I had lunch with Alex again, and we read the Bible and prayed. Thankfully he appears to blog in German. (I say ‘appears’ because ich sprechen nur wenig Deutsch, so, for all I know, he could be writing Polish and discussing the latest fabbo shopping bargains at the Birkenstock shop. I say ‘thankfully’ because whatever language it is, it means we are reaching different audiences, and not competing with each other to blog first.)

We came across a famous verse:

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

It's from 1 Samuel 16.

This is all well and good—especially when you consider that Saul, the man rejected as king, appealed to the people because he was a BC basketballer and a bit of eye candy as well:

There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he. From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people. (1 Samuel 9:2)

(Notice how no-one's even mentioned Barack Obama until now!)

The story tracks along nicely because the famous verse (verse seven of chapter 16) leads into a section where, one by one, the fine and upstanding sons of Jesse appear, and are rejected as future kings of Israel, since the Lord judges the heart, not the looks. But we hit a speed hump when we reach verse 12: young David, the minder of sheep, is brought in. What sort of boy is he?

Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome.

!

This is really unexpected. Surely after the build-up we would expect that the one who is anointed king (as David is about to be) would be described in terms of character, not appearance. And if we were to hear about appearance, we might even expect that the next king of Israel would be as ugly as, er, sin. I even once heard a speaker explain that ‘ruddy’ probably meant that David had acne, so keen was he to make this verse fit with the idea that David's appearance was not up to what you would expect at Facelift Central.

All this left both Alex and me scratching our heads, to some extent. But a thought did occur to us: what if this was the writer's way of saying that even David, for all his greatness and anointing by God's Spirit, would turn out to be a slightly more humanly fallible king than what seemed promised? He would turn out to be a king who didn't quite manage to break out of the pattern set by Saul: he was humanly attractive, but he had fatal flaws that had the potential to undo him completely. Maybe David is going to turn out a bit too much like Saul for comfort. The only way to find out is to read on.

Whether or not this explains the focus on David's beautiful appearance, it can't help but remind us that when the anointed King of God's choosing did finally come—the Son from David's line—“he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2).

3 Comments »

Following on from my post on Driscoll, Phillip Jensen's article on strategy and tactics in Briefing #358/9 is now online. Here is the part I referred to:

In modern terms, Paul is talking about the difference between strategy and tactics. I'm sure, like me, you have endured strategic planning sessions where nearly the entire time is consumed in a debate over the differences between words like ‘mission’ and ‘vision’ and ‘purpose’ and ‘strategy’ and ‘tactics’! I am using the words as the Macquarie Dictionary defines them:

strategy: noun. generalship; the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.

tactics: plural noun. the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and manoeuvring them in battle.¹

Strategy is the big thinking—the overall plan and the means for getting there. Strategy is done by Prime Ministers and generals who say, “If we're going to win World War II, we'll have to land an invasion force in France, backed up by air support”. Tactics is more immediate thinking: it's manoeuvring the pieces on the chessboard to achieve the smaller milestones that go together to make up the strategy. Tactics is done by colonels and captains who say, “We'll need to land this many troops at this time and in this place, depending on the tides and the weather, in order to secure a beachhead, with this many planes running these missions in support”.

If the strategy is to win the war by invading France, then there may be a number of legitimate tactical approaches to getting that done. But these options wouldn't include sending flowers, or running up the white flag, or deciding to land an invasion force in Greenland instead. Tactics sit under strategy, and are circumscribed by strategy.

In Christian ministry, as in war and business, we must not only have a clear understanding of what our strategy is, but how it relates to the day-to-day tactics. This is particularly important for Christians, because our strategy is not something we have to come up with at a vision-planning day. Our strategy is understood by revelation. It is God's strategy—his cosmic plan—and his way of getting it done.

¹ The Macquarie Dictionary Online © 2008 Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd.

Read the full article.

1 Comment »

Upon entering the lunch room today, I found a copy of my rather salubrious local rag, The Southern Courier. (Well actually, ‘salubrious’ is a bit of an overstatement; it is basically an excuse for real estate advertising.) On the front page I saw the little teaser for the article on page five: ‘Cemeteries fill up’. It's not exactly a title designed to brighten up your day, but I couldn't help reading. It ended up being, somewhat ironically, a piece about the difficulty of finding land in the south-eastern suburbs of Sydney—not for your house, but for your coffin. Apparently at the present rate of burial, cemeteries could well be full within 15 years. Mary Thorne, the President of the Cemeteries and Crematoria Association of NSW (I wonder how she introduces herself at parties?), stated, “It is a problem that has to be dealt with. It's getting urgent.”

