reason.cck.org.uk

"In your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you..." The Bible

In recent weeks we have seen the utter devastation that has come about in Haiti with nearly 230,000 people having been estimated to have died as a result of an earthquake. When you consider the million people who have been left homeless and destitute as well, it causes deep emotion and a very real sense of concern to rise up in us. We are left asking again why such a terrible disaster could happen, and perhaps why God could allow such a disaster to happen? Many have been quick to speak up and give their opinion. The ‘New Atheists’ such as Richard Dawkins have seen this as further evidence that God does not exist, that it is just ‘the blind happenings of nature’. However, as we saw in the first article there are major problems with this perspective.  Just because you can give a geological explanation for an event does not mean that there is no law giver behind these events. This is a basic philosophical category mistake.

On the other hand, others such as Pat Robertson have been quick to suggest that it is God’s specific judgement on Haiti for their involvement with voodoo and the occult. However, respected theologian Dr. Albert Mohler rightly questions this premise:

“Why did no earthquake shake Nazi Germany? Why did no tsunami swallow up the killing fields of Cambodia? Why did Hurricane Katrina destroy far more evangelical churches than casinos? Why do so many murderous dictators live to old age while many missionaries die young?”

It is far too simplistic to claim that God has specifically judged one nation for wrong doing, but not others. It is true that God will judge everyone in the future (Rev 20:11-15), but for now we are wise not to speculate about God’s specific judgement on nations. In the Bible, we do see occasions of God judging nations and people for their sin, but God gives a messenger to explain these events before they even happen (Genesis 19:12-13).

Why do natural disasters happen?

The reason that we see such disasters take place is first and foremost because we live in a world which is spoiled by sin.  As I stated in my previous article, the world was in a state of perfection until Adam and Eve chose to sin against God (Gen 3:6-7), and there were consequences to this rebellion (Gen 3:17-18). Ever since the ground was cursed in response to the sin of Adam and Eve, these same natural disasters have been present. In Romans 8:18-22, Paul explains that this will remain the case until God redeems everything.

Those who agree that the world is billions of years old may find the chronology of this inconsistent with what scientific records seem to suggest. Surely there was pain, struggle and suffering in the natural order before Adam and Eve the first man and woman?

Intelligent Design scientist William Dembski agrees and has responded to this question by saying that he believes it is entirely possible that when the ‘curse’ took place in Genesis 3, it affected the world retroactively. His reasoning fits with the way that the cross of Jesus affected human history.

God’s acts transcend time in their impact

Jesus gave his life up and brought about salvation for the men and women of faith that lived in the Old Testament age. We find this clearly taught in Romans 4, when Paul is talking about how Abraham was justified by faith (Romans 4:1-3) and not by works. Similarly, despite the fact that the Israelites sacrificed animals on the day of atonement it was not the acts themselves which brought about salvation, but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:3-5).  The salvation which God gave through Jesus Christ was transhistorical; it saved those who had faith in God’s salvation plan before the birth of Christ, as well as those who lived at the time and in the future.

Dembski argues that if you use this same logic it is possible for another act of God, [the cursing of the earth], to affect the created order in a transhistorical way too. In other words, if the salvation offered through Jesus can go backwards and forwards in history to save those living in 2010 and those living in 2010 BC, it is entirely possible for this to be true of the ‘the fall’ as well. Consequently, any pain, suffering and death which may have taken place prior to Adam and Eve could have still resulted from their sin, and God’s resultant cursing of the earth. I would want to state that this is one theory though, and would be wary of drawing too many conclusions from this.

God’s providence

In the previous article I made the point that our moral behaviour as people would be even worse if it were not for God’s common grace. This is true in a similar way for the earth that we live in. Romans 6:23 tells us that the wages of sin are death, so we could easily have expected that God would have destroyed the earth in response to our rebellion against him, but he hasn’t because of his sheer grace and mercy. Luke 8:22-25 sees Jesus commanding the wind and sea, demonstrating God’s control over the forces of nature and whilst we see many natural disasters happening around us, God’s grace will have undoubtedly stopped many others from occurring.

Conclusion

In the final article of this series we will look at how God uses suffering and difficulty in the here and now for good. For now, we can say that we see the world in the mess that it is because of sin. God was completely justified in cursing the earth in response to human sinfulness.

The sin should have led to death for all of us, but God has shown mercy and grace to us by restraining the physical destruction which happens. God can still use these very tragic events for good as we will see in our final article in this series, but we can have hope for the future, when God will complete his redemption. God is making all things new (Rev 21:5), and those who place their trust in Christ will not be experiencing pain and misery forever. There will be a day when Christ comes again, and every tear will be dried (Rev 7:17).

In the meantime Christians are called to show compassion to people who have experienced loss, to reach out with the love of Christ, both my providing for people practically (James 1:27) as well as introducing people to the one who will heal their pain ultimately.

Tweet This

In the first article I was looking at if it was possible for a good all-powerful God to allow suffering to exist within our world, or whether the very existence of suffering proved that there is in fact no God at all. I came to the conclusion that in order to define suffering and evil in a meaningful way, the existence of God was necessary. In this article, we will look at the causes of suffering in our world, particularly focussing on the issue of ‘personal evil’. What I mean by this is the kind of suffering that comes about as a result of individuals or groups making decisions that have an impact on others. This includes a very broad range of things from mass evil such as the Holocaust, and 9/11 to everyday decisions.

