Sceptical about Science?

I've just been struck by a post on Sam Allberry's blog, which is here if you're interested. But in his final paragraph, he says:

"...Nor is any of this exclusive to Nutritionism. As I thought through these four features, it struck me how true they are of contemporary Environmentalism, the other rising new religion of our day. I can't help feeling captive to the experts. In shrill terms we're told daily of how human carbon emmissions are driving us to the brink of an ecological apocalypse. Recycling and air-travel have become (opposite) moral absolutes. As a Christian, I am far from indifferent to the natural well-being of God's world. And yet I remain mistrustful of a scientific band whose ideology is often secularist and unacknowledged, who confer upon their theories the status of absolute truth, and therefore pillory the rising number of other scientists who do not share their assumptions and who question their findings. I don't like being a cynic, and I don't want to become one of those Christians who forever demonises "those scientists", but sometimes the experts leave us no alternative."

It's a valid point of view, that scientists generally come at a topic from an a-thiestic point of view. Indeed, many a violently anti-religion, and frequently anti-Christianity especially. But this leaves us with a quandry. Do we ignore the claims made by the mass of scientists on the basis that they come from a completely different world-view to Christians, or do we go with them?

This seems to be the root of the question, but it also seems one that has a simple solution. It's about recognising the questions that science as a tool can answer, and those it cannot.

Science is, in its fundamentals, the study of the natural world around us. Indeed, many early scientists called themselves 'natural philosophers,' presumably becuase their thoughts and ponderings were influenced by their observations of nature. (Incidently, I absolutely detest the scientific convention of capitalizing nature or biology, as in "Nature has done this.") Study leads naturally on from observation to hypothesis, from hypothesis to experiment, and from experiment to conclusion or theory.

For example, an observation is that something happens. This leads to the question "why does this happen?" and a guess - "maybe this happens becuase of this." To find out, one alters this and examines the results. Either it has an effect, or it doesn't, and after much hard work, one can draw a conclusion. Eventually, numerous conclusions may lead to a theory, and, once the theory has been tested, and shown to hold true again and again, the word is often changed to 'law.' (Laws are, of course, sometimes proven to be wrong or incomplete, such as the idea of a flat earth, or the assumption that Newtonian mechanics would hold true for sub-atomic particles such as electrons, which instead need quantum mechanics to describe them.)

In a round-and-about way, this leads me to my point. If a scientist tries to answer a question that science itself cannot answer, he is merely postulating, and his science is closer to philosophy or theology. If he tries to answer a question that science can answer, he may be correct or incorrect, but he's entitled to call his opinions 'scientific.'

Which brings us to global warming (or its absence). Firstly, although some scientists believe that the phenomenon does not exist, most believe it does. There is much observational evidence. Doesn't it seem warmer to you than it was this time 15 years ago? Birds which used to migrate seem not to bother any more. Satellite images show that the Arctic ice-sheets are shrinking rapidly. And simple experiments using a thermometer tell us that, on average, the years are hotter than they were.

So why? Here we come on the the hypothesis. The most common guess is that's it due to 'greenhouse gas' emmissions, i.e., the release of gases such as CO₂ etc. These allow sunlight to enter the Earth's atmosphere, but the reflected rays are absorbed, like the way a glass roof on a greenhouse makes the inside hotter than the outside. There is evidence to support this hypothesis. Ice cores taken show the temperature and CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. The two cycle up and down, the temperature following the CO₂ level closely, although slightly behind. However, since the 1800s, the CO₂ levels, and the temperature, have been shooting up - and show no sign of coming down again any time soon. They're already way past where they usually got to in the 'natural' cycle. None of this is proof that human CO₂ release is causing climate change. But it's a correlation without any other obvious cause.

So what should we do? Should we argue that scientists have an axe to grind, so we'll ignore them? After all, they're scientists - they have a vested interest in science. Or should we decide to believe them, after all, they're the people who should know best? And if we decide to ignore them, who shall we believe instead?

I believe global warming is real. I believe it's at least in part caused by human CO₂ release. As an evangelical Christian I don't think this is incompatible with my worldview - after all, God made the world, and it was very good. But then came the fall, and the outworkings of that are seen all around us. Is it reasonable to expect that they would be limited to mankind's dealings with each other? As a consequence of Adam's sin, the first death is recorded in the Bible (an animal is killed to make clothes). The pattern of sin and death continues to this day. As custodians of the world, have we really made such a good job of it that this pattern will not reach a logical conclusion?

I must stress, however, that although global warming may well result in catastrophic consequences, I doubt it will signal the end of humanity. Many millions may die, species may become extinct, and whole countries become submerged. But in many ways, that's just an extension, albeit on a massive, horrific scale, of the human story ever since the time of Adam. Should we really be surprised?

So what should we do? Should we ignore it - after all, as rich Westerners we will probably be comparatively unaffected. Or should we try to act to affect it, making sacrifices if need be. Is this analogous (although not equivalent or sufficient) to repentence?

For more information, visit www.eci.ox.ac.uk.

The Rights and Wrongs of a Silver Ring Thing

I don't know if you read the Times, as I do, but even if you don't, you can't have missed the recent uproar in the media regarding the case of Lydia Playfoot. If you do, you may, like me, have read a spiteful article in today's paper by Martin Samuel.

