Hallowe’en

We got back from our holiday on Saturday night to the horror that is Hallowe’en. A posse of our kids’ school friends and their parents were out and about visiting the neighbourhood. On the way back from holiday, I read that the Vatican had weighed in on the matter. The Times has the story here. I have to say that I agree with much of what they are reported to have said. Good on them for saying the unwelcome things.

Here are my thoughts on this event. They’re offered as a starting point in an ongoing discussion. I wish I’d posted this last week. But I was on holiday and it was fabulous!

1. Halloween is commercially significant

In the US it’s the second most popular holiday and it generates 4-6 Billion Dollars in revenue. In the UK it’s the third behind Christmas and Easter. Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny are holding Buffy the Vampire Slayer at bay for the moment. But not for long.

2. Halloween is historically significant

The origins of Halloween date back over 2000 years to the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain [sow-in], a word that means ‘the end of summer’. This festival celebrated the end of harvest and the beginning of the Celtic New Year on November 1st. By 43AD the Roman Empire had conquered most of the Celtic regions and in the following 400 years the Roman festival of Feralia was incorporated into it. This day was in late October, when the Romans commemorated the passing of the dead. By the 800s Christianity had spread into Celtic lands. In the 8th century Pope Boniface IV designated November 1st All Saints’ Day to honour those saints that didn’t have a special day of their own. You wouldn’t want anyone to feel left out! The Pope hoped to put a Christian spin on the pagan Celtic festival with a church-sponsored holiday. It had worked with Christmas. Over the years the festival became known as All Hallows and the night before was known as All Hallows Eve or Hallowe’en.

3. Halloween is spiritually significant

I know I’ll be tarnished with a fundamentalist label but I’ve got issues with Hallowe’en. And I think they’re legitimate. But I’m not about to mount a campaign. I’ve got three main issues with Hallowe’en.

i. Halloween has become a time when wickedness is domesticated

I think the Bible allows a place for imagination. I think it has a place for pretence. And I don’t think it has an issue with fantasy. But Halloween allows elements from the dark side of spirituality to be accepted in mainstream culture. It’s become a holiday of cultural fascination with evil and the demonic. Evil is portrayed as innocent and fun. And it’s neither. We need to remember the wickedness of evil. The devil and his demons are real. We have a real spiritual adversary who seeks our destruction. If we belong to Christ by faith then we have nothing to fear from an enemy that he’s already defeated. But nevertheless wickedness and evil ought to be exposed, opposed and loathed. But our approach may actually be encouraging others to mock something that’s deadly serious. It may also encourage a fascination with something that’s enslaving and ultimately damaging. I want no part of that.

ii. Halloween has become a time when we celebrate what scares us

Out of love for the vulnerable, particularly children we ought to protect them from things that frighten them. Walking into WH Smiths to be confronted by hairy spiders, a witch’s mask and a giant bat is not most young children’s idea of fun. As anyone who’s had chidlren wake up in the middle of the night with bad dreams will tell you, images remain in children’s memories. And they come out at night to scare them. And it’s not fun. Our films have classification guidelines that allow parents the freedom to make a decision. But no such restraint is exercised at this time of the year. We may be strong enough to cope with the associations with evil without being tainted. And we may be brave enough to cope with the frightening images. But not everyone is. And as Christians we should therefore limit our freedom in love for others.

iii. Halloween has become a time when we teach our children that extortion is acceptable

Let me rant for a moment. Trick or treat is extortion. We encourage our kids to go around as a gang, knock on people’s doors and give them a choice between a rock and a hard place. It’s either ‘give me a treat’ or ‘I give you a trick’. That’s organised crime.

Rather than celebrate wickedness we encouraged our family to celebrate Jesus’ victory over wickedness, evil and the devil [Colossians 2:15].

More on Polygamy

Mark Driscoll blogs on the issue here. I think he must’ve read my post.

Polygamy

No, it’s not a personal care issue we’re facing at the moment. No, we’re not looking to assimilate Mormon teaching into Biblical Christianity. No, I’ve not met someone else. It’s just that someone pointed out that if God could get His head round some of the Bible’s great heroes and their ‘dodgoire’ sexual ethics, why can’t he tolerate the sexual self expression of us lesser mortals? In other words, why can’t God learn to tolerate homo- sexual activity in the same way that he tolerated poly-marital sexual activity?

Australian Bishop, Glenn Davies put it this way in his Briefing essay, ‘Is Polygamy a Sin?’

‘Conservative Christians in the Anglican Communion – especially those in Africa- have fought a long, hard battle against the acceptance and blessing of homosexual activity. Now, some Western Anglicans are charging the Africans with hypocrisy for arguing against one form of sexual deviancy whilst accepting another –polygamy’.
The Briefing Issue 318 March 2005

His article is worth reading if you want to follow up this issue.

A few definitions are in order. Polygamy is multiple simultaneous marriage. It’s not a massive feature of western life. Our issue is serial monogamy rather than simultaneous polygamy. Technically polygamy is a term that covers polygyny (marriage to more than one woman) and polyandry (marriage to more than one man). It was common throughout the ancient world. Even in the first century it was not unknown amongst the Jews. According to Davies’ research, the lex Antoniana de civitae issued in 212AD made monogamy the law for Roman citizens, but it also made an exception for Jews.

1. Polygamy was never God’s intention for humanity

In the ancient Near East, creation narratives were used to demonstrate not just what was, but also what should be. The Bible teaches that the world was created with a purposeful order. To deviate from that order was sin. God created male and female. He designed humanity so that men would marry women and then exercise dominion over the world. Therefore a man was expected to leave his family and cleave to a woman who would become his [only] wife. Only these two people were supposed to enter into the marriage designed by God (Genesis 2:24). This view of marriage was reiterated and reinforced by both Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (1 Corinthians 7:2 & Ephesians 5:31). Anything that deviates from this pattern of marriage fails to fulfil God’s creation purposes. Therefore polygamy can never be God’s ideal for human relationships.

