"If it's in the book of Acts it should happen today?"

A good start
A Christan who makes the Scriptures his or her guide in all things, ought to say, especially of the New Testament, "if it happened here, surely it ought to happen in today's church" for we like those first believers, belong to the Gospel age of the New Covenant, the age in which the Spirit of God has been poured out upon his people.

So as a first take and as an instinctive response to New Testament Scripture, this approach is to be applauded.

Second thoughts
But as we begin to read through Acts - and the letters of that apostolic age, the New Testament - we begin to sense that there might be something unique about the age of the first Apostles, and hence about the period of time recorded in the book of Acts. 

For one thing, this age was foundational. Jesus founded no church directly, but left his Apostles to undertake the work of writing the founding documents of the church, inspired by the Spirit and preserved in the New Testament. An age that is foundational, might be slightly different from the house built upon it.

If we were to ask what made the first decades of the Christian church foundational, it was the existence of the Apostles, capital "A". These men were responsible for the writings of the New Testament - every one of the 27 books of the NT were written either by an Apostle (roughly the Twelve plus Paul) or by someone very close to an Apostle: that was one of the 'criteria of inclusion'.

So the Apostolic Age was unique because the Apostles were alive, the Apostles who wrote the New Testament Scriptures. 

How did an "apostle" demonstrate that he was an Apostle, capital "A", with divine authority to write or oversee a letter or book of the New Testament? He performed unique miracles, says Paul:

"The things that mark an apostle - signs, wonders and miracles - were done among you with great perseverance." (2 Corinthians 12:12)

What kinds of unique miracles?

"....people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter's shadow might fall on them as he passed by..... all of them were healed." (Acts 5:12-16)

"God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs that had touched him were taken to the sick and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them." (Acts 19:11-12)

So some of the miracles we find in the book of Acts, are "extraordinary" miracles which marked out the Apostle performing them as a Spirit-inspired man with the divine authority to write Scripture. A shadow or hankerchief could heal, for example.

I have been a "student of miracles" for many years, earnestly desiring to find true and real examples of present day healings (and there are some wonderful true examples), but I have yet to come across any miracle worker today or in post-apostolic history who performed anything remotely like the miracles of the Apostles.

Let's be realistic: if such a person truly existed today, the world would be flocking to them, and there would be extensive documentation of their miracles. If any miracle worker today had 1000 bonafide miracles to their name (I know it would be to the name of Jesus, not their name) they would be more famous than David Beckham, and they would be in demand across the globe. Such miracle workers simply do not exist: that is a humble challenge as well as a honest assessment. 

The character of the Apostolic miracles was radical: we're not talking about backaches going away and the like, we're talking about verifiable big miracles including raising the dead to life. And those miracles were performed to authenticate the Apostle.

Time for a second look
So now we go back the the book of Acts and we ask, with new eyes, enlightened by the Spirit of God, what  is unique and what is repeatable? We do not expect to see everything we read repeated in the church today, because that age was foundational.

Two extremes

Perhaps the greatest tragedy that can befall us is to find ourselves at either end of a spectrum. There are some Christians who truly "throw out the baby with the bath water." They believe that virtually nothing supernatural in Acts happens today.  They want nothing to do with the supernatural: indeed they are suspicious - and even frightened - of all miracles, all prophecies, and any event that cannot be rationalised away.

At the other end of the spectrum are believers who believe that absolutely everything recorded in Acts can happen today. Since it actually doesn't happen in real life they often live in a land of fantasy and delusion, reading into every apparently minor supernatural event or word something of immense supernatural  significance.

Balance?
No-one gets this balance right, but that is no reason not to labour at balance. We live in the age of the Gospel and the Spirit, but we don't live in the age of the Apostles. We need wisdom from God to work this  out from Scripture in our lives and in our churches.

The Plague of Pornography (2) The Beauty and Purpose of Sex

We've got to talk straight, folks

There is a right decorum which the Scriptures throw across the subject of sex. Paul says that it is shameful even to mention what the wicked do in private (Ephesians 5:12). And yet in the previous verse he tells us to expose the fruitless deeds of darkness. So on the one hand we have to talk straight, but on the other hand, not too explicitly; the poetic form of the Song of Songs leads the way.