To summarise, she has taken her school (soon to be ex-school) to court for refusing to allow her to wear a silver ring as an outward symbol of her decision to refrain from having sex until she is married. The ring is supplied by The Silver Ring Thing (SRT), who are an evangelical Christian group who aim to promote this behaviour, and, as part of this, members make a declaration of their intention to remain celebate until they marry. Lydia claims her human rights have been breached, and that by refusing her wish to wear this ring, the school is discriminating against Christians. After all, Muslims are allowed to wear head-scarves, and Hindus can wear armbands. The school, on the other hand, are taking the stand that whilst such dress is compulsory for Hindus and Muslims, SRT rings are not compulsory for Christians (although if she choose to wear a crucifix, this would be allowed). As such, the SRT ring is nothing more than jewelry, and has no place in the school uniform.

Now, in my opinion, both parties have some basis for their arguments. The school is unquestionably correct that SRT rings, or indeed rings of any sort, are not commanded for Christians. Lydia has a point that her decision to wear such a ring is inspired by her Christian faith, and that for her it is an outward expression of her inward convictions. For what it's worth, it seems to me that an SRT ring has a similar level of necessity for an evangelical Christian as a cross or crucifix does - in other words it's not commanded, but I suppose that people like to express their faith in such a way. Maybe both should be allowed, or neither.

But this wrangling over what constitutes a necessary part of a Christian's dress is surely jeopardising an essential part of the Christian message - that salvation, necessary to every human being, is possible through, and only through, the blood of Jesus, shed on the Cross. Faith, not works. It's what one believes that matters, not whether or not one wears a ring.

So what should we conclude? It's unquestionably the case that, in this country, Christians are, increasingly, being stopped from doing things that just a few years ago would have been ignored. It's not hard to imagine a time when I would be breaking the law by writing this article (check out the paragraph above - now, that's not very "inclusive," is it - not as "tolerant" as we like to see here...). This persecution, albeit currently barely noticable compared to that faced by Christians in other parts of the world - China, North Korea, etc etc - is to be expected. God has told us, many, many times that we should expect it.

So should Lydia be fighting this case? Or should she accept her school's authority and let it go? I honestly don't know. At some point we have to stand up for our right to worship the God of the Bible, not the God of the people. Liberal Christianity will never be banned, becuase it has no solid position. In the face of opposition it shifts to fit in. Evangelical Christianity almost certainly won't be banned in the near future outright, rather I believe we should expect "salami tactics" - an attack to come one slice at a time. Is this the beginning? I doubt it. Is this one more slice in a process that's already started? Possibly. How should we respond? I honestly don't know. Apart from prayer.

One thought, which I offer without any theological basis, is as follows. The media has almost universally condemned Lydia's position. She's been portrayed as a misguided, foolish teenager, a victim of the latest "fad" (though I doubt it's one that will appeal to many non-Christians), a pawn in a game played by her hardly impartial parents (they are Director and secretary of SRT UK). If the world (that world which Christians are called to be in but not of) is so against her, my suspicion is that we should be aligning ourselves in support of her. It's not a gospel issue, so I don't think it should be the be-all and end-all. But should we side with those whom, although light had come to them, rejected it in favour of darkness, because their deeds were evil, or with someone who, possibly unwisely, is taking a stand for her right to worship God in a biblically principled way?

1 Corinthians 5: A Sermon

This is the text of a sermon that I recently gave at Stoke Poges Free Church. I found it harder to prepare than the one I gave on 2 Timothy 3. Comments gratefully recieved.

1 Corinthians 5

It's amazing how much attitudes can change over quite short periods of time. Ten years ago you'd have been hard pressed to hear anyone talking about global warming or climate change. Yet today it's a major concern for everybody from politicians and company CEOs through to members of the public.

Fifty years ago, it was almost unheard of to go out in public without wearing a hat, and indeed many people today feel that it's inappropriate to go to church, to a wedding, or to the theatre bare-headed. And, especially relevant this year, it's hard to imagine that just 200 years ago slavery was legal, socially acceptable, and that it would take twenty years for an act of parliament to be passed making the British trade in slaves illegal. It is amazing how attitudes can change.

Well, some changes are generally recognised as being positive - the vast majority of people rightly feel that slavery is immoral, and no-one would want to repeal the law banning it. But some changes in attitudes aren't so universally recognised as being good. So, whilst there are some arguments in favour of greater freedom of artistic expression, many people are concerned about the seemingly ever-more graphic depictions of sex and violence on television and in film. Similarly, language that would not long ago have rendered a film to be judged suitable for adults only is now heard on daytime television.

One major area in which attitudes have changed over the last forty years or so is in the field of sexual ethics. In 1979, 11% of un-married women described themselves as co-habiting - that is, living in a sexual relationship with someone to whom they were not married. In 2002, that number had increased almost threefold to 29%. People actually talk about the "sexual revolution" - the correlation in the 1960s and 70s of the development of reliable forms of contraception and abortion techniques with the changes in attitudes in general, and towards sexual behaviour in particular, following the end of the Second World War.

Well, there's no doubt that attitudes have changed considerably in the last century. Listen to lyrics from Cole Porter. He says:

In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking.
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.

Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
Writing prose.
Anything goes.

Anything goes. If it feels good, do it. Cole Porter could have been writing about 1960s Britain. Or equally, he could have been writing about first century Corinth, because it's into this sort of permissive society that we find Paul writing this letter.

Let's just remind ourselves of the background to this letter. Paul's replying to a letter than he's been send from the church in Corinth asking him some fairly complex questions, about food and marriage and idols, and things like this, and in the later chapters of 1 Corinthians he answers them. But he devotes the first few chapters to addressing some problems in the church that have been reported to him, and I think you've been looking at some of these, such as the issue of division in the church, over the last couple of weeks.

