give Him –

give my heart.

Advent 3 Year A

Advent 3 Year A

If asked who John the Baptist was most Christians would answer that he was the one who came to prepare the way for Jesus.  And while this, undoubtedly, is true, we often say it in a somewhat dismissive way, as if he only had a minor role, and fail to see how important John the Baptist was in preparing the way for the coming of our Lord.  The lectionary, however, gives more days to John the Baptist than any other person apart from Jesus himself except, that is, for one other person: the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Outside the Gospels, the first century Jewish historian, Josephus, pays more attention to John than he does to Jesus.  Indeed, as Paul discovered John’s influence extended way beyond Israel so that when he went to Ephesus, 20 years or so after the crucifixion, he found disciples of John there.  This, in other words, was someone who had influence in his own right.

Turning to the Gospels themselves, we sometimes miss how significant the Gospel writers see John as being.  Mark begins his Gospel:  ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God…’ and then straightaway goes on to talk of John.  Luke describes John’s birth before Jesus’ and, again, begins his account of Jesus’ ministry with John’s ministry and his baptism of Jesus.  Matthew does likewise.

John in his Gospel gives us yet more information.  He tells us that Jesus’ first disciples were disciples of John the Baptist.  Luke suggests that John and Jesus were related and in John’s Gospel the ministry of Jesus initially overlaps with John’s suggesting that Jesus’ own ministry very much grew out of that of John’s.

This morning, however, we read that John has been put in prison.  His ministry is coming to an end.  This is the start of Jesus’ independent ministry.  Knowing that he is about to die, John wants to get one thing sorted out.  His ministry has been to prepare people for the ‘ONE who is to come’.  The Gospels all agree that he had thought Jesus was this ONE.  Now, however, he sends his disciples to ask Jesus ‘are you the ONE who is to come?’  This is not a question you ask if you are sure; it suggests doubts in John’s mind.  It is this doubt that he needs to sort out before his death.  Had he perhaps got it wrong about Jesus?  You can understand why he may have thought this. 

John’s ministry had been one of challenge and warning.  Even his way of life and style of dress challenged people.  His message was uncompromising: people needed to get ready for the coming judgement of God.  Already the axe was being laid to the tree.  The wheat would be separated from the chaff.  People needed to repent and have their sins forgiven, or they would find themselves on the wrong side of the judgement. 

Jesus at first sight seemed to take a different line.  Jesus himself talks about this difference later in the chapter (see Matthew 11.  His first miracle is to create wine for a party.  His own lifestyle is one of eating and drinking so that he gains the reputation of a drunkard and glutton, someone who welcomes sinners and eats with them.  This is in stark contrast to John’s lifestyle and while Jesus takes judgement seriously, he emphasizes the present experience of forgiveness.

John, then, begins to doubt whether Jesus is the ONE for whom he was sent to prepare the way, he asks: ‘are you the ONE who is to come or do we seek for another?’

Jesus doesn’t give a straight answer.  He points to what is happening in his ministry: how the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers were cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news brought to them.  The significance of this is not simply that these are amazing things to be happening, but that these were the things that the prophets said would happen when the Messiah came. 

Jesus concludes his answer with the words:  ‘And blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me.’

The implication being, of course, that John might at least be tempted to take offence at Jesus and his ministry. After all, many did!

But what does all this have to say to us this morning?  Well, first of all, it says to me that it’s OK to have doubts and questions.  Many Christians are frightened to admit to problems with their faith.  Firstly, because they fear being looked down upon by other Christians.  Secondly, because they worry that it may mean that they are not really a Christian. 

There are two equal problems with doubt.  The first is not admitting to it.  The second is not doing anything about it.  Most of us are reluctant to admit to doubt and, therefore, are not in any position to do anything about it.  There are, however, those Christians who are only too happy to admit to doubt, but rather than do anything about it, see being in a permanent state of doubt as rather cool.  It does fit with the spirit of the age somewhat:  an age in which where certainty is often equated with bigotry. 

So let’s be clear: doubting, asking questions is good and normal.  But our doubts and questions should lead us to want to find answers and a resolution of our doubts.  John faced his doubts and asked Jesus directly:  are you the ONE who is come or do we seek for another?

Jesus encouraged people to discover the truth for themselves.  He promised:

‘Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.’ (Matthew 7:7-8)

Secondly, Jesus says: ‘Blessed is the one who takes no offence at me.’  Jesus offends people: he was in danger of offending John, he certainly offended the Pharisees and the religious authorities and offended them so much that they had him crucified.  He offended Paul so much that Paul dedicated himself to destroying the movement Jesus’ death had given rise to.  Paul was himself to go on to offend both Jew and Greek with the message of the Gospel.  Jesus offends people. 

I have to say that the message we often preach is not likely to offend anyone.  Now I am not suggesting for one moment that we go out of our way to offend people – quite the reverse.  But all too often we have domesticated the Gospel, tamed it, and robbed it of its power and cutting edge.  In our preaching, Jesus doesn’t offend anyone because what is there in our presentation of him that is in anyway challenging.

John and Jesus and Jesus both called on people to repent.  This can be an offensive message because if you tell people that they have to be change the way they are living by implication you are telling them that they are not alright ‘just as they are’.  You are implying that not all behavior is acceptable and that life is not about people’s own personal choices.  And that offends.

We shouldn’t be surprised at this.  Jesus said:

‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to set a man against his father,

and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.’ (Matthew 10:34)

Jesus was the ONE who was to come, but maybe we would have preferred another!  One not so challenging and demanding!

