Scarves, Stoles and Symbolism

Symbols change their meaning with time.

When I was growing up, one symbol that had a very clear meaning for me was whether ministers wore scarf or stole. (Scarves are black; stoles have the colour of the liturgical season – green, white, red or purple). If a vicar wore a black scarf, it showed that they understood that their role was primarily as a preacher of God's Word. If they wore a stole, it meant that they saw their ministry as being priests, re-sacrificing Jesus on the altar.

That understanding informed what I wore for my ordination. Lots of evangelical ordinands share that view and want to be given a black scarf at their ordination rather than a white stole, because it symbolises being given authority to preach rather than authority to re-enact the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The official rules of course say that it makes no doctrinal difference which you wear, but that just prompted a friend of mine to find out what the doctrinal difference was. He wore a scarf.

Years later, I found myself in a different part of the country, in a church where no-one would even dream of thinking that the minister re-enacted Jesus sacrifice of himself at communion, and everyone was clear that a big part of the vicar's role was preaching. When I asked them how they understood the difference between scarves and stoles, the only difference they could find was that stoles were colourful and showed that the minsters valued colour and symbols but that scarves showed the vicar was a bit old-fashioned.

Of course, if people understand the symbolism that way, then I'm not going to be so insistent on wearing a scarf rather than a stole... Symbols are flexible and can mean different things in different contexts. There is nothing inherent about a black scarf that means it's about preaching or about a coloured stole that means it carries a certain understanding of communion – those are labels that some people choose to attach to those items of clothing.

Now it seems that scarves are dying out altogether. Some bishops ban them at ordinations. I don't think that's usually because of theology; I suspect it's because it looks neater if everyone is wearing the same thing. But more evangelicals avoid robes as often as they possibly can, which again comes down to symbolism.

For some people, robes symbolise the church they of their parents stopped going to – the idea of a minister who is boring, old-fashioned and out of touch. (That's not always a bad thing; I wear robes every week for a service where it's a positively good thing.) For others, robes symbolise that the people wearing them are different from everyone else. Ironically, that's how robes came about, but in not the way that you'd expect.

In the 400s AD, some clergy had started dressing in a way that was designed to look impressive. Pope Celestine I objected strongly and wrote this:

We bishops must be distinguished from the people and others by our learning, not our dress, by our life not by our robes, by purity of heart not by elegance.
Quoted in Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, p.401

Shortly afterwards, to stop the clergy wearing fancy clothes that set them apart, the church introduced some rules about what clergy should wear. Ironically, it was those very rules that then stayed the same for centuries and resulted in clergy wearing different clothes from everyone else as fashion changed!

In the late Roman Empire, people who held an office (magistrates, etc) would wear a special scarf to identify themselves and to show the authority that had been given them to do their role. It's that scarf that is the ancestor of both the scarf and the stole.

People who think that robes make an important statement, and that clergy are more about preaching than presiding at communion are also likely to think that robes themselves communicate the wrong message to people, and so are more likely to avoid wearing them, except on special occasions.

The Prepositions of Salvation

When we're thinking about how God saves us, it's surprisingly important to get our prepositions right. Prepositions are words like “onto” or “under” which describe how two objects are related to each other.

The Bible tells us we are saved:

from sin

Naturally we all suffer from what one author helpfully describes as “the human propensity to f*** things up”. That means that the way things are by nature, we are cut off from God and when it comes to God's plan to sort the universe out and fix what is wrong; we are part of the problem that God will get rid of rather than part of the solution. That is what we are saved from.

by grace

Because the way we are is part of the problem, we can't do anything to earn God's favour. We can't do anything to make him like us, because we just mess everything up. But God loves us as we are, even though he knows what we are like. That's called grace – it's God's undeserved love for us.

of God

It's not grace as some impersonal force in the universe, it's the grace of God. God as revealed in the Bible and in Jesus is not an impersonal force who seeks to make us into better people – he is a person (or three), who seeks to mend us and transform us through our relationship with him.

