Tuesday 20 December 2011

Dear Luke

A light-hearted reply to the Book of Acts in the Bible

I've really enjoyed reading the sequel to your first book, Luke.  (At least, I assume it was you who wrote it, as you forgot to sign it - which isn't like you; you're normally so meticulous about getting everything right - but I'm sure I recognised your writing.)

Anyway, it's an amazing story! After reading your previous letter, I was sure there was more to come, but this went beyond my wildest imaginings! Of course, when Jesus was put to death it looked like the whole thing had gone horribly wrong.  I know that you wrote about his resurrection, but such things are really rather hard to believe, despite all the witnesses. But your new book certainly put paid to any doubts I may have had.

The coming of the Holy Spirit on all those who heard Peter speaking at Pentecost must have put the wind up them! Seriously, how did Peter manage such an excellent talk while all that commotion was going on - though I suppose that was the work of the Holy Spirit too? I reckon that some of the preachers I've heard could do with being empowered by the Holy Spirit.

It was great to hear about the explosive growth of the church that followed, and lovely to hear about the unity of the believers at that time. Again, the work of the Spirit was something else! Is that why those who try to do outreach in their own strength find it so unfruitful?  Mind you, I know of churches these days who will barely speak to each other, so what sort of witness does that give?

And who'd have thought that Jesus would choose Saul to be his messenger - after all he'd done to persecute the early believers. A most unexpected turn of events, but a master-stroke! Who could have thought of that?

It must have been quite a shock for Peter to realise that God was interested in the Gentiles too. No wonder the believers back in Jerusalem got so hot under the collar about it! I have to admit I had to stop and think hard about this myself, too.  But, again, the coming of the Holy Spirit upon them in such a clear way did put it beyond doubt.  In fact I've heard that there are believers from all kinds of Christian churches who have been filled with the Spirit and not just the Pentecostals - Catholics, Methodists, even Evangelicals.

I didn't really understand why Saul changed his name to Paul. Was that to symbolise his complete change of heart? Anyway, he became quite a traveller; I trust he collected 'boat-miles'! To start with I wondered whether he just liked the adventure, but I quickly realised that he was following the leading of the Spirit, who was determined that the Good News should reach the whole world, not just Jerusalem or even just Samaria. Sometimes I just wish we'd think about reaching the next village, though the Spirit is still out and about reaching the rest of the world, of course.

I don't find all of Paul's writings easy to understand, so had a lot of sympathy for the poor man who fell asleep during one of his sermons.  But, how amazing that Paul was able to bring him back to life after he had fallen from the third floor window! I don't remember the last time I saw such a miracle, but people still fall asleep in sermons, of course.

I was rather shocked, though, about all the riots and trouble that followed Paul everywhere.  I'd never really thought that Christians would be in the middle of that kind of thing. But then I thought back to Jesus' own life, and he certainly faced a lot of opposition - right up to his death, of course. But it's rather a far cry from all the respectable Christians you tend to see nowadays...

Despite all that, Paul carried on preaching right to the end. I'd have got very anxious about having to speak in front of Governor Felix and King Agrippa, but Paul seemed as clear and assured as ever.  Where did he get that peace and assurance from - was that also the work of the Holy Spirit? There are some Christians round here who could use some peace and assurance.

You stopped your account at a strange place.  Did Paul get to speak in front of Caesar? I assume it was nearly the end for Paul, but I'm curious to know just what happened. If you ever write the next instalment, be sure to send me a copy.

Yours as ever,

Theophilus

PS Why did you call your book 'The Acts of the Apostles'?  Surely it was the 'Acts of the Holy Spirit', as it was the Spirit who took the initiatives and was working through Peter, Paul and the other apostles.

PPS Did Paul take any pictures on his travels?  If so, I wonder whether they could be put online so everyone can see.  I haven't been to most of the places he visited, and it would be nice to be able to picture him there.

Tuesday 13 December 2011

Upholding the truth?

There is an ongoing frustration, even sometimes an exasperation, between those Christians who are careful to "uphold the truth", and those who seem more inclined to say "well, it's rather more complicated than that". This usually occurs in some argument over a matter of Biblical interpretation.

Paul in the New Testament (1 Cor 3) exhorts Christians to move from being spiritual babes taking milk to mature adults eating solid food, to put aside childish interests and become mature believers. Becoming more mature would seem to imply that we have ironed out many of our uncertainties and become clearer about the truth. And yet the opposite often appears to be true - it is the 'young hot-heads' are the ones who seem most certain of the rights and wrongs, and the 'older and wiser ones' who often seem less sure about the details and distinctions. Have these older people let go of their former zeal and clarity, and let worldly arguments and complexities cloud their judgement? Have they lost sight of the simple truth?

Perhaps that is the problem: the truth is not often simple.

False certainty

Certainty may arise out of ignorance or arrogance, not only from sure knowledge - and distinguishing between these can be very hard indeed. Moreover, passion about a subject more often arises out of some personal vested interest, rather than out of any objective understanding. So it is much more likely that when we are adamant that we are 'upholding the truth' about some issue, that we are merely holding tightly to our own preferred view of how things should be, and most at risk of using the Bible to back our personal cause.