The Department of Crown lands, which owns the land on which the cemetery is situated, is releasing a discussion paper outlining the issues and aiming to “explore issues and promote discussion within the community on the available options”. As I read, I just couldn't help wondering about the elephant in the room. When, I pondered, will someone release the discussion paper on the options for your eternal existence? As is the case with all things death in our society, we can talk about just about anything to do with it apart from the fact that it is going to happen to us. The cemeteries are getting full because we will die; what will happen to our precious pieces of eastern suburbs real estate then? I was reminded of the words of the writer of Ecclesiastes:

I hated all my toil in which I toil under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me, and who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will be master of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom under the sun. This also is vanity. So I turned about and gave my heart up to despair over all the toil of my labors under the sun, because sometimes a person who has toiled with wisdom and knowledge and skill must leave everything to be enjoyed by someone who did not toil for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. What has a man from all the toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun? For all his days are full of sorrow, and his work is a vexation. Even in the night his heart does not rest. This also is vanity. (Eccl 2:18-23)

May God give people eyes to see beyond the present difficulty so that they will contemplate the eternal reality! And may he give us the courage to keep preaching Jesus.

Add Comment »

As part of the extended Driscoll post-mortem (well, he's not dead, but you know what I mean!), I thought I'd contribute a few thoughts on one of the themes that came up again and again in almost every talk he gave, and usually several times in the same talk: his challenge to the ‘late-blooming’ young men of Sydney to grow up and take some responsibility. The basic formula was move out of home, get a job, buy a house, get married and plant a church—in that order.

Along with many other women in Sydney, I rejoiced to hear someone having a go at jolting the Peter Pans of our churches out of their extended adolescence—not for my own sake, of course; I'm very happy with the husband God gave me!—but for the many Christian single women I know who are looking, not for a buddy or a boyfriend, but for a good and godly husband. In the words of one single friend, “It's about time someone said something to the men in this country!! ”. I'm also glad that he made his challenge concrete and sharp and funny and memorable: he didn't just give us an abstract idea or a general principle; he gave us something tangible, practical, specific for the men to step up to.

But I'm just not sure that the tangible, practical, specific things that he focused on were the right ones. In particular, it was the ‘house’ bits that I wasn't convinced by: is he really right that moving out of mum and dad's house, and buying some real estate of your own should be at the centre of the picture when a Christian woman thinks about what makes for ‘husband material’ in a man? I wonder, for starters, whether Mark Driscoll's research into life in Sydney (which was, in many respects, excellent!) included asking questions about what it costs to buy a house in this town. According to this study, the median house price in Sydney a couple of years ago was AUS $520,300, and the median household income was AUS $61,200. In the same period, the median house price in Seattle was US $372,400, and the median household income was US $64,100.

More importantly, while buying a house may well be a responsible and wise decision for many people, I can't see how the Bible encourages us to see it as the standard or universal option for Christians living in the last days. Even from the standpoint of creation wisdom, there are words of warning to be said about rushing prematurely into a big mortgage in a bid to snare a woman. And given the shortness of the time and the urgency of the work of the gospel, some men (and not just the ones who have the gift of celibacy!) may set their sights on a way of serving Jesus that doesn't involve owning their own home.

Nor was I convinced that moving out of home (into a share house of other 20-something-year-old men, or into a family home purchased in advance on spec) is the essential pre-marriage step for a man to take. Mark's answer in the Q & A at Katoomba Christian Convention's Engage conference (that the biblical mandate for men to move out before getting married is there on “page 2”—ie. Gen 2:24) was hardly good exegesis. In addition, to my mind, it wasn't fair to describe consistently the parental home as “mom's home”: why, if not for the purposes of taking a cheap shot, wasn't it ever ‘dad's home’? Surely there's a way for a young man to stay at home, earn an income, pay board and help out around the house (and save for a deposit on a house of his own!) without being some sort of immature ‘mummy's boy’!

So if those things are not the formula, what does make for husband material in a young man? What should I be advising my single female friends to look for these days? Well, here are my thoughts, and I'd love to hear yours:

• A man who loves Jesus
• A man who wants to do something worthy and God-glorifying with his life so that you could give yourself gladly to be his helper
• A man who loves you (both in emotion and in action)
• A man you can respect
• A man you can desire
• A man who has self-control (including control of his sexual desires)
• A man who loves and wants children, who understands how central they are to the purpose of marriage, and who is eager to play his part in teaching and disciplining and caring for them.

What do you think? Have I left out anything important?

In addition, and so that we're not left with my long list of abstract principles, can you help by providing a few slightly more concrete, punchy, memorable ‘litmus tests’ that help you see if some of these qualities are there or not? Over to you!

33 Comments »

This week, I have had the great privilege of editing a series of Bible studies on the book of Hebrews. On the way through, I was struck by a profound new thought—or, as one of my colleagues helpfully pointed out to me later in the day, actually I had just read the Bible more carefully! (Isn't that where all the best thoughts come from?)

