A la Sainte Croix (To the Holy Cross)

O mon coeur, souviens-toi de la croix salutaire et médite sur elle inlassablement.
La croix est pour nous, le Jardin de délices, c’est le Jardin de toutes les floraisons;
C’est pour nous l’arbre de beauté sacréparle sang du Sauveur,
C’est un arbre de santeté portant des fruits de vie.
O mon coeur, pâme-toi, adore entremblant ce bois.
Pour toi Jésus souffe, il meurt pour toi:
Meurs avec lui sur sa sainte croix.

O my heart, remember the wondrous cross and think on it untiringly.
The cross is for us, the Garden of delights is the Garden of all blossoms:
The tree of beauty, blessed by the blood of the Saviour is for us,
It is a holy tree bearing the fruits of life.
O my heart, be overcome, love this tree and tremble.
For you Jesus suffers, he dies for you:
Die with him on his holy cross.

Daniel Newman BA (Hons)

Outside the Divinity School

Inside Brasenose College

On the steps of the Martyrs’ Memorial (again!)

John Knox redivivus?

Some Russian achondroplasiac tourists taking my photograph

Separation

I am not unaware that this is going to be controversial and probably a minority opinion. Now, don’t get me wrong: I’m not anti-fun. But since the discussion about Christians and alcohol consumption/public house visiting, my observation of Christian behaviour, particularly that of students, has not done anything to lessen my concern. The thrust of this post is to suggest that Christians, particularly students, should probably be going to a lot fewer parties and clubs than they appear currently to do. Rather, it is important for Christian obedience and holiness not only to avoid ungodly behaviour themselves, but also stay away from events where public ungodliness is being celebrated. I’m thinking of situations where the whole purpose of the occasion is to get drunk or engage in a potentially sexual encounter with someone or both, and the whole atmosphere of the evening is geared towards those twin goals, for example, minimalist dress codes.

Time and space only allow a few words of comment on a handful of texts.

i. 2 Corinthians 6, 14-7, 1

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? Wgat accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God has said:

“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”

Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.

Often (validly) applied to the question of a Christian courting a non-Christian (it is wrong), this is of course addressing the issue of Corinthian Christians associating with idolatry and its associated immorality in the first century. They were to avoid being joined together with unbelievers, which would be an unequal yoke. The eschewing of drinking parties etc. would appear to be an application of what Paul is saying here, involving as it does an association with overt sin and immorality.

There appear to be two closely related ideas here:

First, the incompatibility and incongruity of righteousness/lawlessness, Christ/demons, light/darkness. Because the one has nothing to do with the other, Christians who are have a righteous status and are called to live righteously and in obedience to God’s law, are not to yoke themselves with lawlessness/idolatry.

Secondly, the status of believers (corporately here I think) as the temple of God makes it inappropriate for such behaviour. Leviticus 26, 12 and Isaiah 52, 11 apply to the church. God promised to dwell amongst his people, and in Isaiah calls his people to come out from among the people to which they had been exiled and to touch no uncleanness, with the result that his people will experience a son-father relationship with YHWH. Given the status of the church as God’s temple, in the midst of which God dwells, and the call made to Israel through Isaiah, it is completely out of order for Christians to be bound together with unbelievers in acts of immorality. They are to cleanse themselves from every defilement of every part of their being. That doesn’t sound very much like going along to events where debauchery is the order of the evening even if you promise yourself and others you’re not actually going to sin yourself.

ii. 1 Corinthians 10, 12-14

Therefore, let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

Again the issue is one of idolatry. Paul is warning the Corinthian Christians here. OT Israel was as a nation the visible church of God. It had its sacraments, but most of them were overthrown and destroyed for their idolatry. This is meant to be instruction for NT Christians. The temptations they face are just the same, so the one who thinks he can stand up to temptation must beware, in case he, too, sins and so falls. And what is the application of God’s faithfulness not to tempt the Christian beyond their ability? To get involved with immorality trusting that God will get you out of any problems? No. The believer is to flee. Paul then roots his argument in the access to and benefits of the Lord’s Table enjoyed by believers, and the inappropriateness and dire consequences of eating at the Table of the Lord and the table of demons.