2. Polygamy was sometimes observed in Old Testament times

There’s no getting away from it, most of the Old Testament Patriarchs and many of the Old Testament Kings were polygamous. It would be so much easier if it wasn’t the case. But it was. Lamech, Jacob, Esau, Jacob , Gideon, Elkanah, David and Solomon all had multiple wives (Genesis 4:19, 29:21-30, 36:2, Judges 8:30, 1 Samuel 1:1-2). That’s some line up. Presumably polygamy was popular precisely because it gave people social status. It also enabled them to make various political alliances (2 Samuel 3:2-5, 5:13-16, 12:7-10, 1 Kings 3:1, 11:1-4). The list of names highlights that to have more than one wife was a significant sign of power and wealth that few could achieve. However, the fact remains that polygamy was clearly practised in Old Testament times and apparently without the obvious disapproval of God. But Christopher Ash’s observation is helpful at this point. In his book on marriage he says,

‘The Old Testament did not forbid polygamy, nor very clearly disapprove (for the most part). It is concerned with the telling of a much bigger story, of which the polygamy of kings is moistly but a minor prop on a grand stage. The Old Testament writers were not primarily concerned to teach us lessons about the sex lives of its kings and patriarchs. These men lived in cultures where it was acceptable for the rich and powerful to have more than one wife. Had the narrators turned aside to indicate approval or disapproval of every action described, the story would never have been told’
Marriage: Sex in the Service of God, p252.

And yet, there are one or two ways in which the authors make it obvious that polygamy wasn’t the way things should be. Where multiple simultaneous marriages are described, the picture of family life that emerges could hardly be taken as an endorsement!

3. Polygamy was regulated by God’s law

Whilst it’s true that legislation existed under the Mosaic Law to regulate polygamy (Exodus 21:10-11), this legislation didn’t legitimize polygamy. We could never say that polygamy was lawful, in the true sense of being an activity approved of by God. The appearance of regulation in the Mosaic Law amounts to little more than divine permission. He accommodated His requirements for His people taking into account their propensity for sin. It’s similar to the divine permission for divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). God’s Law was an attempt to make the worst of a bad situation. And so, the Mosaic Law gave protection to concubines and multiple wives, but not in order to sanction the practice. It was tolerated by God’s Law. It was never approved of by God. He simply sought to regulate it and limit the damage that it would cause. It had the potential to wreck a family. And so God gave His word to prevent sin from causing further damage. Once sin erupts at the heart of a relationship it has a habit of multiplying and worsening the situation. And so, the Bible regularly seeks to limit the effects of sin.

4. Polygamy prohibits a man from eldership

I know it’ll sound like a semantic sleight of hand but the Bible doesn’t view polygamy in the same way that it views adultery. The reason for that, I think, is that a polygamist extends his exclusive marriage relationship by including other wives in his marriage covenant. But an adulterer violates his exclusive marriage relationship by breaking his marriage covenant with his wife. I take it that the reason that the Old Testament distinguishes adultery from polygamy is that polygamy was plural marriage which still operated within covenantal boundaries. Adultery broke those boundaries. Nevertheless, polygamous marriage still violates God’s original intention and breaks the seventh commandment. For that reason, when Paul outlines the requirements for an overseer, he indicates that the elder must be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2&12, Titus 1:6). If polygamy is wrong for church leaders, it’s wrong for everyone else. As John Frame points out, ‘Scripture does not require elders to follow different moral principles than other Christians’.

Therefore, even though it has occured in the history of God’s people and even though it continues to occur in an African context, polygamy is wrong. God has always thought so. He’s tolerated it and regulated it. But he still opposes it. It’s a heterosexual sin applied to marriage. It’s different to homosexual sexual sin. And it’s still wrong.

For further reading see
G. Davies, ‘Is Polygamy a Sin? A Consideration of Polygamy and the Bible, The Briefing Issue 318, March 2005
J. Frame, The Seventh Commandment: Sexual Purity’, The Doctrine of the Christian Life

FCA Primates’ Letter

Peter Akinola, writing on behalf of the Primates of the FCA, sent this letter to Paul Perkin, Chairman of FCA (UK)

To:      The Organising and Executive Committee of FCA-UK and Ireland

The Rev’d Paul Perkin, Chairman

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

We, the GAFCON Primates Council, are deeply thankful for your report of the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (UK and Ireland) on July 6th, which gathered many of those who remain committed “to the faith once delivered to the saints”.

We have heard your distress about the marginalization of some of those seeking to maintain and strengthen Gospel witness in Anglican Churches. In particular, we note your concern about the difficulties faced by those of orthodox Anglican conviction in the process of discernment, selection, training and deployment in ordained ministry. We also share your grief over the lack of adequate recognition and support of newly formed congregations arising from faithful Gospel witness. It is evident that your churches are not immune to the crisis and divisions that have so deeply assaulted other parts of the Anglican Communion

We are encouraged by your commitment to work for an internal solution that can address these deep concerns. Steps taken early enough to make provision to address them can preserve good order.  We firmly support your efforts to ensure the provision of appropriate oversight, and if this is not forthcoming, to provide it.

We welcome the formation of the FCA-UK and acknowledge its Executive Committee as the authentic voice of a very broad coalition of orthodox theological perspectives. We are also encouraged that having embraced the Jerusalem Declaration you are in fellowship with the Primates Council and wish to be accountable to us as a branch of FCA worldwide.

And so, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. (Jude 20,21)

On behalf of the Primates’ Council

+Peter Abuja

It’s an interesting letter for the following reasons

1. they say that they’ve heard our issues cocnerning the recruitment, training, deployment and recognition of staff.

2. they say that they share our grief at the lack of support given to church planting.

3. they attribute these issues to theological division not merely church order.

4. they promise to step into the breach and provide alternative episcopal oversight where needed.

For more information on FCA go here.

I’ve blogged on FCA here. My attempt at a succinct analysis of the situation in the UK is here.

Parents have Responsibility

Part 1 of this two part post on parenting thought about parental authority and requiring obedience from our children. Part 2 thinks about parental responsibility and provising nourishment for our children. And so point 2 from Ephesians 6 is

Parents should nourish their children (4)

4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

To whom is this command addressed?