What was my startling, new discovery? For the first time, after having read Hebrews 6 nobody knows how many times in my life, I was struck by verse 3, a rather odd little verse. I realized that I have spent my entire Bible reading life skipping over verse 3. After all, it is short and fairly insignificant, and verses 4-6 are where the action is at. They certainly seem to contain all the juicy bits that are worth commenting on, right? I am not so convinced anymore. For those of you who haven't read it lately, let me give you the text of Hebrew 6:1-6.

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, ² and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. ³ And this we will do if God permits. ⁴ For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, ⁵ and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, ⁶ and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

This text has, of course, been the source of all sorts of debate, and probably not a few unfinished Bible studies. I am not naive enough to think that I will suddenly extinguish all discussion on the subject by this post, and there are most likely others out there who have already seen what I failed to see. However, let me share my new little insight.

As is usually the case, I have always read the passage with the great debate going on my head, and so I have focused my attention on answering the question in my head without looking at what the author is actually trying to say. The first thing to notice is that the crucial verses about tasting the heavenly gift (vv. 4-6) actually begin with the word ‘for’. They are the explanation of something that has come before. Now, the next question is “Which particular thing is being explained?” I have always read it as explaining why he is moving on from the elementary things to go on to maturity. But when you stop and think about it, that makes absolutely no sense. Why would you say, “Let's move on from the basics to maturity because, once you have Christ and then let go of him, there is no way back”? (In fact, I have heard some people argue that if greater knowledge of Christ leads you to greater culpability, why not keep people in the dark? This is a somewhat unhelpful position, but at least it's a logical one.) I don't think that the ‘for’ at the beginning of verse 4 is qualifying verses 1-2 at all. What the writer is in fact qualifying is verse 3. Let me give you my little paraphrase, and then explain why I think that it's significant:

Let us leave behind the Jewish stuff about the Messiah (repentance, faith, washings, resurrection, judgement), and move on to maturity. In fact, this is exactly what we will do if God permits. (Why wouldn't he permit it?) Because it is impossible to bring someone back to repentance if they have truly grasped the new covenant truth about Jesus and gone back to Judaism, because their action has crucified Christ again and held him up to public ridicule.

The writer's point is this: I am going to take you beyond the Old Testament Messiah that you seem so interested in. (The temptation for the Jewish Christians all through Hebrews is to go back to their Old Testament religion.) In fact, the writer has been doing this, and will continue to do this, by showing how Jesus is the fulfilment of all of the promises of God—the one true priest who offers the one true sacrifice for sin for all time. However, the writer is acutely aware that it might be impossible to take people to the new picture of the Messiah delivered in Jesus. Why is that? Well, it is because God might not permit it. Why wouldn't God permit it? Because there is the terrible, but very real truth that you can't toy with God. If the readers have already accepted the new covenant Messiah and are now going back to Judaism, they will reach a point of no return with God. As verses 7-8 go on to say, there is a point where the field has only born thorns and is fit for judgement.

What do we make of all of this? Firstly, I want to point out that I think that there is a genuine warning here: if you take the passage at face value, it says that it is possible to have understood the gospel and rejected in such a way that makes someone permanently culpable in the eyes of God. This is a terrible reality, but not a surprising one. (It seems to me that Jesus says something similar in the parable of the four soils: people may grasp the gospel for a time, and then slowly walk away.) Secondly, I want to say that the knowledge of whether someone is in this place is a knowledge that is left up to God. The writer of the Hebrews isn't being asked to second-guess God's decision. This is particularly interesting in light of Hebrews 6:9ff. Presumably the fact that they accepted the gospel with such zeal in the first place would be a reason to wonder seriously about whether their recent desire to return to Judaism was an example of apostasy. The writer of Hebrews, even though he is aware of their zeal and their more recent coldness, goes on to keep preaching the truth about Jesus.

This brings me to my third point: what does the writer do with his knowledge that it is possible to spurn the truth permanently and stand under the judgement of God? He presents the fullness of Jesus as God's perfect gift to wash away sins and bring reconciliation, and he leaves the details up to God. If there are people who have genuinely grasped the gospel but have now rejected it, they will have to answer to God. But the preacher's job is to go on preaching the truth about Jesus. I reckon that this truth is profoundly helpful pastorally for those with Christian friends who appear to be walking away: our job isn't to second-guess God; it is to continue to preach the great truth about the ultimate King and priest prayerfully, and leave judgement up to God.

11 Comments »

With the new ESV Study Bible due for release in October, I took the opportunity to speak to the author of the notes on the Old Testament book of Esther, Dr Barry Webb.