The application to clubbing and drinking parties is evident. The sin is different, but the warning is there. There is the danger of succumbing to sin and facing its consequences. No matter how one tries to justify being in an environment where one exposes oneself to strong temptation, the exhortation is to flee.

iii. Ephesians 5, 5-12

For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is coveteous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words for because of these things, the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them, for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light…Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.

God’s wrath is coming upon immorality and those who practise it will not inherit in Christ’s kingdom. As those who were darkness but now are light, it is completely inappropriate for Christians to associate with such things or take part in them. I take it that parties organized with the aim of getting people drunk and clubbing are situations of immorality and impurity. They are things that Christians are not to associate with or take part in. Even attending such things, even if one resolves not to engage in sexual immorality or drunkeness oneself, surely constitutes associating with these things. If it’s shameful even to speak of what goes on at these gatherings, how much more inappropriate is it to actually go along. Christians are to expose the works of darkness. Being present while these works of darkness, even if one doesn’t engage in them seems more to be quietly condoning them, especially if there’s a fee involved, rather than exposing them.

iv. 1 Peter 4, 3

The time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkeness, orgies, drinking parties and lawless idolatry.

The same reflections as above would appear to apply. Note how drinking parties themselves are specified as distinct from drunkeness. Even going along to such a thing and enjoying oneself, even if one doesn’t get drunk, would appear to me to be something that the Christian should have left far behind.

I can understand the reasons people have for going clubbing. They usually centre on building friendships and witnessing which I have no problem with in themselves. But the glory of God is our end, not evangelism. Evangelism is just a means to that end. One mustn’t evangelise at the cost of obedience. Evangelism has to take place in the context of obedience. Practically, one wonders just how much of an opportunity one has in a club or at a drunken party to speak of the Lord Jesus. Will anyone even notice that one is not getting debauched, or will they just see that one is there and assume one is doing what they’re doing, which would surely bring the gospel into disrepute?

God is sovereign in evangelism. That’s not an excuse to sit at home and not preach the gospel because if people are elect, they’ll be saved anyway. But it does liberate us from thinking that the advancement of the kingdom is dependent on us and requires us to do whatever it takes, even disobedience and unwisely exposing oneself to strong temptation.

In our desire to ‘present people mature in Christ’ is this perhaps an issue that needs to be made more explicit, and applied more precisely, in our preaching and teaching?

Insanity

In a lecture yesterday, I learned that we are no longer allowed to call diabetics ‘diabetics’. They are now ‘people with diabetes’. So we have to say the same thing using more words. Right. Does this strike anyone else as utter madness?

Mad world? Mad church.

In the Sunday Telegraph, Jonathan Wynne-Jones writes:

A leading church group which represents more than a million Christians has raised the prospect of civil unrest and even “violent revolution” to protect religious freedoms.

In a startling warning to the Government, senior church and political figures have backed a report advocating force to protest against policies that are “unbiblical” and “inimical to the Christian faith”…

The report from the Evangelical Alliance says “violent revolution” should be regarded as a viable response if government legislation encroaches further on basic religious rights. The church is urged to come to a consensus that “at some point there is not only the right but the duty to disobey the state.”

The report, entitled “Faith and Nation”, comes amid growing concern that people are being prevented from expressing their faith, including BA’s recent decision that an employee could not wear a crucifix

Proposals to ban proselytising in publicly-funded Christian projects could ultimately lead to Christians being prevented from teaching others about the Bible. This would “be unambiguously recognised by Christians as perpetrating evil that has to be resisted by deliberate acts of defiance”, the report says…

While it has always been expected that the greatest threat to Britain’s security will come from Muslim extremists, the report will cause particular alarm to government ministers as it reveals disquiet among the country’s Christian population.

Significantly, it comes from the Evangelical Alliance – a mainstream organisation representing 1.2 million Christians. The organisation acknowledges that “resisting evil in the modern state” can take many different forms. Before resorting to force, Christians would normally first turn to dialogue.