A Return for the Blog

It is a long time since I posted here so I have no idea if anyone will bother to read anything I post! I have for the past few years been concentrating on my Church's Facebook Group, which is a closed Group. I have, however, recently been posting transcripts of the sermons I preach.

I think posting them here as well would be a good way to get the Blog up and running again.

At Christ Church Kowloon Tong, we follow the Revised Common Lectionary. I don't preach every Sunday, but I will post the sermons of the Sunday I do preach. I started editing my sermons to produce a transcript starting with Advent Sunday last year. This was the first Sunday in Year A of the Lectionary. It will take a little time to catch up as I don't want to post them all in one go.

Here then is the first sermon!

Advent Sunday Year A

Advent is easily my favourite time of the year. Christmas is just around the corner. The shops are already full of Christmas fayre. The shopping malls are all decorated for Christmas. And Christmas music greets you whether you are shopping in the supermarket or eating in a restaurant.

In Church, we have made the change to purple. The Advent wreath is being lit, and the poinsettias have arrived! The Christmas tree, however, is still some days off, but the children are getting ready for their Nativity Presentation and the choir are rehearsing for our Carol Service.

This, then, is Advent – a time of counting down to and preparing for Christmas. Except it isn’t: at least not directly. It comes as a bit of a shock to people to be reminded that Advent is only indirectly about Christmas. Advent, traditionally, is a time for preparing not to celebrate Christ’s coming at Bethlehem, but his coming on the clouds as he returns to this earth not as the baby in the manger, but as the Son of Man in glory to judge the world.

During Advent, the Church traditionally thinks about the four last things: death, judgement, heaven and hell. The Church tends to focus nowadays on Jesus’ teaching on love and forgiveness. Our dominant image of him is of one who came to seek and to save the lost. One who welcomes sinners and eats with them. One who is inclusive and who reaches out to those at the margins of society. During his life on earth, Jesus preached the good news of the Kingdom of God. This was good news especially for those whose life was full of bad news: the poor, the oppressed, the sick, and the possessed.

It is right that we too continue to preach this message of love and forgiveness. But in Jesus’ own teaching, there were always two sides to the coin. Jesus preached that in his ministry the kingdom of God had already come and was present in him. He also, however, taught his followers to pray for the kingdom to come on earth as it is heaven. There was in other words a future dimension to this kingdom. New Testament scholars talk about these two aspects of Jesus’ teaching as the ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ of the kingdom. The present and the future. Understandably, we focus on the already. What we experience in the here and now, and it is right that we describe the present benefits of following Christ, but we shouldn’t neglect the ‘not yet’, that is, what is still to come. And Advent is a good time to correct the balance.

It is important that we do for Jesus himself spent a great deal of time talking about what the future coming of the kingdom would be like. He does so in this morning’s Gospel, and he makes clear that it will be a time of judgement. A time when one will be taken and another will be left. When the sheep will be separated from the goats. When evil and evildoers will be punished. When wrongs shall be put right. And when the righteous will be welcomed into the kingdom promised by the Father.

A great deal of Jesus’ teaching focuses on these issues. Yes, Jesus does offer love and forgiveness, but he warns of judgement and punishment as well. The Church used to try to hold these two sides of Jesus’ teaching together. At times in its history, it must be admitted, it tended to stress judgement rather than love and forgiveness. You may have seen some medieval art which depicts the souls of the damned being shovelled into the fires of hell. It really is graphic stuff. If you don’t believe me do an image search for: ‘doom paintings’

There is, however, no such danger today!

Many Churches have deliberately and consciously abandoned all belief in judgement, heaven and hell. Death, obviously, is something they can’t deny! Such ideas simply do not fit with their understanding of who God is and what he is like. Other Churches have just quietly dropped all talk of such things refusing to even think about them.

The result is that we now have Christianity Lite, that is, Christianity without all the nasty bits.

The trouble is that the message of love and forgiveness doesn’t seem quite so amazing now. After all, if there is no judgement, no potential consequences for sin, evil, and wrongdoing, then why do we even need forgiveness? Why should we care how we live? If Mother Teresa and Hitler are both equally destined for heaven, then doesn’t that undermine the message of the Gospel, which assumes there is sin and evil?

The early Church believed passionately in the return of Christ and wanted to tell people the good news while there was still time. St Paul clearly believed in the possibility of Christ’s return at any time and sought to win people for Christ ‘to save them’ from the coming judgement or, to use his words, ‘the wrath of God’. He also urged believers, as he does in the reading this morning, to make sure they were ready for the return of Christ.

Well, the years passed, and Christ did not return, and the Church placed less emphasis on the second coming of our Lord. It didn’t abandon belief in it, though, as the Creed we will say together in a few minutes reminds us, and nor should we. Nor did the Church abandon its conviction that we would all one day be called upon to give an account of our lives to God.

While it is true that we do not know when the final judgement will come - Jesus taught that even he didn’t know that, only the Father knew - it is also true that we don’t know when our own private judgement will come. Jesus told the story of a rich man who was rather pleased with himself and all that he owned, but God said to him: ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ (Luke 12:20) The truth is that none of us know when our life will be demanded of us. The need to be prepared, to be ready is as important today as it was when Jesus was on earth.

Advent gives us a chance to take stock, to prepare; to get ready. In doing so, we prepare ourselves to celebrate Jesus’ birth in the best way possible.

‘Now is the moment to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers.’

Have a good Advent!

Jesus and his Death

I intend over the few weeks to post some studies I have written for my Church here in Hong Kong.  They are about our image of Jesus and how we can discover the Real Jesus.  They particularly focus on the significance of the crucifixion, hence the title: Jesus and his Death.