Barry, how long have you been a student of the Old Testament?

I came to Moore Theological College in 1975 as a preacher of sorts; before that, I used to be a high school teacher, and did preaching on the side. So I wouldn't say I was a student of the Old Testament at that time, but I used to read it. I think it was really from my three years at Moore College as a student that made me a student of the Old Testament. It was Dr William Dumbrell, head of Old Testament at Moore College at the time, who sort of got me hooked. Then when I came on to the faculty here in 1978, I just taught whatever I was asked to teach—a mixture of languages, Old Testament, New Testament, with one or two other things in there. But gradually—and it was really under Bill's advice—he advised me to do more study in the Old Testament, and recommended that I pursue a Masters degree in Old Testament studies, and suggested a supervisor. So he not only taught me as a student but encouraged me further.

By the time I finished my PhD at Sheffield, Bill Dumbrell had moved on to Singapore, so there was a place for me to come back to Moore College in the Old Testament department. So I ended up actually succeeding my teacher. It took a little while for that to happen because John Woodhouse, who is now principal of the college, was lecturing as head of department, and then went back to parish for a time—at which point, I became head of Old Testament, which is what I'm still doing now.

What's the book of Esther about?

It's about the people of God, the Israelites, under threat, and, in one way I suppose, it's about anti-Semitism. It's the underbelly—the nasty reality—of anti-Semitism, and how God, who is never really obviously present in the book (there are a lot of suggestions that he is present but he is never directly spoken of as present)—how God moves through ordinary people and through the power plays of palace intrigue and the jealousies that people have for one another, and so on, to thwart an intent by this person called Haman to exterminate the Jewish people.

Now, the Persian empire covered the whole civilized world. So if Haman was successful, it would have meant the end of the family of Abraham, and so the end of the thread of salvation history that goes from Abraham to Christ. So you see the book of Esther is about God keeping his covenant people in existence until the final purpose of that is revealed in Christ, the Messiah.

In some ways, the book of Esther is also about courage in the face of adversity, because Mordecai and Esther both show enormous courage in the face of adversity. Esther in particular, I suppose, could have just ridden it out if she'd wanted to, but she chose to become involved in the fate of her people.

I think the message of anti-Semitism is one that the church needs to hear. The church has become embroiled in this at various periods in history, so there's a warning here, but there is a lot more to Esther, of course.

Tell us a bit about the flawed heroes of the story, Esther and Mordecai.

Esther and Mordecai are fascinating, they are brave, but they are not spotless. For example, Mordecai refusing to bow to Haman, which is really just (in Persian etiquette) showing respect to someone of higher rank. Mordecai really endangers all his people by his refusal to bow. So it's questionable whether it was wise to do that, or whether it was perhaps a hatred he'd harboured all his life. Perhaps he felt hatred towards people who were related to the Amalekites, the traditional enemies of Israel, and Haman was a descendant of these people. So we don't really know why he refused to bow, but he did refuse to, and so really triggered this attack by Haman.

And Esther is brave too, but the way she is able to go about saving the Jews is to take advantage of her beauty: she goes into a beauty contest, apparently without protest, so that she can gain the opportunity to see the king. Banqueting, wining, dining, sleeping with the king—all sorts of questionable behaviour is sketched out. In this way, she is a total contrast to the related story of Daniel, a man who even refused to eat the food the foreign king provided for his court! So she is very impressive, but she is not a lily-white heroine.

The Jewish people during the inter-testamental period even added a bit to the story of Esther, and this has been preserved in the Septuagint [the traditional Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament]. In these additions, whoever wrote them seems to have wanted to exonerate Esther from the charge of having broken the law and behaved immorally.

So one of the exciting and fascinating things for me was when I read the book of Esther, having questions about their behaviour, and then discovered that the Jews of the inter-testamental period had the same thoughts. It was a good example of a modern reader reading the same text, with my questions coming not out of my modernity or my Christianity; it was a real issue that arose for earlier readers too.

As a Christian, I didn't feel a need to whitewash the story at this point to show the individuals in a better light, or to excuse their flaws; it's because the story is really about God's faithfulness to his promises. And it's not just about God keeping his covenant promises to Israel, it is about him keeping his covenant promises for the good of all of us.

Also, the fact that God was hidden in Esther (he is never mentioned by name) means that the book seemed to be much more the world that I lived in, rather than the world of divine intervention: the parting of seas, feedings with manna, manifest outbreakings of prophecy—these things were rare in the period described by Esther. I don't live in that world of obvious, divine intervention either. I live in a world that is ruled by pagans (mostly)—people who don't share my faith—where miracles don't happen, at least in my bit of it. I found that the book resonated with my world strongly. The way that it encouraged me to see God in the ordinary cut and thrust of life was very encouraging to me.