This commandment is addressed specifically to fathers. But the context shows that children owe obedience to both parents. So I’d want to say generally this applies to both parents. Mums aren’t off the hook. But it’s especially the Dads that are in view.

What’s required of parents?

Two things are required of parents; one negative and one positive.

Negatively we mustn’t wind the kids up. It’s translated as ‘don’t provoke them to anger’. But that’s what Paul meant. Don’t irritate them in the way that we use our authority so that they despair and lose the plot. Positively we must bring them up or literally ‘to nourish to maturity’. Let’s take those in turn.

a. Negatively we mustn’t provoke anger

Sometimes our children get angry and it’s their fault. But Paul is talking about situations where we make them angry in the way that we use the authority invested in us by God. Their anger will be manifested either as outright rebellion or an internal smouldering.

We can provoke them to anger through thoughtlessly aggravating them, deliberately goading them or callously neglecting them.
We do it when we show favouritism to one child over another.
We do it when we’re inconsistent and parent for our benefit and convenience rather than for their good.
We do it when we fail to compensate for their age or understanding and ask them to do something unrealistic or unreasonable.
We do it when we make unreasonable demands on them that make no allowance on their ability or understanding
We do it when we irritate them by failing to accommodate their inexperience or immaturity
We do it when we’re harsh or cruel
We do it when we humiliate them, mock them or squash them

b. Positively we must provide nourishment

Our responsibility is to nourish our kids and provide them with just what they need to grow into maturity. What they need in order to reach maturity is expressed here in two words; discipline and instruction.

Discipline refers to admonition, correction and chastisement. It’s a word that speaks of rebuke or warning. But, it also communicates the sense of mild, loving parental discipline.

Instruction refers to training and education in the broadest sense. In order for our kids to reach maturity they need both instruction in the right way to go and correction when they reject that.

The two words ‘discipline’ and ‘instruction’ are virtually synonymous and summarise the idea of training. To train a child means not only providing the basic content of what should be done but also instilling that content through practice and discipline. And so, it’s a total training package with positive commendation and reward, as well as punishing misdeeds. It has the idea of rebuking wrong behaviour and reinforcing right behaviour. And so we need to be as positive about the things the kids do well as we are vigilant about their the things they do badly. It may be that soem of us need to learn to be more encouraging.

Notice whose responsibility it is. The Fathers have got to take a lead on this. We may delegate responsibility for some things to our wives, to the leaders in kids’ Sunday School and to their teachers at school or nursery. But we mustn’t abrogate our responsibility. We’re the senior pastor in our family congregation and it’s our responsibility to ensure that our children are being nourished. What this means is that we need to make the decisions

• We need to ensure that we’re there in church and not away lots of weekends so that neither the kids nor we receive the encouragement from gathering together with God’s people and sitting under His word.
• We need to be the ones who take a lead in reading the Bible and praying with the kids. If we leave for work before the kids get up and we’re back after their bedtime then the weekends are hugely significant. I know that we’ll want to rest, but our kids need us. And they have the right to expect it.

What our kids most need from us is our involvement in nourishing them towards maturity. Start now and establish a good foundation from which you can build. Don’t think that you can leave it till later. The great myth is that there’s a less busy time coming.

Ted Tripp says, ‘parenting is a process not an event’. We’re discipling our children and training them. Training takes time. Just as you can’t expect our toddlers to run a marathon by telling them to run and then showing them how to do it neither should we expect our children to get obedience and pull it off without incident thereafter. We need a long term perspective. It’s a process not an event. And so establish some grooves to your parenting so that the kids know which tracks to run down.

Parents have Authority

Al Mohler has a stimulating blog post today.

My impression is that this is an ongoing issue, even in some of our fine Christian homes. I tried to tackle some of the material in a recent sermon on Ephesians 6. This is an edited version of the talk.

If you want to cause unrest amongst an all age congregation then surely one of the ways to do it is to teach clearly on the subject of Christian parenting. It’ll be controversial if the majority of our congregation have allowed their view of parenting to be shaped by the culture and not by the Bible. But this is also a sensitive and personal issue and as a result we can be very defensive. We feel examined, assessed and judged. And, quite understandably, we don’t like it.

My working assumption is that there’s only one perfect parent and that’s God. He’s as good a parent as we could ever wish for. This means that, in comparison to him, we’re all parenting failures. But that puts us all on a level playing field. This ought to mean thatt we can be honest with one another about our failings. I therefore hope that we won’t struggle to debate the issues or be fearful of what others may say. We can safely assume that we’re all work in progress and so we won’t be judgmental, critical or sensitive.

One problem with tackling this issue is that most people have preconceived ideas about what constitutes good and bad parenting. Some of those will be formed after reflection on the biblical material and others not. It’s possible for us to hold very strong opinions on these issues. We must be careful not to require of one another what the Bible does not require of us. The explicit commands of scripture are few but clear and we should encourage those in one another. In the whole New Testament there’s only Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3 to understand. And so many of our parenting decisions are concerned with applying these principles with freedom and wisdom. There’s great scope for a variety of approaches and we need to be generous and not critical in our assessment of what others are doing.

The section on parenting is introduced in (5:18). Paul describes what it means to be filled with the Spirit rather than filled with wine. The influence of the Spirit is seen in a number of activities, one of which is our relationships. He cultivates a willingness to submit in a whole set of different relationships (5:21); husbands and wives, employers and employees and parents and children.

Paul gives two clear commands, the first of which is covered in this post. The second is found here.

1. Children should obey their parents (1-3)

6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honour your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”

To whom is this command addressed?

This command is aimed at children. And how we wish that they would hear it! The Greek word translated ‘children’ implies that what’s in view is not primarily an age but a relationship. In other words the word is broad enough to describe those of us that have parents, not simply at those that are under the age of 18. However, in the context of (4) it’s clear that Paul has in mind those who are still under the instructional influence of their parents in the family home.