Two purposes
God designed sexual union for two purposes; first to unite a man and a woman in marriage. Sex would both cement and symbolise their oneness; in their union they would - in some mysterious and wonderful way - "become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) So powerful is sexual union between a man and a woman that even when it is a wrong union, e.g. between a married man and a prostitute, it still has the effect of binding them together - at least bodily, "Did you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body?" (1 Corinthians 6:16).

The other purpose of sex is procreation. Adam and Eve and every future Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful (Genesis 1:28).

God could have designed two separate biological experiences, one that produces children and another that unites a man and a woman; but he has united both of these "functions" in one, showing the powerful family context of sex: it generates not only union between the husband and the wife but children for them to care for (that is, a family).

The power of sex: God's glue
Sex is therefore extremely powerful: it has the ability to unite two human beings: there is no other force in all of human relationships so powerful; when used aright it is wonderful for the husband and wife, and glorifying to God. Paul shows the power of sex negatively when he says that "all other sins a man commits are outside of his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body." (1 Corinthians 6:18).

The sheer power of sex seems to lie primarily in the intensity of its mysterious pleasure; if it did not feel so good, no-one would be much interested in it!

The spiritual imagery of sex
Although some might struggle with this, sex is ultimately a picture of a much higher and more wonderful relationship, the relationships between Christ and his Church, the relationship between the believer and his Lord. This is brought out not only in Ephesians 5:31-32 "This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church", but in 1 Corinthians 6: 17 where Paul draws a parallel between human sex and our relationship with God "But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit." The bodily union of sex points to a greater spirit-union between each believer and the Lord.

So often in the Old Testament, when Israel's heart was turning away from the Lord to idols, God used the marriage image: his people - spiritually married to him - were running after prostitutes, rather than him (Exodus 34:15).

Sex then, is God's design to unite a man and woman in marriage. So important is this purpose that Paul expects every married couple to give themselves to one another and even calls sex a "marital duty" (1 Corinthians 7:3). When couples get married they should be instructed beforehand, "you are expected to give yourselves to each other in sex. If you don't want sex, if you are not prepared to give yourself to each other, regularly then don't get married, fullstop."

Solo sex: Eros defiled
Since sex is God's glue, solo sex is an abuse of sex, a wrong use of sex. It really is as simple as that. Any sex that does not involve a husband and a wife runs outside of God's design spec, and we must say lovingly, but clearly, is an abuse of God's wonderful gift.

This is where pornography comes in. The fundamental distortion of pornography is that it takes this beautiful gift and takes it out of its original God-given setting. Instead of  being used to unite a couple in holy matrimony, pornography turns sex into a selfish activity.

Sex now becomes, not a means (pleasure) to an end (union), but an end in itself: pure pleasure.

Pornography is the means by which that single end (pleasure) is reached. Sex is isolated from marriage, sex becomes distorted and twisted, Eros is defiled.

Sex can even now become an idol: something that those enslaved to it turn to for comfort, help and solace.

Under the influence of pornography, sex becomes sinful, ugly, perverted, wicked - and unrepented of, damnable.

Hope and Warning
There is hope in the Gospel for those enslaved  in this sin; we'll turn to that hope in a future blog. For now we pass on a warning for anyone who thinks that porn is a harmless passtime. The warning comes from a woman who was caught up in this sin. I have edited out a few of the "I wishes...." but you can read them all in the link below.....

Including it here, doesn't mean I agree with every sentence, but we ought to hear her sorrowful lament.

I wish......

"I wish that 10 years ago someone had educated me on pornography. What it is, what it does and what it reaches in and destroys in the hearts, minds and bodies of men and women.

I wish that someone would have told me that researchers have suggested it sabotages your sex life.

I wish someone would have explained how dopamine the chemical that is released every time you experience pleasure, drives you to return to what provided that feeling before.

I wish someone would have told me that the kind of pornography you're most turned on by is usually linked to a corresponding hurtful event in your life, further injuring your brokenness.

I wish someone would have told me I would begin to objectify men, build up images in my mind and think of sex day in and day out, to the point where I couldn't remain focused on anything else.

