Ten Words that will Make or Break a Church (a belated Advent reflection)

by Matthew McEwan

When I worked in retail I was taught that customers are driven by a basic question informing their decision making. The question is contained in five simple little words. Just five words, and yet they make up a truly powerful question such that when the question is answered a retail associate can make an easy sale. Those five words are: what’s in it for me? If a customer understands a perceived benefit of owning some do-dad is greater than having some money in a wallet or bank account, the sale is a given. A consumer culture is based on this question and the message of advertising is that unless the latest and most recent version of something is purchased, we will remain incomplete and unfulfilled. A consumer culture is raised to ask: what’s in it for me?

When this simple little question is applied to a church, the results can be disastrous. A 90’s Christian rock band called “All Star United” did a song called “La La Land” with the haunting lines:

All the saints and martyrs alike, well they would have called a national strike
Demanded less pain, more personal gain, if only they’d known their rights
Well I take it very personally, I’ve got to know what’s in it for me
Ain’t it grand, when you’re living in La La Land
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5YGZlTO4Os)

The question “What’s in it for me?” changes disciples into consumers, and when a consumer finds their perceived needs are not being met, it becomes easy to move from one church to another, like changing brands or retail stores. People evaluate a church based on what it can offer them rather than seeing the opportunities where they can serve in that church. “What’s in it for me?” can destroy a church.

A more redemptive statement to replace the destructive question “What’s in it for me?” is another five word phrase. These other five words are guaranteed to bless a church, and they can be found in the pages of Scripture. In Luke 1:38, Mary said to the angel Gabriel, “I am the Lord’s servant.” When people say to God, “I am the Lord’s servant” there is no room to ask, “What’s in it for me?” Jesus picked up a towel to wash the feet of his disciples, and he expects his followers to do the same. A church filled with people saying, “I am the Lord’s servant” is a church where you will see the “one-another’s” of the New Testament being practiced. A church filled with people saying, “I am the Lord’s servant” will be a church where people gather to serve rather than be served. A church filled with people saying, “I am the Lord’s servant” will be a church that is blessed.

Whenever I encounter this phrase in the Gospel of Luke, I’m reminded of the painting by Henry Ossawa Tanner (1859-1937) of “The Annunciation” (1898). In this painting, the angel Gabriel appears as brilliant light. In this painting we see no angelic wings, no halo, no cherub with a baby face but instead we are presented with an angel in the form of pure, brilliant light. The glory of the angel is ineffable and almost overwhelming , much like a glance at the sun. In contrast with the angel we find Mary and her surroundings painted in earth tones. Mary has no halo and the rug is dishevelled. Obviously the annunciation has come unannounced; were I expecting an angelic visitor, I might have straightened up the room! Mary’s body posture is reflective of her heart. She is in quiet submission and answering “Yes” to God’s plan. Like Mary, may we all answer with “I am the Lord’s servant.”

Wisdom: Blessings for Life and Ministry

by Beverly Kay

After coming away from a weekend around the table with the Study Commission on Doctrine; after looking at the areas of concern our pastor’s face daily in the front lines of ministry; after becoming more fully aware of the current financial needs of the FMCiC (or of our local church, or personal family); after praying over fellow ministers in the Family who are battling disease or broken bodies I have become keenly aware of our great need to ask God for wisdom.

As the Lord would have it, I find my own personal quiet times with Him have brought me to the Book of Proverbs. Today I carefully studied the principles for life found in the father’s admonition to find, gain, preserve; to hold tightly to Wisdom. As I looked into the face of Wisdom and its many benefits, I felt compelled to share my insights with my fellow followers that we might all be encouraged to understand the depth of our need, and the breadth of blessing that comes through this great gift of our God.

What is Wisdom? Its root is in the ability to be wise; to have good judgment, sound (full, complete council), to be prudent. Wisdom is the power to judge rightly based on full council of knowledge, experience, and understanding. It is following the soundest, surest, most beneficial course of action. In other words, as a Christ follower, to gain wisdom it takes time, perseverance, and determination to pursue and never settle for anything short of God’s very best course of action.

Why make the effort and take the time to pursue wisdom? Although this is far from exhaustive, looking at Proverbs chapter 3, verses 13 – 26 reveals that the list of blessings for our lives and ministries is great. Wisdom is (14) more profitable, yielding greater benefits than either silver or gold. Wisdom is (15) of greater value to our lives than rubies. Wisdom is (18) a tree of Life and a source of blessing to those who embrace, fully accepting its authority in our lives.

Wisdom is accompanied (13, 21) by understanding (insight), and discernment (the ability to separate and clearly recognize differences), and therefore are Life for us. Wisdom, understanding, and knowledge were in God, with God and used by God as He laid the foundation of the earth, gave order to the heavens, and separated the waters on the earth so that we might know good life on this planet (19, 20). Therefore it seems only logical that we will need them to safely journey through the troubles and trials, temptations and theories that we will face while we endeavor to do Kingdom work in a fallen world.