1. The Popular Jesus

Jesus as a person is quite popular in popular culture. In fact, it has become quite fashionable for someone in the public eye to say that while they have problems with the Church, they have great respect for Jesus. Further questioning, however, reveals it is a certain image of Jesus that they have respect for. This image has certain facets:

1. Inclusive: Jesus is hailed as someone who welcomed all regardless of social class and background, gender, or lifestyle.

2. Peace-loving: Jesus is seen as a prophet who taught the importance of love and peace and rejected the use of force and violence.

3. Radical: Jesus is presented as one who challenges corrupt authority and obedience to tradition.

What is dismissed either explicitly or implicitly by those holding this sort of image of Jesus is any suggestion that Jesus was anything other then human. The belief in the divinity of Jesus is seen as an invention of the Church not having any connection with the historical Jesus.

This popular image of Jesus has become so pervasive that it has also been taken up in varying degrees by people in the Church. Not all would want to go the whole way and reject Jesus' divinity altogether, but it receives considerably less emphasis than once in did. The emphasis now is on Jesus as one of us.

Jesus is thus able to take his place as one of the good guys: a candidate for a first century version of the Nobel Peace Prize or, at least, its first century equivalent. His death on the Cross is explained as that of a martyr prepared to die for what he believed to be true.

The only question is why anyone would want to kill him in the first place if this is what he was really like!

Now I can see why someone resembling this popular image might upset or irritate people. (In this form, he certainly rather irritates me if I am honest.) It might even be possible to imagine a crowd being so upset with him on occasion that it turned on him, as, indeed, happened at Nazareth, though quite why they should be quite so upset is more difficult to explain.

What, however, is impossible to explain is why, if Jesus was like the popular image of him, they should determinedly plan and plot to have him killed. And it would take some planning and plotting as the Jewish authorities did not have the power to order capital punishment, that power lay with the Roman authority, and the Romans for all their faults tended not to have people killed for preaching love and peace. They saved such punishments for those who preached hate and war: hate and war, that is, against Roman rulers and rule.

The problem with many presentations of Jesus, both inside and outside the Church, is that the death of Christ becomes a complete mystery. Unless our presentation of Jesus presents someone who otherwise good religious people would hate and explains how they could get Rome to crucify him, then the chances are that we are not presenting the Real Jesus.

It also suggests that the Jesus we are following and worshipping is not the Real Jesus either. In other words, the Jesus we follow and worship must not simply be one who was crucified, but one who was crucifiable!

It has been a long time since I posted here.  This has been because my time has been taken up on other projects.  I thought it would be interesting, however, as part of my preparation for my sermon tomorrow, Easter Sunday, to attempt an obituary of Jesus as it would have been printed in a newspaper on the Saturday after his crucifixion.

An Obituary of Jesus of Nazareth who was Crucified Yesterday

Jesus of Nazareth, aged 33, was crucified yesterday by the Roman authorities at the request of the Chief Priests in Jerusalem.  This has brought to an end a period of about 3 years during which he has been the subject of intense speculation about his motives and intentions.  Many had come to see him as someone who would lead Israel and throw off Roman rule establishing the Kingdom of God as described in the Scriptures.  These expectations, which he did little to discourage, have now been shown to be completely false.  While many will feel he did not deserve the brutal end he came to, the reality is that Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor, was left with little choice once the Chief Priests had made their allegations against him.

Although Jesus was commonly known as Jesus of Nazareth, he was in fact born in strange circumstances in Bethlehem.  Rumours persisted throughout his life that his mother, Mary, was not married when he was conceived.  He grew up in Nazareth following into his father, Joseph’s business as a carpenter.  His father died some years ago.

At the age of 30, he chose to associate himself with his relative John, known popularly as the Baptist.  John was himself put to death by King Herod.  It was at this time that Jesus began to preach and teach in Galilee, gathering a devoted group of followers around him.  He attracted large crowds who came not only to hear his charismatic style of teaching, but also because it was believed he was able to heal and perform miracles.

His teaching resulted in very public clashes with the Pharisees with whom he seems to have had a ‘love-hate' relationship.  On the one hand, he frequently socialized with them and, on the other, strongly criticized them.  He was most comfortable in the company of those on the edges of society, publicly associating with and befriending prostitutes, tax-collectors, and others with equally bad reputations.  He claimed that this is what God wanted him to do.

His followers clearly believed that he was the Messiah and obviously expected him to lead a rebellion against Roman rule, probably during the Passover.  His own attitude to this seems to have been ambivalent.  It is true that he discouraged people from calling him the Messiah and yet he behaved in a way which encouraged them to do just that.

The immediate events leading up to his death illustrate the problem.  At the beginning of this week, he very publicly rode into Jerusalem, accepting the crowds acclamation of him as King.  He then went to the Temple and violently attacked those trading there.  Both these actions undoubtedly lead people to think that the uprising was near and that he was preparing for it in the days leading up to the Passover.  At the crucial moment, however, he appears to have had a failure of nerve and instead submitted himself to arrest, trial, and execution without offering any resistance whatsoever.

This unwillingness to fulfil the hopes he himself had created explains why it was one of his closest followers, Judas, who betrayed him and why the rest deserted him, even refusing, when asked, to admit to being his followers in the first place.  At the end, it seems that it was only a group of women, who, somewhat scandalously, had travelled with him that stood by him.

His utter humiliation and violent death serve as an example to those tempted to think of themselves as messiahs.  It is a warning too to everyone in these difficult times not to be taken in by charismatic leaders who seem to promise much, but who, ultimately, have nothing to offer.