The necessity of free will

So if God is all-powerful, why does he allow suffering to happen on an individual level? The first point to highlight is that God has given us dignity as humans through giving us free will. This free will is necessary, as without it we are sub-human and do not have a capacity to experience love.  We would merely be robots.  I have been married for 9 months to my wife Jac, and we love each other very much. Imagine though that I had met her and forced her to be in a relationship with me, this would not be love at all, but coercion. God has given us the same dignity of responding to him. He does not coerce us into relationship with him.

Some people will ask ‘if God knew that we would sin, why did he choose to give us free will in the first place?’ The issue here is that relational love could not exist without free will. God could have built a world with androids in it, but he chose something more glorious, a world with relational love, and there are potential consequences to that. God decided that it would be more glorious and praiseworthy to have a human race with love, even at the risk of his own children turning their backs on him, than an enormous bunch of robots who are simply programmed to have to respond to him.

The effects of sin

The reality is that God made men and women in the beginning to experience a relationship with him. If we look in the Genesis narrative we see that there was total harmony (Genesis 1:31), but then Adam and Eve chose to disobey God (Gen 3:6-7) and everything changed.  We have continued as a human race in much the same way. As human beings we certainly have a dignity about us, which enables us to do some very positive things: we are able to be creative with technology, draw wonderful art, make fantastic music, advance scientifically and many more things. This comes from being image-bearers of God who is also creative, but sadly we also exhibit the signs of rebellion.

It doesn’t take much to see this in action in other people such as Hitler and Stalin who were responsible for millions of deaths. Each of these dictators clearly misused their free will in order to gain power, and we rightly label their deeds as morally wrong. However, this rebellion is present in our lives more subtly as Jesus pointed out when he said in Mark 7:21-23:

‘For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.’

Each of us has probably also been responsible for the suffering that someone has experienced in their own life. The pain experienced may range from the relatively trivial to the very severe, but it is worth recognising that as humans we are not faultless. Romans 3:23 indicates that we have fallen short of the standard set out by God. We all stand guilty of misusing the free will given to us by God, and we all stand in need of a redeemer.

Why doesn’t God intervene?

One of the things that we tend to ask when evil happens to us is why God doesn’t intervene in situations? My fourth article will be devoted primarily to the purpose that comes out of suffering which God sovereignly allows, but for now I will make a couple of points.

There is an underlying assumption in this question that God never intervenes in any situation. How can we know this though?

God does intervene; if he didn’t there would be alot more suffering than there is. God does restrain the amount of evil that happens in the world. This is part of his common grace to us, if he handed us over to our desires of rebellion completely then the world would be even worse than it is.

Common Grace

This means that there are actually many wars and evil deeds which are prevented from happening. Through common grace God gives anyone the ability to forgive someone instead of holding a grudge (which we would be pre-disposed to do otherwise) which ceases the chain of bitterness and unforgiveness. How often do we see friendships and family relationships break down over something very small, which is not forgiven and escalates until the two parties no longer speak. Without God’s common grace given to all, this would be experienced on every occasion.

However, God does not always intervene in these situations, and this is because he is able to use such situations for good. I’m sure we can all think of things that have not gone our way in life, but we have come out stronger as a result. We will look at this in more detail in a couple of articles time. There will be other occasions where we can’ t see the good that comes from it, and we end up seeing it later on in life, but also times where we won’t be able to see it in this life. This is when we will need to trust God, based on what he has revealed of himself elsewhere. We can be confident even in mystery that God will use it, after all his thoughts and ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9), given his perspective (unlike ours) is eternal.

Tweet This

For anyone who watches the news on a regular basis it seems like our world has a considerable amount wrong with it; pain and suffering seem to surround us on every side. Broadly speaking we find the roots of suffering in two places; due to the choices of fellow human beings, and natural disasters like that recently experienced in Haiti. We will have much to say on both of these in subsequent articles, but for now I intend to tackle the issue at hand. Does the very existence of suffering lead us to atheism; that is to conclude that there is in fact no God in control of this world that we inhabit?

Whether it has come from an emotional or intellectual source, I’m sure that anyone who has ever given any consideration to world events has felt a strong sense that ‘the world is not as it should be’. It somehow seems out of sync with a world that a loving God could have made. This is entirely normal and leads us to question how this could be.

18th century philosopher David Hume spoke for many when he summarised this argument:

‘Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?’

This sounds very convincing on face value doesn’t it? However, it makes a  considerable assumption in the process; that we are able to determine what good and evil are, quite independently of God.

The problem of defining good and evil

Former atheist CS Lewis realised the difficulties with this line of enquiry:

‘My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies…consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.’

In short, if we take God out of the equation then the idea of ‘evil’ becomes meaningless. Hume’s question falls apart.  If we assume that there is no God then there is no standard by which we can say that anything is objectively wrong. All we have is subjective preferences (for more on objective moral values click here).  As I mentioned earlier though, if we’re honest we all know that internal tug deep within us, that tells us ‘this is not how it should be’. ‘The world should be just, it should be fair’, and ‘people should not have to suffer’.

If we take God out of the equation then we have to accept that pain, suffering and evil are inevitable and are just part of our world, an inevitable by-product as part of naturalistic evolution. There is no reason why we should feel any sense that things OUGHT to be a particular way at all. We are just mistaken if we think that, it is just our senses messing with us.