through faith

We take hold of God's salvation / forgiveness / transformation through faith, which simply means trust. It is trust on the basis of available evidence, but which goes beyond the evidence – just like we do every day. When I turn the steering wheel of my car, I trust that it will cause the car to turn. I have good reason for that trust – it has worked every previous time, but that doesn't guarantee it will work in the future. Nevertheless, I choose to put my faith in the steering column of my car to do its work. In the same way, I trust God to save me, to forgive me, to transform me. And we're saved through faith, not by faith. It isn't something we do to earn anything – it is simply how we take hold of what God has done.

in Christ

It isn't just “faith” in the sense of some generic perception of something beyond ourselves that saves us. It's faith specifically in Christ. It's trusting what Jesus did for us when he died in our place on the cross and rose from the dead to offer new life to all those who trust him.

into Christ

But we're saved “in Christ” in a much deeper sense than that. In a profound sense, when we trust in Jesus, we're united to him so that we receive the blessings which he deserves, we are raised from the dead in his resurrection, and so on. We are saved into Christ, and therefore into his new people, his family the Church.

for works

We aren't saved by what we do. Our faith which takes hold of God's salvation – the fact that we trust in Jesus – shows itself in what we do, but we are saved by the grace of God so that we might do good works, so that we might be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. You don't have to do good works to become a Christian, but those who have already become Christians should do good works.

to the glory of God

the aim of all of it is the glory of God. It's not to make us look good or to feel better than other people. It's so that everyone will see how awesome God is. God the Father wants the world to know how amazing his Son is. God the Son wants the world to see the love of his Father and then transformation that comes from the Holy Spirit. God the Holy Spirit wants us to worship the Father through trusting God the Son.

We see this wonderfully illustrated in passages such as Ephesians 2:4-10 (NIV).

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions – it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Book Review - What is the Mission of the Church?

There's quite a bit of debate around at the moment among Christians about what is meant by mission. On one side are positions like the Anglican 5 Marks of Mission:

The Mission of the Church is the mission of Christ:

• To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
  
• To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
  
• To respond to human need by loving service
  
• To seek to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and to pursue peace and reconciliation
  
• To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth
  

source

Most official documents then include a comment like this (from the same page)

The first mark of mission... is really a summary of what all mission is about, because it is based on Jesus' own summary of his mission (Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 4:18, Luke 7:22; cf. John 3:14-17). Instead of being just one (albeit the first) of five distinct activities, this should be the key statement about everything we do in mission.

Comments like this are important but all too often ignored in practice by churches that (for example) adopt the UN Millennium Development Goals as their mission statement, or count their valuable work in running a recycling centre as mission.

DeYoung and Gilbert's book is the best statement I have come across of the other side of the debate. Here's a rough summary of what they say:

The Church's mission is summarised in the Great Commission – “to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and gathering these disciples into churches, that they might worship the Lord and obey his commands now and in eternity to the glory of God the Father.” (p62)

The gospel is about the restoration of the whole of creation, but the centre of the gospel is the reconciliation of God and humanity brought about by forgiveness of sins through the death of Jesus. Being part of the kingdom of God requires acknowledging the kingship of Jesus – hence all gospel preaching demands response of repentance and faith.

We cannot build or grow God's kingdom – that is God's work and is never ascribed to people in Scripture. We are to bear witness to it – we are subjects and heralds of the kingdom, not its agents.

Biblical challenges to just living are about supporting those who cannot provide for themselves, treating the poor with dignity and not showing partiality to the rich, and not oppressing the poor by cheating them of promises payment. “If we truly believe the gospel of God's grace, we will be transformed to show grace to others in their time of need.” (p171)

“Social Justice” is a slippery phrase, but it's much clearer to talk about loving each other. Doing good to others and alleviating need is an opportunity for the church, not a responsibility to beat ourselves up over when we hear of injustice that we can do nothing about. “We really ought to love everyone, not all in the same way, but when we can, where we can, however we can.” (p193) “We are finite creatures and therefore it's important for us not to flog ourselves with undue guilt because we cannot show full, unbounded, active, suffering-relieving love to all seven billion people on the planet.” (p225)

The Biblical concept of “shalom” needs a lot more scholarly attention. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the Old Creation and the New Creation, but entrance into the New Creation is only through Jesus. Peace with God is the most important sort of peace, and so when we talk about seeking shalom for our communities, seeking peace between people and God has to be our top priority.