Today we're going to look at chapter 5 of the letter, and we're going to see that Paul is now turning his attention to a new issue in the church – the fact that the church must not tolerate sin in its midst. So as we follow this case through the courtroom, we're going to briefly identify the charge, and then the verdict, before spending most of our time, as Paul does, on our final section, where we're going to look at the sentence. So firstly, the charge.

The Charge

Look at verse 1. Paul writes:

"It is actually reported that there is a sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: a man has his father's wife."

The situation is clear: a man, a member of the Corinthian church, was in an ongoing, acknowledged sexual relationship with his father's wife. In other words, he was sleeping with his stepmother.

Now, do note that Paul doesn't suggest in any way that this man was trying to live a faithful, holy life, and that he had fallen into this one sin, that he was remorseful, that he was struck with guilt, that he was prayerfully trying to fight that temptation. Not at all. This was open, flagrant, and unrepentant sin. So: the charge – unrepentant sexual immorality. Now Paul moves on to the verdict.
The Verdict

Look at verse 3. Paul writes:

"Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgement on the one who did this, just as if I was present."

As far as Paul was concerned, the verdict was clear - guilty. There was no need for discussion, or debate; no wrangling over the precise nature of the act and whether a response would be appropriate. God had made it very clear in His Word - which for the Corinthians was the Old Testament - that this sort of behaviour was not acceptable. He'd said it again and again – primarily in Leviticus 18, but it was repeated at several points in the Old Testament books. The Corinthians could not claim they didn't know it was wrong.

In fact, not only was it stated in the Old Testament, which the Corinthians seem to have largely ingored, it was even clear to non-Christians. Paul says – verse 1 – that such things "[do] not occur even among Pagans" – which was saying something! Corinth was renowned for its sexual licentiousness and its many temple and cult prostitutes. In fact, the temple of Venus, who was more-or-less adopted as the city's goddess of choice, employed over 1000 prostitutes, and I'm assured that there was actually a Greek verb "to Corinthianize", which was shorthand for living shamelessly and immorally.

Well, given the fact that even non-Christians would have viewed this man's behaviour as being wrong, we might wonder what the response of the Corinthian church had been. Were they struck with remorse, were they praying for wisdom about how to act? Well, no, they weren't.

Look at verse 2: Paul says "and you are proud!" It's not clear whether they're proud despite one of their congregation behaving in this manner, or even whether they're proud because of it. It seems there was an attitude of "we're free now we're Christians - free to do as we please - we're no longer under the law, the old ways have no call on us - and such is our freedom that we can even accommodate a man such as this…"

Well, Paul has no truck with this type of argument. He says: "Shouldn't you rather been struck with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?"

Many of you will remember the tsunami that struck in the Indian Ocean back in December 2004, devastating large areas of India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Few of us can forget the images that were beamed to our televisions sets of just total devastation – of families that had lost everything, parents who'd lost children, husbands who'd lost wives. It's hard to imagine what it must have been like there – seeing everything that you'd worked for gone, ripped apart, utterly destroyed. How must it have felt?

Well, I suspect that most of us weren't directly affected by that terrible disaster, but most of us know what it feels like to lose someone. I guess for some of us here that feeling is all too real at the moment. And it doesn't matter whether it's been expected for some time, or whether it's a complete shock, death is still a terrible thing to cope with.

The word Paul uses which the NIV translates as grief is penthein in the original Greek, and it's the word used to describe the feelings associated with mourning the dead. Paul is saying that the Corinthian church's attitude to witnessing this sin in their midst shouldn't be to tut and raise their eyebrows, or to turn a blind, if somewhat disapproving eye to it – it definitely shouldn't be pride – they should be devastated, they should be inconsolable that such a thing should have happened.

Clearly the Corinthian Christians had not understood how they should have responded – they hadn't understood the seriousness of their toleration of sin in their church. Far from being grief-stricken, they were proud.

So: the charge, sexual immorality. The verdict: guilty. And so Paul now moves on to the sentence, and it's on this section that we're going to spend the rest of our time.

The Sentence

The remaining verses of the chapter deals with both the nature of the sentence, and the necessity of the sentence, and the two threads run together through the verses. And we're going to see that the sentence Paul sets out, the prescription for this spiritual disease, is for the church to act to discipline their member. So we'll look first at how the Corinthian church was to respond, and we'll learn something about the nature of church discipline. Then we'll look at why it was so vital for the church to act in this way, and we'll learn about the necessity of church discipline.

Firstly, the nature of church discipline. Look back at verses 2-5. Paul writes:

"Shouldn't you rather been struck with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgement on the one who did this, just as if I was present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord."

Paul has already made clear that the Corinthians don't require him to be physically present with them to judge the case. They have all the authority they need in God's word – the Old Testament. In any case, Paul says that effectively he is with them, in spirit. Paul instructs the church to meet together, and when they are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus, and consequently with Paul in spirit, they are to "hand this man over to Satan."

Now, to us this sounds highly intolerant, and I'm sure it sounded just as controversial to the Corinthians. But what does Paul mean by this? Well, the world, the world which Christians are called to live in but set apart from, was viewed as Satan's realm, as belonging to Satan. So when Paul says that they are "to hand this man over to Satan," he's referring to excluding the man from the church community, and, effectively, handing him back to the world. In the words of verse 2, they are to put out of their fellowship the man who did this. Action must be taken, and in this case, the only action to take is the excommunication of this man, the breaking off of their communion with him.