Jesus of Nazareth despite having no formal religious training was clearly a talented and effective teacher.  Sadly, he let his pride and ego get the better of him and delude him into thinking he was someone he wasn’t.  His death while attracting attention today will be forgotten tomorrow.

Jesus is survived by his mother, four brothers and some sisters.

I hope you are all enjoying the season of Advent and are looking forward to Christmas.

It may seem as though I have forgotten to post on Predestination, but there is an explanation!

I had wanted to read Matthew Levering's recently published book on Predestination first.  I had ordered it from Amazon, but when it arrived it was slightly damaged.  I wouldn't normally have worried as the damage was only superficial, but the book itself costs so much that I thought this time I would return it and get a perfect copy.

The replacement has just arrived an hour or so ago.  I have to confess to being a big Amazon fan.  If you are going to order online, they make it as straightforward as possible to do so.  Anyway, this is going to be my Christmas reading so Predestination is postponed until the New Year!

In the Church's Liturgical Year, we are now in Year B and we will be reading through Mark's Gospel.  Last Sunday the reading was the first eight verses.  This is the first in a series I am preparing for my Church introducing it.

St Mark's Gospel

The Gospel reading last Sunday was the beginning of Mark's Gospel (Mark 1:1-8), and I thought I might use the opportunity to introduce the Gospel that most scholars believe is the first of our New Testament Gospels to be written.

What we often forget is that while the Gospels would have been read by some, they would have been heard by most. That is, for all sorts of reasons, not least the cost of copying written texts, the Gospel would have been read out aloud in church groups, perhaps in the context of worship. In trying to understand then the message that Mark was intending to convey about our Lord, we need to ask how would it have been heard.

Sadly, our concentration is not such that we could cope with sitting and listening to Mark being read out in one sitting, although it only takes about an hour and half to do so. Some may remember how the actor Alex McCowan, in January 1978, devised and directed his own solo performance of the complete text of the Saint Mark's Gospel receiving much critical acclaim.

Today, we miss the impact that hearing the Gospel read out loud would have had on the first listeners. There are many recordings of the Bible available: if you get the chance, try listening to one. It opens up a new dimension in Biblical understanding. 

And remember: What is true of St Mark's Gospel is true also of the rest of the New Testament.

I have just looked at my diary for the next few days and have realised that there is not going to be the time to work on the series of posts I had planned on predestination.  However, in my last post I referred to my friend Ben Witherington's blog and his discussion there of free-will. I tried to give a reponse to it both here and in the Comments section.  In the Comments section of Ben's blog, there has been further discussion between Ben.  I would like to take the discussion further here.

This is the link to the post:

Bible and Culture

This is what I wrote as a comment on Ben's post:

Hi Ben,

But even on your view of pre-venient grace, it still means that God chooses some and not others: those to whom He extends pre-venient grace to make it possible for them to make a choice. And once you allow God the right to decide who gets to make a choice, then you are vulnerable to exactly the same criticisms that you make against those of us who believe in predestination!

Thank you for your blog. It is always interesting and stimulating!

Ross

This is Ben's reply:

Hi Ross.

Wrong. God extends prevenient grace to everyone.

(Ben)

I did follow up with another comment, but that has not appeared in the Comments!

I was, I must confess, much surprised by Ben's response, not so much because he said I was wrong.  Being wrong, after all, is always a possibility in this life!  But rather by his assertion that God extends prevenient grace to everyone.  This means, on Ben's view, that everyone is being offered the grace they need to enable them to respond to the good news of Jesus Christ.  As Ben points out in his post, without it no-one can respond.

Thanks to God's generous pre-venient grace, then, every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or whoever they may be, is being offered the chance to respond to the good news.  However, because in many cases no-one is telling them what the good news is, although they are now able to respond, there is nothing for them to respond to.  It also means that the grace of God has been offered them in vain, and it hardly seems to be their fault that it is!

This illustrates, I think, the problem faced by those who want to hold to free-will and a Biblical understanding of the human condition.  They need God to enable the will to be free to respond, but they cannot limit those whom God enables in this way for you then end up with a form of predestination because God is choosing whom to enable.  The problem occurs because it means that God is enabling people without also telling them what it is he is enabling them to do, which seems more than a trifle bizarre.  

The only way round this that I can see for those wanting to hold this position is to argue that God extends pre-venient grace when the Gospel is preached to all those hearing it preached. This inevitably means that God does not extend his pre-venient grace to all.  It also raises the question of who decides who gets to hear?  If it is us who decides, then that makes it all a bit of a lottery when it comes to salvation and gives us the power to decide not only who gets to hear, but also who gets to receive pre-venient grace.

Alternatively, you have to say God chooses whom we are sent to preach the good news to, which means, however generously, that God is still choosing some and not others, which brings us back to where we started.

What I am arguing is that you have the following choices: 

1.  that the grace of God is offered to all to enable the to respond, even though all will never get chance to respond simply because all will never get to hear, and so God's grace is, in the majority of cases, in vain

2.  that who receives the grace of God is made into a lottery dependent on whom we decide to offer it to

3.  you have a form of predestination in which God chooses, in some way, those who get to respond to his grace

For those taking the Bible seriously, I see no alternative to 3. Surely, it is only because we are so against the idea of God choosing some and not others and so addicted to the idea of human freedom that we resist it!  

In the series I have planned, I want to think about what such a belief in predestination should look like.  I hope to start after the weekend!

I am a bit worried at the moment as the weather is not looking good for our parish lunch tomorrow.  Normally, we set up the tables and chairs this afternoon, they are all here, but we can't set them up because it looks very much like it is about to rain.  We have a Plan B, but it is very much a Plan B.