“It is not the church's responsibility to right every wrong or to meet every need, though we have Biblical motivation to do some of both. It is our responsibility however – our unique mission and plain priority – that this unpopular, impractical gospel message gets told, that neighbours and nations may know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, they may have life in his name.” (p249)

In other words, DeYoung and Gilbert argue that the mission of the Church is not the same as the mission of God, because we are finite beings called by God to witness to what he has done, is doing and will do in Jesus. They also draw a distinction between the mission of the church and the good that Christians as individuals should do in the world when we have the opportunity to do so.

Why does this matter? Because what our mission is affects what our focus is. If the mission of the church is to evangelise and make disciples, that is what we should focus on. (Making disciples of course includes encouraging and equipping members of the church to live for God in the world.) But if the mission of the church is seen as including striving to safeguard the integrity of creation, then the church would look rather different.

My Response

I have to say, I found DeYoung and Gilbert's main idea persuasive and compelling. I think they did enough to establish what they set out to do. In particular, I liked their argument that we should see injustice as a potential opportunity for us to love others rather than as an area of responsibility which we should feel guilty over. It was immensely liberating, especially given the way that so many sessions on global justice issues often present it in a guilt-tripping sort of way.

The biggest weakness, I thought, concerned their discussion of whether the Western Church is currently unjust. They recognised the importance of justice at an individual level, but didn't consider the potential for structural injustice. It is quite possible that even though we as individuals might not be oppressing the poor or defrauding workers of their wages, we might well be participating in and supporting structures which do oppress the poor by keeping them poor and denying them opportunities which are offered to the rich. There's obviously a lot more work to be done on that, but it doesn't affect their overall argument.

I started this post by saying that there is quite a bit of debate around. Actually, there is nowhere near enough. Last year I went on a conference, organised by evangelical Anglicans, on the issue of Seeking Justice. I was hoping it would at least address the sort of question that DeYoung raises, but there wasn't even a seminar on it - the opposite view was everywhere assumed. For those in the UK, DeYoung is speaking on themes from his book at a conference on 31st January.

Mission as Participation in the Divine Nature

The mission of God's people, then, is not some external structure built by the church itself - a program or strategy devised by an institution. Sending is mission is a participation in the life of God. The mission of God's people, in this dimension of sending and being sent, is to be caught up within the dynamic sending and being sent that God the Holy Trinity has done and continues to do for the salvation of the world and the revelation of his truth.
Christopher Wright, The Mission of God's People, p.211

Not Going Where God Wants?

Roger Carswell has written a really challenging piece here about how most evangelicals seem to want to go to where there are already plenty of Christians rather than where there are few. I know lots of people in that category, but I know a fair few who would rather go where Christ is not known, and they are a real encouragement to me.

HT Tim Chester.

Evangelism and Nominal Christians

I was reading a short article the other day by Dan Clark, author of "I'm a Christian, aren't I?", and it got me thinking.

90%+ of the training I've had in evangelism has been assuming that the people I'm speaking to don't already think they are Christians. 90% of those I meet who don't attend church regularly already think they are Christians but don't show much sign of it in their lives - they're nominal.

Of course, it's not for me to question the reality or otherwise of their faith. But at the same time, it is clear that just claiming to be a Christian isn't enough, and I as a minister should be helping them know, love and serve Jesus better.

So...

Anyone read Dan Clark's book?
Anyone know other good resources for specifically helping nominal Christians know God better?

Limited Atonement?

Did Jesus only die for the sins of those who believe in him, or for the sins of everyone?

I've recently finished reading "Life by His Death", which is a simplified version of John Owen's classic The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. I didn't feel the need to read a simplified version - but Amazon were out of DoDitDoC and they didn't say this version was simplified... Poor excuse, and if anyone who has read DoDitDoC says it deals with some of the criticisms of it here, I'm happy to make the effort to find a copy.

The book itself is a strong defence of the doctrine of Limited Atonement - that Christ died only for those who trust in him rather than for everyone without exception. It's a controversial doctrine, so I thought it worth writing a few thoughts about it.

Much of what Owen writes is brilliant - he argues strongly from God's sovereignty and from the fact that we require the work of the Holy Spirit to bring us to life and open our eyes before we believe that we cannot trust God unless he draws us to do so, and if he draws us to do so, we cannot resist.