But what was this exclusion to achieve? What was its purpose? Well, to answer that, let's look now at the necessity of the sentence, and we'll see that Paul says that the church had to act as he prescribed for two reasons – for the good of the individual and for the good of the church.

Look back at verse 5 again. Paul writes that they are to "hand this man over to Satan so that the sinful nature might be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." Far from being a vindictive act of revenge, Paul explains that the purpose of excluding the man from the church was that ultimately he might be saved.

Now, when Paul talks about the destruction of the sinful nature he's not talking about waiting until the man's death, at which point the body might die and set the spirit free – quite the opposite, in fact. Paul's point is that as a result of being excluded from the church, the man might recognise his sin and repent of it – in other words putting to death the sinful nature – and might therefore be counted amongst the saved on the day of judgement. One commentator puts it like this: "the purpose of exercising this discipline was not solely to punish, but rather to awaken." The longing would be that the man, after repenting of his sin, might be readmitted to the church, but in the absence of this happening, he couldn't be a part of the fellowship.

Well, if it was necessary for the church to exercise discipline for the good of the individual, it was also necessary, even more so, for the good of the church community itself. But why was this? Why was it essential for the church's well-being, that they acted in this way? Even if their actions might bring about the man's salvation, why was it essential to exclude him from their fellowship? Well, Paul goes on to explain in verses 6-8 why the church cannot tolerate sin in it's midst – irrespective of the exact nature of the sin, sexual or otherwise.

Look at what Paul writes:

"Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast – as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth."

Paul compares the toleration of sin in the church with yeast in baking. In the same way that a little bit of yeast is enough to work its way through a whole batch of dough, Paul says that just a little sin can work it's way through a church fellowship.

We all love murder mysteries, don't we? I wonder which your favourite is. Coming from Oxford, I always enjoy Morse – it's fun recognising places I pass regularly. Maybe you prefer Midsomer Murders – although to be honest it's amazing that there's anyone actually left in Midsomer by now. Other people prefer Agatha Christie stories – maybe you like the fastidiousness of Poirot, or maybe you prefer the brilliance of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Well, whichever you prefer, I'll place a small bet that at some point, a character has been bumped off by the villain by the time honoured method of dropping a small amount of white powder into their drink. It normally fizzes, so it must be poison.

The thing about poison, is that you really don't need very much of it to kill someone. If this sugar lump was made of cyanide (it's not, so don't worry!) it'd be enough to finish off at least six of us. And cyanide is, by poison standards, pretty pathetic. Well, Paul would say that to a church, the toleration of sin is like poison. It's fatal.

Well, Paul doesn't finish there. Not only is tolerating sin dangerous for a church, it's also completely inappropriate. Paul continues with his illustration of yeast and bread, and moves onto a related illustration, that of the Jewish Passover.

We're familiar with the story, although we don't have time to go into it in detail. It's described in the book of Exodus. Briefly, the Israelites were in slavery in Egypt under Pharaoh, who refused to let them go free. So God sent plagues amongst the Egyptians to demonstrate his power, and to persuade Pharaoh to let the Israelites go. And these plagues built up, culminating in God's decree that every firstborn child would die. But, in His mercy, God provided a way for the Israelites to be spared: they were to take a lamb, to kill it, and to daub the blood on the doors of their homes, and where there was blood, their children would be spared: the lamb would die for them.

Well, it worked. Pharaoh let the Israelites go free, although he soon changed his mind, and from that time on, the Israelites celebrated their release from slavery, and God's provision of a sacrifice to die for them, in their place, at the time of Passover. And one of the ways in which they celebrated it was to eat bread made without any yeast – in fact they were to remove all yeast from their houses completely.

Paul's point is this. In the same way that a lamb had had to die for the Israelites, Christ had already died for the Corinthians – he was their Passover lamb. They weren't to celebrate Passover to commemorate God's freeing of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, far more they were to celebrate Christ's death for them, freeing them from slavery to sin, and meaning that they could be right with God. And Paul says that in the same way that it would have been completely inappropriate for the Jews to celebrate Passover with bread with yeast in it, it was completely inappropriate for the church to celebrate Christ's death, the new Passover (that's the Festival mentioned in verse 8), with the yeast of sin – verse 8 – present amongst them. They were to be like bread without yeast – bread of sincerity and truth, bread suitable for the celebration of Christ's death.

Well, how does one apply teaching like this? More particularly, how were the Corinthian Christians to apply this teaching? Well, Paul elaborates in verses 9 to 13.

He writes:

"I have written to you not to associate with sexually immoral people – not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."

Paul has written to the Corinthians in the past, and although we don't have this letter, we can see that he has discussed how the church was to behave in regard to sexual immorality. Paul had told them "not to associate with sexually immoral people". Well, it seems that some in the Corinthian church had misunderstood what he meant, and had thought that Paul was saying that they shouldn't associate with any sexually immoral people, inside or outside the church. Given the sort of society that Corinth was, that essentially meant living in a Christian bubble, and not associating with pretty much anyone else.

Paul makes it clear that this is not what he had in mind. Look back at the passage: Paul says that he wrote to them not to associate with sexually immoral people, "not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters." In fact, says Paul, to do that you'd have to somehow leave this world! What Paul meant, and what he makes clear here, is that the Corinthians are not to associate with "anyone who calls himself a brother" – the word in Greek is adelphos and includes both men and women – "but [who] is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler."