Presumably Paul was addressing children that were old enough to understand what he was saying. But it’s quite possible to teach big truths to children as young as two. So we’re not talking about adolescents here. And let’s be honest, if we leave it till their teenage years they’ll be so well practiced in disobedience that it’ll be impossible to reverse. After all, we get good at what we practice. The longer we leave practicing obedience, the harder it’ll be to perfect. So as soon as they can understand, let’s start addressing this!

What’s required of the children?

Children are required to obey their own parents. Paul uses a Greek word stronger than the word ‘submit’ that he used in 5:22. ‘To submit’ means to willingly place yourself under the authority of someone else. But in this word the voluntary element is downplayed. Obedience means doing what you’re told. For a child that means doing what you’re told without challenge, without excuse and without delay.

Of course parents will need to be wise about when they require obedience. Don’t make everything an obedience issue. We’re not talking here about the parenting equivalent of a totalitarian regime. If we make everything an obedience issue we’re not parenting our children, we’re bullying them. They’ll end up crushed and we’ll end up doing nothing but disciplining. Or they’ll end up rebellious and we’ll end up be broken. But when we decide that something is an obedience issue we should expect our children to do what they’re told. We’ll need to make concessions and allowances for their age and stage. For example when the kids are very young and tired their reluctance to obey isn’t merely sinful rebellion. They’re exhausted and they can’t obey to the same degree that they would when they’re on top form.

‘Obedience’ is a strong term but we mustn’t think that it implies that children are inferior to their parents. It denotes not differentiation in status but differentiation in role. The responsibility that children have towards their parents is that of obedience. The the single most important lesson for a child to learn during the period from infancy to childhood is that he or she is an individual under authority.

How well do you think we’re teaching our children that truth? Is the way we parent reinforcing the idea that God has invested authority in us? Or is the way we parent reinforcing the impression that we’re open for manipulation from stroppy toddlers or that we’re open to negotiation from persistent primary school whingers or that we simply capitulate if they make enough of a scene?

In our parenting we’re either teaching them one of two things. We’re either reinforcing the idea that obedience to authority is right or we’re teaching them that it’s alright to disobey authority. Some of us may be teaching them the wrong thing.

What motivation is provided?

Paul gives two reasons for children to obey their parents

a. they should do so in the Lord

This means that their obedience to their parents is all of a piece with their submission to Christ. And so, if our kids are serious about following Jesus, as many of them say that they are, then we need to help them understand that following Jesus means doing what Mummy and Daddy says, because God has put them in charge. And we’ll help them see that they can show they’re serious about following Jesus by responding to their parents in the way that he responded to his father.  It’s not a trick; it’s Christianity. We need to help them understand this and accept it. Don’t enforce it on them, persuade them that it’s right and sensible.

b. it’s right

The second motivation obedience is simply that it’s right. In other words it’s what ought to happen. Let me put it the other way round. If children don’t obey their parents it’s wrong. It’s really seriously wrong.

Paul supports his command to children by quoting the fifth commandment from Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16. In the original Old Testament context obedience to the fifth commandment resulted in a material prosperity and long life in the Promised Land. But when Paul applied it to Christians he generalises it. But what does that mean? It’s a general principle not a cast iron guarantee. But, all things being equal and generally speaking, children that have been brought up being obedient to their parents and observing the God given authority over them are more likely to live long and prosper. For example, if your kids are the wild unruly ones, they won’t get invited to parties. It won’t go well for them in their early years. If they’re the ones who don’t do what the teacher says their experience of the education system will be unpleasant and they won’t learn what they could. We’re tempted to do whatever makes for a quiet life. It’s worth remembering that in the long run the quite life comes through rightly applying obedience in the early years.

I know some people in our congregation who’ve had a terrible time in their local community because of a group of unruly children. I’ve met some of these kids and seen them at work. Responding to authority or even to seniority with obedience or submission is anathema to them. They simply won’t do what they’re told. Not even the Police can seem to control their behaviour. I can only make some assumptions about their home lives. But it wouldn’t surprise me if they’d grown up without being taught or expected to obey their parents. Children ought to obey their parents, parents must teach and expect that and society as a whole must encourage and promote that.

Disobedient children will become disobedient adolescents and then disobedient adults. If they remain unwilling to submit to the authority that God places over them, it will not go well for them. If we teach them this essential truth now we’re doing them a massive favour.

Some of us reading this will be ‘grown up’ children. We still have obligations towards our parents. Whilst we’re not required to obey them as we once did God still expects us to honour our parents. That doesn’t ever go away. What that will mean will depend on their circumstances and ours.

But what does this mean for those of us that have children?

Let’s not take the path of least resistance. Our kids need us to teach them that they are under authority and that they’re expected to obey. Some of us are possibly too ‘child-centred’ in our approach. We negotiate with our children rather than exercise our authority. The house sometimes revolves around them, their desires and their strops. We need to ask what we’re teaching them when we allow that? To my mind we’re teaching them that they can get their way by causing a scene and kicking up a fuss. Let me be provocative and suggest that we need to cultivate a zero tolerance approach to strops, tantrums and answering back. I know it always happens at the worst possible time, usually in Sainsbury’s when we’re shopping for supper that night. But speaking as a husband I’d far rather that the shopping trolley was left where it was, the youngster was walked back to the car, driven home and disciplined than have Rosslyn overlook it, even if it means that we’ve got nothing to offer friends for dinner in the evening. There’s always takeaway!

If we’re a Father we need to take a lead on this set the tone and back up our wives. They need and appreciate our support in this, especially if we have boys. Usually our kids respond best to the authority of the Fathers. For those of us who are single parents this is especially tough. There are no easy answers. Yours is a demanding calling and I hope that you can find the help that you need from your church.

Reform Conference 09

The Reform conference brings together a strange mix of individuals. It’s not just the FCA that gathers a broad coalition of disaffected Anglicans. I think Reform got there first. The angry young men pile in from theological college and their first curacies. The disaffected retirees flood in from the home counties despairing that Anglicanism isn’t what it used to be. And the battle scarred incumbents meet up to compare wounds after their latest brush with the Diocesan hierachy. It’s an eclectic gathering. And the idea that we could actually reform anything seems preposterous. We can barely get the sound system to work! But at the end of the day, these guys are my guys. They stand where I stand. If it wasn’t for that, I wouldn’t have gone. And I wouldn’t remain an Anglican.