It really got me thinking what it would be like to preach evangelistically trusting properly in God's sovereignty, and seeking to encourage God's work in people and preaching to those whom God is working in rather than those in whom he is not yet working...

Thus we appeal to men as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time; we speak of His redeeeming work as if He had done no more by dying than make it possible for us to save ourselves by believing; we speak of God's love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust; and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly active in drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quiet impotence 'at the door of our hearts' for us to let them in. It is undeniable that this is how we preach; perhaps this is what we really believe. But it needs to be said with some emphasis that this set of twisted half-truths is something other than the biblical gospel.
J.I. Packer, Introduction

The weaknesses in Owen's arugments are twofold. Firstly, he comes to a theological position based on some texts, and then interprets others in the light of his theology. One of his most common arguments is "this text does not mean A, because we already know ~A". Hence many of his arguments would only work on those who already hold to the authority and consistency of Scripture. At the same time, his arguments could be (and have been) reversed. People could argue from the verses that seem to teach ~A that it is true, and then use exactly the same tactics on the verses that seem to teach A. I think they'd come unstuck though, because their conception of God would not really be sovereign, but that doesn't change the problem with using it as an arguing technique.

The second problem is that Owen almost always looks at things from a God's-eye view. And actually, I agree with Owen. From God's point of view, when Jesus died, God knew and had chosen those who were going to trust in him, and Jesus died only for their sins. From God's point of view, Jesus did not die for those who would not trust in him.

But from our point of view, things are very different. There's only one point in the book where Owen's view changes to ours.

Preachers can never know who, in their congregations, are God's elect. They must therefore call on all to believe, and promise that as many as do will be saved, for there is enough in the death of Christ to save all who believe.
Life by His Death, p.52

Most people don't function with a God's eye view. Most people find conceptual arguments difficult to follow, and Owen employs little else. I'm heavily conceptual, and I found it difficult that when he kept mentioning the many people who hadn't heard of Jesus, he never once used it as a motivation to tell them!

I think that at the end of the day, Owen is right about Jesus' death. I don't know if in 1647 there were people who believed in the full authority and consistency of Scripture, were comfortable with highly conceptual arguments and believed that Jesus died to actually forgive the sins of all rather than just those who believe. If there were, maybe this book is the reason there are so few such people now. But that's clearly who the book is aimed at.

But it is critically important that we hold that belief in tension with human responsibility and the fact that the gospel is held out to all, because Jesus died for anyone who will put their trust in him.

Spurgeon - Lectures to My Students - Quotes on Preaching

Here are some more excellent quotes from Spurgeon's Lectures to My Students, this time on the subject of preachers and preaching, but also including evangelism and apologetics...

Painfully do I call to mind hearing one Sabbath evening a deliverance called a sermon, of which the theme was a clever enquiry as to whether an angel did actually descend, and stir the pool at Bethesda, or whether it was an intermitting spring, concerning which Jewish superstition had invented a legend. Dying men and women were assembled to hear the way of salvation, and they were put off with such vanity as this! They came for bread, and received a stone ; the sheep looked up to the shepherd, and were not fed.
p.79

Some ministers need to be told that they are of the same species as their hearers.
p.183

But if you are drawn into controversy, use very hard arguments and very soft words.
p.188

Is religion to be tabooed the best and noblest of all themes forbidden? If this be the rule of any society, we will not comply with it. If we cannot break it down, we will leave the society to itself, as men desert a house smitten with leprosy. We cannot consent to be gagged. There is no reason why we should be. We will go to no place where we cannot take our Master with us.
p.189

It is to be hoped that we shall never, in our ordinary talk, any more than in the pulpit, be looked upon as nice sort of persons, whose business it is to make things agreeable all round, and who never by any possibility cause uneasiness to any one, however ungodly their lives may be.
p.189

Folk Religion

Round where I live, there's a pretty strong belief in a folk religion. The beliefs go something like this:

1. Everyone, well, except maybe the really bad people, goes to heaven when they die.
2. Heaven is probably disembodied
3. The main attraction of heaven is meeting up with everyone we know and love
4. In the meantime, those who have died are “looking down on us”.
5. This is “Christianity”
6. Celebrations in Christianity are having a christening for babies, a church wedding (optional), and a Christian funeral, as well as turning up to stuff at Christmas and occasionally Easter. After all, that's what you learn about in RE. There might be more beliefs about Jesus and stuff, but they don't really matter and all boil down to this.
7. Anything more is optional, and is nice for those who need it as a support or to help kids learn about stuff.