If we preserve sound judgment and discernment (protecting it, keeping it from corruption – 21) then our lives are blessed with safety (23), sure footing (23), rest (24) and peace (lack of fear – 17, 25) due to a confidence that is ours in the Lord (26), Who is at work through wisdom to keep our feet from being caught up in the snare (trap, danger, twisted truths) of the enemy. As a believer, this confidence can be sure because of the guarantee of all that is ours in Christ Jesus. Colossians chapter 2, verses 1-4 reveal to us that we “may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that we may know the mystery of God, namely Christ, in whom are hidden ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Paul wrestled in prayer for the believers that they would be unified by the complete understanding that can be ours as we are untied with Christ, us in Him and His Word (spoken, written, Holy Spirit illuminated) in us (John 15:7) Paul’s purpose was that “no one may deceive you by carefully crafted arguments.”

I must confess, my experience is limited; my knowledge incomplete; my understanding often restricted by my own bias. Only in Christ Jesus can we have fullness of understanding, and gain the deep treasures of wisdom. James reminds us that we can freely come, and ask God for wisdom, who gives generously to all without finding fault (James 1:5). God’s desire is that we would be mature and not lack no good thing necessary for living out the Life that we have in Christ. He wants us to discover the sure path, to never settle for anything less than His best response or course of action.

As we move forward in Life and in ministry, I pray that we will become workmen approved by God, who always seek to rightly handle the Word of Truth (II Timothy 2: 15, 16). That we would fully submit to its authority in our lives, being influenced through it by wisdom over the trends, godless chatter or carefully crafted arguments that would trip us up, cripple our faith and cause us to move and act based on fear rather than boldly walking in the confidence and blessings of godly wisdom. Be rich and abundantly fruitful in your walk with God, as you gain, preserve and walk in godly wisdom no matter what it is that you are facing or wrestling with these days in your journey with Jesus.

Focus on the Family

by Matthew McEwan

The birth of a child is an exciting time, and for my wife and I that’s how the year 2013 came to a close. Micah was born on his due date, December 31st at 2:30 PM. Expecting a child through the season of Advent and Christmas forced me to make alternative arrangements for both worship services and church and family events should our baby’s arrival have come early. I knew that Christmas Dinners and programs could continue without me, but for worship services a lay minister was willing to provide pulpit supply and for the Christmas Eve Communion Service I invited a retired minister (Rev. Arthur Perry) to join us and help serve the Lord’s Supper. While the world celebrated the close of one year and anticipated the dawn of a new year, my family and church family celebrated the safe arrival of Micah.

Leaving the hospital I was aware that the year 2013 could have ended quite differently for us and our story could have been one of sorrow. A hospital is one setting where Romans 12:15 (the people of God are to rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn) is in effect with full force. When some people in a hospital are welcoming a new life into their family, at the same moment you can find others on a different floor saying goodbye. Even in the labour and delivery unit, there are some families saying goodbye even before they had the opportunity to say hello.

After the arrival of each of my children I’ve left the birthing unit with gladness, but I’ve also experienced sorrow after the loss of a miscarriage. When my wife suggested that we have a service or a time of prayer, I found that I had no available resources. Although services for dedication or infant baptism are common and easy to find, there are fewer services for times of sorrow. Following the miscarriage I worked with the Study Commission on Doctrine to create a service to help begin the healing process for those who are grieving the loss of a miscarriage or stillbirth. Example of a service can be found here: http://fmcic.ca/index.php/en/who-we-are/position-papers/4-who-we-are/position-papers/899-service-for-miscarriage-or-stillbirth.

It’s not just a miscarriage or still birth that can cause sorrow, but also issues of infertility. Couples facing infertility and childlessness need empathy and support, and the Church must be equipped to deal with that form of loss. Unfulfilled hopes and dreams of a family are not instantly healed with the possibility of adoption. For couples seeking emotional healing with regards to infertility, good pastoral care and even counselling are needed.

There are a few examples in Scripture of women dealing with infertility, but perhaps the most striking example is Elizabeth in the Gospel of Luke chapter 1. The Gospel begins with Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth being described as being honourable people who were “…righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly” (Luke 1:6). The next verse says that they were childless and in that cultural and historical context most would have assumed this couple’s barrenness was a form of God’s judgment. Like Job’s friends who accused Job of sin for the cause of his suffering, or the disciples asking Jesus about whose sin was to blame because a man was born blind in John chapter 9, the stigma of infertility was such that Elizabeth said on the birth of her miracle child, “In these days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the people” (Luke 1:25). This is a strange statement coming from Elizabeth since we’re told that even though she was righteous in God’s sight, her infertility was a source of disgrace among the people. While people today may not automatically equate infertility with sin or God’s judgment, couples facing childlessness still experience significant sorrow and grief much like the stories in Scripture whether one considers Sarah, Hannah or Elizabeth.

Again I return to Romans 12:15. It is easy for people in the Church to celebrate with a couple on the safe arrival of a new baby, but we are also called to mourn with those who mourn. Congregations that over-emphasize family ministry, family events and family programs may unintentionally make a couple mourning because of childlessness feel isolated. The Song of Songs presents a relationship between a man and a woman with no references to children. There is certainly a mystery to the sad reality that some who want children are unable to conceive, others may want a child yet experience a miscarriage, while still others choose to have an abortion. The challenge for the Church is not to understand this iniquity or even attempt to explain it, but simply rejoice with those who rejoice, and have awareness, empathy and sensitivity to be able to mourn with those who mourn.