Now, it's important to realise that Paul isn't saying that only perfect people can be in the church. Remember back in chapter one, that Paul wrote saying that he gave thanks to God for the people in the Corinthian church. And yet, if we look at chapter 6 verses 9-11 – do cast your eyes across the page to it – we learn that some in the church had led lives that were far from perfect. Paul writes:

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”

Paul’s point is this. No-one in the Corinthian church was perfect, and some had a background that, even by the secular standards of the day, was openly sinful. And yet, by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ into their lives, and repenting of their sin, as commanded by Jesus, they could be washed by the Holy Spirit and justified – that is, made righteous – and sanctified set apart as holy. Perfection was not the question.

So who is Paul talking about? Well, he’s referring to brothers (and sisters) who described themselves as Christians and claimed to be so, but who were living lives that denied the Gospel. Paul says that the Corinthians are to have no association with those who were openly, continuingly, and unrepentantly living in a way that was against the teachings of God. And this hard teaching continues in verses 12 and 13. Paul writes:

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you’”

Paul makes it clear that the Corinthians are not called upon to cast judgement on those outside the church – God will judge those on the last day. But rather, the Corinthians are absolutely called, and charged to judge those inside the church. And, in the case where there is open, flagrant, unrepentant sin, action must be taken. And, if all else fails, Paul says, quoting from Deuteronomy, the wicked man must be expelled from the church community – not just, as we’ve already seen, that he might be brought to recognise his own sin, and repent of it, but also to protect the fellowship of the church.

Well, these are tough words, and they’re highly counter-cultural to us in 21st century Britain. But it’s important that we think about how we can apply them to our own situation, because they’re God’s words to us here today, here in Stokes Poges.

Firstly, there is a clear application for those of us in some form of church leadership. Paul is saying that, in the face of unrepentant sinful behaviour, the church is called to act in judgement. Paul makes it clear that action must be taken both for the good of the individual and the good of the church. And in the last resort, this action might culminate in having to exclude the member from taking part in some or all church activities. This isn't the first step: indeed Paul writes in elsewhere that one should "warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him." And he makes it clear that the attitude that should be taken is one of gentleness, treating him not as an enemy, but as a brother.

Paul also makes it clear that it's not the case that only sexual sins require this sort of action. Far from it: Paul expands his list to include immorality, greed, dishonesty, idolatry. And I'm sure that we could add to this list. So, for example, there are many in the worldwide and national church whose teaching directly contradicts Biblical truths. This is sinful, and it will damage both the individual and clearly the church community, if it remains unchecked. And so it is up to the church leadership to be guarding against such teaching, and exercising discipline should it appear in the church.

Well, that's just one example amongst many. But I guess that there're many here today who aren't involved directly in any form of leadership – so how should we apply this teaching?

Well, firstly, surely we should be praying for our leaders: praying that they might rest under the authority of the Scriptures; praying that they might act wisely when they exercise discipline; praying that they might act boldly, however unpopular or controversial their actions might be, praying that they might act and speak in gentleness, and love. We should be supporting our leaders at times when these sorts of issues raise their heads.

Secondly, we should be holding each other accountable. Now, I suspect that the particular issue Paul addresses here is not a live one in Stokes Poges, but equally I suspect that most of us found that list in verse 11 hit a little closer to home. We need to ask ourselves if we're falling into the trap of tolerating sin in our own lives? We might not think of ourselves as being idolaters, but have we stopped to ask ourselves what our little gods are that we live for from day to day? Are we living to provide for our families, or to be able to afford that holiday, or that new house, or that car. All good things, but not if they take the place of the one true God. We might not think of ourselves as being slanderers, but do we enjoy taking part in that juicy gossip in the office, or in the school playground? I suspect that all of us could think of a list of things that we do, that we know, hand on heart, to be sinful, and yet actually we're quite happy with, and don't even try to fight. I'm sure that exactly what they are will vary for each of us, but the point is that when we belittle our sins, or even dismiss them as not being sinful at all, we're belittling Christ's sacrifice for us. We're saying "Jesus, actually you didn't need to die for me, because my sins are so small, they're barely sinful – I don’t need your forgiveness." Are we dismissing Jesus in our lives? Are we celebrating His death at the same time as flaunting our dismissal of it? We must not tolerate sin in our lives. So let's help each other to fight the sins we know we commit: let's hold each other accountable. Why not get together with someone you know, someone you trust, and say to them, "I know I need to stop doing this. I know I need to change my behaviour. Will you help me, will you pray with me, will you challenge me?" We must rid ourselves of our toleration of sin.

Amen.

Lent: Why all the fuss?

I've discovered the website of the Church of England this week. I was wondering what I would discover in the news section - in particular I was curious as to whether recent media reports describing proposed reunificaion of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church were quite as I'd made out. However, when I got to the news section, my eye was drawn to the story entitled "Your first action for Lent: Make someone laugh." I'd heard about this also (for I am an avid Radio 4 Today programme junky) so I thought I'd give it a glance.

I know I'm old-skool. I don't really go in for the whole "let's wave our hands in the air thing" (I kind of object to the sentiment, but am reminded of the question posed in Adrian Plass' An Alien at St Wilfred's "why are those christians surrendering to God?"). But I have to confess: an eyebrow was raised when I read about "a range of other initiatives designed to raise a smile [including] a training course for vicars in stand-up-style performance skills." Will, I ask myself, we see our dear Vaughan sitting on a bar stool at the front of Ebbes, pint (of something non-alcoholic, no doubt) in hand, givin' it large? "There was this vicar, right, and..."