Every single one of those beliefs is, of course, wrong.

It's also peculiarly resilient as a system of belief. In large parts of England, people question it and reject it. Those are the parts I've been better trained to reach. But here, by and large, it remains unquestioned by most people. But it's resilient because people won't change their ideas unless they're explicitly contradicted and argued and shown the truth. Merely preaching about the importance of stopping to think doesn't help when they just stop to think the same wrong things over again.

But contradicting some of those facts makes only a tiny amount of difference - I mean, what good would it do them if they change their minds to think of heaven as resurrected rather than disembodied, but still hold onto their universalism and the highlight of heaven being other people?

Other facts are ones that the church often acts embarrassed about – the fact that the Bible clearly teaches that some people (and not just the really bad ones) are going to hell, for example. And that's almost certainly inappropriate for talking about at a baptism or funeral which are the only occasions these people come to church.

Which means it's back to preaching the importance of responding to God...

Priorities in Global Mission

This is an extract from an e-mail sent to me by a friend of mine who is involved in mission in the Muslim world...

Every year, the world Christian Church gives 125 BILLION dollars to Christian missions, through more than 20,000 different agencies....

Now considering the strategic importance of Islam, what percentage do YOU think the Church allocates to North Africa and the Middle East - the heartlands of Islam?

Think of a number before you scroll down...

5%?

..

..

2%?

..

..

1%?

..

..

Actually it is 0.07% - just 84 million dollars!

I ask myself a simple question:

"Is this really the result of a Spirit led strategy in the Church?"

Or does it show that the global Church would rather put resources into more 'responsive' areas (which often already have flourishing Christian populations?)

How much do you have to hate someone to not tell them about Jesus?

Here's a really interesting video from American comedian (and atheist) Penn Jillette. I apologise for the cheesy music at the end...

Here's some of what he says...

I've always said, you know, that I don't respect people who don't proselytize. I don't respect that at all. If you believe that there's a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that, well, it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward... How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you, and you didn't believe it, and that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that...

NB - proselytize = seek to convert someone else to your religion

All Loves Excelling - John Bunyan

I've just finished reading this book on Ephesians 3:18-19. It was originally published as "The Saints' Knowledge of Christ's Love", but the folks at Banner have reprinted it under a snappier, more Wesleyan title. There are some really heart-warming bits, as well as some quite dry bits. Bunyan is so good at psychological application! Here are some highlights:

O the length of the saving arm of God! As yet thou art within reach thereof; do not thou go about to measure arms with God, as some good men are apt to do: I mean, do not thou conclude that because thou canst not reach God by thy short stump, therefore he cannot reach thee with thy long arm... It becomes thee, when thou canst not perceive that God is within reach of thy arm, then to believe that thou art within the reach of his; for it is long, and none knows how long.
p.14

Were all the saints on earth, and all the saints in heaven to contribute all that they know of this love of Christ, and to put it into one sum of knowledge, they would greatly come short of knowing the utmost of this love...
p.68

know they self, what a vile, horrible, abominable sinner thou art. For thou canst not know the love of Christ before thou knowest the badness of thy nature... He that sees most of what an abonimable wretch he is, he is like to see most of what is the love of Christ... So then, if a man would be sure and steadfast, let him labour before all things to see his own wretchedness.
p.84

Why then do not Christians devote themsevles to the meditation of this so heavenly, so goodly, so sweet, and so comfortable a thing, which yieldeth such advantage to the soul? The reason is, these things are talked of, but not believed: did men believe what they say, when they speak so largely of the love of God, and the love of Jesus Christ, they would, they could not but meditate upon it.
p.113

Oh that God would make us dangerous!