The programme didn’t look that exciting. I got a sneak peek back in the summer when a Council Member asked me what I thought of the line up. I think I said that there was no one I wanted to get out of bed for! It takes two hours on the scooter up to Hoddesdon. About 90 minutes of that is through Central London. There’s no fun in that. Not even on my new maxi-scooter. But I went, out of loyalty and to keep Jonathan Fletcher quiet at the next Reform Southwark meeting. And it’s just possible that my boss may have mentioned something about wanting me there!

I heard three talks. One by Paul Perkin, Vicar at St Mark’s Battersea Rise, on engaging with the Diocese. One by Chris Green, Vice Principal at Oak Hill Theological College, on training gospel ministers. And the last one was by the Co-Mission Senior Pastor, Richard Coekin on evangelism.

Paul’s wasn’t what I was expecting. Given that he and I belong to the same Dicoese I was expecting something along the lines of contending for the truth. Classical evangelicals and the Diocese of Southwark aren’t exactly singing off the same hymn sheet. What we got was a really astute analysis of the way organisations work and deal with change. It’s a while since I last looked at a normal distribution curve, but Paul used them to great effect. He explained how traditionalists, conservatives, progressives and radicals make up each Diocese. Taditionalists resist change at any price. Conservatives will accept change only if we can ‘afford’ it with the resources we have. Progressives seek change in response to vision, or the circumstances demand it. Radicals seek change for change’s sake. It was stimulating stuff. If But if I have one slight criticism, it would be that though Paul gave us an insightful analysis of the way our Diocesan Officials think and position themselves, he didn’t tell us how to respond.

Chris spoke on ministry training. He took us to Acts and showed us that the two main churches mentioned in that book are Jerusalem and Antioch. Jerusalem was the first mega-church. Antioch launched the first church planting network. He reminded us that the needs for staffing each type of church are very different. Jerusalem needs specialists. Antioch neeeds generalists. I’ve long argued the same thing. I just didn’t know how to justify it from the scriptures! I benefited hugely from the reminder that the fivefold commitment for each church should be; membership, maturity, ministry and mission so that we might magnify God. It’s vintage Rick Warren from The Purpose Driven Church. Chris made a couple of modifications. He wanted to add a sixth dimension to local church ministry; multiplying through church planting. And rather than represent the diagram as a diamond he made it into a house so that we can talk about the chruch being built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Neat. My issue with Chris’ talk was so minor I didn’t even think it was worth asking in question time. He suggested that his first curate would be a specialist in one particular area in which he was weak. I agree with that, in part. However, I still want someone at CCB who’s a generalist. I want someone who’s generally good at everything, not specifically good at one thing. And the reason for that is that I want us to replicate ourselves in a church plant. Church planters needs to be generally good at everything. And so if we do want multiplication through planting we need to give experience to and train up generalists. A minor point not completely at odds with what Chris was saying.

I was looking forward to hearing Richard speak. But once again, he was pidgeon holed.  They gave him evangelism. It’s usually that, or church planting. I enjoy listening to Richard teach. I especially enjoy it when he teaches the Bible. He sees so much that I fail to see. He makes me a better Bible teacher and that’s good for our congregations. He’s brilliant on training and strategy but we don’t hear him outside Co-Mission on that. And I’ve heard him so many times on evangelism I could probably give the talk myself. In fact, I probably have! And so I wasn’t expecting anything new. But it was good. He got us to think about three beneficial partnerships. First, partnerships in local churches amongst the staff team, the congregation and the various church ministries. Secondly, partnerships with other local Anglican churches in relating to the Diocese, in forming political affilitaions to take action and with parachurch organisations to advance the gospel cause. Thirdly, partnerships with other evangelical churches in church planting mini-movements [like Co-Mission], ministry fraternals and regional gospel partnerships [like the SEGP].

All three talks will be available on the Reform website and are worth listening to.

Question time was interesting. It could have gone on for longer and would have been esepcially useful. The panel was hosted by William Taylor and consisted of Chris Green, Richard Coekin and David Holloway. David’s best reply was to say that if someone had been an incumbent for seven years and hadn’t got the PCC on side it was his own fault. You’ve got to have done the hard yards to get away with saying that. David has. John Richardson asked whether Reform had a strategy for reaching rural communities. He argued that since most of the country was countryside we ought to give our attention to that! If you want to stir up a hornet’s nest amongst evangelical anglicans talk about the priority and value of urban or rural ministry. The population of London is bigger than the combined populations of the next nine biggest UK cities. The people are in the cities. They’re especially in London. For my money we should expend our energies on thinking through a rural strategy when plants become more important than people!

Advertising Abortion

If you don’t want to see abortion advertisments on TV then sign this.

Abortion is a sensitive issue for many. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t think about it, talk about it and act on it. It’s not my intention to stoke up emotions in this post, but to explore the issue from a Biblical perspective.

The following are figures gleaned from Christian Medical Fellowship documents and references.

• There are about 180,000 abortions in the UK every year. That’s about three times the capacity of Twickenham stadium.
• There is one abortion for every four births.
• Of the 180,00 abortions 50,000 happen in London and over 3,500 in the boroughs of Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth where CCB is located.
• Estimates suggest that 55 million abortions occur every year in the world. That’s the population of the UK. This is not a small problem.
• Apparently one in three women has had an abortion.

And so it’s very likely that many of us have been personally affected by abortion in one way or another. It’s a personal issue for me. My Mother was adopted and not aborted. For that I am very grateful.

The arguments are often polarised and heated. Feelings run high. The protagonists often occupy deeply entrenched positions and are either staunchly ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life’. If someone is ‘pro-life’ they think that abortion is murder and unite under the banner of the ‘right to life’. If someone is ‘pro-choice’ they support the woman’s ‘right to choose’ whether to give birth or not. Though of course they’re not happy to extend choice to the women they terminate in abortion.

As I understand it the Bible has four main things to say on the subject.