Anyway one of my favourite blogs is that of Ben Witherington's.  Interestingly, in his latest post, he writes on the subject I have been posting on lately.  I his post takes a very different line on predestination and free-will to my own.  Read it here: Bible and Culture

Ben totally disagrees with the idea that God chooses some and not others.  He accepts that the Bible teaches that as sinners we are unable to make a free choice to accept the Gospel, but argues that God's grace enables us to make a free choice, while preserving our right to right to say no and to refuse God's offer of salvation.  This is a quote from Ben's post:

'Back to pre-venient grace. This theology grows out of texts such as we have mentioned and the way it envisions the salvation process is exactly as it is described in the NT. Yes indeed God’s grace, administered by the Spirit must work in a person leading them to respond to the Gospel. No responsible Wesleyan theologian would suggest that its a matter of ‘us all having free will’. No indeed. Without grace no one responds to God for we are all in the thrall of sin and darkness.'

Readers of this blog will know that I have many problems with this.  On thing I keep coming back to is the fact that even on Ben's understanding, God still chooses some and not others: those to whom He extends pre-venient grace to make it possible for them to make a choice.  And once you allow God the right to decide who gets to make a choice then you are vulnerable to exactly the same criticisms that you make against those of us who believe in predestination!

Meanwhile to return from the sublime heights of theology, I now need to worry about the ridiculous question of the weather!

6.  Whose Choice?

I have been posting some thoughts on predestination.  These have intentionally been limited to a few questions that I think arise when the subject is mentioned, and have not been an attempt to explain or even defend the idea.

Firstly, I have tried to make the point that there are huge problems with the concept of free-will that some think of as an alternative approach.  I have suggested that, in the first place, we human beings simply do not have free-will in the way that many of its proponents seem to think.  At best, we only have a limited ability in limited circumstances to make some choices and even then our choice is still largely the product of many forces over which we have no control.  As Paul puts it: 'the good that I would I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do.' (Romans 7:19)  This is why Paul uses the language of enslavement to sin to describe the human predicament.  If I am not free to do good, it's hard to see how I am free to accept God.

I have also pointed out that even if we did have the absolutely free-will that some think, it would sill leave God open to the accusation of unfairness as this would make the offer of salvation a very arbitrary thing, if for no other reason, than the simple fact that some get the chance to hear and respond and some don't.  Salvation really does become a lottery if God is not involved in some way in helping us to make a choice.

Secondly, however, other alternatives to the idea of predestination that try to combine human choice and God's involvement in it run, I have suggested, into exactly the same objections that are made against predestination, specifically its perceived unfairness.  I have not been arguing that these alternatives are necessarily wrong just that they don't overcome the main objection to predestination.

Why, then, are we so resistant to the idea of predestination?

Firstly, it is not I would venture to suggest because we have objectively come to the conclusion that it is wrong, but because we simply do not like the idea that something is being decided for us over which we have no control, even though that's true of most of the important issues our lives.  We don't get to choose our physical parents, why are so we so sure we get to choose our spiritual one?

Secondly, we do also recoil from the idea that God chooses some and not others.  Unless, however, you believe that God will eventually save all regardless - and what becomes of free-will then? - by definition some will be saved and some will not.  The Free-willers want it to be left to us to choose.  However, isn't there at least a case for handing the decision over to God!?

In future posts, I will attempt to show on a more positive note why I think predestination should, at least, be given a hearing.

Postscript

As we are now getting ready for the Feast of Christ the King my Church's birthday celebration, I probably won't have the time to start until next week.  Mind you, celebrating Christ as King reigning over all in heaven and earth is perhaps a good time to be thinking about how much freedom we have to rebel against him or to accept his rule!  Thank you for reading.

Help!

I would be really grateful if any readers of this blog could visit my Church's new facebook page and if you are so moved to 'Like' it.  I need another 11 likes to move on to the next stage in its creation!

This is the link:

Christ Church Kowloon Tong on Facebook

Thank you in advance!

6.  Whose Choice?

I have been posting some thoughts on predestination.  These have intentionally been limited to a few questions that I think arise when the subject is mentioned, and have not been an attempt to explain or even defend the idea.

Firstly, I have tried to make the point that there are huge problems with the concept of free-will that some think of as an alternative approach.  I have suggested that, in the first place, we human beings simply do not have free-will in the way that many of its proponents seem to think.  At best, we only have a limited ability in limited circumstances to make some choices and even then our choice is still largely the product of many forces over which we have no control.  As Paul puts it: 'the good that I would I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do.' (Romans 7:19)  This is why Paul uses the language of enslavement to sin to describe the human predicament.  If I am not free to do good, it's hard to see how I am free to accept God.

I have also pointed out that even if we did have the absolutely free-will that some think, it would sill leave God open to the accusation of unfairness as this would make the offer of salvation a very arbitrary thing, if for no other reason, than the simple fact that some get the chance to hear and respond and some don't.  Salvation really does become a lottery if God is not involved in some way in helping us to make a choice.

Secondly, however, other alternatives to the idea of predestination that try to combine human choice and God's involvement in it run, I have suggested, into exactly the same objections that are made against predestination, specifically its perceived unfairness.  I have not been arguing that these alternatives are necessarily wrong just that they don't overcome the main objection to predestination.

Why, then, are we so resistant to the idea of predestination?

Firstly, it is not I would venture to suggest because we have objectively come to the conclusion that it is wrong, but because we simply do not like the idea that something is being decided for us over which we have no control, even though that's true of most of the important issues our lives.  We don't get to choose our physical parents, why are so we so sure we get to choose our spiritual one?