Richard Dawkins summarises this rather depressing and hopeless viewpoint:

‘….some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.’

Is that all our lives are though? Pitiless indifference and purposeless? It seems to me we don’t live that way (for more on the origins of meaning, click here), we live as if there is purpose to our existence. As humans we even try to look for purpose in the midst of suffering. Why does it happen? This is something we will look at in the next article.

Conclusion:

Although at this stage we have not looked at why God may allow suffering, one thing is clear: the existence of evil in our world does not prove the absence of God, it merely makes us question why he allows such suffering. It only needs to be possible for God to have a good reason for allowing suffering and evil (even one that we may never know) for this argument to be defeated.

Tim Keller cites that it is almost universally accepted in academic philosophy circles that the argument from evil is not a good argument for atheism. It seems that one of the key reasons for this is that the very definition of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is so tied up with the need for a divine yardstick that the question becomes incoherent without God.  As a human race we feel a strong inner sense that the world ‘ought’ not to be this way,  that seems to transcend mere preference. This if anything seems to provide a stronger argument for God’s existence than his non-existence. Far from the universe being purposeless and indifferent, in a christian worldview it is possible to find great purpose even in pain and suffering, which we will look at in the next article.

Tweet This

In the final part of this trilogy of articles we will be considering what it means to be ‘a helper’ and whether all that we have discussed in the previous two articles is relevant today, or should this be adapted for cultural reasons?

To view the previous two articles on this subject please click here.

Specific role for women: Helper

When God created woman it is recorded that God said: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a helper fit for (or corresponding to) him’ (Genesis 2:18). The original Hebrew (the language the Old Testament is translated from) for ‘helper’ is ‘ezer kenegdo’ in Genesis 2:18 could literally be translated as ‘a helper as corresponding to/opposite him’ from ‘ezer’ (help), ‘ke-‘ (as, like), ‘neged’ (opposite, corresponding to), ‘-o’ (him). ‘A helper opposite and corresponding’ to Adam is a good translation.

Therefore Eve was not inferior to Adam. The fact that the word ‘help’ (ezer) is often used to refer to an action of God is interesting, and illustrates the fact that both male and female roles derive from God. For example:

‘And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth (Third member of the Trinity)’ (John 14:16-17)

The job title given to women is also used to describe a characteristic of God. It is critical to understand this, to be a helper is to do as God does; the role should be held in high esteem. Feminist theologian Phyllis Trible expounds this idea in her article Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies (See footnote below). Women are to ‘come along side’, engage with the life of the church and support a broad range of activities within the church, as mentioned in the first article.

But surely culture has changed now?

Many parts of the Bible were written within a cultural context in which women were considered second-class citizens. Some have argued, from this basis, that the Bible’s views on men and women correspond to the culture in which it was written, rather than be part of God’s revelation. The argument follows that we have now evolved into an increasingly tolerant and equal society, and therefore we should ignore those sections of the Bible that teach about the differences between the sexes. This argument has had great influence in both Christian and non-Christian circles.

Firstly, does the Bible really assert inequality between the sexes? It is true that the Bible was written in a patriarchal society, but in contrast, the Biblical view of men and women was highly innovative in its day because of its inherent respect for women (John 4:1-26, Galatians 3:28). The Bible clashed with the culture of its day on these issues; it did not reflect it.

It is also true that the Bible is often descriptive, instead of prescriptive. For example, the Bible records events that involve slavery and war. The fact that the Bible records these happenings does not mean that the Bible endorses those things, but rather that they were common occurrences in those times (and now). Therefore, for some evils, it is true that the Bible mentions them and treats them as existent; however, they exist because of a result of human choice. As such, before humanity chose to reject God, evil did not exist. We find, in comparison to war and slavery, that the complementary nature (and thus differences) between the sexes were part of God’s creational standard at the beginning. In other words, the differences between men and women are good, and were not a product of human choice or culture. It is only a distortion of these roles as enforced by centuries of heavy-handed patriarchy that has encouraged us to throw the baby out with the bath water; to reject our differences and equate the concept of gender distinctions with sexism. This is also supported by the Bible; when discussing the role of women in the church, Paul appeals to creation rather than culture (1 Timothy 2 11-14).

Does this mean that men have a superior role than women in the church?

To place different value and worth on one role above another; to elevate one as being ‘better’ than the other, is to make a critical, and potentially dangerous, mistake. This is an understandable result of interpreting the Bible through the lens of our western secular thinking. However, it does not take into consideration the fact that equality does not necessitate men and women being identical and indistinguishable. The emphasis in biblical teaching is on the equality of men and women, and their equal standing before God. The functions given them by God, though important, are of a lesser concern, and are based on love and mutual servanthood. A man who is an elder, or even a married man, may be considered, and correctly so, to have an authority not open to women, but biblical relationships are build on our mutual equality, and therefore that authority should be a means by which to honour women, not to rule them. Likewise, the exercise of authority within the church should not produce power struggle, or hierarchy that benefits only those who are in eldership; but rather, a social structure that is designed to better care for all members of the Church. This follows Jesus’ view of leadership, namely a commission to serve others and not to be served.