1. the Bible prohibits murder as a general principle

In Exodus 20, the sixth commandment states ‘you shall not murder’. God is the Lord of life. He is the one who gives life and He is the one who retains the prerogative to remove life. We may not take life without His authorisation. In other words on the occasions when we do it must be ethically permissible.

The sixth commandment essentially teaches that life and death are God’s business. We should therefore respect all life out of reverence for God. And we should especially respect human life because we’re made in His image.

The commandment uses a word that means ‘murder’ rather than ‘kill’. But the Mosaic application of this general principle applied to manslaughter and negligent homicide. And so God does not just tell us to abstain from murder. He commands us positively to take precautions to avoid the unintentional loss of life. There’s nothing unintentional about abortion. Abortion is the deliberate destruction of an unborn child.

2. the Bible teaches the value of the unborn child

The Bible doesn’t mention abortion specifically. There’s no text that explicitly prohibits taking the life of a child in the womb. Though as John Frame points out when he quotes Meredith Kline, it was considered so abhorrent that it didn’t need to be mentioned. Kline writes,

As we observed at the outset, induced abortion was so abhorrent to the Israelite mind that it was not necessary to have a specific prohibition dealing with it in the Mosaic law. The Middle Assyrian laws attest to an abhorrence that was felt for this crime even in the midst of the heathendom around Israel, lacking though it did the illumination of special revelation. For in those laws a woman guilty of abortion was condemned to be impaled on stakes. Even if she managed to lose her own life in producing the abortion, she was still to be impaled and hung up in shame as an expression of the community’s repudiation of such an abomination. It is hard to imagine a more damning commentary on what is taking place in enlightened America today than that provided by this legal witness out of the conscience of benighted ancient paganism!’

Though there’s no text that explicitly prohibits taking the life of a child in the womb, the Bible does speak implicitly about the value of an unborn child. It regards the unborn child as a personal human being. Some argue that the baby is only a part of the mother’s body and not an independent life. Therefore she’s free to do with her body as she pleases. But that’s not the Bible’s view of the person inside her womb, nor is it the Bible’s view of the correct attitude to her body. The unborn child is made in the image of God and to be respected as such. And our bodies are not our own property to do with as we choose.

In Exodus 21 the accidental killing of an unborn child was regarded as serious as killing a pregnant woman. It was a capital offence. Abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child and so abortion would be regarded by the Old Testament as even more serious.
In Psalm 139 David refers to his own unborn life as fully personal. This is not an isolated text. There are several others that represent the view that unborn children are persons. On the flip side there are no texts that speak of unborn children as anything other than persons.
In Psalm 51 David again refers to his unborn self in first person pronouns, as a sinner and he traces that sin right back to the moment of conception. So David regards the unborn child as a person from the moment of conception.

Whilst we should always be careful about hitching our wagon to the scientific wagon, it’s worth noting that the relevant scientific data supports the biblical material. From the point of conception unborn children have a full complement of chromosomes, half from the Mother and half from the Father. So the unborn child is not part of the Mother’s body. The baby’s genetic nature is different from hers. So she cannot treat the unborn child as we treat hair or toenails and cut them off at our will. The vast majority of abortions are carried out because it’s inconvenient and we cannot treat human life so cheaply. 82% of abortions result from sexual activity outside of marriage and so abortion appears to be thought of in the same category as contraception.

It is sometimes argued that the unborn child is dependent on the mother for life support and so in this respect is similar to other parts of the Mother’s body. But that remains the case even after the birth of the child and so this ought not to be used as a reason to justify their termination. Interestingly Peter Singer, an Australian ethicist has argued that if abortionists want to, they can use the same arguments to support infanticide. He does. The Bible doesn’t.

3. the Bible encourages caution in taking human life

None of the texts quoted provide a watertight case that proves that every human being is a person from the moment of conception. I’d argue that they make a formidable case. But some Christians still maintain that the Bible does not categorically teach that the foetus should be regarded as a person. And so abortion is permitted.

However, the sixth commandment demands not only that we avoid murder but that we should also guard very carefully against the possible destruction of human life. So where carelessness can lead to tragedy, we must take precautions. Abortion does not fit that description.

John Frame uses the illustration of two people going out hunting. Imagine that it’s us. Suppose that we decide to split up in order to better track and kill the animal. If both of us have guns what are we to do when they hear a rustle in the leaves? Do we shoot or do we exercise caution? If we shoot and kill the other person is it good enough to say it’s their own fault or do we bear responsibility. We’re to do all that we can to avoid unnecessary death.

And so we’re to take precautions against the loss of life. It’s perverse that in a world obsessed with Health and Safety risk assessment we can’t spot the utter inconsistency with regards to abortion. When in doubt we should avoid any action that might destroy human life.

4. the Bible allows abortion in some circumstances

There are situations however when the sixth commandment does not apply. There’s the Old Testament case for capital punishment and the ongoing case for a ‘Just War’. On that basis some have argued that abortion is warranted where the psychological health of the Mother is at stake, to deal with deformity in the child, for reasons of population control or for economic need. But we cannot compromise the biblical principle that unborn children should be treated the same as those already born. There is however one exception to the general principle and that involves the situation where the continued existence of the child threatens the physical life of the mother. I won’t say any more about that here given time constraints. Much of the discussion of abortion centres on hard situations. We mustn’t duck them. There are always hard situations and I don’t want to minimise the level of personal distress caused by some of them.

Conclusion

We need to say that to those of us who’ve had an abortion that though our decision is regrettable it’s not the unforgivable sin. Christ died for our mistakes, he died for our decisions to terminate an unborn child and he did so because he loves us. Forgiveness for our sinful rebellion against His rightful rule over us is freely available to all who trust him as their Saviour and follow him as their Lord.

Christians have a special obligation to defend the weak and the helpless. God cares about the poor and the needy. He wants His people to do likewise. It’s hard to think of a group who more appropriately fit that description than those unborn children who have no voice. John Frame has written,

‘Arguably the unborn are the weakest, poorest, most helpless people that there are. They have no political or economic strength, not even voices to plead their own cause. Today, these under vicious attack by the dominant forces of society: the educational establishment, the media, the Government, including the courts which should be demanding justice. Even the most influential ethical thought of modern society is against them. And the most terrible part of this is that these children are under attack from their own mothers’ John Frame Lecture Course Notes, The Sixth Commandment: Protecting Life, p679

So what can we do?