I wish someone would have pointed out pornography can establish your sexuality completelty apart from real-life relationships, causing huge problems in your intimacy with real significant others.

I wish someone would have told me that the dopamine and oxytocin being released from my watching certain types of pornography would cause me to question my sexual orientation, which in turn cost me relationships with friends.

I wish someone would have told me it would subtly create a "victim" mentality in my mind, causing me to be even more sensitive than I already was to catcalls, whistles, and even sincere compliments.

I wish someone had talked about how women watch it too, so I wouldn't have had to spend years living under the shame that comes with being "the only one" and thinking there was something wrong with me.

My "I wish" list is nowhere near complete, either. In the end, I simply wish someone would have told me why it was so harmful, instead of simply putting it on a list of things we don't talk about. We all know our rights and wrongs, but seldom do we know what makes them so. Had I known how much it would have harmed me, I would have left it alone."


See: What I wish I'd known......

We are born believers!

Don't judge THIS book by its cover

A few years ago, Justin Barrett came out with a book in which he claimed, through a serious of scientific studies, that....

"....children naturally develop minds that encourage them to embrace belief in the god or gods of their culture. People may practically be born believers." (p.3)

I don't particularly like the cover but I'm not surprised by the findings.

Romans 1:19-20 teaches that all humans everywhere know there is a God by the evidence of the natural world around them, so that on the last day, there will be no excuse for them to say to God, "This is the first time I ever knew of your existence." God will point to stars, flowers, the complexities of our bodies and minds - and 1000 other proofs which demonstrate that there is a God.

This is how it works: God has not only provided much external evidence of a Designer, he has put within us the internal reasoning processes that run perhaps something like this:

objects have an origin -> I can tell which ones are human artefacts and which are not -> the ones that are not must have been created -> people can't make flowers or mountains or physical laws or universes -> therefore a God must have made them

The internal brain-processes which lead to the inescapable conclusion are as much a part of God's final judgement on men as the external beautiful world he has made. 

What this book shows is that babies are born with all the mental equipment and processes necessary to lead to the most natural conclusion that there must be a God.  

The pre-wired software of an infant
Infants know how the world works (they have an inbuilt 'naive physics'),  they know the difference between agents (something which can purposefully act) and objects (which can't act), they know that agents create order and nonagents can only create disorder. They have built in reasoning systems which automatically detect the presence of intelligence. They even know the difference between agents and superagents. When you put all of this together they are pre-wired to naturally accept the existence of God, and even something about his superlative attributes.

The ridiculousness of evolution
What they find difficult to believe is evolution. Since they know that animals bring forth animals after their own kind, since they know that order is the product of intelligent agents, not impersonal forces, since they know that stuff has to be been made by agents, they find it ludicrous to believe that one kind of animal gave rise to a totally different kind of animal, that intricate design is the result of nonagents, and all the other foolish contortionist thinking evolution requires of the natural human mind.

This book raises the real question as to whether a false belief like evolutionary thinking may actually damage the natural reasoning processes of a child - research on this would be interesting: do children indoctrinated with evolution early in their life turn out a lot thicker than kids who learn about a Creator, a belief which simply builds on all they know already about the world around them? 

The ones who ought to be charged with indoctrination, mental-process damaging and brain-washing, in that case would be parents who twist up their kids minds with irrational evolutionary junk-science. 

Where does atheism come from?
The real puzzle, for Dr Barett, is where does atheism come from? Since children most readily believe in God, and since most people in most of history have been believers in a God or gods, where does atheism come from? Where do the few atheists in the world come from? Barrett makes some interesting suggestions, including the prevalence of male-brainedness both in the academy and now increasingly in the wider population, the non-relational tendency of science-types whihc makes them thus unable to imagine other mind(s), and so on. 

The deep source of atheism is, going back to Romans 1, personal sin. In a recent outburst on Irish TV, the atheist Stephen Fry revealed the heart of an atheist in his irrational tirade against "God". The real source of all atheism is personal sin, which suppresses the truth about God. If there is no God we can indulge in whatever sin we please without any painful tinge of conscience. If there is a God, we secretly fear his judgement which makes sin a lot more uncomfortable.