I feel it's unlikely. But does this, in fact, have anything to do with Lent? A trip to livelent.net suggests not. By all means, let's be nice to each other - and if you feel like leaving money in a shopping trolley, letting a car out in the queue in front of you, or whatever, then do so. Maybe this comes under "love your neighbour as yourself." But, surely, Lent is so much more than this - it's a chance to consider Jesus as he faced and overcame the greatest and most human temptations over a course of 40 days; evidence of His divinity in His humanity. Let's not reduce it to a time of giving up chocolate and being nice.

William Wilberforce on "In Our Time"

Did you manage to catch "In Our Time" on BBC Radio 4 this morning? If not, you missed a treat. I knew nothing about him, but hearing the story of William Wilberforce was inspirational.

Wilberforce was born in Hull in 1759. He attended St John's College, Cambridge where, basically, he partied hard, and left with a degree without honours. Becoming a politician aged 21, he experienced anew his semi-forgotten religious conviction, joined the Clapham Sect (a leading evangelical Anglican group) and was influenced by a number of people including Thomas Clarkson who encouraged him to take up a "mission" in life, and that of the abolition of the laws in England legalising the slave trade eventually became his overriding passion. It took him two decades in the face of stiff opposition from those who made their fortunes from the slave trade, but eventually an act of parliament was passed prohibiting the slave trade.*

It's hard to belive that many politicians of this age would stand firm in the face of such opposition to support a largely unpopular cause over 20 years. But wouldn't it be great if they did. Let's not allow the truth the be glossed over, either: what Wilberforce did was right, and maybe would have eventually occurred witout his input, but his motivation and the source of his conviction was unquestionably his Christian faith. He was a man who didn't only listen, but also acted.

====

* Source - mainly from the BBC

2 Timothy 3: A Sermon

I gave this sermon at Stokes Poges Free Church last year, and thought I'd reproduce the text here.

The Lord's Servant

I wonder if you’ve been watching the new Dr Who TV series that’s been on recently? I have, and one of the things that’ve struck me is how great it’d be to have my own Tardis. Wouldn’t that be great? Dr Who’s Tardis, for those of you who don’t know, looks like one of the old Police boxes - a bit like a blue phone box. And there’re a couple of things that are remarkable about it. Firstly it’s far, far larger on the inside than it is on the outside – which would be handy – and secondly, and to my mind more importantly, it’s able to travel in time.

Wouldn’t you just love to be able to travel in time? I would. I wonder where – or when – you’d chose to go? Maybe you’d like to go into the future, and find out how England are going to do in the World Cup. Will we be there, lifting the trophy high in the air – or will our game against Sweden mark the beginning of the end? Well, I’ll leave it to you to decide which of these is more likely. But maybe you’d prefer to go back in time – to that day when you got the results from those exams, and found you’d got just the grades you were hoping for. Or maybe you’re married, and you’d like to go back to your wedding day, and relive the moment when the doors open and your bride walks down the aisle. Doesn’t she look beautiful – and wouldn’t you love to be able to live it again?

Maybe you’d rather go back further – perhaps to the 17th century, and be able to go down to Portsmouth and see all the tall ships – the time when England really did rule the waves. Or maybe back even further, to the time of the Roman Empire, to the 1st century. Wouldn’t it be great – to see all the buildings in their splendour, and to hear the people speaking Latin? You might be able to find the Apostle Paul – and wouldn’t that be amazing? Wouldn’t it be awesome to be able to ask him for his message to the church here, in the 21st century, here in Britain, here in Stoke Poges – and to be able to hear his answer in his own words, spoken directly to us?

Well, the remarkable truth is that, as we read this passage, we can hear Paul’s answer, in his own words. As we read this letter to Timothy, we can look over his shoulders, and learn exactly what Paul’s message was to him, and what his message would be to us too.

Now, before we look at today’s passage in detail, it’d be good to note the background to this letter. Paul’s in prison, having been arrested in a wave of anti-Christian persecution, probably under the reign of the emperor Nero. And it seems that he’s going to die a prisoner. Since Paul became a Christian – it’s described in the book of Acts – he’s travelled around the Mediterranean, teaching the Gospel and setting up churches. And he’s desperately concerned that when he dies, the churches won’t. So, in this letter, he writes to Timothy, charging him to take over the leadership of the churches in his place. And so as we read of Paul’s concern for Timothy and the churches then, we can learn what his concern would be for the church now.

I think we can sum up Paul’s concern for Timothy in a couple of words from the end of chapter 2 of this letter, verse 24 – the Lord’s Servant. Paul writes that Timothy should live as the Lord’s servant. Well, “how should Timothy do that?” is the obvious question, and in chapter 3 Paul explains just how he should.

We’re going to look at chapter 3 under two headings – “Live as the Lord’s servant facing people’s opposition” – verses 1-9, and “Live as the Lord’s servant following Paul’s example”, verses 10-17. Facing people’s opposition, and following Paul’s example.

We’ll start with facing people’s opposition. I wonder what you imagine the 1st century would have been like? Well, of course, in many ways it would have been very different from today – no mobile phones, no cars, the buildings would be different. But I think the people would be very familiar. Paul writes in verse 1 “But mark this: there will be terrible times in the last days.” What does he mean by “the last days?” Well, don’t turn to it, but in Hebrews 1 the writer explains that “in the past God spoke to us through our forefathers, through the prophets at various times and in various ways”. In other words, that’s the time of the Old Testament. He continues “but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” The last days are the New Testament period: the time after Jesus has come, died, risen from the dead and then ascended into heaven, but before he comes again at the final day of judgement. We’re living in the last days. And so was Paul.