None of us alone can do the job that needs to be done but we can all do something.

Sign the petition.

Continue to support Pregnancy Resource Centres in our prayers, perhaps by volunteering and certainly in our giving.

Christians need to be at the forefront of providing assistance to those who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy and providing homes for thosethat otherwise would be detsroyed.

Become informed on the issue, especially if you’re a woman. Men are often banned from the debate by our opponents. We’ll stand right with you but our voice may not be the one that’s listened to.

Resources

John Frame has written on this issue here, here and here.

The Christian Medical Fellowship has articles and news here.

Evangelistic Traction

Ever felt that in your evangelistic life all you’re really doing is wheel spinning? Like you’re going round and round in circles and not really going anywhere with anyone? What I’d love to have is more evangelistic traction. I’d like to feel that in my interaction with people what I’m doing actually connects in such a way that we make some progress.

In thinking this issue through for the Co-Mission Staff Focus, I was prompted to look afresh at Colossians 4:2-6. This is Paul’s final passage in a section describing life under the rule of Christ. And it’s all about turning believers’ attention to the unbelieving culture. The reason for doing so us that they might make the truth of the gospel known to those who don’t usually come to church.

It answers the question what can an ordinary group of believing people do to make sure that outsiders hear the gospel. It assumes that the church is committed to not only praying for the conversion of unbelievers but also speaking to unbelievers.

There are two clear sections.

• In verses 2-4 Paul encourages his readers to pray for his evangelistic life because that’s what he ought to be doing
• In verses 5-6 Paul encourages his readers to have an evangelistic life because that’s what they ought to be doing

We’ll consider verses 5&6. But before we do, let’s not to miss the point that all effective evangelism begins with prayer. Paul’s encouragement to persevere in prayer is surely a reminder to us to give ourselves once again to deliberate and detailed intercession for those with whom we seek to share Christ.

These next few paragraphs are all about developing evangelistic traction. I’m not specifically talking amongst our friends, colleagues and neighbours. I don’t want to limit it to ‘friendship evangelism’ because I don’t think the Bible does. I’m talking more generally about making progress with anyone whom we meet.

2 Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. 3 And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. 4 Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. ⁵ Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. ⁶ Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Let’s look at the five principles Paul gives for gaining traction with our evangelistic zeal.

1. Our conduct should be wise

5 Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders;

Paul is concerned first with our behaviour. He wants us to be wise in the way we interact with unbelievers. He’s not talking about being cautious. He’s talking about godliness. He wants us to be like Christ in the way in which we relate with people who don’t come to church.

It’s worth asking, are we godly, like Christ, or are we worldly? If we’re worldly it shouldn’t surprise us if we make little progress with any unbelievers. Why would they listen to us if we’re no different to them? But if we’re prepared to live like Christ it might just be that the Lord uses this to provoke a response. After all, there’s substance to a life built on Christ. Faith in him and obedience unto him provide rock solid foundations upon which a life can be securely built. Jesus made that point at the end of the sermon on the mount. The godly way of life is also profoundly attractive; the state of our marriages, the way we raise our children, the importance we place on our work, our wealth and our ambitions – godliness in these areas commends the gospel.

A few weeks ago Rosslyn and I were invited to attend the Hindu dedication of the daughter of friends. They’re both pretty secular. But the husband remains culturally Hindu. After considering the issue and what our attendance would communicate to them, to our friends who were also going but especially to God who abhors idolatry, we felt that in conscience we couldn’t go. I tried to explain that carefully and repeatedly affirmed that our intent was not to offend. He was quite taken back by our refusal to attend but also the reasons I gave. But he’s prepared to come to dinner and talk more about it. We need to trust the Lord that He will use the wise application of godly principles to create opportunities for the gospel.

Paul’s instruction to be wise in the way we act towards outsiders presupposes contact with outsiders. And so our problem may not be worldliness but worldly contact. We may have become isolated from unbelievers. No doubt our involvement at church can encourage a ghetto lifestyle in a Christian sub culture. And it may be that for many of us that key component of a normal Christian life is missing.

What are we going to do about that? We can’t let it go on. What can we do about that? Are there ministry opportunities amongst the unbelieving fringe at church that we’re missing out on? In the last year the Lord has brought two unbelieving men into our midst at CCB. We’ve been friendly. Why hadn’t it crossed my mind to read the Bible with them?

But where can you go to meet outsiders? For me, it’s playing footy on a Thursday night and when I can, it’s rugby on a Saturday. But it’s tough to keep carving out the time in the diary. Other things crowd in. But why not choose one thing this year and make it your thing. It could be a sports club, a reading group or an adult learning class. Just find something where you’ll meet unbelievers and conversation is allowed!

It will feel like a terrible waste of a year if we get to March 2010 and we have no one to invite to A Passion for Life. I feel ashamed at evangelistic events if I’ve not got anyone there. And that’s probably right.

2. our time should be planned

make the most of every opportunity.

The idea behind Paul’s expression is that we should make the best use of our time. The point is don’t look a gift horse in the mouth and waste the chances the Lord gives you to speak. Our time on this earth is a gift from God and we must use it for His glory. It belongs to him and it gives it to us to use in His service. So we have an obligation to employ the time He gives us with wisdom. Snap up the chances as they come along. Ask yourself how well you use your time. I’m not intending to inculcate a sense of guilt; I just want to prevent waste.

Do you plan your week? Management consultants have made a lot of money selling seminars that are supposed to make us more efficient. And we’re rightly sceptical of their claims. But there must be soemthing in it! There’s something to be said for being proactive rather than reactive. Wouldn’t it be awful to get to next Easter and realise how much time we’d squandered and frittered away on worthless pursuits. So are you in charge of your diary? Are you making sure that the important wins out over the urgent?