But in some circumstances “the use of defensive force may become a necessary and legitimate remedy for Christians”, it suggests.

“If, as most Christians accept, they should be politically involved in democratic processes, many believe this may, where necessary, take the form of active resistance to the state. This may encompass disobedience to law, civil disobedience, involving selective, non-violent resistance or, ultimately, violent revolution.”

Mike Morris, the executive director of the Evangelical Alliance, said that the report reflected the breadth of submissions they had received.

“It is not as if Christians are going to take to the streets, but we need to be able to stand up to things that are challenging the Christian conscience, regardless of the consequences.”

I couldn’t believe what I was reading! When living under the authority of Caesar, being persecuted for confessing Jesus as Lord, the early Christians were not told to actively resist the state or engage in ‘violent revolution’. Defensive force was never ‘legitimate’. Rather:

“Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, sas the Lord”. (Romans 12, 17-19)

and:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” Romans 13, 1-2

Obviously Christians have to be obey Christ over and above the state, and face the consequences of disobeying the state in those circumstances, but that’s not the issue here. Wearing crucifixes (or crosses for that matter) is dispensable. While it is a privilege, Christians do not have any right to use public money to proselytize in events in which they are involved. Since when was it democratic (not that we live in a democracy anyway, nor do I believe in it) to actively resist the state and resort to ‘violent revolution’? More significantly, since when did breadth of opinion determine what Evangelicals believe is right or wrong? Where is the trust in God to vindicate his people? Where is the way of the cross?

And then there was the following paragraph:

Anjem Choudary, who helped organise the anti-Danish cartoon protests, last week said that the London bombings should not have come as a surprise. “How else do you expect Muslims to express themselves?” he said. “We are a community under siege.

It just beggars belief. So it’s all right, then, to blow people up if you need to express yourself. Self-expression is of greater value than the preservation of human life. Right. Glad we’ve got that one cleared up. See HERE for the full article.

And then there was THIS today by Jonathan Petre:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will make his first official visit to Pope Benedict XVI in Rome later this month in an effort to bolster ties strained by rows over women priests and homosexuality.

In a deeply symbolic gesture, the two leaders are planning to pray together publicly as well as hold a private meeting.

Even more significantly, they are expected to announce a new round of unity talks aimed at resolving the theological disputes that have divided the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches since the Reformation.”

Which comes hot on the heels of THIS in an interview with John Humphreys on Radio 4:

To the question ‘why don’t you try and convert people of other religions,’ Williams said ‘The Church did not blaze out into the Roman world and say here is the truth you must believe it, but what you say is what we say’.

To the question of ‘what happens to me if I don’t open the door [to God] will it be too late after death?’ Williams responded ‘No, we continually have the choice of saying yes or no.’

(cf. inter alia Acts 17, 30-34 and Hebrews 9, 27)

A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving

To be used yearly upon the Fifth Day of November for the happy Deliverance of the King, and the Three Estates of the Realm, from the most Traiterous and Bloudy intended Massacre by Gun-Powder.

Instead of the First Collect for Morning Prayer, shall these two be used.

Almighty God, who hast in all ages shewed thy power and mercy in the miraculous and gracious deliverance of thy Church, and in the protection of righteous and religious Kings and States, professing they holy and eternal truth, from the wicked conspiracies and malicious practices of all the enemies thereof; We yield thee our unfeigned thanks and praise for the wonderful and mighty deliverance of our late gracious Sovereign King James, the Queen, the Prince, and all the Royal Branches, with the Nobility, Clergy, and Commons of England, then assembled in Parliament, by Popish treachery appointed as sheep to the slaughter, in a most barbarous, and savage manner, beyond the examples of former ages. From this unnatural conspiracy, not our merit, but thy mercy; not our foresight, but thy providence, delivered us: And therefore, not unto us, O Lord, not unto us; but unto thy Name be ascribed all honour and glory in all Churches of the saints, from generation to generation, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[Sadly not appearing in the 1662 BCP any more.]
[N.B. Just a reminder: I'm not an Anglican.]

HT: Sam Allberry

HT: Sam Allberry