Further reading supporting the view represented in this article:

1. Piper, John., Grudem, Wayne., (Editors), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Crossway books,1991

2. Audio Talk: ‘Isn’t the Bible sexist and out of date?’, Amy Orr-Ewing: http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/isnt-the-bible-sexist-and-out-of-date.htm

3. James, Sharon., An Overview of Feminist Theology: http://www.theologynetwork.org/studying-theologyrs/an-overview-of-feminist-theology.htm

4. One of the main websites containing many articles supporting Complementarianism: http://www.cbmw.org/Articles

5. Peterman, Eric., Galatians 3:28 and Evangelical Egalitarianism: http://www.valleybiblefellowship.org/papers/galatians%203,28%20and%20evangelical%20egalitarianism.htm

6. Heck, D, V., The Philosophy of Women’s Ministry in the Local Church: http://www.grace4u.org/Topical/WomeninMinisty.htm

For articles on Egalitarianism:

1. One of the main websites that contains many articles supporting egalitarianism: http://www.cbeinternational.org/

2. Pierce, Ronald., Clarity, Charity and Confrontation in the Evangelical Gender Debate: http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/322pierce.html

3. Moore, Russell., After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5209O.pdf

Feminist theology:

1. Young, Sally., Is Judith Butler’s approach to gender politics an improvement on previous form of feminism?: http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-b-e1htm

2. Fiorenza, Elisabeth., ABSTRACT: http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/sf1.html and http://www.theology.ie/theologians/schuessler.htm

3. Trible, Phyllis., Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies, http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1281

Tweet This

In our previous article on this subject from December 2009, the Christian view of men and women was discussed, and their equal standing before God and each other. In the next two articles the nature and relationship between spiritual and functional equality will be developed; this article focussing on the role of men. Within the evangelical church today people take different theological positions on this matter, generally falling into two camps; Complementarianism (Often called Subordinationism by those opposed) and Egalitarianism. The objective of this text is not to create an in-depth comparative study between the two (if you wish to research the topics, I have supplied links at the end of Part 3), but to present a coherent summary of the biblical teaching regarding the role of men, considering the relevant biblical passages in context historically, and within the Bible as a whole.

Governing the church

There are some distinctive roles that women and men have been given as gender-specific. The Bible teaches that men only should be church ‘elders’, ‘governors’ or the like (Christians call them by different names). The most obvious passage of scripture supporting male eldership is 1 Timothy 2: 8-15. As I have mentioned in my previous article, the basis for gender distinction and differing roles derives from the Godhead. It is a profound thing, that such diversity of roles and equality of status exist within the Godhead, and the differences between us, as equal human beings, should likewise be celebrated.

In light of this, it should not be surprising that there are differences between the sexes. One such difference in role identified in scripture is that certain men have been given the task of caring for the church as leaders. As church governors, elders should be serving the church, not creating a dictatorship. The roles and hierarchy within the Godhead are not the result of a power struggle, and neither should it be so in the church, as Jesus says:

‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles (non-Jews) lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ (Mark 10:42-45)

It should also be noted: men in general are not to be leading the church, only those men that have been given that responsibility. For example, a man who is not an elder would not have the right to exercise authority over other men or women in the congregation, just because of his gender.

Women and leadership

Conversely, women are not prevented from all leadership capacities on the basis of 1 Timothy 2: 8-15, for that assumption would contradict other passages that affirm women leaders, for example: Romans 16: 3-4, 6, 12, Acts 18: 24-26, Luke 1: 46-56. In Romans 16: 1-2 a woman called Phoebe is commended by Paul to the church in Rome, he says that she is a Patron of the church. A Patron is a person who supports another person or institution financially, or through other types of service. Phoebe is recognised as a woman who served the church in this way, and as a result became a notable figure, worthy of recognition.

Another role available to women from the time of the early church up until this day have become Deaconesses. A Deacon is a church leader, who helped the elders care for the congregation and the poor. Extra biblical historical records support the institution of Deaconesses, as Pliny the Younger (Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor A.D. 112) writes as an opponent of early Christianity to the Emperor concerning the correct inflictions appropriate for Christians:

‘. . . This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, who they (Christians) called deaconesses . . .’ (Translation found in: Strobel, Lee The Case or Christ, Zondervan, 1998, Chapter 4, pp. 83-84)

Within Marriage

Likewise, within marriage men and women have different roles. The man is to love and serve his wife as Christ loves and serves the church (Ephesians 5:25-30). This type of leadership is very different from the common understanding of male ‘headship’, and it is due to this misconception that the roles of men and women in the church today have been so devastatingly misunderstood. This type of leadership should be governed by a love like that which Christ showed the church, a love that caused him to give up his life for her.

Some have argued, such as feminist theologians Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Phyllis Trible and Sallie McFague, that this social structure leads inevitably to men ruling their wives as if they were their property. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in the past (see Part 3 next week, subheading: but surely culture has changed now?). Men have used their position as ‘protector’, ‘servant’ and ‘leader’, and distorted it to become ‘ruler’ and ‘dictator’. However in such circumstances the man is in direct violation of scripture and it would be the duty of the church leaders to remind him of his biblical responsibilities. The misconception and misuse of the male role has consequently led to the dismissal of any kind of ‘traditional’ views of men. Although heavy-handed patriarchy should be challenged, the Biblical teaching on men reveals a type of leadership that should honour, respect and love women in a way that does not inhibit them, but rather, promote them.