We are so utterly ordinary, so commonplace, while we profess to know a Power the Twentieth Century does not reckon with. But we are "harmless," and therefore unharmed. We are spiritual pacifists, non-militants, conscientious objectors in this battle-to-the-death with principalities and powers in high places. Meekness must be had for contact with men, but brass, outspoken boldness is required to take part in the comradeship of the Cross. We are "sideliners"--coaching and criticizing the real wrestlers while content to sit by and leave the enemies of God unchallenged. The world cannot hate us, we are too much like its own. Oh that God would make us dangerous!

Jim Eliot

HT to CQOD

Bits and Bobs - Drugs and Spiritual Experience, Contraceptives

There's some interesting research here about the ways in which some drugs can give people emotional experiences similar to those experienced in worship.

From the point of view of experience, it seems it's impossible to tell the difference between drug-induced and "natural" mystical experiences. Both are powerful. Both enable people to enjoy a transcendent moment. Both seem capable of transforming people so that they feel a greater sense of empathy for and unity with other people—what most people would call love.

That doesn't surprise me at all, because we're made as single entities - we don't have a separate bit of us labelled "soul", so you'd expect that any feeling that can be experienced as a result of something genuine can also be created by drugs or by other forms of artificial stimulation. And though experiences are important and useful, at the end of the day, the key question is one of truth and reality. Is the God we experience real and true? That's why discernment is important.

Meanwhile, Albert Mohler poses some interesting questions about the effect of the contraceptive pill on society. Personally, I suspect things would have turned out much better if its use had been restricted to married (or just about to be married) women.

John Piper argues that the cross has a benefit for unbelievers as well, in this case because it secures common grace and gives them time to repent.

A Christian psychotherapist discusses the problems caused to society by pornography.

Seven Habits of Highly Effective Christians is good for thinking about some of the qualities that help us tell others about Jesus.

5 Marks of Mission

The so-called "5 Marks of Mission" have really caught on. They are:

1. To proclaim the good news of the Kingdom
2. To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
3. To respond to human need by loving service
4. To seek to transform unjust structures of society
5. To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and to sustain the life of the earth

Of course, they're distinctively Anglican - they originally come from the Anglican Consultative Council in 1984, and were adopted by the Lambeth Conference in 1988 and the C of E General Synod.

They way I almost always see them used is that people think that doing one of them means you're doing mission. I guess that's why they are so popular - it means the people who don't think that evangelism is important can still think they are doing mission if they go on about the UN Development Goals or whatever. Which is, of course, complete rubbish.

All the proper presentations of it include this from the original ACC document:

The first mark of mission… is really a summary of what all mission is about, because it is based on Jesus' own summary of his mission (Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 4:18, Luke 7:22; cf. John 3:14-17). Instead of being just one of five distinct activities, this should be the key statement about everything we do in mission.

I should probably confess that I don't like the 5 Marks of Mission. Not because I disagree with them - I think they're actually pretty good. But because their use tends to obscure the fact that without verbal proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ, it ain't mission.

Love, Sin and Wrath

Today, I got into a bit of an argument about whether or not we should talk about sin when we tell people about Jesus, or just talk about the love of God. The person I was speaking to thought that God didn't show wrath, so we should only ever talk about God's love.

What this argument made me notice is this:

Virtually every major passage in Scripture that tells us how amazing God's love is shows it against the background of our sinfulness and/or the fact that by rights we deserve God's wrath.

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:8

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
1 John 4:10

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16

I don't by any means think we always need to tell people that they are sinners when we speak to them about Jesus - sometimes people already know it, for example. But they do need to know that things are in some sense broken before we can see why it is good that Jesus puts them right. In order for us to recognise Jesus as our saviour, we need to see that we need one. Yes, it's not just from sin, but sin is a big part of it.

The Mission

This is an extraordinary film, and thoroughly worth watching.

Jeremy Irons plays a Jesuit missionary to a remote tribe in the South American jungle, at a time when slave trading and politics both threaten the area. It's really well acted - Robert de Niro is another major character but I think Irons is even better.

His character is so clearly totally sold out for Jesus, and so clearly willing to die for him and for the people he is seeking to reach. Lots of stuff too about the importance of what was effectively an early form of native farmers' co-operatives and the dangers of church politics. All in all, a brilliant and very moving film.