You've said in your ESV Study Bible notes on Esther that it is a humorous book. Can you give some examples of what you mean?

Did I say that? I think it's a deadly serious book actually! But it's got some humorous things in it. It's a dark kind of humour because it's fun at other people's humiliation.

Haman is asked, “What should be done to the man whom the king delights to honour? ”, and he answers thinking that he is the one about to be honoured. But it's actually his enemy Mordecai, so Haman ends up having to parade Mordecai through the streets as the one who the king delights to honour!

Seeing a villain walk into a trap is funny in a slightly edged and cruel sort of way, I suppose. But I think we're meant to laugh. “He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision” (Psa 2:4). The people who oppose God are not the powerful people they think they are. We are invited instead to see the powerful people of the world as God sees them.

You also said in your notes on Esther 6:1–13, “Events now move so tellingly in favor of Esther and Mordecai that a presumption of God's providential involvement becomes unavoidable”. Can you say more about that? Can we read providence in our own circumstances of life?

Well, it's the number of times events unfold as they do. Things can happen. They can just fall out in someone's favour. But when you have a sequence of things that are all headed in the same direction, and when the beneficiaries are not powerful people (some of them can influence people in power, but they're influencing from the back, rather than the front), then there must be something more to this than just coincidence.

Then there are times when the characters in the story say there is more than just coincidence going on—for example, Haman's wife says, “If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of the Jewish people, you will not overcome him but will surely fall before him”. She doesn't actually name God, but she sees that the force that determines what will happen is all powerful.

Esther acknowledges this too. She says, well, I'm going in to see the king, and she calls on her people to fast, which in the Old Testament is a form of prayer. She is admitting that this is now in the hands of God, effectively: “I want us to trust ourselves to God”.

So there are these hints of strange sequences of coincidence, premonition, and then more explicit kinds of activity that are meant to point us in the direction of God's hidden providence. Are we justified in seeing this? Yes, of course, because “we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Rom 8:28). God has our welfare at heart.

How can we know that in any particular thing today God is at work? Well, in one sense, I suppose we can't just by looking at events, but in the context of seeking to honour God and praying to him, when things do happen—things that we've prayed for—I think the proper thing is to make the generous assumption that God is indeed at work. It would be quite wrong to do otherwise.

When you're a believer, your eyes are opened to see God's hand at work. By faith you are connected to the creator of the world, and so you can see more clearly what he is doing, and thus you live differently as a believer.

What tips would you give for someone who is trying to preach through the book of Esther for the first time?

I'm not sure. I'm not sure I've preached from Esther myself, to be honest! I think I'd want people to see it in the context of the Bible story line, so that they'd see that the people of Israel are not just any people, but that there is a special history—a history of God's choice of Abraham and his descendants though whom God would reveal himself to the world, and through whom he would eventually bring salvation through Christ, the Son of Abraham.

So I'd want people to see that, although people have experienced suffering and, against all odds, they have been delivered, this is not just a general story of deliverance; it's in a different category. It is not just about rewarding people like Esther and Mordecai for being good or deserving—especially when we realize that, in some ways, they're not.

Would I try to preach bit by bit? I doubt it. Stories mean what they do as a whole, not as parts. Once you dismantle the story, you dismantle the thing that gives meaning to the events. I might just preach one sermon on the whole of Esther, and it would be about God being present for his people, working all things to their good. This doesn't just mean we sit back and wait passively, but that God works through our actions.

Maybe I would pick out one or two incidents to preach on separately—for example, the passage about Esther telling people to fast as a kind of symbolic way of placing yourself in God's hands. Fasting itself is not enormously significant, but it is a way of expressing total reliance on God—even laying down our life, if necessary, since bread is our sustenance. To give it up is to express dependence on God to rescue us. Fasting in Esther reveals a life of faith—a life of complete and utter dependence on God. So I think there's a sermon there. Then people would want to know about fasting in the Christian life, and then there would be things you could pursue in small group discussions and so on. I suppose if I thought about it more, I could find other little episodes. But essentially you want to preserve the message of the story as a whole in its context of the history of salvation—God honouring his promises to Abraham until, ultimately, they are fulfilled in Christ.

Thank you, Barry!

Barry Webb's complete notes on Esther in the ESV Study Bible, along with the text of Esther, can be downloaded free as a PDF . Find out more about Barry, and his books and academic interests.

Add Comment »

In our congregation, there are quite a few university college students. One of the students asked me the question, “Society today is very party-oriented. Is it a sin to get drunk?”. My friend Rob (a chaplain on the uni campus) is preaching through Isaiah at the moment, and he had some very helpful insights for me as I answered this question. I thought it might be helpful to share with you the answer.