So to cope with their knowing rebellion and sin,  men and women suppress the truth in unrighteousness in order to continue their life of sin without remorse.

The Plague of Pornography

Which reader are you?
Three different kinds of people will read this blog.

• First, those for whom pornography is not an issue in their lives: God has preserved you from this temptation and sin - thank God, don't boast, and don't look
• Second, those who are struggling with porn but who know they are not winning and are cursed with guilt and shame
• Third, those who by the grace of God are on the journey to freedom, not only from porn but from the sexual lust it both feeds and spawns.

Which one are you?

I guess there is a fourth group, the most tragic group of all:  those who know they are struggling with porn but who do not care. The only good these blogs might do for this group is, by the grace of God and the Spirit of God, convict them of the sinfulness of porn and lead them both to repentance and to the Christ who came to set them free.

The first of several posts
I plan this posting, God willing, to be the first of several addressing the plague that is now upon not only the western world, but upon the western church. The purpose of these posts will be to examine what the Bible teaches about sex, lust and impurity with the aim to warn against this plague and provide some resources for those ensnared.

But is it really a plague?
I have a few tragic stats to share here, all come from the Christian software company "Covenant Eyes".

The basic stat (for the US) is this: 66% of men and 16% of women view porn online each week.  

(http://www.covenanteyes.com/pornstats/).

In bygone days, to access porn you had to risk going into a shop or getting something by post, but with the advent of the internet, without filters, porn is but a few clicks away.

Other stats: there is so much free material out there that 90% of those who view online porn are only accessing the free stuff. One in every 5 searches on mobile devices are for porn and 24% of people with mobile devices admit that they have porn on their mobile device.

What about in the church?
Naively we might assume that the fearful 66% / 16% stat would be radically reduced in the church. Not so, say "Covenant Eyes". Their survey suggests that fewer men, 50%, but more women, 20%, in the church say that they are addicted to pornography.

Is there hope? YES!
Since sexual addiction feeds off silence and fear, a believer caught up in porn may feel helpless and trapped, not to mention guilty and alone. But every Christian needs to know that there is hope and help available to those struggling with this sin. Within the Word of God, in the Church of God, through the Spirit of God we have been given his grace which enables a believer....

"....to say 'No' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." (Titus 2:12-14)

There is hope! It may involve a titanic battle, but there is hope! There is hope that by the mighty power of God men and women can be delivered from this plague and find purity and healing.

That's enough for one blog. Next time: what the Bible teaches about sex.

Exodus: Gods and Kings - A film review

A real sense of the epic nature of the story
On New Year's Eve, I went with my twelve year old son to watch the new Exodus: Gods and Kings. Only the 3D version was available, but with the help of "Orange Wednesday", the cost was reasonable: 3D really is cool.

The film is billed as the story of Moses, and from a trailer I had seen earlier in the year, it looked as though the story would follow the Biblical account. In the trailer, for example, frogs by the thousand, fill Pharaoh's palace.

The reality, however, is that the film is a fictional story, loosely tied to the Exodus account.

Looking for positives, the acting was superb and convincing - and you got a feel of the enormous power of the Egyptians and the epic nature of the power required to release the Israelites from Pharaoh's grasp. The large scale epic scenes were truly amazing.

Some mythology
I cannot understand why anyone wanting to produce a film about Moses would want to change the story: the biblical story is far far more interesting than the mythological one in this film. Besides, if you run the story accurately, you are likely to get good reviews and end up with more Christians watching it, surely. By changing the story you loose both in quality and income. I just don't get it.

Here are some of the many departures:

Moses knows Pharaoh
This is a common myth, also repeated in the animation "Prince of Egypt". It is assumed that Pharaoh and Moses grew up together in the palace and became good mates. Not only is there no record of this in Scripture, the myth then spawns some additional weird scenes where Moses and Pharaoh chat as old chums. For example, at the end, when Moses comes to tell Pharaoh about the last plague, he meets in private and holds a sword to Pharaoh's throat (which actually draws blood); as if Moses would be allowed that close to Pharaoh, on his own, unguarded, with a sword. According to one BBC webpage ancient Egytians lived for about 40 years. Thus by the time Moses returned to Egypt from his 40 years in the desert, now at the age of 80, any princely chum in the palace was likely to have been long dead.