Brazil 17 - Andressa Duarte

I've been in Brazil for 5 and a half weeks now, and I think I've been shown this video 5 times. It's well worth watching, and it's only 5 minutes or so.

For those who don't speak Portuguese (like me!), here's a translation:

Life is a countdown...

Hope, framed in the smile

the mission, engraved in the heart

forever

Sunday - Public Evangelism

And on Sundays, the radio, I start with the devotional.

there's some time for the children, where I tell them some stories,

then later, there are prizes,

and this is the schedule for every Sunday.

Monday - Witnessing

[Andressa Duarte Barragana - 14 years old] Monday, I study in the morning...

and in the afternoon we do a lot of missionary work.

Tuesday - Humanitarian Help and Bible Class

Tuesday, I visit the nursing home.

There we sing, pray, we play...

There are some people, that are so lonely, you know?

they really open their hearts to us.

Wednesday - Social Work

Wednesday we get together at my house,

to work with the community co-op.

We do decoupage, roofing tile decoration,

We do... glass work, picture-framing, we decorate refrigerator magnets,

lots of arts and crafts

'cause the families that work at the co-op are very poor families.

Friday - Intercessory Prayer

Friday, I started a group for intercessory prayer.

So each kid gets these prayer requests, that comes from several churches,

and pray for the name they get on that little piece of paper.

The intercessory prayer, it's very interesting, because

many requests were already answered through our prayers, you know?

Because there is power in prayer.

Sabbath - Personal Evangelism

On Sabbath I wake up a little earlier and invite some kids to go to church

So, that's what my week is like.

HER MINISTRY

On that Sabbath, the same week, I was baptized, then next Thursday I started the small group.

The first person that I went to was Robert. I told him,

Robert, you're going to be very important for this small Group, Robert.

One would take the roll call, the other was a deacon, the other a receptionist, the other a deaconess,

the other would distribute the handouts,

but, every one that had a position there,

they had to bring 2 friends.

So, the number of children was increasing.

From 10 to 20, then 25... today there are about 45 kids there.

The interesting thing is that through my small group it was possible to do all these missionary work.

I'm a normal kid, because

I study, I play, when I have time. I enjoy my parents,

Hang out with my sisters...

Jesus give us 24 hours.

If we take 1 hour to do missionary work,

distribute a pamphlet, a bible study course,

...because... Jesus is coming,

He is showing the signs, the prophecies.

All that is being fulfilled

If we don't do our part now,

If we want to do it tomorrow, maybe there will be no time.

and there was no more time

March 22th, 2008. 7:15 am, Sabbath - Pelotas/RS/Brazil. Last day of Easter Week.

While Andressa was on her way to preach at her church, her car crashed into a truck.

At that automobile tragedy, 4 women passed away.

Including Andressa, 14 years old.

In the little time she lived, she did much.

More than 100 people were baptized, and innumerable others were influenced by her example.

She did all she could, while she could.

How about you?

"If we don't do our part now, If we want to do it tomorrow, maybe there will be no time."

"If we don't do our part now, If we want to do it tomorrow, maybe there will be no time." Andressa Barragana (1994 - 2008)

I live for Jesus

Transcription from here, which seems to use a Creative Commons license.

Satisfaction

It seems that I have reasonable internet access, for the time being at least.

This morning, I was thinking about Psalm 81. Here's an extract:

Hear me, my people, and I will warn you—
if you would only listen to me, Israel!
You shall have no foreign god among you;
you shall not worship any god other than me.
I am the LORD your God,
who brought you up out of Egypt.
Open wide your mouth and I will fill it.
But my people would not listen to me;
Israel would not submit to me.
Psalm 81:8-11, TNIV

God offers us total satisfation, if only we are willing to look to him for it. He says to us "open wide your mouth and I will fill it". He has shown his ability to do so by rescuing his people from slavry. And yet time and again, even God's own people fail to look to him for satisfaction. We look to money or entertainment or relationships or academic success or beauty or power or whatever. How do we expect those who are not yet Christians to look to God for their satisfaction if we do not?

Correct Response

In the Bible, the correct response to being told not to preach the Gospel is to carry on preaching the Gospel. However, to look at the Church in Britain today, you wouldn't know it.

Sorry for the lack of blogging recently - I've been on holiday...