Secondly, we do also recoil from the idea that God chooses some and not others.  Unless, however, you believe that God will eventually save all regardless - and what becomes of free-will then? - by definition some will be saved and some will not.  The Free-willers want it to be left to us to choose.  However, isn't there at least a case for handing the decision over to God!?

In future posts, I will attempt to show on a more positive note why I think predestination should, at least, be given a hearing.

Postscript

As we are now getting ready for the Feast of Christ the King my Church's birthday celebration, I probably won't have the time to start until next week.  Mind you, celebrating Christ as King reigning over all in heaven and earth is perhaps a good time to be thinking about how much freedom we have to rebel against him or to accept his rule!  Thank you for reading.

5.  Whose Choice?

The Bible makes it very plain that God entrusts to the Church the work of preaching the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  What happens next?  We have broadly speaking the following four positions:

1.  God does not direct and guide us to those who are to hear the good news and make the choice of whether or not to accept it, that is left to chance, circumstance, and the commitment of the Church in telling people the good news.

2.  God directs and guides us to those who are to hear the good news and make the choice of whether or not to accept it.

3.  God directs and guides us to those who are to hear the good news and also helps them to make the choice to accept it.

4.  God directs and guides us to those who are to hear the good news and also enables them to make the choice, which he has already decided they should make, to accept it.

I am sure that many in the Church, especially I suspect in the Anglican Church, would go with a version of 1.  Of course, we will still pray about it and ask for God's strength and help, but the business of going and choosing is the responsibility of us human beings.  If you believe this, then 'good luck', and I use those words advisedly, and I wish you every success, but it is not a position that I personally can share. Whatever he may do with the universe, I can't believe God plays dice with people's salvation.

For others in the Church, and especially those trying to be faithful to the Bible's teaching, 2 and 3 seem to allow us to keep a commitment to allowing humans freedom of choice, while also involving God in the process - which is nice.  They also sound reasonable and spiritual: God and us working together for the salvation of humankind.

There are, however, questions that those holding either of these two positions have to answer.  With respect to 2, why does God direct and guide us to these particular people?  I suppose the best answer would have to be something like these are the spiritual equivalent of a football manager's choice of a squad for a game.  They are the ones most likely to play.

With respect to 3, however, why is God not only offering the Gospel to some and not others, but actually helping some and not others?

I am not, for the moment, saying that either 2 or 3 are wrong, simply that they don't escape the accusation of, at best, bias or, at worst, unfairness on the part of God.

That leaves 4.  Oh dear, we don't like this one at all do we?  But the reason we don't like it can't simply be because it makes God unfair.  On any view, but 1, he is still that.  And even then he can be accused of unfairness in leaving whether or not people hear the good news to chance.

So what's the real reason we don't like to think that 'God directs and guides us to those who are to hear the good news and also enables them to make the choice, which he has already decided they should make, to accept it.'?

When I was ordained I was required to swear assent to the 39 Articles of the Church of England. This is the one on Predestination:

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

I wonder how many Anglican priests still assent to this today?  I assume, of course, that those who did so swear assent  at their ordination weren't perjuring themselves.  What a wicked thought: Anglicans saying things they don't believe.  

After all, we do all mean it when we say the Creed each Sunday, don't we?

Monday

It is Monday and I just about to set off for Ming Hua our theological college for my lecture.  It's Virtue Ethics today!  Quite a busy week this week.  Tonight it is the Church Council meeting with a very full agenda.

Regular readers will know that I am at present posting a series on Predestination.  This is a reflection in the light of it on yesterday's second reading from Thessalonians.

Paul has already described the Thessalonian Christians using these words: ‘For we know, brothers and sisters beloved by God, that he has chosen you …’ (1 Thessalonians 1:4) This is a very different perspective than that adopted by most Christians today. We are more likely to describe ourselves as those who have chosen God. While we focus on our choice to be a Christian, Paul here focuses on God’s choice of us. This leads him to write the words that are in are passage this Sunday: 'For God has destined us not for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ ...' (1 Thessalonians 5:9)

 Paul’s thinking is clear. God has chosen the Thessalonians to be his people and his plan for them is that rather than experiencing the wrath that others will experience on the Day of the Lord, they will instead obtain salvation. The obvious question (apart from whether we agree with him, of course) is in what sense does Paul think the Thessalonians are chosen?

This question immediately lands us in the debate about predestination: the idea that God choose some, and not others, to be Christians. Christians have, historically, been very divided over this issue. It is fair I think to say that many in former generations were more able to accept the idea than we are today, although there was still much argument over it. John Wesley famously disgreed strongly with his fellow evangelist George Whitefield in the eighteenth century over it.

There are a number of options when it comes to understanding what Paul means:

1. God chose the Thessalonians in the sense that he chose them to hear the message that Paul and his co-workers, Silvanus and Timothy, preached to them. This much, at least, is true. Paul had been prevented from preaching the Gospel in Asia Minor and had been lead to the Philippians and Thessalonians in Macedonia by a vision.

2. However, while 1 above is clearly true. It seems that Paul means more than just that the Thessalonians were chosen to hear the message. Consequently, others have argued in addition that God chose the Thessalonians, not only in the sense that he chose them to hear the Gospel, but that he chose them as a group, that is, as the Church, to be his people and to obtain salvation. It is, then, the Church that is chosen rather than individual Christians. This is the view taken by friend Ben Witherington in his commentary on Thessalonians.