Early Church and Women – Now that’s Missional

by Mary-Elsie Wolfe

As a movement, we have been talking increasingly over the last decade or so about being more missional—being more incarnational in our communities—becoming a more redeeming presence.

Historical and archeological research confirms that quest was met by the early church. We see that evidenced in the lives of women. Christianity in its pioneering stage attracted women because it offered what no other religion or society could. Anyone could follow Jesus, regardless of status, position or the sign of the covenant in circumcision. The numerous cults dating to Rome and Greece allowed for very limited—if any—roles for women. Likewise, Judaism restricted the role of women. Christianity did not. In Christianity, women were fully able to come alongside in faith as equal partners and were given opportunities no other venue offered.

In the first and second century, infanticide and abortion were commonly practiced in all regions. Women had little choice in the decision because “Roman law accorded the male head of family the literal power of life and death over his house-hold, including the right to order a female in the household to abort.” Methods of abortion were risky for the woman. Sometimes, poison was used in the uterus or orally but doses were determined by guess work that could kill both mother and child. The archaic methods of removing a child from the uterus involved techniques of force in a time before antibiotics, potentially causing early death. Among the women who survived this ordeal, some became infertile. Those who were not rendered infertile through abortions might also have been sterilised through antiquated forms of contraception or medicine. This was the world in which early Christians lived—but not so for early followers of Jesus

Rodney Stark cites emperor Valentenian’s written order to Pope Damasus I “requiring Christian missionaries to cease calling at the homes of pagan women.” Why? Because women out numbered men as early followers of Jesus.

Christians at the onset valued life. Valuing all life was imbedded in Christian culture from Jewish teaching. Not only that, but Christian women were more fertile having not been exposed to the same obstructions to their reproductive systems. Women found freedoms in the Christian community that they weren’t afforded elsewhere. In many Greco-Roman regions, women were forced into marriage at the age of twelve. Pagans were three times more likely to marry before the age of 13 according to Stark and impregnating young girls was not uncommon.

In contrast, nearly half of Christian women had not married by the age of 18. Not only were Christian widows allowed to remain single but their status was both respected and sanctioned. Conversely, some laws outside the faith fined women who were not married within two years of being widowed. Of course, the right of property would be lost in the marital commitment—a reason why historians conclude that many women of means were drawn to the early church.

Women were crucial to the early church. Men and women met together for worship in the homes of many of these women. Affluent women had homes large enough to fit growing churches. Lydia, Priscilla, Phoebe, Apphia and Nympha are mentioned as women of stature in the church. Phoebe was a leader who helped Paul and served as a deacon in the church. A deacon was understood to have “assisted at liturgical functions and administer the benevolent and charities of the church.” As Stark explains, it was perfectly natural for Paul that a woman hold that position; thus he commended Pheobe as a deaconess to the Romans.

Living Jesus in our community brings hope that might otherwise be obstructed by social norms. That’s why we want to be missional.

Our Church and Alcohol

by John Vlainic

WHAT KIND OF CHURCH DO I WANT TO END UP WITH?

Let me begin with the kind of church I long for. Everyone who comes soon learns that this people is about: 1) worshipping Jesus, 2) loving Him and everyone else (even enemies), 3) committing to a life-time of becoming more like Him, 4) building quality relationships with some fellow-Christians (in a more intimate context), 5) sharing His love with people “outside” the church, 6) supporting His church in time, energy, attitude, money (everything), and 7) being a counter-culture to the sick society around us. When it comes to the matter of use of alcohol, I dream of such a church where there are people (like me) who abstain from alcohol for good reasons, and where many (like many friends and acquaintances) use alcohol in limited, careful ways. All of us are against drunkenness.

I also dream of a church where we have agreed that alcohol will not be used in church properties or at whole-church gatherings (because of the range of convictions and needs among us about its use).

BUILDING BLOCKS OF THAT VISION

-The Bible on wine. “In the Bible, wine appears far more frequently as a vehicle of God's blessing than an occasion of human folly.” David Neff, citing author in book review at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/september-web-only/bible-wine-tour.html .

-The Bible on convictions and membership “rules”. Think, for example, about whether there should be a rule about using meat that has been part of an idolatrous worship experience. Some Christians thought so, but Paul did not.

-John Wesley on alcohol, and his insistence that the identity of Methodists: “Let this be your many, noble, generous religions, equally remote from the meanness of superstition, which places religion in doing what God hath not enjoined, or abstaining from what he hath not forbidden.” (Advice to a People Called Methodist)

-An honest look at the whole history of the church re: alcohol. For 95% of our history, the church has been against drunkenness, and for care regarding alcohol. At one time, Yale historian David Underdown tells us, the Puritans of Dorchester adopted an unusual tactic to assist the town's poor: they opened a brewery. “Revivalist and founder of Methodism John Wesley expressed strong opinions on the best methods for brewing beer in the 18th century, as did Reformer Martin Luther in the 16th. And in the 19th century prominent Baptist pastor and evangelist Charles Spurgeon disallowed temperance meetings in his Metropolitan Tabernacle lest people think that abstinence somehow contributes to a person’s salvation. (in Article on Moody Bible Institute now allowing staff to use alcohol. Abstinence has been the rule at only one time – in recent history. See note about the Temperance movement below.)