There’s wisdom in planning your week and developing a routine. We’ve investigated a new timetable at home because with three kids, two sets of homework, after school clubs, Rosslyn working two days a week and my desire to still play rugby. Sad isn’t it but we realsied that without careful planning it was all going pear shaped. Over the summer we took stock of our situation. W were aware of what we’re not doing and how little time we’re spending with non-Christians. We need time with unbelievers and that’s not going to happen unless we plan it.

And so what are the opportunities you have in the week to contact outsiders? What are the shared activities that you can do? In other words what do you already do that you could do with others? Some of the men at CCB go running. What’s to stop them going running with a non-Christian friend every week?

Let’s analyse a typical week for a church elder, who are surely soem of the busiest people in our churches. There are seven days a week. One of those they’re preparing their small group Bible study. Another one they’re leading that study. That leaves five. His wife needs two good nights, one of which ought to be a non-negotiable date night. But that still leaves three free nights. One of those can be spend entertaining a church couple of supper. That leaves two nights. At least one of those ought to be a regular commitment to non-Christians. And there’s still one spare.

Plan your time and don’t waste the opportunities.

3. our approach should be gracious

6 Let your conversation be always full of grace,

Obviously we want our speech to be full of the gospel; namely God’s grace to us in Christ. But that’s not his point here. Paul’s point is not so much the content our speech but the manner of our speech. He’s aware that it’s not always what we say to an outsider that gains their attention but the way in which we say it. If we’re churlish, impolite and obnoxious then we’re likely to be dismissed. If we’re gracious and kind then we’re likely to be heard.

This may well be Paul’s version of Peter’s concept of speaking with gentleness and respect in 1 Peter 3:15. Paul’s primary point is that any conversation should be gracious. But as we’re aware, a conversation is more than a few words; it’s an interaction between two people. And that interaction must be characterised by grace. When we engage with people our whole demeanour should be marked by generosity as we give ourselves to them.

When questions arise or when an opportunity to say something is forthcoming we mustn’t simply dump on them with an ‘off-pat’ response or everything that we’ve learnt from our latest MP3 apologetics talk. We need to be gracious and really listen to them, really enquire of them so that we might really understand them. This kind of genuine involvement with someone can only help us gain traction.

It may well mean that a few of us need to speak a little less and listen a whole load more in order to make progress with unbelievers. Not because we don’t have anything worthwhile to say but because we want what we say to hit the mark.

Let’s be generous in our attitude to others.

4. our conversation should be distinct

seasoned with salt,

Gracious words can be insipid and dull. Salt means that they’re to be distinctive. The point of the salt image, as I understand it, seems to be that salt is unlike whatever it’s added to so that when you add it to something it provides a distinct flavour. In Matthew 5 Jesus suggests that when salt loses its distinctiveness it has no further use. Therefore if our topics of conversation, if our logic, if the passions of our hearts revealed in the things that we get excited about are no different from the unbelieving world, we’re of very little use to Jesus! Wouldn’t that be awful.

We need to get used to being different and having something different to say. Most people, once they discover that  we’re Christians, expect us to be different. They know we’re different. But are we distinct? We seem to spend most of our time trying to show people who know that we’re different that we’re not distinct. It’s bonkers. And yet God requires us to stand apart.

It’s helpful to think through issues from a Christian perspective. It’s worth asking what’s in the news and what do we say? The internet is so helpful in this regard. Andrea Williams’ site ‘Christian Concern for our Nation’ and the Christian Institute site contain articles so that we can be informed on the ethical and political issues. Al Mohler the President of the Southern Baptist Union has a web site that’s well worth reading. He writes from an American perspective and so deals with their issues. But he reads the British press and often has something sensible to say. It just means that we can give the distinctive Christian perspective in any discussion.

Weher we live there are three topics of conversation that unfailingly come up at a dinner party; holidays, homes and education. I’m often worried that I have nothing distinctive to say on those issues. I’m pretty sure that I’m not that different from my unbelieving peers. Surely God makes a difference to the way I view those three things.

5. our response should be prepared

so that you may know how to answer everyone.

We need to have done some homework. We need not only to know where people are coming from but we need to have made some headway in knowing how to respond. We know some of the issues that need an answer but we need to do the next thing and formulate a response.

There are two books by Randy Newman that I recommend, ‘Corner Conversations’ and ‘Questioning Evangelism’. They’re an easy read. The London Men’s Convention resource ‘Biblical Answers to Tough Questions’ can be purchased from the Good Book Company.

But get your pastors to prepare you. It’s what you pay them for! Let them know what you think you need to respond to what people are saying in the office. We’ve decided to have a short slot each week tackling one of the common objections to Christianity. I discuss that here.

But after you finish reading this, why not consciously and deliberately answer these personal application questions

1. Where do I need to change my behaviour?
2. How can I make better use of my time?
3. What might I need to change in the way I interact with people?
4. Which topics of conversation frequently crop up in which I can be distinct?
5. What do I need to think about in order to be better prepared?

Common Objections

What are people objecting to these days? What’s their issue with Christianity? What do they find so objectionable that until we’ve heard it and dealt with it we’re not going to make any progress?

In preparation for a Passion for Life we’ve decided to have a 4 or 5 minute slot in each evening church meeting to tackle a common objection. We won’t be able to do very much in that time. But we could come up with a few helpful comments to difuse the unreasonable opposition to the gospel. Obviously we’d like to be scratching where people are itching. Our context is urban south London and so I’m aware that not everyone’s issues are our issues. And we may have our own issues! We might just have a niche market segment down in this stretch of the Northern Line.

But what sare teh common objections to considering the claims of Christianity?

This is the list I came up with.

1. How do we know God exists?
2. Why is Jesus different to other gods?
3. Can’t you make the Bible say what you like?
4. Don’t all religions lead to God?
5. How can a God of love allow so much sufferings
6. Why aren’t we acceptable to God as we are?
7. Why is Christianity so hung up about sex?
8. Hasn’t science disproved Christianity?
9. Why don’t Christians practice what they preach?

What am I missing? What’s unnecessary? What are people objecting to these days?