3. Others have argued, though, that you can’t really choose a group without also, by implication, choosing those who are in the group. Those who take this position then divide into two:

a) Firstly, there are those who think that God chooses individuals because he knows in advance who will accept the message. The Thessalonian Christians, then, were singled out by God to become Christians because God knew in advance that they would accept the good news as preached by Paul and his co-workers.

b) Secondly, there are those who think that God chooses without pre-condition those whom he will bring to faith and that this choice is based solely on his own decision without any reference to us. The Thessalonian Christian, on this view, were chosen by God before they were even born. God then lead Paul to them and enabled them to come to faith in a way he didn’t with other people.

As I have said, this has caused much division in the Church in the past and it would be wrong of us to let it do so in the present. What discussion of this issue does do, however, is to remind us that salvation is God’s idea and whatever role we have to play in our becoming a Christian, the fact that God is willing to accept and save us is a much bigger deal than you and I deciding to become a Christian.

4.  Whose Choice?

The main criticism of predestination, the belief that God chooses some and not others, is that it means that God chooses some and not others!  This, it is argued, is simply not fair or just.  In response to this perceived unfairness, Christians have resorted to the doctrine of free-will.  From this point of view, God freely offers and we freely accept or reject that offer.  The problem, I have suggested, is what decides who gets to make a choice.  Either it is a random opportunity depending on, amongst other things, where you are born and live.  Or God has a role to play in deciding who gets to choose.

However, once you allow God a role in deciding who gets to choose, you are up against all the same problems that those who believe in predestination have to face.  These are again summed up in the simple question: why some and not others?  Why does God choose to give some an opportunity to make a choice while leaving others with no opportunity for one?  The point I am making is that people reject predestination often on the grounds of its perceived unfairness, but fail to see that the alternatives run into exactly the same problem only from a different direction.

The idea of human free-will of necessity must die the death of a thousand qualifications.  At best, all we are left with is a very limited ability to choose to be a Christian if we are fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to do so.  At worst, we are left with the responsibility for making a choice without God's help we are incapable of making, even if we are fortunate enough to be given the opportunity.

The idea of predestination when put bluntly and starkly may sound unfair, but given the inherent weaknesses of alternative positions based on the idea of human free-will and choice, it at least deserves more consideration than nowadays it is given.

3. Whose Choice?

I started on this series as a result of thinking about the sermon for Sunday, which contains this verse: 'For God has destined us not for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ ...' (1 Thessalonians 5:9)

We have seen how verses in the Bible such as this, and there are many more, raise the question of free-will and predestination. I have suggested that although it is an idea beloved by many, if not most Christians, free-will in any meaningful sense simply does not and cannot exist in this world. Our life in this world is under too many external and internal constraints.

This doesn't necessarily mean we have no choice, although often it does mean that, but that our freedom to choose is severely limited. Indeed, when we think we are freely making a decision that is truly ours and ours alone, in fact, we are acting exactly as outside forces have determined we would act. That, after all, is the whole point of advertising.

The obvious question then for us as Christians is how much choice we have in whether we become Christians. Looking at it from a purely human point of view and leaving God out of it for a moment, it would seem that we do not have a lot of choice:

1. In the first place, to become a Christian we have to hear about Christ. And clearly you are more likely to hear about Christ in some parts of our world than in others.

2. Then, secondly, even in those parts of the world that Christ is spoken of openly, you still have to hear someone speaking. Even in the UK, where there is an established church many people haven't got the first idea of Christ and who he is.

3. And then, thirdly, even if you hear about Christ, you have to understand what it is the preacher is saying. Given that often the Gospel is expressed either in very difficult to understand terms or simply in such a boring manner that you have lost interest before the first sentence is finished, your chances of being in a position to make a meaningful choice have been reduced considerably.

From a human point of view then, while I may theoretically have a choice on whether or not to be a Christian, my opportunities for being able to exercise that choice are very limited indeed.

Now the obvious criticism of this is that it is from a human point of view and you may say, what about God? Can't God guide and over-rule human weakness? Well, yes, of course he can, but as soon as you involve God in the choice, you limit human choice even more. And once you involve God, you have to ask why he seems to help some to choose and not others.

Either becoming a Christian is a hit and miss affair, in which case it is hard to see how God can be just, or you are faced with the fact that God chooses some and not others, even it is simply to help them with their choice. And so we are back to the question with which we closed a previous post:

Is this how the Gospel comes to us: as an apple tossed randomly into a crowd?

2.  Whose Choice? 

Here is the full quote from Calvin that I mentioned in the last post:

'And, in fact, we shall find many that will grant freely enough that God was not moved to send us his gospel by any other motive than his own free grace; but, at the same time, they surmise that the reason why some receive it and some do not, is because their own free wills hold sway, and so, by that means, God’s grace is diminished. For God does not offer us his grace, as a man might offer an apple to little children, so that the best runner should come and have it. If God should thus toss it out, it is certain that the greatest part of our salvation would be the product of our own power and skill, and the praise of it would redound to ourselves.' (from the Fifth Sermon on the First Chapter of Sermons on Ephesians)

Calvin is often seen as having invented the doctrine of Predestination, whether we believe in it or not, it is, of course, simply not true that Calvin invented it or was unusual in his belief in it. Here is a quote from chapter 16 of Augustine On Predestination:

'Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God’s gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God. Whence it is plain that it is a great grace for many to be delivered, and to acknowledge in those that are not delivered what would be due to themselves; so that he that glorieth may glory not in his own merits, which he sees to be equaled in those that are condemned, but in the Lord. But why He delivers one rather than another,—“His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out.” [Rom. 11.33.] For it is better in this case for us to hear or to say, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” [Rom. 9.20.] than to dare to speak as if we could know what He has chosen to be kept secret. Since, moreover, He could not will anything unrighteous.'