-Taking into account the fact that today, large number of evangelicals (and Free Methodists) who do carefully use alcohol. A few years ago a National Association of Evangelicals survey found that 40% of evantelical leaders were sometimes using some alcohol. I.e, what is the body of Christ as a whole saying about this? That is, even today, after the temperance movement of the past century, the larger body of Christ is saying what the church did for almost 2000 years: we are against drunkenness, and very careful about alcohol. We have to conclude that all these people are living in sin, or that they are using their freedom in Christ in ways that are acceptable.

-Ongoing appreciation for the good in the Temperance movement. “The temperance movement reacted to a real social and medical problem. We should not dismiss it as a product of Victorian prudishness. But then a focus on reducing alcohol abuse morphed into the conviction that it was a sin for any person to take a drink, period. This was a simpler approach, but it is not biblical.” (Thomas S. Kidd, “How Evangelicals Lost Their Way on Alcohol”

-Not wanting a “bait and switch” where people who start coming to church among us sense the 7 points above from day one, and do not suddenly learn, late in the membership process that there is another requirement: not using alcohol.

-A church of integrity where we all, especially leaders, practice what we say we are “for.” This means that today, EITHER the Bishop needs to start disciplining the pastors among us who sometimes use alcohol (and likewise, pastors need to discipline their members who use alcohol) OR we change the stance of the church.

-We reject “slippery slope” fear-based arguments against changing our stance. We remember that people who teach logic say that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies! The problem with slippery slope reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead puts attention on extreme hypotheticals. No evidence is given that such extreme hypotheticals will actually occur. (See, for example, .)

-We remember that in an earlier day, even while the FMC was against wedding rings, some younger ministerial candidates and lay people started using them even before the rules were changed – and it has NOT resulted in Free Methodists becoming a jewelry-obsessed people. Just look around at the next multi-denominational gathering!

-Concern for how to best help those who are mis-using alcohol. If there is a “rule” against any use (even a now-vague one), any move to help someone mis-using alcohol begins with shaming them (explicitly or tacitly) as a rebel and rule-breaker. Then we try to help them deal with the excess.

By contrast, if abstinence is not a rule, we begin with helping them re: their excess in something that we are not categorically condemning. Yes, they may end up abstainers (since they have problems with alcohol), but we don’t start with shame and condemnation.

Alcohol and the Church

by John Vlainic

Last evening I attended a Hamilton event (sponsored by the city's Public Health Department, the police, and school boards) on "What Can Parents Do To Prevent Underage Drinking - and How Alcohol Affects the Teenage Brain." The 2010 death of a city teen who died from alcohol poisoning had resulted in an inquest and recommendations and studies and now some actions and educational tools. It was so moving to hear his mother say a word to the gathering.

I was there trying to listen for any indicators from the health community re: whether we, as a faith group, do more good by having a "rule" against drinking (= recommending total abstinence) or by educating well, helping people to make their own decisions, and advocating great care with a dangerous substance.

I didn't get any "news-bite" things that could easily help us. But I did learn a great deal about the development of the teenage brain (this was the focus of the main speaker).

As you probably know, it is illegal in Ontario for someone under the age of 19 to drink alcohol or for their parents to provide it for them or to allow them to bring it into their home.

The main part of the evening was spent presenting 6 Research-based strategies to help parents to work with their teen/young adults regarding alcohol.

Again and again we heard about the process (well into the 20's) whereby the frontal lobe (where reasoning and the capacity to make thoughtful choices)of the young brain is being developed. Repeatedly we heard how parents who use "rules" or "tell" their teen/young adult what they MUST or MUST NOT do,DO NOT HELP the young person to develop their frontal lobe, their capacity to learn to work into decisions using reason.

The stress was on helping teens to develop the ability to make thoughtful decisions. This requires much more emphasis on benefits (to them and to people they love) than on bad consequences.

Again and again we heard how important it is to ask teens "judgment" questions rather than fact questions. I.e., "Tell me what you did today" is useless (we all know that), whereas "Tell me the most disgusting thing that happened at school today" or "Tell me the best thing that happened at school today" push them to evaluate and make judgments. The latter kind of questions help them to develop their frontal lobes (which are developing into their 20's).

We also heard that the appropriate sharing of "kernels of wisdom" can be helpful-if they are not presented as though we are exercising "authority" over them.

These things were shared by a lecturer from OISE at U of T (who doesn't drink at all, but whose wife does).

I left thinking that:

-we DO need to point our people to good information about alcohol's damaging effects on the developing brain and potential dangers to everyone

-having a "rule" (or even saying we "advocate" abstinence) probably does nothing overall to help our people to help their teens/young adults to develop their frontal lobes well (where the capacity to reason thoughtfully into a decision takes place)

-we need to take out the "Rule" part in our Manual and simply point to the responsibility of Christ-followers to educate themselves about the dangers of alcohol (especially to teens/young adults) and to help one another to come to responsible decisions about its use. There are good materials we can point people to. I would be OK with us saying a bit MORE about alcohol -- but not by way of a "rule" for our people.

. . . . . . Some thoughts from a man who doesn't drink alcohol at all (except a few molecules when receiving communion with my Anglican friends).