God is played by a child
Perhaps the most ludicrous change is that God is played by a little boy who is meant to speak God's words. Not only are the words all made up, but the very idea robs the true story much of its majesty and transcendence, not to speak of truth. Now why would you want to do this?

Moses is not very "pro-God"
The Moses of the Old Testament, while struggling to obey God when first called, does submit to God's will and proves a faithful, if somewhat human servant - a most humble man we remind ourselves (Numbers 12:3). But right throughout the film we find Moses disrespectful and even argumentative towards "God".

A polemic on the "monster God" of the Old Testament
About the only detailed conversation about God takes place when Pharaoh, with dead baby son in arms, argues with Moses about what kind of God would kill babies. Nothing is said in rebut about the stubbornness of Pharaoh's heart (he could have escaped this judgement, 9 judgements earlier) or the 400 years slavery-without-pay that preceded.

The sea that does not divide
Clearly consulting the liberal scholars, we have no divided waters, through which the Israelites pass on dry ground. Instead we have sort of dry ground which at times turns waist deep, through which the people must struggle. So no real miracle here. But now in the name of CGI effects and drama, a miracle not mentioned in the Old Testament is introduced to drown the Egyptians - a tsunami high wave! No miracles for the sake of science, but new miracles please in the name of big screen effects!

Moses gets swept up in the flood!
So (because they supposedly know each other), Moses and Pharaoh meet up in the middle of the dryish sea with a ginormous wave about to overwhelm them both. And indeed both of them are caught up (but survive) the flood. Where does it say Moses got caught up in the flood?

One of the most fascinating parts of the whole Biblical account is the way Moses speaks to Pharaoh. This part, except for a mythological conversation before the last plague, is completely missing. In the Bible you get a feel of Pharaoh's withering power, and God's ascending power as these exchanges proceed, but all of this is omitted. 

Why the changes?
About half way through the film my son says "let's leave", twice. And at the end he says "this film sucks". I have deliberately said nothing, so that he can make up his own mind.

I left the cinema pondering why the writers should have wanted to make such sweeping changes, especially when their version is so much less interesting - and is likely to bring in so much less money.

Ultimately, the writers are spiritually blind men reading a story they don't believe, changing it to fit in with the transient vagaries of a passing culture.

I can't wait to preach the real story in January!

Christmas - More For than Against!

Annual Agony
Every year, around this time, I find myself in an internal battle, which after the years have passed, has still not been resolved: what should we do about Christmas? The fact that the battle resurfaces regularly is a sign that my heart is not settled on the issue, but the older I grow, I sense the balance of my mind is tilting more for than against. 

Against
Christmas secular western style has virtually nothing to do with Christ or Christianity. It is simply an opportunity to indulge in excess, excess drink, excess food, excess pleasure, excess debauchery, you name it. Christians are called instead to be sober minded (1 Peter 5:8-9). I could easily live in a cave from December 24th-26th (with my family and brothers and sisters in Christ, of course, but away from the maddening crowd).

For
And yet, there are many many good things about this season of the year, and here are half a dozen.

First, it is an opportunity to visit friends and relatives. My wider family, for example, have an annual get together over Christmas, and it's great to touch base - in some cases the only time in that year.

Second, it's a chance to get some rest.... well kind of, anyway.

Third, it's a time for family traditions. Nothing wrong with family traditions. In our home, for example, there is a particular "Christmas" scent which we put on potpourri only in December! If we didn't roll it out we'd have a riot on our hands.

Fourth, Christians have the liberty to remember the birth of Jesus Christ in a special way. It's not proscribed, but what can be found against finding some time to remember the miracle of God made flesh, dwelling among us, identifying with our joys and sorrows ultimately to win us and save us from our sins.

Fifthly, thank God, the mid-winter celebration is not focused on some pagan myth, which would bring with it the debauchery that normally attends such pagan myths. Thank God that even today, nativity plays are still at the heart of most school Christmas celebrations. What a salting effect traditional Christmas has upon our near-pagan culture. Think of how more excessive the 'celebrations' would be without the influence of the Gospel in our land.