Thinking about this has made me realize that I should tackle in broad terms this subject of predestination.  I generally avoid doing so because I am aware that it can be very divisive.  I think now, however, is the time to attempt some thoughts on the subject.  So I am relabeling the last post to start the series!

1.  Whose Choice?

I am continuing my preparation for Sunday.  I wrote in my last post of how we downplay the New Testament theme of the Wrath of God.  In 1 Thessalonians 5:9 Paul writes: 'For God has destined us not for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ ...'  This touches on another theme that is rarely discussed nowadays, although it used to be a major pre-occupation in previous generations, that of predestination and free-will.  What does Paul mean when he writes that God has destined us?

For most Christians, it is axiomatic that we human beings have free-will.  Part of the reason we are so committed to the idea of free-will is simple human pride.  We hate the idea that we are not masters of our own destiny and that our decisions are not our own.  Part of it, though, is that it fits our sincerely held view of how the Gospel works.  God offers his grace freely and we freely decide whether to accept it or not.

Personally, I have never bought the idea of free-will.  It seems to me to be patently obvious that none of us have free-will in any meaningful sense.  This doesn't mean that we can't make choices, but that our choices are never really free.  We are conditioned by all sorts of things: our history, our culture, our upbringing, our experiences, our physical and emotional make-up - in fact, the list of things that influence and affect our choices is a long one.  For the Christian not only are there historical, social, cultural, personal, and financial limitations on human freedom and choice, there are spiritual ones as well.  The Bible tells us that we are trapped in sin, held captive by the world, the flesh and the Devil.

An old joke about the Judge who said that every Englishman is free to have tea at the Ritz makes the point.  I may be free to buy tea at the Ritz, but if I am poor and homeless I do not have the ability to take advantage of that freedom.

All this raises interesting questions about how we become Christians.  If God leaves it to us to choose whether or not to accept the Gospel, then isn't that being a bit random?  Won't some of us be in a better position to make that choice than others?  Calvin uses the example of an apple tossed into a crowd of young boys. Won't the tallest and fittest have a better chance of catching it than all the rest?

Is this how the Gospel comes to us: as an apple tossed randomly into a crowd?

The Wrath of the Lamb

I am now preparing for the sermon on Sunday.

I am particularly drawn to Paul's statement in 1 Thessalonians 5:

'While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly ...'

Those who know their classical history will know what this is a reference to.  As fortune would have it, I am listening at the moment to a dramatisation of Robert Graves' book, I, Claudius, by the BBC. It details some of the struggles of the Roman Empire - and Emperors - in the time of the New Testament.

It was Rome's precise boast, or, more especially that of the Emperor Augustus, that he had brought 'peace and safety'.

However, the Empire of God always challenges the Empires, and Emperors, of this world.

I love the way this verse from the Book of Revelation challenges are present day prejudices and conceptions:

'And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?' (Revelation 6:10)

For most Christians, this is just so not where they are. They forget the Wrath of the Lamb who over-turned the tables in the Temple and talked of people being banished to outer darkness.

As Paul says, 'Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' (Romans 12:19)

Christians have interpreted this to mean that there will be no vengeance, no Day of Wrath.  That is not what the New Testament says.  It tells us simply to leave Wrath to him who alone can judge the motives and hearts of all. But the certainty that vengeance will come is a given in the Bible and we should prepare for it - as our Lord consistently warns us in the Gospel.

This is the message of the season of Advent that we are now approaching.

Since I wrote the post about excessive meetings, I have been both encouraged by the number of people who have said they agree and discouraged by the relentless number of meetings that keep popping up.  The need is for discernment to know which are important and which are not.

I have been working on the sermon for this week and next, which will both be based on the second reading for the day from 1 Thessalonians.  The theme will be the same for both: death and the future.  Readers of this blog and those who know me will know that I am not a big fan of death.  I really dislike the flippancy with which some Christians discuss it.

Anyway, looking at what the New Testament writers, in general, and Paul, in particular, have to say about it, I am struck more and more by difference in perspective between us and them.  The emphasis in most Christian preaching and pastoral care today is on the destiny of believers once they die.  Understandably, we want to reassure bereaved families and those facing death - whether that of their own or a loved one - that the deceased or dying are going to heaven to be with Jesus.  Hope is expressed very much in terms of what happens when we die.

In the New Testament, however, this is not the emphasis.  The emphasis is not on what happens to us when we die, but on what will happen to us when Christ returns.  Now given that Christ's return has been delayed, from our point of view, for a very long time, it is understandable that we should focus on what happens at the point of death and not at some apparently very far off moment when Christ comes again - if we still believe he will, which many do not.

The problem reflected in the passage from Thessalonians for this coming Sunday seems to be that the Thessalonians were very worried about what would happen to those who had died before Christ came again. Paul writes at the start of the letter:

'...how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming.'
(1 Thessalonians 1:9-10)

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy in their preaching of the Gospel seem to have stressed the fact that Jesus will return and we are to wait expectantly and be ready for Him.  Perhaps because of the relatively short time they were in Thessalonica, they did not deal with the issue of what happened to someone who died before Jesus returned and it is this question that they are now answering in their letter.

Their answer is interesting: they do not say, don't worry those who have died are safe with Christ, but, don't worry those who have died won't miss out when he returns.  In other words, they remain focused on the return of Christ as the ground of Christian hope.  It is then, and only then, that we will be raised and forever be with the Lord.

This still leaves hanging the question of what happens to the dead in the meantime.  Some people think that Paul either changed or developed his theology in his future letters.  Personally, I think it is a case of him explaining it in the light of different situations and questions.  But more on that in another post!