The Cross and the Kingdom

by Doug Wightman and Martin Wightman

Imagine you are living in a beautiful house. The house is spacious and full of people. In the east end of this mansion, there is a spectacular view of the sunrise, if you care to wake up early enough to see it. On the west side: an equally stunning vista at sunset. The residents, though, have begun to argue. Those in the east end start talking among themselves: “The sunrise begins the day; it is full of pinks and yellows. It’s not just breathtaking, it is the first, best way of seeing the world out there.” Those who live in the west end protest: “Looking west at the end of the day is mesmerizing. The red and orange and blue – really, who needs the sunrise when you have this?”

It’s an odd argument to be having.

As Christians, we are one house, so we are told. Naturally, there are different viewpoints on all sorts of issues, but our foundation is the same. But within this house there are two distinct ways of looking at the world “out there”.

We are not speaking of denominations, but about fundamental approaches to Christian life and ministry that are often rooted in our personalities and our experiences of life. Let’s give names to these groups, and, in broad strokes, define them. We’ll call the first group “Cross Christians” and the second group “Kingdom Christians.” Cross Christians look out on the world and see sinners who are unreconciled to God; human beings who need salvation before dying. Eternity awaits! But what will it bring for all the people out there? Kingdom Christians look out on the world and see human beings living in God’s world, but with all sorts of damage brought to that good creation. Life awaits, but what about all the pain and brokenness and sin and injustice? What does Jesus say about those things?

Both groups have strong Biblical support for their positions, and both feel that their emphasis is very important in the overall Biblical teaching. And both are right. The problem is that, instead of being united with each other, some members of each camp push their emphasis in such a way as to minimize the other perspective; emphasizing the sunrise at the expense of the sunset.

The practical outcome can be that Christians who should be together, and could be together, are not together; what ought to be a solid alliance is only an uneasy truce. Further, some of these Christians can become suspicious or defensive or argumentative — perhaps you have met some on one or the other end of the house. (Unfortunate souls may have met some from both ends of the house!) We are convinced that this is neither good nor necessary. We believe that both viewpoints are correct in what they claim, and only go astray if they deny the validity of the other. We want to show, briefly, that both truly are solidly rooted in Scripture. And, working from the principle that Scripture does not contradict itself, we want to affirm that the great themes of Cross and Kingdom do indeed complement each other — that each side needs the other for the greatest health and strength of the church.

Consider what God’s Word says. You could start by looking up the word “kingdom” in a concordance. It occurs frequently in the Bible, doesn’t it? More particularly, it occurs with great frequency in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Why does this matter? Because the fundamental message of Jesus had to do with the “kingdom of God.” Matthew, Mark and Luke all portray Jesus as announcing the good news of the kingdom of God (sometimes called the kingdom of heaven, especially in Matthew). Not only did he announce it, Jesus told many parables about it. He used similes: “The kingdom of God is like … ” He talked about those who were the greatest in the kingdom, he talked about entering the kingdom, he talked about the nearness of the kingdom, and he even used the expression “my kingdom.” John’s gospel, although much different in style from the first three, nevertheless includes important kingdom teaching. These statistics explain why some readers who focus on Jesus find the theme of the kingdom of God pervasive – not just a theme, but the theme.

It gets more interesting. Looking further at a concordance, you can see that the occurrence of the word “kingdom” is much less frequent after the gospels. In fact, both Mark and Luke have more occurrences of the word “kingdom” than are found from Acts to Revelation, inclusive. This does not mean that the idea is no longer important in those other books, but the difference is striking. Something else emerges as we scan our concordances and the New Testament: the death of Jesus (as seen in such words as “cross,” “blood,” “death,” and “sacrifice,” for example) assumes much greater prominence from the book of Acts onwards. If a reader concentrates on, for example, the letters of Paul, or the letter to the Hebrews, he/she will naturally conclude that the death of Christ — and its explosive ramifications — is the primary theme of the New Testament.

Here is a simple observation: the Biblical teaching about the cross, no matter how important the cross actually is, was not likely to be very extensive before the actual event. Although Jesus predicted his death, and explained some of its meaning to his puzzled disciples, they did not understand it very well, and (to some extent), didn’t believe that Jesus was right. It was only with the resurrection of Jesus that the message of the cross became understood by the apostles, and made sense as a presentation of God’s good news. It is important to understand that before the cross, Jesus was proclaiming good news — the good news of God’s saving intervention in history — but that he used the language of the kingdom, which would have been very familiar to his listeners, raised as they were with the Old Testament Scriptures.

The book of Acts uses transitional language, simply saying that the good news was about Jesus. By the time we get to the book of Romans, the term “good news” is relatively rare; it has been replaced, in a sense, by the word “gospel.” (And, of course, the word “gospel” means “good news.”) The New Testament sequence is something like this: the good news of the kingdom of God, the good news about Jesus, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The good news in the New Testament is about Jesus Christ, his kingdom, and his cross. They are all indivisible. The New Testament authors were writing in the midst of this unpacking process, grappling with the unexpected way that God, in Jesus, had become the Messiah. There is a King, there is a kingdom, and there is a way of entering that kingdom. We are not born as citizens, and our sin disqualifies us from citizenship. In his cross, Jesus provides the way for us to enter his kingdom family. This is God’s way of doing it; we are required to repent of sin and believe in King Jesus. The message of the cross speaks clearly to those who know they are outside the kingdom, know why, and want to find their way in. From a different (not contradictory!) perspective, the message of the kingdom speaks to those who know something is drastically wrong with the world, and long for a new order, ruled by a good King, characterized by justice and peace.