In the next article, I will look at the role of women and discuss whether or not the differences between the sexes are inherent or culturally manipulated.

To view the first article in this series click here.

Tweet This

Originally there was only one Church, founded by the apostles. This was, from time to time, challenged by various groups who claimed to represent ‘true’ Christianity, but which rejected key teachings of the faith, an issue which I hope to touch on below. In 1054 A.D. the Church split into Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Catholic) churches due to divisions over the precise relationship of the Holy Spirit to the other persons of the Trinity (the Filioque controversy) and the authority of the Pope/Bishop of Rome. The Western church was further split into Roman Catholics and Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and splits along denominational lines (especially among Protestants) have continued ever since. It could be argued that this disunity is a barrier to the credibility of the Christian message.

Not all disagreements are of equal importance

However, it should be noted that not all disagreements between different denominations are of equal importance. Many simply reflect different cultural practices or historical traditions rather than the core teachings of the faith. There are some doctrines, such as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which are essential (see 1 Corinthians 15:17). Others, such as whether Christ will reign for a thousand years on the earth (or whether the church age is that reign), while by no means trivial, do not have that central status.

Creeds and confessions

Historically, the Church has identified its core teachings in various statements of belief, called creeds (from the Latin credo, I believe), mostly written in order to defend particular important beliefs which were being controverted by opponents. The main creedal statements (all written prior to the East-West schism) are the Apostles Creed (which developed from the confession of faith recited by new converts at their baptism in the early Church), the Creed of Nicaea (325 A.D.), the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed – more commonly known as the Nicene Creed – (381 A.D.), the Definition of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the Quicumque Vult, more commonly known as the Athanasian Creed, which dates from the 5th century A.D.  The teaching of these documents forms the core of what C. S. Lewis termed ‘mere Christianity’ which all Christians who hold to the historic faith would maintain.

The later confessions of various denominations, written after the divisions described above, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, the Confession of Augsburg, the Westminster Confession, and so on, all reflect, along with their own denominational emphases, the core teachings of the early Church, as summarised in the creeds. Even in areas of dispute, such as the manner and meaning of the sacraments/ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, there is a core of agreement which most churches would accept.

Within evangelical churches, in particular, there is a further emphasis on the central message of the gospel, the need of sinful human beings for forgiveness and freedom from the power and penalty of sin, the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross for sinners, and the free gift of salvation offered to all who repent (i.e. change their mind and turn away) from sin and put their trust in Jesus Christ. Given the centrality of the gospel, it is worth noting the Joint Statement on Justification issued by the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church in 1999, which underlines the point that here also, as in other areas, there is a core of agreement across denominational lines.

Faith and morals

In addition to doctrinal unity on the more important teachings of the Christian faith, there is also a great deal of agreement on the moral implications of the Christian faith, both in terms of what it means for our individual lives (e.g. sexual morals, spiritual disciplines) as well as our social morality (e.g. the relief of poverty, social justice). Although we are not saved by doing good works (this is not taught by Scripture, and, as Catholic writer Peter Kreeft noted in his book, Fundamentals of the Faith, who wants to be loved as someone else’s “good deed for the day” anyway?), the New Testament consistently teaches that genuine faith results in a changed life. It is only “faith working through love” which saves us (Galatians 5:6) and not mere assent to doctrinal statements. As a result of this underlying unity, it is often possible for Christian churches of different denominations to work together on issues.

Holding on to the faith

Of course, there is a temptation, particularly in the individualistic West, to underemphasize unpopular teachings, or beliefs which might open people up to ridicule, such as those relating to the final judgment, or eternal life in a renewed creation. While it is understandable for people to not want to give needless offence, not all differences of belief and practice are trivial, and there comes a point at which the message can be stripped of its historic content to such a degree that it is no longer “Christian” in any meaningful sense of the word.

Unity in relationship with Christ

Finally, it is worth noting that the very heart of the unity of Christendom can be found in our common love and trust in the risen Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. One of the main reasons behind the creedal statements on the person and work of Christ is the conviction that the Jesus Christ of the Bible saves people from sin and hell, whereas false christs do not. All Christians, across denominational boundaries, believe in Jesus Christ and seek to live their lives for him.

Further reading

Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, contains the texts of the major creeds in the original languages with notes and English translations. Some links are included below:

•         The Apostles’ Creed (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.i.i.html)

•         The Nicene Creed (Greek)(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.i.html)

•         The Nicene Creed (Latin) (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.ii.html)

•         The Athanasian Creed (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html)

The Joint Declaration on Justification can be found on the Vatican website, at the link below:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Tweet This

Bad Experience?

This is a commonly asked question, which often betrays a pre-supposition: having to go to church is tantamount to a life sentence in prison. Many people like the idea of a personal connection with God, but that’s my experience, right? What does my spirituality have to do with a load of other strangers?

There may be many reasons that you could think that. It could be that you were brought up going to a church which frankly made joining a crown green bowling club seem exciting (I can relate!!). It might be that you had a bad experience with some Christians before, that left you feeling hurt or rejected. Does this mean you should reject church for good?

In our modern day cynicism, alot of people get very scared about the idea of leadership; what does it mean that people are ‘in authority’ over me? That may trouble us – what will these people ask of me, they may want my time, talents and money? I can understand some of these concerns but whatever your experience (or lack of one) we need to take a look at what the bible says, rather than allowing our feelings or 1 or 2 previous bad experiences set our course instead.