Dear ______,

This is a good question. Let me summarize some of the Bible's teaching on the use and abuse of alcohol to help you to navigate your way through the party culture at college! I'll start with two important points.

Firstly, there's nothing wrong with alcohol in and of itself. God made alcohol to make us feel better (check out Psalm 104:15). Jesus himself turned water into wine (John 2:1-11), drank it himself (e.g. Matt 26:27-29) and used it positively in illustrations (e.g. Mark 2:22).

But secondly, the Bible always condemns drunkenness—that is, excessive drinking to the point of losing self-control. There's lots of Bible verses for this one: Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 6:10, Ephesians 5:18, 1 Peter 4:3, and so on. So it is definitely a sin to get drunk. In fact, the verses I cited all have to do with drunkenness in the context of a ‘party’ culture. Christians are not to do what the world around us does; we are not to get drunk even if others are doing it. Why? 1 Peter has an explanation:

Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. (1 Pet 4:1-5 NIV)

This gives us a hint as to why drunkenness is wrong. Drunkenness is consistently condemned in the Bible because it robs us of the ability to act responsibly and soberly for the sake of others. Human beings are created in God's image in order to rule the creation (Gen 1:26)—to live as God's agents with the responsibility to care for the world and for others. But drunkenness stops us from doing this properly. It prevents us from thinking clearly, and from being able to act in love. It increases our propensity to speak or act in ways that are selfish, unguarded and irresponsible. Noah, the first person in the Bible who was recorded as getting drunk (Gen 9:21), did such a thing, sinning and causing his son to sin.

Proverbs 23 describes this process of drunkenness robbing us of self-control in graphic detail:

Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes? Those who linger over wine, who go to sample bowls of mixed wine. Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly! In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper. Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine confusing things. You will be like one sleeping on the high seas, lying on top of the rigging. “They hit me,” you will say, “but I'm not hurt! They beat me, but I don't feel it! When will I wake up so I can find another drink?” (Prov 23:29-35 NIV)

And Proverbs 30 gives advice to kings about not getting drunk:

It is not for kings, O Lemuel—not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more. “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Prov 31:4-9 NIV)

The problem with getting drunk is that it stops people from exercising self-control, and from being responsible. This is why kings, in particular, should not get drunk (see also, for example, Isa 5:11, 28:1-8). It's kind of ‘okay’ for people with a hopeless life, who are destined for judgment and destruction, to get drunk; after all, they have no real responsibility—they're already condemned and sinful—so why not get drunk (Isa 22:13, 1 Cor 15:32)? But anyone with God-given responsibility (e.g. kings) should avoid getting drunk at all costs. That's why Christian leaders, in particular, must not be open to the charge of drunkenness (e.g. Titus 1:7, 2:3).

But does that mean that it's okay for a Christian to get drunk, as long as they're not a leader and have no responsibility? Well, the Bible teaches that all Christians have a great responsibility. We have God's Spirit, who brings us salvation from destruction, gives us a sure hope of eternal life, makes us sons and reforms us as heirs of God (Gal 3:29, Rom 8:17). That means we look forward to an inheritance. It also means we have the responsibility as sons to do what is right. That's why the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal 5:22-23)—all things that are about living responsibly for the sake of others, and all things that drunkenness inhibits (see the previous verses, especially Galatians 5:21). And that's why the ‘spirit’ of drunkenness is the polar opposite of the Spirit of God (Eph 5:18).

Hence the greatest witness to the hope of everlasting life amongst our party-oriented society is to avoid drunkenness at all costs.

15 Comments »

My post on church and evangelism sparked an interesting conversation that inevitably gravitated towards the old chestnut of what we mean by ‘church’. In this Saturday's extract from the archives, we go all the way back to Briefing #15, from December 1988, and to a typically succinct and theologically rich statement by Broughton Knox of ‘what the church is’:

The basic verse for the biblical doctrine of the church is Jesus' words to Peter: “In front of this rock I will build my gathering”. Jesus' promise is couched in terms based on Deuteronomy 4 when God commanded Moses to gather the people in front of the rock of Sinai on which God came down and stood. The members of that gathering all died in the desert through their unbelief, but death will not prevail against those whom Christ gathers into his church. They will always be in his presence, now and eternally. Jesus is in heaven, that is where the gathering is. All Christians have risen with Christ at their conversion and are seated with him in the heavenlies, now and forever. This heavenly gathering into which all Christians have been given access is explicitly called ‘church’ in Hebrews 12 and this is the meaning of the phrase ‘catholic church’ in the creeds, as is clear from a comparison of the two recensions of Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnians, where the phrase first occurs.