Women in church leadership is a topical example, but there are many. It is possible to find some Biblical support for both positions.

Where is the place for saying 'we don't really know for sure', when not knowing is sometimes, perhaps often, an honest and mature answer? It may also be that the more mature believers take a stance that is best summed up by 'it doesn't matter that much' - while recognising that it matters greatly to those who feel strongly about it, it's not a matter that defines one's faith or warrants any splits.

Even those issues which do define a faith - for example, that God exists and came in human form as Jesus, whose death on the cross made possible the cleansing of sin - are still matters of faith and not 'right' or 'wrong'. The Christian faith is, after all, faith.

Where we are indeed upholding the truth, need that look the same as having a closed mind? And does being willing to seriously consider an opposing view on an issue of Christian teaching necessarily mean that you are compromising the truth?

The truth stands

In fact, the truth is never compromised - it does, and always will stand firm. Rather, it is we who are compromised - by our pride, our insecurity, our desire for certainty, our personal need to be 'right'. (See an earlier post: 'Craving-certainty')

God either exists or he doesn't. He was, or was not, shown through his Son Jesus. My careful or outspoken arguments one way or the other make no difference to the fact! At some future point the truth will be plainly known.

Remember, for now we see and understand the truth 'through a glass darkly' and so may too readily mistake our reflection for the truth. Perhaps the older and wiser Christians just have a clearer view of that grubby glass and are more prepared to put aside peripheral issues and focus on the heart of the matter? Maybe that is why St Paul, writing the letters in our New Testament, moved from asserting his right to being an apostle in his early writings (e.g. 1 Cor 9 v1) to saying in one of the last letters he wrote, "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst" (1 Tim 1 v15). At the end of his life, Paul was sure of these things: that Christ came to save sinners, and that he was himself the vilest of sinners. In this context all other trivia falls away.

So the truth remains, totally untarnished, despite our total sinfulness.

Saturday 3 December 2011

Compulsory faith?

There are many religions where faith is not a matter of personal choice. It is either a matter of following the cultural norms or of coerced acceptance. This is common in many parts of the world, but in most nations nowadays this doesn't apply to Christianity, though it has in times past and still does in some places. But I assert that this is anathema to the Gospel of Christ.

Let's start with considering compulsory religion

Some religions take the stance that it's better to compel a person, for the sake of their eternal soul, to hold to a faith; participation is not just expected, but the consequences of deciding one doesn’t believe can be literally life threatening. But while you can compel an outward adherence to a required set of behaviours, you cannot proscribe a person's thoughts or state of heart. So, I can only make any sense of such a religion if it is based on maintaining outward behavioural standards: "keep these rules and you will be saved, regardless of your thoughts or the inclinations of your heart".

How different was Jesus’ approach!

For some reason Jesus did not take the route of compulsion or coercion. He took it upon himself to come to Earth as a human being to tell people about God the Father’s saving love. And not just to tell them, but to demonstrate servant-heartedness, dying in the place of those who were at best misunderstanding, and at worst disinterested or disbelieving.

When you look at His life, it was lived out as an example of service and sacrifice, not of power (at least, not as usually conceived by human beings). His life and words were certainly challenging, but there was no ‘take over’, no hard sell, no manipulation, no compulsion – merely an offer that each one could take or leave. No robbing people of their personal responsibility.

But why, given that He said the consequence of our decision was either eternal life or eternal separation from God? Why is personal responsibility so important to God, when He, of all Beings, could certainly compel?

The answer lies in the nature of love, for God is love. Love includes giving people the freedom to make up their own mind, to turn away from Him, and sadly many do!

Compulsory faith is a contradiction in terms.

Implications for Christian mission

It’s been said that ‘mission is seeing what God is doing and joining in’. So, Christians involved in mission - and how can you be a Christian and not be involved? - have an example to follow in Christ's life. We are to tell people about God’s love and demonstrate this through a life of sacrificial service. Our responsibility is to inform and to show by example, but never to force.

Are we really content to leave each person to freely make up their own mind, or are we tempted to go beyond that and add subtle manipulations, incentives or veiled threats?

Even where the pressure is more informal - a cultural expectation of compliance - then it becomes hard for people to distinguish a personal belief from merely conforming with others. Many 'Christian countries' will have fallen into this position. If the great majority go to church, where is the personal challenge to consider one's own faith as we go along with the crowd?

Love demands giving those we love the freedom to say "no". Otherwise we are exerting power, which puts us 'over' the other and is the opposite of servant-hearted love.

However, we should be clear that when others reject our loving approach, it is not simply a matter of saying to ourselves: "Well it's up to you; now I've done my job". It also leaves us open to the deep pain of others choosing to go their own way and reject Christ - a grief that is shared with Christ Himself.

So, be very wary when you see people of whatever religion - including Christians - trying to force others to believe. That is not of God; it's not His way.