Being a Christian

I need to be very clear at the outset that going to church does not make you a Christian, in the same way that being sat in a pub does not make me a pint of lager. We don’t just become a Christian by association, but we need to recognise our need to respond to Jesus individually. He has laid down his life, to pay off our debt to God. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we become Christians because of a free gift that God has given us, through Jesus Christ. We do not contribute anything to God’s favour by coming along to church, or any other perceived good behaviour. It is unmerited favour, there is nothing we can do to get God to love us anymore than he does already! You need to make that choice to accept Christ’s work done on your behalf though (Romans 10:9).

Find out more about what it means to become a Christian here.

The Body of Christ

Despite the fact that a relationship with God is something to be enjoyed and accepted on a personal level, we are actually part of something much greater than this. 1 Peter 2:5 teaches us that we are ‘living stones’ as part of God’s house. Some of you may have been brought up to think that the church is the old looking building that people meet in. It really isn’t, it’s the people that God has brought into relationship with him. 1 Peter 2:9-10 reminds us that God is bringing together a people for himself, to bring glory to his name. You are a part of this!

God has made us all as different individuals with different talents. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul reasons that we are like different parts of the same body, with skills to use. If parts of the body like an eye or a foot are missing then the body does not function to its fullest effect. Whatever gifts you have been given by God (You may not even know what yours is yet) as a church body we need your gift to become a stronger and more mature church like God wants us to be. Don’t deceive yourself, you have something to offer and it really matters. Whether you walk into a church which looks slick and is running amazingly, or a small one, God has particular things for you to do.

Become sharp

Christian life was never meant to be lived out on your own as we are reminded in scripture (Hebrews 10:25). We need other believers to spur us on in our faith, and to become mature people who know and are passionate about Jesus.

Wayne Rooney is a supremely gifted footballer as an individual, but ultimately he plays for Manchester United and England. This is where his true identity as a footballer is found, within a team context. He could play in his own garden, doing keep me ups but he is hardly fulfilling his purpose. How much more he accomplishes when together as part of a team; he wins Champions League trophies, Premier Leagues, FA Cup’s and (hopefully!!) the World Cup. How true this is for us as Christians too. Our spiritual experience is enormously impoverished by isolating ourself from our church family.

I’ve been a Christian for 21 years at the time of writing this and I’m still learning how incredible the God I know is. It really is a lifelong exploit and joy! I have needed other Christians to keep on spurring me on and sharpening me (Proverbs 27:17) along the way. Likewise, these Christians will need you to spur them on, just like you need them too. Conversely, when I have rejected time with other Christians I have seen this passion start to fade, and become a very faded and passive version of what God has made to be. My thinking becomes worldly, and my life becomes totally predictable. That is not a full life that Jesus saved you for.

Church -The passion of Jesus

Jesus is the most passionate person in the universe about the local church. He said ‘I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it’. In Ephesians 5, we hear that as a corporate body of believers we have become the bride of Christ. Now if you’re a bloke this may sound a bit weird, it may seem like you need to be a girl to appreciate this, but the point is that Jesus died for a people, not just an individual and he is building something significant to testify about him to the world. God wants to show off his different works of art to the world (Eph 2:10) in the form of church, a vast collection of redeemed lives to a broken world.

American Pastor Bill Hybels summarises this vision superbly:

‘I believe that the local church is the hope of the world…If they get it and get on with it, churches can become the redemptive centres that Jesus intended them to be. Dynamic teaching, creative worship, deep community, effective evangelism, and joyful service will combine to …strengthen families, transform communities and change the world.’

God is passionate about building his church, all over the world. It isn’t perfect, there are problems, but he is totally 100% committed to churches built on a foundation of Jesus. It follows that if you are a Christian you too would look to follow Jesus’ teaching, to build his church and make his name famous in the area where you live.

This is not an optional extra for those that are extra keen. We all belong in the local church. This is where we will thrive. It might be that you’ve been away from church for a season, I warmly invite you to consider checking out a good bible believing, Jesus-worshipping church in your area and quickly commit to one.

Looking for a church?

Based in Brighton, like to visit CCK? click here

We belong to the New Frontiers family of churches based all over the world.

There are many other good bible believing churches which are part of the Evangelical Alliance:

Tweet This

Mulled cider & Love actually

In the last few weeks I have (like everyone else) been preparing for Christmas, and been doing my best to avoid going into Brighton. I have been enjoying that wonderful phenomenon known as online shopping, or more specifically Amazon.com. My wife Jac has also started to fill our home with those classic Christmas tunes again, Band Aid, Mariah Carey and others.

Christmas is a time of year that is associated with many different things for different people. It is often thought of as time to spend with our families and close loves ones. Many others will also crack out ‘Love actually’ on DVD yet again, have a few glasses of mulled wine (or cider ideally), and of course buy one another presents, some of which will no doubt be subtly making there way onto ebay in early January. If any of my family are reading, don’t worry I wouldn’t dream of it!

For others, Christmas may be a time that some will dread for a number of reasons. The struggle to fund sufficient presents, awkward conversations within a fractured family, keeping up appearances for a few days with distant relatives and for some, acute loneliness. Is this as good as we can hope for?

Where does Jesus fit in?