But sixthly, what a fantastic opportunity to share the Gospel with a lost world! Let's take this opportunity to invite people to Carol services, give them a free Gospel tract, and spend time with them, and pray that God may give them the precious gift of faith.

The glory of tradition!

I cannot believe I am writing this....
I don't know of anyone who is more against tradition than myself. I see red every time someone says "this must be done this way, because we've always done it this way." I want robust - which means biblical - arguments for doing things.

The New Testament has no traditions
The genius of the Gospel is that it can find a home in any culture in any age. And thus there are no traditions for worship in the Scriptures.

"But what about 'when you come together, everyone has a hymn, a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpreation' (1 Cor 14:26)?", I hear someone ask.

If anyone thinks this verse is the last word on corporate worship traditions they are making two mistakes. The first is a failure to note the difference between the descriptive and the proscriptive. Paul is not saying, "this is how to worship", he is not issuing a command (proscriptive), he is simply describing what they do (descriptive). The second mistake is a failure to set this letter in its historical context. The first believers had no NT (perhaps a letter here or there), they had no complete and final revelation. For that reason, the church was instructed by divine revelations, as through tongues: that's why Paul includes in their tradition, revelations, tongues and intepretations. Once Scripture had been completed, the church had the complete and final word of Christ which is able to thoroughly equip the man or woman of God for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17): I don't need a prophecy to guide me today, I have God's certain Word along with his glorious Spirit. 

The requirements/principles of the New Testament
The New Testament gives us broad outlines and principles, but by the genius of the Gospel it does not give us any of the little context-specific details that mark all man-made religions, such as pray five times a day, etc.

The guidelines of Scripture are broadly and briefly that church life ought to include (there are too many verses to include here by way of justification):

1. fellowship
2. breaking of bread
3. apostle's doctrine(preaching)
4. mutual building up
5. singing God's praises
6. prayer
7. disciple-making/evangelism

How these are put together, is left utterly to the culture in general, and then the leaders in specific to determine.

Enter, "tradition"
So elders then must work out how these different elements can combine in a way that honours the Lord and builds his people up. And once these traditions have been established, they ought to be open to change, but only slowly and carefully and prayerfully. Why slowly and carefully and prayerfully? Because unity is perhaps the first requirement of corporate church life: woe betide the leaders who introduce division on account of rapid change.

Tradition is a wonderful thing, it enables a specific church to fulfil its Christ-given requirements to the sheep and a lost world in a stable framework which builds unity.

100,000 traditions
All this means that there will be an innumerable number of different, but authentic church combinations of 1-7, which are all capable of building up the flock. 100,000 good traditions!

Our tradition
At Manor Park for example, we have the following tradition for the 7 elements above; we think it is a robust, biblical and a Holy Spirit directed tradition.....

1. how do we do 'fellowship'? We have an opportunity every Sunday to drink coffee with each other after morning worship, we meet in home groups each week, we have an evening Koinonia meeting, plus other opportunities to share with one another
2. how do we do 'breaking of bread'? Once every month on a Sunday morning, once a month at Koinonia and sometimes in a home group
3. how do we do 'apostle's doctrine'? Preaching every Sunday!
4. how do we do 'mutual building up'? At home groups and other opportunities to meet such as Koinonia, spontaneity opportunity is there at home groups and Koinonia
5. how do we do 'singing God's praises? Home groups, and Sunday mornings too
6. how do we do 'prayer'? Sunday mornings, home groups and monthly day of prayer
7. how do we do 'disciple-making and evangelism'? Through the home groups and through numerous evangelistic opportunities that we take, whether mission to farm workers, monthly guest services, Christmas service, you name it...

We judge this by the Scriptures to be an excellent (but not perfect!) tradition, wholly suitable for the building of the saints, and faithful to the Spirit.

What if you don't like our tradition?
If someone came to us and said "I don't like your tradition", our response would be three-fold: (i) show us how it fails to fulfil the Scriptures, (ii) it's not the only way to do things, we are the first to admit, but it is our way, (iii) if you don't like it, you are unlikely to change it, unless God calls you to be an elder, so it is best to find another church: we bid thee God-speed.

For a radical antitraditionalist, that's quite some blog!