Surely these themes are not in opposition. The truth that they belong together can be seen from the phrase that begins the majority of the New Testament epistles: “Grace and peace to you… .” Grace is God’s free favour to undeserving sinners, nowhere seen with more clarity than in the atoning cross of his Son. Peace is the resulting state of health, well-being, and harmony that Jesus envisaged when he prayed, “your kingdom come.” He not only prayed for it, he achieved it in his ministry and death, and will bring it to completion when he returns. Cross and kingdom, kingdom and cross. Christians today need to connect these themes, not separate them; see their Biblical underpinnings, not close their eyes to what God has set forth, and rejoice that both are completely part of God’s big story. One Christian might find the kingdom theme deeply motivating and spend his life working for justice in a particular area. Another Christian might find the idea of the cross and justification so moving and powerful that she spends her life telling others about the Easter story, and what it means for eternity. Both are doing God’s work, in the way that makes sense to them. And, though different, they can be fully united, each recognizing the value of the other, and both seeing the bigger, wider picture.

To return to the house once more: we must be people who, together as a body, don’t just theorize about which view of the world is the best or the more urgent. We need to be thinking and living “outside the house,” interacting with the world in a way that honours our unique wiring as individuals, and participating corporately in both evangelism and the restoring of justice and peace, for now and forever.

Gutenberg's Revenge and Other Thoughts

I suppose after that last post, the next logical step would be to muse a little about the revenge effects of the various technologies we've introduced to church ministry itself. When the Gutenberg Press took the Bible out of the hands of the priesthood and put it firmly into the hands of every believer-- with the laudable intention of building biblically literate, thus better, Christian communities-- I don't suppose anyone could have guessed that it might also be putting deep cracks in the foundations of Christian community, by pushing the individual's "interpretation" of the Good Book to the centre of Christian experience and pushing the community to the edge. Did Gutenberg get its revenge (mused the blogger) by filling the pews with a hundred personal popes piously practicing their private versions of the Faith, ready and able to leave when the interpretive going got tough? Is the embarrassing fragmentation of the church today part of the Gutenberg legacy?

Not that I would want to go back to the gloom of the pre-Gutenberg era, mind you... any more than I would want to go back to my pre-HTC Dream life... but perhaps if we can name the unintended effects of our technology, we can make more informed choices about when, why and how to use it.

So, off the top of my head, here are a few possible "revenge effects" of technology in the Church:

In an effort to make our preaching more effective, we've introduced a variety of presentation technologies behind the pulpit. Has this had the unintended effect of shackling our sermons to ideas that fit neatly on to PowerPoint slides and shackling our preachers to what's written on the screen?
In an effort to make our music more engaging, we've replaced hymnals with screens. Has this had the unintended effect of alienating people from the songs they're singing because they no longer have the music in front of them?

In an effort to make worship more dynamic, we've amplified everything. Has this had the unintended effect of deafening us to the voice of God and the voices of each other in our gathered times?

In an effort to make our faith more "relevant" we've introduced a wide variety of media to our worship, from video montage, to film clips, to Christianesque imagery moving behind the song lyrics on the PowerPoint slide. Has this had the unintended effect of making us less able to recognize the deeply relevant but counter-cultural aspects of life with God (things like stillness, Sabbath, quiet, simplicity)?

These are real questions, not just rhetorical points. And even if the answer is "yes" to any of them, that doesn't mean the technology itself must go (*just wait, I'm getting a call on my phone*). But if we can see the "revenge effects" of our own cleverness like this, we will also begin to see, I think, the limitations of our cleverness. And to see our own limitations is to take a humble step towards deeper dependence on God.

Can We Talk?

by Dale Harris.  First appeared on terra incognita, October 4, 2009. 

One of the things I find indispensably useful in my work as a pastor is my HTC Smart Phone. I confess this with not a little sheepishness, because there was a time when I held out against cell phones on principle. And now, here I am, with no mere cell phone, but a touch-sensitive cellular communications device with instant access to email, gmail, text messages and chatting, roaming internet, youtube viewing and GPS capabilities. It's like a member of PETA getting caught on camera sporting a fur coat.

Now I say I held out because for a long time I had this sense that cell phone technology stunted the growth of genuine community by making us so independent and self-sufficient that we no longer need to have any real connection with the actual flesh-and-blood human beings around us. For example: time was when my car broke down on the side of the highway I would have to knock on the neighbour's door and ask for help; and more often that not, they would. Now I can call nameless, faceless roadside assistance from the comfort of my car (and view a variety of inane Youtube clips while I'm waiting for them to come).

I was talking about this with a friend a way back when cell phones were just exploding on the scene, and she told me that she found her cell phone helpful because when she had to walk home from her university classes at night and felt unsafe, she could call her dad to come meet her. Then she said: "Of course, if I didn't have the cell phone, I'd have to get to know the other students in the class well enough that I could walk home with one of them..." And I think that was my point in the hold-out days: I felt that roaming communications technologies like cell phones allowed us to seal up our spheres of influence so tightly that the strangers around us never had to be anything more than strangers.