Christians are heavenly-minded, but this is not a self-centred heavenly-mindedness but Christ-centred. They “set their minds on things above, where Christ is”. Being consciously in Christ's presence through his Spirit they naturally have a ‘face to the world’, ‘imitating his life’, ‘going about doing good’ as their circumstance and their perception of others' needs provide opportunities. Christ lives in them, and others seeing their good works glorify their Father. It is a contradiction to be consciously in Christ's presence in his heavenly gathering or church without having a ‘face to the world’.

Membership of the heavenly church is experienced as fellowship of the Spirit with Christ and with one another in the things of Christ and will often lead Christians to combine together for many different purposes to serve other people for God's glory, whether it is combining to send out missionaries, or for home evangelism, or for the relief of the poor, or for the other innumerable tasks and objectives for which Spirit-filled Christians perceive the need and combine to fulfill it. The nineteenth century especially gives many examples of this, and individual members of the heavenly gathering round Christ will also be impelled by the Spirit of Christ to bring spiritual and material blessings to those with whom they are in contact. This is the face of the church to the world.

It will be seen that this doctrine of the church is the same as the traditional protestant doctrine of the universal, invisible church of Christ, but it gives it its biblical basis and completes it by making it clear that it is the church of Christ that is the gathering of Christ—for the word ‘church’ always means gathering—around Christ where he is in heaven, where we also are according to the teaching of the New Testament.

This present reality of being in each other's company in Christ's presence in heaven is experienced as fellowship in the Spirit in the things of Christ, one aspect of which is being drawn by the Spirit into each other's company to meet with Christ and one another according to the promise “where two or three meet together in my name, there am I in the midst”. Thus the local church forms spontaneously as an expression of the reality of the heavenly church. It is complete, not merely a part, for it lacks nothing. Christ is present and has gathered his people around him. Its purpose is to make more real our meeting with Christ and our sense of being in his presence together by building one another up in Christ, so that each member may go out to be Christ's witness in the world, either individually or in association together, as circumstances suggest. This is the purpose of the local congregation. It has no other purpose than fellowship in Christ in his presence, though naturally the friendships formed through being in each other's company in the local congregations, and the ideas exchanged and the leadership developed, may be the basis for association together for the work of Christ in the world, which the indwelling Spirit of God impels each Christian to undertake according to his opportunities and gifts.

Christian fellowship which centres itself on our fellow Christians is not full Christian fellowship. Our fellowship is with Christ and with our fellow Christians in Christ. It is primarily heavenly-mindedness. The command is “set your mind on things above where Christ is”. Christians are “the heavenly” (1 Cor 15:48). But it is also earthly-mindedness. We are in the world though not of it and we have a face to the world and must have, for Christ is at work in the world through us. The church is not an inward-looking ghetto but is heavenly-looking—looking to Jesus and his coming in his kingdom, and working for him while it is still day.

Add Comment »

Following on from Paul Grimmond’s post on Bible reading, Nicole Starling talks about one solution her and her husband came to in order to increase the time they spend doing it—a solution with a few unintended consequences.

Six months ago, my husband Dave and I changed our morning routine. Previously, we had tried various strategies for daily prayer and Bible reading, fitting them around work and children into the cracks and crevices of the day. For me, this meant doing it when the children were resting, or otherwise occupied, or asleep at night. Some of these strategies worked better than others. Finally, though, when none of these cleverer approaches delivered the consistency and quality of time that we needed, we decided to bite the bullet and go back to the old-fashioned, unoriginal approach: we would simply get up early enough to take turns to look after the kids while the other parent shut the bedroom door and spent some decent time alone in Bible reading and prayer.

It gave me pangs of guilt to start with: I often feel a little self-indulgent, taking some precious time to go off on my own to read the Bible and pray, when there’s so much other ‘Martha’ stuff that needs doing around the house. But now I had the added guilt that came with the fact I was so brazenly shutting the door in the children’s faces, and choosing Bible reading and prayer over extra time with them. It felt almost cruel—especially when there were tears being shed on the other side of the door!

Then the other morning we got a first glimpse of the kindness in the cruelty. Dave was about to go and read his Bible, and Jacob (our five-year-old, who has just started reading on his own) announced that he wanted to read his Bible too. So he went to his room with his Bible and shut the door. He was still reading when I got back from my walk 20 minutes later, (and he announced to me that he had read “Adonijah makes himself king” and “The plan to kill Jesus”. The next step is to get him some sort of Bible reading plan, I think!).

Jacob reads books all the time, and enjoys reading his Bible, but it was the door-shutting that made this time stand out, and it reminded me of how much our actions and routines communicate to our children. Of course, early mornings and door-shutting are not the only way to achieve the same result (or to communicate the same message); Susannah Wesley famously managed to do it with an apron over the head! But in our case, I’m thankful for this accidental lesson taught to the kids, and I’m starting to feel a little less guilty in the mornings when the door clicks shut and I experience my tiny, daily taste of Luke 14:26.