In recent years it may seem surprising that in what is often considered a more secular culture, there have been a number of songs recorded about Jesus by artists such as U2, The Killers, Green Day, Kanye West, REM and even Marilyn Manson. Whatever you think of him, Jesus still occupies a central part of our culture.

Jesus was a remarkable man, and according to a recent survey taken in June 2009 (published in The Daily Telegraph) around 33% of the UK population, say he is the dead person that they would most want to meet, ahead of figures such as Princess Diana, Marilyn Monroe, Shakespeare and Einstein. However, he is more than just a famous dead man. Jesus made some startling claims while he was on earth, he claimed to be God and not just to be a good human moral teacher. As the author CS Lewis writes, ‘he didn’t leave that option open to us, he didn’t intend to.’

Christmas celebrates the time when God put his plan of redemption for the world into action. Jesus voluntarily left behind the glory of heaven, to become a servant for humankind, a sacrifice and a substitute for the wrong we’ve done. As humans we’ve been made as relational people, to experience the joy of love. This love is wonderfully experienced in our personal relationships with one another, but there is an ultimate one that we have been made for, with our creator.

The key doesn’t fit the lock

As people we often talk of a sense of emptiness that there is in our lives, in our quest for meaning and purpose. We try many different things for satisfaction, even good things and try to squeeze them into ultimate things. The key does not fit the lock though. Consider the way that we try to define ourselves and find security and our identity in relationships, friendships, money, musicianship, a sportsman, a lover. None of these things are bad in and of themselves, but they were not designed to be the supreme definition of our lives. How could they? All of these things will come and go, they fade over time. There is only one thing that is truly unfading and will satisfy us completely, found in Jesus Christ.

We are out of sync with God, because we have all gone against him in our lives. We have elected ourselves as the decision maker, the purpose creator and the rock upon which all other things must be built around. This is what the bible calls sin, falling short of his perfect standard, in word, thought and action. The consequence is that we are separated from our perfect holy creator, and because God is just, he can’t just overlook our errors like some modern parents do with a spoilt child. Action needed to be taken.

Descending: God comes to us

Christmas celebrates God coming among us, in the first stage of his mission which would be completed at Easter with Christ’s death and glorious resurrection. He took upon himself the sin of the world, because we can’t earn our way to God. We couldn’t do enough good works and karma to achieve the necessary 100% perfect standard. Religion teaches us to try and ascend to God, Christianity teaches that God descended to us. This is crucial.

Jesus came to earth so that we could experience reconciliation. Jesus is in the business of mending relationships, firstly our relationship with God, but also our relationships with others.

We live in a world full of broken and wounded people who need to experience reconciliation with family members, neighbours and former friends. This is possible only when we see that through Christ justice was accomplished on the cross, sin was paid for, grudges can be dropped, forgiveness can be extended.

Conclusion

More than 2000 years ago, the God-man Jesus Christ came and dirtied himself by getting involved in human culture. He showed that he is not a distant God who created the universe and left it to chance. The incarnation of Christ is the central point of human history. We date our history around him, and history has never been the same since.

Today, consider the impact that the birth of Christ could have on your life. Whatever your situation this year, there is one who knows your every need, who restores relationships, and gives you a complete and unshakeable identity because of his love and compassion for you. He has made himself accessible, will you respond?

If you want to know more, why not come to our Christmas service.

Tweet This

The Bible and Feminism

The stereotype that Christian women are thought of as second-class citizens in the church has emerged into common thought today. In many ways the source of these suspicions has been generated from outside the Bible. Some influencing factors are, firstly, the consideration that the Bible represents the values of an antiquated society that has now been proved suppressive and disregarded as obsolete. Secondly, the rise of a certain type of feminist theory has destabilised the distinctions between men and women. The assumption of this type of theory is that men and women are not only equal, but are the same. For example, feminist theorist Judith Butler has argued that gender should not be determined by sex, but rather by performance. Therefore, she denies that gender is predetermined by the physical. As such, she believes that equality of persons necessitates the removal of gender distinctions, and thus gender roles are defined subjectively due to one’s taste and preference. The Bible fully endorses one aspect of this feminism, insofar as it supports equality between the sexes. But in contrast, Christianity teaches femininity and masculinity to be different and complementary, and to be celebrated as such.

Women and Men are equal

The Bible makes it very clear that women and men are equal:

‘For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ (Galatians 3:27-28)

This is because women and men are both made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Being made in the image of God means that we reflect aspects of God. For example, we create, we use complex language and thought and we have the capacity to love. It also means that we live in community, as God does in the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit).

The Trinity and Identity

In many ways the Trinity is beyond the grasp of our mental capacities, but we can see aspects of God’s perfect unity between his diverse persons in the fact that men and women are equal in value, but different. There is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but all are equally God. We are male and female, and are equally human. Ray Ortlund describes this well:

‘God exists as one Godhead in three persons, equal in glory, but unequal in role. Within the Holy Trinity the Father leads, the Son submits to him, and the Holy Spirit submits to both. But it is also true that the three persons are fully equal in divinity, power, and glory (the ontological Trinity). The Son submits but not because he is God Jr., an inferior deity; the ranking within the Godhead is part of the sublime beauty and logic of true deity. And if our Creator exists in this manner, should we be surprised and offended if his creaturely analogue on earth exists in paradoxical form?’