Look at what Paul says characterises the last days – verses 2-5:
“People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God – having a form of Godliness but denying its power.” Sound familiar? Paul wrote this letter 2000 years ago. He could have been writing about today, couldn’t he?

It’s a terrible list, isn’t it? Because it’s a description of what opposition to Christ looks like. Primarily, it’s caused by misdirection – misdirection of our love, towards ourselves, rather than towards God. Putting other things in God’s place – that’s what the Bible calls sin. And it’s not restricted to people who deny Christ completely – did you notice that, in verse 5? It also applies to people who “have a form of godliness but deny its power.” In other words, to some people who would call themselves Christians.

Now, it’s not clear exactly who Paul’s talking about here. It seems that when Paul was writing there were people who were taking every opportunity to sell people what they were calling Christianity, but what was very different to the Christianity of the Bible, and of Paul. We see that their methods are suspect. Instead of presenting their message in a reasoned manner, they “worm their way into homes” – verse 6 – where they target the vulnerable. Here, it seems they’re focussing particularly on women, probably on those who were very new Christians, or who were interested in Christianity, and looking for the answers. And sadly, their attitude is one that’s not unfamiliar today.

Not only are their tactics wrong, but so is their content. Far from preaching the Gospel, they’re opposing its very message. Paul draws a parallel with an episode from Israel’s history, described in the book of Exodus. Israel – God’s chosen people – were being held as slaves in Egypt. So God told Moses to go to Pharaoh, and demand the Israelites’ release, and He also performed miracles through Moses to demonstrate his power. But Pharaoh summoned his magicians, according to Jewish tradition known as Jannes and Jambres, to oppose Moses and, in so doing, to belittle God. And Paul says that in the same way as they opposed God all those years ago, these people who “have a form of godliness but deny its power” oppose God today.

Well, it’s a grim picture. Paul advises Timothy to have nothing to do with them, but how should Timothy recognise who they are? Well, Paul gives him some words of encouragement. “Don’t worry,” he says, “they won’t get very far. Their folly will be clear to everyone.” Don’t worry, he says, they’ll be obvious, they’ll be easy to spot. They’ll be the ones opposing God, those leading their followers away from God, rather than guiding them towards Jesus.

Well, it’s a matter of supreme importance that Timothy knows how to spot these false teachers. As the leader of a young church it’s vital he makes sure that the teaching the people are getting is centred on Christ. But I think it’s a matter for all of us today. For example, you may be aware that there’s deep controversy within the Anglican communion at the moment, between those who believe that the Bible is the word of God, and as such has authority, and those who don’t believe this, and think that, on certain matters, the Bible is wrong. It is that simple. And Paul has a clear message to us today, for all Christians, whether or not we’re members of the Anglican church. Are our leaders pointing us towards Christ? Are they teaching the Bible? Or are they opposing God, and leading people astray? Surely we should be praying for our leaders – praying that they would be teaching faithfully, that God would inspire them to understand His word and to pass it on helpfully, praying that they would always be pointing towards Jesus.

It’s a message for those of us who have some form of leadership. Do you lead a small group, a bible study? Are you involved in youth work? Are you a parent? Do you mentor a younger Christian? You have, to some degree, a leadership role. And Paul’s message is, if anything, even more essential for us. We must make absolutely certain that we’re not, even unwittingly, one of the people Paul is describing. We must make sure we’re loving God, not ourselves, or pleasure, or money, that we’re not being boastful, proud, or unholy, and that we’re not denying God’s power by opposing Him, but instead acknowledging the truth of the Gospel.

It sounds like a mammoth task, doesn’t it – it sounds nearly impossible. And I’m sure it sounded equally difficult to Timothy. But Paul continues his letter with some practical advice. How do you distinguish yourself from those false teachers, Timothy? By following my example. And that’s the heading we’re going to take as we look at verses 10-17. Live as the Lord’s servant following Paul’s example.

They say a picture’s worth a thousand words. No matter how carefully we try to describe something, no matter how much detail we go into, it’s never quite as good as actually seeing it. So, for example, I could describe my sister to you. I could tell you that she’s 18, that she’s quite tall and very slim, that she’s got long, dark brown wavy hair. I could tell you the colour of her eyes, and describe the type of clothes that she wears. But if I asked you to draw a picture of her, I can guarantee it’d be quite different to the photograph that I’ve got of her – it wouldn’t be anywhere near such a good likeness.

Well, if it’s true for pictures, it’s just as true for actions. I work in a chemistry lab, and I’m quite often asked how to do something, maybe a particular type of experiment. And I usually start by trying to describe what to do – you take this piece of equipment, and you do this to it. But invariably, it’s far quicker, far easier and far clearer if I take the person who’s asked me and show them how to do it.

And this is much the same situation as we find here. Remember why Paul’s writing. He’s described a grave problem – a problem in society in general, and within the Christian church in particular. He’s described how people are teaching in a manner that opposes God, and he’s told Timothy, the one he’s chosen to lead the church in his place, to have nothing to do with them – nothing to do with their message, and nothing to do with their methods. And we can almost hear Timothy replying to Paul “That’s fine, but on a practical level, what should my leadership look like?”

Now, Paul could have written a long list of instructions and advice to Timothy, going into great detail, and describing what every aspect of his life should look like. But he doesn’t, and instead he gives Timothy an example – the example of himself.