 

1 Comment »

One of the quirks of being a Christian minister associated with an historic building like St Michael's Wollongong is that I end up officiating a lot of weddings. But occasionally I also get to attend weddings which others officiate. Not long ago, I attended a wedding at another church. It was a great wedding, full of joy and wonderful testimonies to the grace and love of God through his Son Jesus. However, I did notice something that I thought was very strange: throughout the wedding, from the processional to the final speech at the reception, no mention was made of children at all. Not once.

Now I don't think this omission was deliberate. I have no reason to think that the couple are averse to having children, nor that the minister in charge of the service tried to leave out any reference to them. I think it was just an oversight in the wedding planning process. Furthermore, the reason that I noticed it is not because I'm particularly astute or virtuous; rather, it's because I'm an Anglican minister who has done lots of weddings, and I just noticed that the wedding was different to the way I normally do it. Whenever I officiate a wedding, I'm required by the laws of my denomination to bring up the subject of children in two places: firstly, in the introduction to the wedding. The words I use are modernized and adapted from the Marriage Service in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which lists three reasons for marriage. The first is children:

First, It [i.e. Matrimony] was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, after the marriage is solemnized, I am required to pray for the couple using the ideas expressed in the following words (unless the woman is past childbearing age):

Merciful Lord, and heavenly Father, by whose gracious gift mankind is increased: We beseech thee, assist with thy blessing these two persons, that they may both be fruitful in procreation of children, and also live together so long in godly love and honesty, that they may see their children Christianly and virtuously brought up, to thy praise and honour; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

In hindsight, as I reflect more on the biblical teaching, it seems to me that the Book of Common Prayer is spot-on, and the fact that children were not mentioned at all in the wedding I mentioned was a serious oversight. In the Bible, children are always seen as a blessing from the Lord, and childlessness in marriage is always a cause of grief. The command in Genesis 1:28 is just the beginning of a consistent biblical theme: marriage is for children, God loves children, and God's people are to reflect God's attitude:

And God blessed them [i.e. man as male and female]. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen 1:28 ESV)

I'm not talking here about the details of family planning and contraception—I accept that different families will have different capacities, timings and situations. Nevertheless, the consistent biblical teaching is that marriages should have a warm and welcoming attitude to children, for this is one of the primary purposes of a marriage. It follows that in a wedding ceremony, the bearing of children should not simply be assumed, but should be given a prominent and explicit place.

Indeed, the general conservative Christian stance against abortion requires us to have a strong, firm and outspoken culture of warmly welcoming children, otherwise our opposition to abortion will just become a hypocritical farce.

Just as an aside, some might argue that today's world is different from biblical times, and that the world is so overpopulated now that the second part of God's command in Genesis 1:28 (to “have dominion”) actually negates the first (to “multiply”). The argument goes like this: we have come to a point where there are simply too many people in the world, and any more ‘filling’ will mean that we aren't taking care of the world properly; we have already completed our obedience to God's command to “fill” the earth—and now we can stop procreating.

However, it's not really true that overpopulation itself is causing the strain on the earth's resources. What is causing this strain is a much more basic problem—a problem which Francis Schaeffer identified way back in the 1960s, and a problem which the Bible talks about again and again: human greed (e.g. Exod 20:17, Rom 1:29, Jas 4:2-3). It's not that there are too many people, it's that certain people (especially in the West) are insatiably using more and more resources. Think of Australians: in general, on average, we are gobbling up oil to get ourselves around more conveniently, and we are gobbling up land because the average household size has dropped, so fewer and fewer people are now living in bigger and bigger houses (not to mention the extra cost in electricity for heating and lighting, etc). The strain on the earth's resources would be stopped overnight if we all became content with what we had, and were happy to live with larger families under one roof.

Or take food resources, for example. To quote a statistic I heard recently, there are now more obese and overweight people in the world than there are malnourished people in the world. (That includes countries such as China.) That statistic means that there is more than enough food for everybody many times over. It's just that it's not being distributed properly—because of corruption and greed. Overpopulation isn't the problem; it's the age-old problem of greed.

In fact, I reckon a better way for western Christians to combat the problems that are so often blamed on overpopulation would be to have more children—providing that they are committed to seeing that all of their children are “Christianly and virtuously brought up”. For if that is true, there should be more and more people who have been brought up to be less greedy, more patient and more generous, to use less resources, and therefore to effect a good and lasting change in our world.

The Bible teaches that marriage is good, and that one of the indispensable reasons for marriage is children. So if you notice references to children being marginalized or omitted at a Christian wedding in your church, perhaps you could have a quiet word with your minister and politely ask them why.

21 Comments »