And maybe there's a kernel of truth there.

But here I am with my HTC Smart Phone and it is, as I said earlier, indispensably useful.

But I'm also wondering about the revenge effects of such technology.

Author and social scientist Edward Tenner argues that all technologies have a natural tendency to "bite back" with "revenge effects" on the societies into which they are introduced. His theory is that societies are really just systems that constantly seek the "status quo." He suggests that as new technologies significantly upset this status quo, the system itself will naturally adjust in unexpected, unintended, even unconscious ways to counteract their effect, and so maintain the status quo.

Example 1: As we introduce a plethora of ingenious time-saving appliances to the kitchen, the system adjusts to maintain a status quo of busy-ness: once it's been freed from meal prep-and-clean-up hours, it's possible to overload our evening schedule with other things, and so we find ourselves busier than ever.

Example 2 (and perhaps more to the point): As communications devices make communication increasingly clear and easy, we find our actual communicating and decision-making processes more (not less) cloudy and confused because now everything has to be answered and decided and acted on under the tyranny of the now.

I'm not sure if Turner's on to anything or not (though they say that the advent of email has significantly increased-- not decreased-- paper consumption in the office workplace). But I do know this: the other day a friend called me at home and when I picked up the phone he said: "Finally found you." He'd tried my gmail, left a message on my voice mail, called my office phone, and when he couldn't get me at any of these he tried me at home. All the ways to connect with me, it seems, had actually made me harder to find.

Vengeance is mine, sayeth HTC.

"In Christ Alone" and Atonement Theology

by John Vlanic

I love a great deal about the worship song, "In Christ Alone." I think that it strikes me as so good in so many ways that for a long time I was able to use my gifting in obliviousness to blot out any real awareness of the phrase, “And on that cross where Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied.”

There has been a long debate over the meaning of Christ’s death. The names of great Christian thinkers have been attached to one side or the other. One of the crucial issues has been the correct way to translate the “hilasterion” word group.

Some have wanted to understand that word as referring to “propitiation”, the act of gaining or regaining the favor or goodwill of someone, as in the example in one English dictionary: “He made an offering to propitiate the angry gods.” Others have seen it as referring to the removal of the problem between the deity and the person who needed the “hilas-” work.

Thus I John 2:2 gets quite a range of translations:

King James Version And he is the propitiation for our sins Revised Standard Version and he is the expiation for our sins New International Version He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins New Revised Standard Version and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins New Living Translation He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins The Message When he served as a sacrifice for our sins, he solved the sin problem for good

Much needless polarization and unChristlike nastiness resulted in some circles over the years from the dropping of ‘propitiation’ in most modern translations, and, more recently, as some evangelicals are questioning the use of “penal satisfaction” language for the work of Christ.

I have long felt that ‘expiate’ was more true to what the New Testament authors were trying to say, but have been grateful for the “atoning sacrifice” language (which steps around the problem a bit) in the NIV and NRSV.

Interestingly, not long ago I heard a prominent and respected evangelical pastor/teacher say he has real reservations about the song “In Christ Alone” because of the inaccurate view of God and of salvation that it presents through the use of that phrase. It was then that I realized I had suppressed that issue in an otherwise beautiful song.

Then I read the book arising from the debate in among evangelicals in England about this issue, Derek Tidball, David Hilborn & Justin Thacker, eds., The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of the Atonement (Zondervan, 2008).

More recently I was reading a book of essays by one of the finest New Testament scholars of the past century. I found in that book a short note on this issue, and saw in the footnote that it was occasioned by the words “the wrath of God was satisfied” in the worship song, “In Christ Alone.”

The scholar is C. F. D. Moule. After Moule's death in 2007 a couple of volumes of his notes written since his retirement from Cambridge University have been published. One of them is Christ Alive and At Large: Unpublished Writings of C. F. D. Moule, edited and introduced by Robert Morgan and Patrick Moule (Canterbury Press, 2010). On pp. 113-114, we read his thoughts after hearing “In Christ Alone” sung in his church.

His careful survey of the New Testament evidence seems to me to make the matter clear. I wish we could get the authors of “In Christ Alone” to fix their song by improving on Moule’s own suggestion at the end of this article.

To me, this is not a small technicality. It has to do with the nature of God, and the nature of salvation. If a seeker were present while we were to sing that song, I would not want him or her to get the erroneous notion that we Christ-followers believe that a loving Jesus died to placate the wrath of an angry God. That is NOT what the New Testament teaches, as Moule demonstrates below.

Then I wondered what the Free Methodist Church said about this. It turns out that I think Professor Moule would have been happy to read the words in ¶115 of our Articles of Religion:

¶115 THE NEW LIFE IN CHRIST A new life and a right relationship with God are made possible through the redemptive acts of God in Jesus Christ.

Note that it does not say that Jesus Christ did something to God in the atonement, but rather that God – in Christ – provided the atonement!

Enjoy Moule’s explanation below!
John W. Vlainic
January 2013

P.S. I know that someone will ask if I have read ¶114.