See what Paul writes in verses 10 and 11. “You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings – what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured.” Paul tells Timothy to model his behaviour on the example Paul’s set for him.

Timothy should emulate Paul’s teaching, which, as we read the bible from Acts onwards, we can see has a sound theological grounding. It’s based firmly on what the death of Jesus means for all people, and how Christians in particular should live in the light of this. Timothy should follow Paul’s way of life – being willing to deny himself payment and luxury for the sake of the Gospel. He should be firm in purpose – living to teach the word of God, and, in doing so, he should be patient, faithful and loving. It’s worth noting here that Paul isn’t showing off – he knew himself, as an Apostle, to be following Christ, and therefore doesn’t hesitate to tell Timothy to follow his example. In 1 Corinthians 11, he writes “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”

But Paul also makes it clear to Timothy that living to follow Christ doesn’t endear people to you. He makes it very clear that living wholeheartedly for God will bring persecution and suffering. He describes events from his past that Timothy was familiar with, describing the response he got when he spoke in Antioch, Iconium and in Lystra, and we read in Acts chapters 13 and 14 that this culminated in the crowd stoning Paul, dragging him outside the city, and leaving him for dead. Yet Paul kept his faith in God throughout these times, and he tells Timothy how the Lord rescued him.

Paul goes on to describe that this persecution wasn’t particular to him. Look at verses 12 and 13. Paul says “In fact, everyone who wants to live a Godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” It’s no surprise that following Jesus leads to opposition – after all, Christ himself was persecuted, leading to him being put to death on a cross, and he promised that following him would be costly. Let me read from John 15, for example. Jesus says “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: “No servant is greater than his master.” If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.”

And at the same time, those who have rejected Christ are seemingly getting it all their own way. Not only are they deceiving others, but Paul says they’re deceiving themselves, verse 12. The more they tell people to ignore Christ and live for money, or pleasure, the more they start to believe themselves. Their only progression is as they go on “from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” Their lives must have looked so simple – living each day for the moment, for the pleasure it could bring – so easy, compared to Timothy’s.

But hear what Paul writes to Timothy, verse 14, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

It must have looked hopeless. How could Timothy stand firm in the face of such opposition? Well, Paul gives two reasons. He says Timothy is to continue in “what he has learned and become convinced of, because he knows those from whom he has learned it.” Firstly, Paul reminds Timothy of their past – that Paul met Jesus face to face and is an Apostle of him – chapter 1, verse 1 – that he laid hands on Timothy at his ordination, verse 6, that Paul was appointed a herald and a teacher of the Gospel, verse 11. Timothy’s not being asked to trust in someone he’s never met; rather, Paul’s asking him to continue trusting in a person he’s known and believed for many years.

Secondly, Paul reminds Timothy of his faith in the word of God – the Old Testament. We read how Timothy’s known the scriptures since he was a child, and Paul reiterates that it is these very scriptures that are able to make Timothy wise for salvation through faith in Jesus. In other words, both Paul’s past and the scriptures back each other up, and both validate the instruction to Timothy to continue, even in the face of opposition.

Paul concludes this section by noting that the Scriptures aren’t just of academic interest. He says that they should have a real and significant impact on Timothy’s ministry. “All scripture is God-breathed,” he says in verse 16, “and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.” God speaks through the scriptures – through the bible. In contrast to the false teachers in verses 1-9, Timothy is to acknowledge the truth of the scriptures, and is to use them to teach and equip the church. Unlike the false teachers, he’s to be a lover of God, rather than a lover of pleasure. He must be willing to rebuke his congregations where necessary – to tell them that their actions oppose God’s will, and to instruct them how to behave. Only through the scriptures can Timothy, and through his teaching other Christians, be equipped for every good work.

Cast your mind back to where we were, standing at Timothy’s side, reading this letter over his shoulders. We’ve just looked at the message Paul had for Timothy. So, as we close, let’s think about what Paul’s message to us here today would be.

Maybe you’re not a Christian. You’ve come here with family, or with friends. Maybe you’re thinking “that’s all very well, but this letter has nothing to say to me.” Well, I think it does have something to say to you. Paul says that the scriptures – the bible – are the word of God, and are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus – back in verse 15. If that’s true, this has got to be one book you can’t afford not to take seriously. Why not read it, and investigate its claims for yourself?

Alternatively, maybe you are a Christian. If so, Paul has two messages for you. Firstly, are you facing opposition for your faith? Are you the only Christian in your school, your college, your office, your family? Do people mock you, exclude you, belittle you for what you believe? Well, take heart. Opposition doesn’t mean you’ve got it wrong – in fact, Paul says that persecution is natural for the Christian. And although he doesn’t say it’s easy, Paul does have a message for you. Continue in what you’ve learned. Keep trusting in the scriptures, because they’re the word of God.

Secondly, are we letting the word of God teach and rebuke us? Are we challenged by those first verses in chapter 3? Are we willing to change our behaviour in light of what God reveals to us through the bible? Are we willing to turn our back on that one thing we know we shouldn’t be doing, and devote ourselves to loving God? Or will we persist in loving ourselves, in his place? Let’s pray that God would help us to put Him first, and to trust His word’s ability to thoroughly equip us for every good work.

Father God, thank you for giving us your word, the Bible. Please help us to make sure that we are living our lives firmly grounded in what you have to say to us through it. Please help us to stand firm in the face of any opposition that we face, and to cling to you. Please help us to be willing to change for you, and to love you, rather than ourselves, or money, or pleasure. Please equip us to live in a way that pleases you. Amen.