(Ortund, Raymond, Jr., Male-Female Equality and Male Headship Genesis 1-3, in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Ed. Piper, John., Grudem, Wayne., Wheaton, Crossway Books, 1991, p.92)

The roles of men and women in the church are derived from this basis, that we, equal and in complementary relationship, reflect God.

Let’s generalise…

The distinctions between men and women are, in many ways, quite general. The differences between us consist mostly of our proclivities, rather than what we can or cannot do. For many, involvement in the local church does not consist of clear-cut tasks or gender boundaries, such as, traditional stereotypes of women cooking whilst the men discuss theology. There are many overlaps in the roles and duties within the church. For example: leading group activities from small to large, working with the poor, running any sort of Christ-inspired social action (this can be anything from working with young children, to heading up petitions to local and general government), administration, leading worship, writing articles, apologetics, alpha courses, counselling, giving financially, encouraging, and the list could go on and on.

Therefore, men are not considered superior to women in Christianity, as we are all God’s image bearers. The fact that we are, as men and women, in some ways different and possess some gender specific roles is an analogy of the Godhead. One is no better than the other.

In the next article, we will look at this issue with regard to serving within the local church in some more specific areas.

Tweet This

Introduction

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and not merely a human teacher. This central idea has long been challenged by opponents of Christianity, and opposition has again, in recent years, come to prominence with the appearance of books such as The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.

Jesus was a man

Of course, at the very outset of this discussion, it is worth remembering that Christians also believe that Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood man. There were some early teachers (such as the “Docetists” and “Gnostics”) who denied this, arguing instead that Jesus merely appeared to be human (see, for example, section 93 of the Acts of John). It is curious to see such documents being referred to as evidence of early Christian belief in a merely human Jesus (see, for example, pages 231 and 234 of The Da Vinci Code), when this is something that their authors denied.

The Council of Nicaea of 325 A.D.

At the core of the dispute, however, is the idea that the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. voted to make Jesus divine, when, previously, Christians had accepted him as a human teacher. This interpretation of history is largely supported by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and is a key aspect of the storyline of The Da Vinci Code.

The Council of Nicaea consisted of about three hundred bishops (tradition places the number at 318), and was convened by the emperor Constantine the Great in order to end the divisive disputes in the church, which arose from the teaching of Arius. It is interesting to note that only twelve years earlier, the Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine the Great and his eastern counterpart Licinius Augustus, had granted toleration to Christians after centuries of persecution. Many of those who attended the Council of Nicaea had experienced persecution directly during the reigns of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, and it seems unlikely, having withstood such opposition in the past, that these church leaders would have been easily persuaded to abandon their belief for reasons of political expediency.

The teachings of Arius and the decision of the Council

Before looking at the decision of the Council, it is worth noting that Arius did not actually deny that Christ was, in some sense, divine. It was the nature of his divinity that was in dispute at Nicaea. Is Jesus eternally divine, or is he a lesser, created divinity? All of which is very far from the idea that a human teacher called Jesus was made God by a vote.

The debate centred on whether Christ was of the “same essence” (Greek: homoousious) as the Father, or whether Christ was merely of a “similar essence” (Greek: homoiousios) to the Father, as argued by the Arians. The majority of members of the council were not prepared to compromise on their beliefs, even by a single letter, and overwhelmingly accepted the final text of the Creed of Nicaea (not to be confused with the later Nicene Creed).  Although the character Leigh Teabing in The Da Vinci Code speaks of “a relatively close vote” (page 233ff), there were only two bishops, Thomas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais, who refused to accept the creed.

Earlier testimony to the divinity of Christ

In addition to the Creed of Nicaea, there is earlier testimony to the idea that Jesus was considered divine from among second century Christian writers. These include, among others, Irenaeus of Lyon (born early second century A.D.) who, commenting on John 1:1-2, noted that, “That, which is begotten of God, is God” (Adversus Haereses, I.8.5) and Justin Martyr (born circa 100 A.D.), who argued that, “The Father of the universe has a son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” (First Apology, chapter 63).

There are also hostile witnesses, including the second century pagan author, Lucian of Samosata (born circa 120 A.D.) who wrote about a cynic philosopher (and temporary Christian convert) called Peregrinus, “It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine … next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.” (The Passing of Peregrinus, section 11). Other pagan authors, such as Hiercoles and Celsus, also mocked the idea of Jesus being worshipped, and it is hard to understand why they would have done so if he had only been made divine by a vote in the 4th century.

Furthermore, while there is not space in this article to consider this point in any detail, the considerable testimony of the New Testament itself to the divinity of Christ should also be borne in mind (see, for example, John 1:1, John 5:18, John 20:28, Romans 9:5, I Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13 etc.). In this context, it is worth remembering that there are many early manuscript copies of the New Testament, or portions of it, including manuscripts which pre-date the Council of Nicaea.

Conclusion

I would argue therefore, that there is clear historical evidence to show that belief in Jesus as both fully human and fully divine is very far from being a 4th century invention, decided by the vote of a council. Rather, the followers of Jesus, from the very beginning, have acknowledged him to be, what he claimed to be, the eternal Word of God come in the flesh.

Suggested further reading:

J. Ed. Komoszewski et al., “Re-inventing Jesus”, especially chapters 14 – 15.

Carl E. Olson et al., “The Da Vinci Hoax”, especially chapter 4.

Tweet This