¶114 CHRIST’S SACRIFICE Christ offered once and for all the one perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. No other satisfaction for sin is necessary; none other can atone. I don’t know the history of ¶114, or what in particular is meant by “satisfaction”. It may be a remnant from the “penal” view, but I would comment that if our deity is “satisfied” to have the blockage removed, then it doesn’t need to be “penal”. And I would point out that the next, ¶115, makes it clear that Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins did not do something to God, for God was in Christ, doing the atoning.

P.P.S. Moule also has a section in the book, “Sacrifice and propitiation — do the words belong in the proclaiming of the Christian gospel?” (pp. 182-185).. Table of Contents of the book is attached.

PROPITIATION

Some Christians speak of Christ as making an alienated God propi¬tious by the offering of himself as a sacrifice on our behalf. This is alien to the startlingly original thought of the New Testament. In the Old Testament the idea of propitiating God by sacrifices and other means is indeed common enough; but in the NT it is almost extinguished.

The root behind Greek words for propitiation (hilas-) shows itself eight times in the NT. The verb (‘make [someone] propitious’ or, with¬out an expressed recipient, ‘make propitiation’) occurs in Luke 18.13, in the penitent tax-collector's prayer to God: ‘be made propitious to me’, and in Hebrews 2.17 in a description of an Old Testament priest’s duty to ‘propitiate sins’ (presumably there meaning ‘to propitiate God regarding sins’). An adjectival form, hileos, comes at Matthew 16.22 (Peter's protesting exclamation ‘[God] have mercy on you!’) and at Heb¬rews 8.12, in a quotation from Jeremiah 31 where God promises that he will be ‘propitious to sins’ (i.e. sinners?).

The neuter noun, hilasterion, is, in the Greek OT, a term for what, in the Authorized Version, comes out as the ‘mercy seat’ — the throne of God overshadowed by the cherubim, on (or as) the lid of the ‘ark’ in the Tabernacle or temple sanctuary. In the NT it occurs at Hebrews 9.5, simply as that item in the Tabernacle, but, importantly, also at Romans 3.25, with reference to Jesus Christ, ‘whom God set forth [or ‘designated beforehand’?] hilasterion’, i.e. ‘as a mercy seat’ (if the word is meant as a noun) or (if it is an adjective) ‘with propitiatory power’ (though, as we shall see, ‘expiatory’ power would be preferable). Finally, hilasmos, a noun meaning 'a propitiation' or 'a propitiatory sacrifice' occurs as a description of Christ at I John 2.2; 4.10. At 4.10 God is specified as (not receiving but) himself sending Christ as hilasmos.

Thus, what, for our purposes, is important is that in the NT God is not spoken of as the recipient of what is referred to, but that, where its initiator is mentioned, he is the subject, not the object: Romans 3.25; I John 4.10. If, then, God is the subject or originator, not the object or recipient, of hilas- procedures, it is manifestly inappropriate to translate them as propitiatory; one is driven to use a word such as ‘expiatory’, which has as its object not propitiating a wrathful God but removing a barrier. It is this which is expressed in the famous words of z Corinthians 5.19: ‘God was, in [or ‘by’?] Christ reconciling the world to himself’. So far from being propitiated, God it is who initiates the necessary ‘expiation’, himself ‘one’ with his Beloved Son. ‘In Christ's name, be reconciled to God’ (2 Cor. 5 .20) is the Christian exhortation, for ‘God made him who knew no sin to be sin [?sin-offering] on our behalf.’ Regularly, God is the initiation of the action, not its recipient. The only exception in the NT is at Ephesians 5.2, where ‘Christ gave himself up on our behalf as an offering and sacrifice to God for a fragrant perfume’ — a virtual quotation from the standard propitiatory language of the OT.

In the Johannine writings a further metaphor is introduced — that of advocacy. John 16 speaks, it seems, of the Holy Spirit as an Advocate, a Paraclete, and I John 2 uses the same language of Christ. By itself, such language might suggest a friend to plead our cause before an alienated Judge; but that is hardly compatible with John 16.26f.: ‘I do not say that I will ask the Father concerning you, for the father himself loves you. . .’.

I submit, then, that NT usage virtually prohibits the translation ‘pro¬pitiate’, ‘propitiation’, and necessitates the use of some word with God as subject and sin as object, e.g. 'expiate', in the sense of paying the price for sin’s annulment. This is not the only instance of what seems like the centrifugal force of the Christian gospel spinning an OT con¬cept to the circumference, if not beyond, in favour of the astonishing conviction at its centre, classically stated at 2 Corinthians 5.19, ‘God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself’.

Every reconciliation costs an untold price — the price of forgiveness, the price of repentance. In Christ, both God and man, that price is paid, absolutely and finally. Nowhere in the NT is it said that the wrath of God was satisfied by the death of Jesus. Rather, it is God himself in Jesus Christ who pays the cost for sin. I haven’t the smallest spark of lyricism in me, but we need something like, but infinitely better than:

Till in the blood of his dear Son
The love of God redemption won.

From: C. F. D. Moule, CHRIST ALIVE AND AT LARGE: UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS OF C. F. D. MOULE, edited and introduced by Robert Morgan and Patrick Moule (Canterbury Press, 2010), pp. 113-114.